Vol. 310 No. 7
I move:
That a second supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 day of December 1978 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Environment, including grants to Local Authorities, grants and other expenses in connection with housing, and miscellaneous schemes and grants including a grant-in-aid.
(Cavan-Monaghan): We have now reached the fifth of the Supplementary Estimates having discussed them since 3.30. Between now and 6.30 we have to deal with 19 further Supplementary Estimates. I would like to go on record as protesting against the manner in which the Government have ordered their business which results in something like 24 Supplementary Estimates having to be dealt with in three hours in the dying days of 1978. It is not good enough. If the Dáil needs more time it should sit more time. If longer sitting hours are necessary the Dáil should have longer sitting hours. I do not propose to go further into it than that but I would not be discharging my duty if I did not publicly say that I think it is a disgraceful way to vote finances for the Departments of State and to deal with the performance of the Departments of State.
Having said that, I do not want to find myself in trouble with the Chair, but the fact that we are voting an additional sum of £410,000 for salaries, wages and allowances to the Minister does broaden the scope of this Supplementary Estimate fairly extensively.
I do not propose to go into any of the matters in the Minister's Department at great length because I simply have not the time to do it. But there are a few things I want to speak about. I want to speak about housing and I want to put it on the record of the House that people who are in search of houses of their own have reached the stage now when they find it just impossible to provide themselves with a house. I know that since this Government came into office a grant of £1,000 has been provided for a person who has not previously built or bought a house. I suggest that, having regard to the very substantial increase—approximately 33? per cent —in the price of houses and in the price of building houses since this Government came into office, the £1,000 grant has faded into utter insignificance. Something will have to be done to encourage and to make it possible for young married couples to have a house of their own. The day was when young people were prepared to move into flats, make-do flats, which were not built for that purpose and put up with them for some time. But a young woman usually found that if she moved into a flat she was left there much longer than she wished and young people are not prepared to embark on matrimony now unless they can provide a proper house for themselves. It is the duty of the Government, and particularly this Government who undertook on their going into office to make it easier to own a house and cheaper to keep it, to do something about it.
Having regard to the fact that the price of houses has jumped by 33? per cent the Minister and the Government will have to provide more local authority houses instead of less because people who are earning £3,500 simply cannot provide a house of their own. It is simply not possible for them to finance a loan of £12,000, £13,000, £14,000 or even £9,000, and we must face up to that reality.
I regret to note that it is the policy of the Government, as appears from their various publications—white paper, green paper and other pronouncements—to look very critically at applicants for local authority houses and in that way pressurise people into building their own houses. People can only build their own houses if they have enough money to do it. The building societies' loans have dried up. I know that is a fact and it cannot be disputed. The conditions under which the building societies will advance money have tightened up and have become much more restrictive. It used to be that if a person had money on deposit for six months they would qualify for consideration by the building society for a loan but that time was extended, as we know, to 12 months and I think it is now at two years.
Furthermore if a person can qualify for a local authority housing loan now, the interest rate is at an all-time high; it stands at 14.15 per cent. That is a brutal rate of interest to ask any people of modest means to pay. What can the Government do about it? I believe that the Minister has a ready-made instrument by which he could assist people who want to build houses and that is the small dwellings loan fund. I am quite aware of the fact that the Minister has increased the local authority loan to £9,000 and I will go further and say that he increased it twice since he came into power; it now stands at £9,000. But there is an income ceiling limit of £3,500 which makes a complete farce of the whole thing. The loans are there but one cannot qualify for them. Anybody earning more than between £60 and £70 a week will not be entertained and that is simply offering a loan but making it impossible to qualify for it. Therefore, I want to call on the Minister to increase the loans from £9,000 to a more realistic figure and to increase the income limit to a realistic figure because it is not a realistic figure at the moment. The Minister knows, and I know, and anybody who stops to think, knows that a person earning between £60 and £70 a week simply cannot finance a loan of £9,000, cannot build a house of his own. The Government undertook to control prices and I assume that included the price of houses. The price of houses has jumped out of all recognition by 33? per cent and it is still rising, though maybe not as drastically as it was.
