The debate in this case will conclude at 1.30 p.m. That means a 90-minute debate. A suggestion before the Chair from the Whips is that the Minister will open the debate and will be allowed 20 minutes; Fine Gael will be allowed 25 minutes as will the Labour Party. The Minister will have 20 minutes for his reply.
Supplementary Estimates, 1980. - Vote 28: Environment.
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £12,399,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December 1980 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.
The Supplementary Estimate for Environment is required to meet additonal expenditure on 11 subheads of the Department's Vote. The amount involved is £12,399,000 bringing the total for the Vote for Environment in 1980 to £289,305,000.
The amounts provided for "pay" in the original estimate did not, in accordance with standard practice, make provision for the extra amounts needed to implement pay awards negotiated during the year. Such awards include the application of the first phase of the second national understanding 1980, the implementation of the second phase of the recommendations of the interim report of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector and of a number of special increases awarded to other grades. The total extra amount being provided for pay in the Supplementary Estimate is £477,000. Departmental staff covered by subhead A.1. of the Vote account for £428,000 of this amount. The grant-in-aid to An Foras Forbartha is being increased by £41,000. An extra £6,000 is being provided in subhead L to cover the cost of these pay awards in the case of the National Road Safety Association and the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. The remaining £2,000 is in subhead Q in respect of An Bord Pleanála.
The increase of £150,000 for subhead B for travelling and incidental expenses arises because of increases in the rates of travelling and subsistence allowances, effective from 1 January 1980 in each case. There was also increased activity on inspections generally but particularly in the housing grants area where every effort was made to have the maximum number of applications inspected with the least possible delay.
On subhead B.2. for office machinery and other office supplies the increase is £17,000. This amount is needed to enable the Department to meet their unavoidable commitments for the year arising from the purchase of essential equipment. The additional £50,000 required for Post Office services is for the most part due to the delay in receipt of accounts because of the postal strike last year.
An additional £4 million is being provided in subhead E.2. for private housing grants. The original allocation was £23 million — £8.5 million being earmarked for new house grants and £14.5 million for house improvement grants. An unexpectedly large number of applications were made for both the ordinary improvement grants and the special improvement grants to reduce dependence on oil for domestic heating. It became clear that the budget provision would be inadequate and the Government approved a supplementary provision of £4 million in September. This brings the total allocation for the year to £27 million which is the highest on record, enabling the payment of over 50,000 grants in all.
I have already mentioned the extra amount of £6,000 being provided in subhead L to meet additional pay costs of the National Road Safety Association and the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. The remaining £5 million of the extra provision is for payment of road grants which brings the total provision under this heading for road grants for 1980 to £52,969 million.
Since assuming responsibility for the Department of the Environment I have been considering in detail future requirements for the road network. I am very conscious that the growth of our economy, with the attendant growth in road traffic, has placed a severe burden on the road network, emphasised particular deficiencies in the system and the adverse effects which these deficiencies can have on the achievement on national development. I am fortunate to have available to me the Road Development Plan which was published last year and which outlined a programme of work designed to eliminate the existing deficiencies in the road system and to cater for anticipated growth on the more important sections of it. This plan provides for flexibility in the timing of projects, having regard not merely to the availability of finance, but to progress by the road authorities in planning, design and the acquisition of land by agreement or by compulsory purchase.
I can assure the House of the Government's and my personal commitment to the implementation of the proposals as set out in the Road Development Plan. I am at present preparing a programme of works for 1981 which I am confident will go a long way towards eliminating deficiencies in the road system, with particular emphasis on the principal routes and also on ensuring a satisfactory standard of maintenance. This programme will, in particular, place special emphasis on strengthening the existing road structure and on the improvement of roads which will provide the infrastructural base essential for industrial development. Indeed the contribution which such a programme of works can make to the industrial, commercial and social life of the community is immense. I am also fully aware of the invaluable supplementary benefits that will be derived from a full roads programme in that it will create activity in the construction industry; generate employment both on-site and offsite and utilise materials and equipment of Irish manufacture.
The increased voted provision of £52.969 million for road grants for 1980 has enabled the allocation of grants to the unprecedented level of £58.46 million. These grants represent a significant commitment on the part of the Government to tackle the deficiencies in the road system, as identified in the Road Development Plan. The grants have also contributed largely to the high level of employment that has been sustained on the works programmes of the road authorities. In particular, the supplementary sum of £5 million now being sought forms part of the Government's undertaking in the national understanding to maintain and stimulate employment.
Before leaving the subject of roads I think it is appropriate that I refer briefly to the question of road safety and to the work of the National Road Safety Association. The contribution of this association to the improvement of safety standards on our roads is immense. The National Road Safety Association are responsible for the organisation and implementation of road safety campaigns. The Association has organised a winter campaign which will extend over Christmas and into the New Year, highlighting pedestrian and cyclist safety and the menace of drinking and driving. At the association's request, and with the co-operation of Radio Telefís Éireann, I have made a special appeal for extra care on the roads over the Christmas period.
Traffic Accident Facts as published annually by an Foras Forbartha indicates that the human factor contributes in nine out of ten accidents. They make it clear that as far as drivers are concerned, the main contributory factors are excessive speed and drinking and driving, while for pedestrians the main faults are careless crossing of roads and failure to make themselves more visible on the roads at night. Failure on the part of drivers and front seat passengers to wear safety belts increases the severity of injuries in accidents, resulting in many deaths. I would appeal to everyone to make a very special effort during the festive season so that accidents will be kept to a minimum.
The additional £500,000 provided for in subhead N arises from the decision to introduce an interest subsidy as a temporary measure to building societies. Building societies' investment and mortgage rates remained at 9 per cent and 14.15 per cent respectively during 1979. The level at which societies pitch their investment rate is of the utmost importance in attracting new funds to enable them to meet the demand for mortgage finance and assist in financing the Government's housing programme. In setting their investment rate societies are conscious of other competitive rates, mainly those of the associated banks. Traditionally, societies have always maintained a differential over the minimum bank investent rate. However, their rate of 9 per cent which operated throughout 1979 was 1 per cent below the minimum bank rate of 10 per cent which came into effect in June 1979. Because of the direct relationship between the investment rate and the mortgage rate, I know that in taking the decision not to increase their investment rate after the bank rate increase in June 1979 societies were conscious of the hardship which would be created for existing borrowers. However, it is clear that the size of their inflows in the first half of 1979, consequent on the repatriation of funds as a result of the imposition of exchange controls following Ireland's entry into the EMS, had a major bearing on this decision.
Following a further increase in the banks' minimum investment rate from 10 per cent to 11.5 per cent with effect from 11 April 1980 the building societies informed my predecesor of their proposal to increase their investment rate from 9 per cent to 10.75 per cent which would necessitate an increase in the mortgage rate from 14.15 per cent to 16.5 per cent. Following a meeting of representatives of the Irish Building Societies Association and the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the former Minister for the Environment, a working group was set up to examine the problems faced by societies and to make recommendations in the matter. The group unanimously recommended that an immediate increase in building society investment rates to 10.75 per cent was warranted as the minimum increase necessary to enable societies to retain their existing funds. The group also accepted that the mortgage rate had to be increased to 16.5 per cent to enable societies to meet the extra liabilities incurred by the increased deposit rate.
Following consideration of the report of the working group, and conscious of the severe hardship which would otherwise have been created for borrowers, the Government decided to make available, on a temporary basis, a direct payment by way of subsidy to the societies for the purpose of enabling them to offer such rate of interest on shares and deposits as might be specified from time to time, thereby obviating the need to increase the mortgage rate from its existing level of 14.15 per cent. Having regard to the current level of interest rates generally an investment rate of 10.75 per cent was specified for this purpose.
This subsidy was a temporary measure and the need for it was to be kept under constant review in the light of changes in interest rates generally and inflow of funds into the societies. I am pleased that the downward trend in interest rates generally in recent months has made it possible to terminate the subsidy with effect from 1 October 1980. The cost to the Exchequer in 1980 will be that in respect of the month of June only. While the investment rate was increased from 1 May 1980 the mortgage rate increase did not take effect until 1 June 1980.
Provision was made in a supplementary estimate passed in June last for £1.4 million to meet the requirements arising this year in respect of the subsidy to building societies. The Revenue Commissioners have since drawn attention to the fact that because of the requirements of the Corporation Tax Act, 1976, building societies will be required to pay tax in respect of the subsidy. Such a reduction in the net amount receivable by the societies would not have been in accordance with the Government decision or with the purposes for which the subsidy was provided. It is therefore necessary to increase the amount of the payment to the societies in order to ensure that their net receipts after tax will be £1.4 million. It is for this purpose that the additional £500,000 is being provided in the Supplementary Estimate.