They are not rising because there are no loans with the result that prices cannot go up.
(Cavan-Monaghan): We are aware that prices have jumped by 33? per cent since the Minister took office and that is too high. Last night the Minister announced that he intended permitting local authorities to increase their rates by 10 per cent. That system of a blanket allowance across the board of any per cent is unrealistic and does not cater for the individual requirements of many local authorities. That is borne out by the Minister's statement when we were last discussing a Bill dealing with local government. He went to great lengths then to tell the House that 16 local authorities did not spend all the money they got.
On a point of order, I should like to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that there is no subhead covering the increase in rates in this Supplementary Estimate.
That was a very shrewd move.
The Deputies will have three hours tonight to discuss it.
I have looked through the list of subheads and I cannot see one that deals with rates.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I have looked through that list and the first subhead before me was one for £500,000 for wages, salaries and allowances. I am sure the people concerned did not prepare the instruction to local authorities for nothing and that there was an element of wages and salaries involved. It is my view that I am in order.
The Deputy should leave the topic now.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not intend spending many minutes on it but I will leave it in a moment.
The Chair has ruled that the Deputy is not in order in referring to this because it is not one of the subheads in the Supplementary Estimate.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I submit that it comes under the first subhead, salaries, wages and allowances, £410,000.
The Deputy can say that anything comes under that subhead but that is not correct.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is not my intention to labour any point but this system of percentage increases is unacceptable. In telling us recently that 16 local authorities had not spent all the money given to them last year the Minister did not tell us the number of authorities who did not have enough money with the result that they had to cut back on their services and expenditure. They did so because they were starved of finance by the Minister.
I notice that a sum has been provided for the register of electors which is to reimburse local authorities for the amount they will spend in updating the register of electors. This year that will involve in some cases the splitting up of the register because the Minister proposes to revise some local electoral areas like Dublin county and city and others submitted to him for revision. I appeal to the Minister to follow the good example of the Government in drawing up the Euro constituencies and the good example given by the Taoiseach when he announced that he intended to submit the redrafting of the Dáil constituencies to an independent commission. The Minister's party had a fair innings in drawing up the constituencies since the foundation of the State and it is no great compliment to them to hand the task over to the commission. I understood from a reply given by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment that the changes in local electoral areas may not be made by an independent commission. If that is so it is a strange departure from the principle stated by the Minister. The commission could be a simple one because it could be left to a county manager and another person appointed with him. It is not necessary to have an elaborate or national commission. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that any changes made are made by a commission and not on a political basis.
I assume that a fair amount of the additional £410,000 we are asked to vote for salaries, wages and allowances is in respect of the Minister's new Department, the Department of the Environment. The Minister is an overall watchdog for the environment. I accept that other Ministers are involved but if the Minister's Department is to mean anything it must mean that he has overall responsibility for the environment. I should like to make a plea to the Minister to influence his colleagues in Government to save the national monument at Wood Quay.
That does not arise in any way.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister is the Minister responsible for the environment.
He is Minister for many things which are not dealt with in this Supplementary Estimate. The topic would be appropriate to the general Estimate but not to the Supplementary Estimate. The subheading dealing with salaries and wages does not give to any Deputy a right to discuss every aspect of the Department. It the Deputy tries to bring that in under the heading of salaries and wages then everything concerning the Department may be discussed but that is not correct.
(Cavan-Monaghan): When the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair he gave wide scope to Deputies to deal with matters in the various Departments. It is not my intention to spend much time on this.
The Deputy will not spend any time on it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): This is the last opportunity we will get to make an appeal to the Government to save Wood Quay. It is in their hands and there is no use blaming Dublin Corporation or anybody else.
The Deputy cannot discuss this matter under any heading.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The members of the Government are the only people who can save Wood Quay. I spoke to solid citizens of the city today, people who could not be regarded as intellectuals or anything other than hard-headed businessmen who have lived in the city all their lives, and they expressed their horror to me that the Government should be so uncouth as to destroy this national and international monument.