Following on the further reduction in bank interest rates by the associated banks I had a number of discussions with representatives of the Irish Building Societies Association on their interest rates and future policy generally and I am pleased to note that they have decided to further reduce their lending rate with effect from January 1981.
The extra £2 million in subhead O for malicious injuries arises because of the difficulty of estimating at the beginning of the year the likely recoupment to local authorities in respect of decrees granted and arising from payment within the year. The amount of claims falling on the Exchequer in any year depends on the number and nature of the claims made on local authorities and the speed with which claimants can have their claims processed and, of course, the decision of the courts as to liability and amounts to be granted in individual cases. It is not possible therefore to predict with any degree of accuracy in advance the amount of the successful claims which fall to be borne by the Exchequer in any particular year.
Finally on subhead S — Appropriations-in-aid — receipts are likely to be £205,000 lower than expected. A shortfall of £440,000 on one heading will be partially offset by £235,000 more being realised elsewhere.
It is expected that there will be a shortfall of £440,000 in receipts from driving test fees. This is due to the level of applications being lower than anticipated and to the refund of fees to those applicants who were exempted from the driving test under the temporary arrangements which were introduced in October last year.
A small increase of £15,000 is expected in the expenses repayable by local authorities in respect of the combined purchasing system operated by the Department.
Receipts from fees for certificates of reasonable value and the new house structural guarantee scheme will increase by £65,000 and £70,000, respectively as a result of an upward revision of the level of both these fees earlier this year. Increased receipts are also expected on the miscellaneous heading. The amount of the increase in this case is £85,000 which for the most part is attributable to the refund of salaries of officers on loan to outside bodies.
(Cavan-Monaghan): With reference to the incident which took place in the House when we had intruders here a short while ago, I hope the House will have a full explanation of how it happened and what proposals are in train to prevent a recurrence.
The Chair has asked that that should be done and the Ceann Comhairle will report briefly to the House at some stage.
(Cavan-Monaghan): This Supplementary Estimate of £12,399,000 forms part of a package of Supplementary Estimates which have been introduced in the House and are on the agenda for introduction amounting to £463 million. That sum of £463 million represents a supplementary budget for the year and not a Supplementary Estimate and it displays a complete lack of budgeting and planning in the Departments at the beginning of the year. It represents make-believe budgeting. In the Department of the Environment this type of budgeting has penetrated right down to the local authorities on the direction of the Minister. Last year local authorities were limited in the amount of finance they could provide for their services and it was well known that the Estimates being introduced were grossly inadequate. The Minister gave a direction that he would only allow a 10 per cent increase in finance for local authorities at a time when everybody knew that inflation was raging at about 20 per cent. The Minister can introduce Supplementary Estimates, but again, by ministerial direction the various local authorities were prevented from introducing Supplementary Estimates and the result was inevitable and obvious: services were cut down.
The Minister talked about his future plans for roads and said that he intends to improve the roads and has said how important they are. Is the Minister aware that as a result of Government action roads are deteriorating? Our roads are a national and international disgrace. The potholes have proliferated at an alarming rate and there are signs of the complete neglect of the road network as a result of Government action. Not enough money was provided in 1980 to pay the road work force and the people who went to the wall were the roadworkers. The Government could have provided adequate funds by way of Supplementary Estimates so that the men could be retained and materials and machinery purchased. That would have been a sensible thing. The Government could have let the men go from about September on in large numbers, but that would have been extremely bad politics and would have embarrassed the Government.