The Deputy is defying the ruling of the Chair.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not defying the Chair but, had I time, I could convince the Chair that I am in order on this topic under the heading of salaries, wages and allowances.
I should like to quote a ruling to the Deputy in relation to this: "Inclusion in Supplementary Estimates of provision for salaries of civil servants does not permit widening the scope of debate to include policy and general administration."
(Cavan-Monaghan): This is not policy or general administration; this is a specific instance.
The Deputy seeks to justify every item not covered by the Estimates by referring to salaries.
(Cavan-Monaghan): If the Minister does not move to save Wood Quay he should rename his Department and not masquerade under the title “Minister for the Environment”.
The Deputy should desist from discussing something which is out of order.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I know the Minister will have to influence his Government colleagues. I am appealing to him to save Wood Quay on this the last occasion on which I will have the opportunity. It is a matter for the Government.
Does the Deputy intend to continue on this line?
(Cavan-Monaghan): I will not be allowed to continue and I bow to your ruling, Sir, much as I respectfully disagree with it.
There is an item here relating to grants in respect of road works. I would ask the Minister to increase these grants substantially and to make sure that money is made available for county roads. These are the secondary roads throughout the country which are in a very run-down condition. They are being neglected and the answer given to local representatives is that the local authorities have not the money to attend to these roads. If further deterioration is allowed they will be beyond repair and the ultimate cost will be infinitely greater.
There appears to be a saving of £1,850,500 on environmental works and dangerous places. Such a saving is extraordinary in a year when so much money is required for these works. The Minister could give much needed employment if he were to spend that money instead of saving it. The fact that he requires only £10 by way of Supplementary Estimate seems to indicate that there must be a considerable saving.
I do not propose to hold up the proceedings of the House because there are 19 more Supplementary Estimates to be dealt with.
I object to the principle of this Supplementary Estimate being moved because the Minister is effectively applying one law for himself and a separate law for every local authority. He is saying that his Estimate was incorrect partly because of his own fault and partly not. At the beginning of the year he estimated the financial requirements of his Department and an excess amount in the region of £4 million is now being sought.
We are confined to talking about the various areas in which the Minister or his Department incurred unforeseen expenses or increases over which they have no control. Normally the House would accept that this is a reasonable position. There are things that cannot be foreseen and there should be the right to come back to the House to seek more money. However, the same Minister who is asking the House to adopt that principle intends to refuse it to every local authority. As far as we can ascertain—and this is a rather difficult task in itself—the Minister is refusing this privilege to local authorities. I would ask him to be consistent in that regard. If it is reasonable for the Minister to underestimate either by genuine human mistake or because of totally unforeseen circumstances and if he has the right to get extra money, why cannot every local authority have the same right? There is a fundamental principle here. It is touched on in section 10 of the Local Government Bill which is putting into law something which is already a fact. I formally object to the fact that the Minister for the Environment is seeking extra moneys.
Let us consider what he is actually looking for. An additional sum of £75,000 is required for travelling and subsistence expenses. Could the Minister give some indication of what was so unforeseen in terms of travel at the beginning of the year? On subhead F1—water supply and sewerage—to what extent do the additional moneys relate to interest charges? Of the £250,000, how much was used for interest charges? Alternatively, have extra water schemes been sanctioned? I am not sure of the interpretation.
On subhead H—Recoupment of Expenditure in Respect of Register of Electors—it is difficult to understand why there is an extra amount of £75,000. Has there been an increase in activity in this area? Has the Minister given instructions to increase the number of registrations or is this normal practice? It would be understandable if a decision were taken later in the year to do a very comprehensive registration of electors. I should like to know the reason for the shortfall of £75,000.
There is an additional grant of £117,500 to meet the administration and general expenses of An Foras Forbartha. Is this amount needed because of increases in the cost of living and general running costs? The increase is a little over 10 per cent. Perhaps the Minister would give a breakdown of the general expenses.
Presumably most of the money under subhead L is needed for the administration of the breathalyser. Since the Minister assured the House that he had been working on the legislation for some time, what was the original provision for this in the Estimate? How was it calculated? Was any provision made before the Act became law during the summer? If provision was not made, the Minister should tell us the reason.
On a notional sum for private housing grants I would like to raise the question of the very narrow interpretation by the Minister and his Department in terms of the subsidisation under the low rise mortgage scheme for single parent families who have only one child. The Minister has come back for an additional £4 million and a notional sum of £10. I am saddened that he has not extended the definition of that scheme to include single parent families with only one child. This is a very miserable and mean attitude, especially as the sum involved would be very small. As the Minister appears to have been able to acquiesce to demands for extra money for certain other agencies and groups within his responsibility, to blanket out that scheme is totally at variance with the declared housing objectives of the Fianna Fáil administration in terms of encouraging people to own their own houses. In many cases the Minister is effectively keeping people in local authority houses by refusing them this loan facility. The numbers of people we are talking about now are infinitesimal.
Under subhead A2—Consultancy Services—what was involved here? A sum of £4,000 was provided for this service. I have given references to all the questions I raised. Would the Minister tell the House why he thinks he should be treated differently from the local authorities in terms of bringing in Supplementary Estimates? Does he have other problems in estimating costs which enable him to get it wrong first time but right the second? What makes him different from every local authority who, under his new law, will have to get it right the first time or pay the cost?
To facilitate other Deputies and Ministers I promise to be brief. I have one specific point I want to put to the Minister in connection with private housing grants. There is a grave shortage of available finance through our building societies. I have two suggestions to make which might solve this problem. Many building societies come in for a great deal of criticism. Nevertheless they fulfil one of the most important functions in the private housing sector.
One of the reasons why there is a shortage of finance from the building societies is that they cannot compete with other lending institutes. Building societies give a fixed interest rate, in other words, they pay 9 per cent at present. Other lending institutions, such as the banks and the ACC, can increase their interest rates in proportion to the amounts invested. It would be in everybody's interest if the Minister allowed the building societies to increase their interest rates on, say, limits of £5,000, £25,000 and so on. This would attract a very sizeable amount of extra money which would be to everyone's benefit.
It would be in the interests of house building if arrangements could be made to allow greater tax free allowances. This may be the responsibility of the Minister for Finance. I understand the Government are not prepared to subsidise housing at present. I am making these suggestions not to be political but simply in the interests of the people throughout the country who are unable to obtain loans from building societies. As I said, greater tax free allowances should be granted——
That comes under Finance, a different Minister.
If the Minister wants to give me that stock answer I will accept it but many people are interested in what is happening in this House. This is the season of goodwill and I am putting these suggestions in that spirit. If the Minister and his colleagues consider my suggestion that could lead to extra money for building societies.
Like Deputy Fitzpatrick I believe the Minister, not the Office of Public Works, should have responsibility for Wood Quay.
We do not have responsibility.
I accept that. Obviously everybody is trying to wash his hands of it.
I am not. I do not have responsibility for it.
I believe that in the long term the Minister for the Environment should have responsibility for Wood Quay. If people are allowed to build there that would be a grave mistake. I am speaking as someone who lives in the middle of rural Ireland and this issue is as important to rural Ireland as it is to the city of Dublin. It is one of the greatest national issues the Government have been faced with for a long time. I would ask the Minister to ensure that Wood Quay is preserved because I believe it is important.
I have only one question to ask. Would the Minister tell the House the reason for the delay in sanctioning the proposals submitted to the Department of the Environment re the sale and vesting of council houses?
It does not arise now.
It comes under the Minister's Department.
I was amazed to hear Deputy Fitzpatrick criticising us for the amount of time allocated for these Estimates. First, it was agreed between the Whips. When the Coalition were in power we were expected on two occasions to pass all the Estimates en bloc without any discussion.
Deputy Quinn asked why I would not afford the local authorities the discretion I afforded myself. All that is happening here is a reallocation of money under different subheads within my Department. Local authorities have the same discretion to reallocate——
Ten per cent.
——their own money and the State grant in accordance with their own priorities.
This is the Minister's first Supplementary Estimate and he has not answered my questions.
Deputy Fitzpatrick dwelt for a long time on housing. We debated housing on several occasions recently. I do not intend to go into detail except to point out that 24,217 houses were built in the first 11 months of this year. It will now lead to a total figure of 26,000 houses in the current year. This does not look as if the bottom is falling out of the building industry where housing is concerned as Deputy Fitzpatrick tried to imply. Indeed, never at any time during the period of the Coalition Government did any member of that Government say that more than 25,000 houses were necessary. This year we will have around 26,000 houses.
The Deputy spoke about a 33 per cent increase in the price of houses. The facts are that in the first quarter of this year, January to March, there was an increase of 11.7 per cent. In the second quarter, April to the end of June, this was 8.4 per cent and in the next quarter ending 30 September the increase was down to 3.4 per cent. The 3.4 per cent could not take into consideration the effects of the steps we took with regard to the building societies and the allocation of their loans in September. We will have to wait until the end of this quarter to find out what effect that had.
Deputy Fitzpatrick acknowledged that there were certain improvements in the SDA loans. There were very definite improvements as we doubled the amount from £4,500 to £9,000 since we came into office and the upper limit for salaries went from £2,250 to £3,500. This is kept under review all the time so we have not been too slow in dealing with the matter when we consider the four years when nothing was done about the upper limits.
It is still hard for young people to get houses.
Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to Wood Quay. He knows and so does Deputy Enright that my Department are not involved with this.
I do but it should be the Minister's responsibility.
It is not my responsibility.
Do the expenses of Dublin Corporation not come from the Minister's Department?
The Deputies can discuss this with the approriate Minister. Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke about the savings of local authorities with regard to subhead G. Local authorities are recouped their expenditure on schemes in arrears. It therefore follows that payments made by the Department in 1978 fall short of the amounts expended by local authorities in 1978. This accounts for part of the total savings. Payment of the arrears to local authorities will arise in 1979. The other factor contributing to the savings has been the industrial action by some engineering staff at local authority level and this has slowed down considerably the progress of the environmental works and it is not through any fault of mine or my Department that this has happened.
Deputy Quinn asked a few questions about the different subheads. With regard to subhead A—Consultancy Services—only a token provision of £1,000 was made for these services in 1978. The additional £4,000 arises from a carry-over of consultancy fees which it was expected would have been paid late in 1977 but which did not mature for payment until the current year. He asked a question on subhead B, Travelling Expenses. The extra amount arises because of two increases in the motor mileage rates, one with effect from 1 January 1977 and another with effect from 1 January 1978, together with an increase in subsistance allowances.
Deputy Quinn also referred to the subhead dealing with An Foras Forbartha. In order to meet the cost of implementing the first phase of the 1978 National Wage Agreement a sum of £70,000 was allocated, £25,000 to meet the cost of five additional posts in the water resources division and £22,500 to eliminate a deficit of carry forward from the Road Fund account. The cost of operating the roads division of An Foras Forbartha was hitherto met by the Road Fund but with the termination of this fund from 1 January 1978 this cost now falls to be met from the grant-in-aid.
What about the interest charges in F1?
The extra £250,000 in the Supplementary Estimate increases the 1978 provision from £8.403 million to £8.653 million. This subhead provides for the payment of contribution towards local authority loan charges and public water and sewerage schemes, swimming pools, public sanitary conveniences and urban flood relief schemes. The rates of subsidy range from 40 per cent to 60 per cent and the additional estimated requirements under the subhead are due to the amount of local authority claims for contributions to loan charges being greater than originally estimated. There may be a few other points raised but time does not permit me to go into greater detail on them. There are full explanations for all the subheads. I hope the Deputies will accept that, as there are other Estimates to be dealt with. With regard to the questions raised about the 10 per cent upper limit on the rates we will have three hours this evening. We are at that section in the Bill so I expect there will be ample opportunity to raise it and for me to reply.