The third choice was to put the men on short-time and the Government selected that option because it was less damaging to their ego and it would cosmetically get over the difficulties. However, a man with three children employed by a county council for a five-day week had a take-home pay of £61 on average but that same man on a three-day week became entitled to unemployment benefit and with what he got from the county council and the Department of Social Welfare came home with £74. I do not begrudge him that, and it would make economic sense if the employer were a private individual who, due to the recession, did not get the orders and wanted to save on the transaction and to pay the man for a three-day week with only half his wages and the Department of Social Welfare would pay the other half. But here we have the same purse paying the three-day week wages and the three-day social welfare benefit and the net result is that for £14 more the nation gets half the work. The Roscommon County Council pointed that out in those terms, got in touch with the Minister for Finance and suggested that the money should be transferred from the Department of Social Welfare to the Department of the Environment so that the men could be retained. The men wanted work and not unemployment benefit. The former Minister for Finance, who has now gone to Brussels, said that that would require legislation but even if that could be done there was more in creating jobs than paying wages. What the Minister was saying was that the council had not been allowed to budget for tarmacadam, gravel or the hire of machinery and that, even if these men were retained, there would be no work for them although the potholes are still gaping and the roads deteriorating. That is the sense of madness that has decended into the running of local authorities and the running of the Department. This Minister is only a short time in office and I hope there will be no repetition of this. To understand what is happening is to become convinced that the Government is being badly run and that the taxpayers are getting extremely poor value for the money being extracted from them.
We are creating potholes and deteriorating roads and running up bills for next year, the year after and every other year. This is an example of lack of planning and of not running our finances properly. There is £4 million provided here for housing grants. What would be required if loans were available to people to build houses and complete them so that they could apply for grants? Local authorities have been starved of money for house loans. They have reached the stage now when they are not prepared to cover any longer. They are saying to applicants for loans "We will pay your loan when we get an allocation of money from the Department of the Environment". In the meantime, the unfortunate housebuilder is paying enormous interest on a bridging loan and the £1,000 grant is eroded by the time it is obtained. It is extraordinary that, notwithstanding that housing grants were cut off as from January last, there still was not enough money to pay the grants which the Minister and his Department must have known were accumulating. I regret to have to say that I find it difficult to accept from the Minister that these demands for house improvement or reconstruction grants came as a surprise. The announcement was made on 21 January 1980 that all grants were stopped unless work had already commenced on that date and unless applications were in before 1 February. No unexpected applications could have come within that category.
The Department of the Environment housing section is in chaos and I do not blame the staff for that. They were certainly hounded because of the decision of the Minister in charge of that Department. I get as good a service from the Department of the Environment as any other Deputy, but it is impossible to get house grants paid within a reasonable time. Like other Deputies, I have been forced now to resort to the parliamentary question instead of the letter which adds more work on to the Department staff. Deputies are not resorting to the parliamentary question just for fun. They are resorting to it as the only means of getting any sort of final answer from the Department about grants.
The Minister has provided further travelling expenses for the inspectorate because there has been more activity among inspectors during this year as a result of increased grants. All I can say is that there is not half enough activity yet. The Minister should realise that the longer these grants are withheld from people — whether they are the £1,000 grant, the outstanding home improvement grant or the fuel conversion grant — the less valuable they are. They are being eroded by inflation and by payment of interest and are less valuable to the unfortunate people who are waiting for them.
What proposals has the Minister to put the local authorities in funds to pay the people who are waiting for the £12,000 loans, inadequate as they are? It is no answer for the Minister to tell me that the loans are now higher than they were when we were in power, and he will tell me that. When he is saying that, he should not forget that the average price of a house has jumped from £12,000 in 1976 to £28,000 in the third quarter of 1980, an increase of about two-and-a-half times. The £1,000 grants are being withheld from people and successively eroded and wasted by inflation and by payment of interest on bridging loans.
There is some provision here for certificates of reasonable value. The Minister introduced his regulations dealing with these certificates on 24 September last. He should keep a close eye on these certificates of reasonable value and the process and machinery within his Department for dealing with them. The procedure lends itself to delay. It is so hard to sell houses at the moment that the building contractors, those building and selling houses, are accepting suggestions from the Department, but the procedure is very cumbersome and there are more and more queries from the Department, which leads to delay. When people have to resort to the Circuit Court by way of appeal, delays will become intolerable.
I do not want to take up all the time available, because Deputy Willie O'Brien will have a contribution to make. I conclude by saying that the Minister's Department is in a financial shambles. The Minister's direction to local authorities has created chaos and insane economic procedures in every local authority. The procedures for housing grants must be expedited and people must get grants when they are due to them. If the Minister were to put far more staff into the Department's housing section where the chaos built up in February and the subsequent months of this year, he would be doing a good job. If the country, as a whole, is being run like the Department of the Environment by the Minister, and by the local authorities on the Minister's direction, then it is no wonder that we have the gloomy reports, both national and international, which we are having.
Deputy Tully has 25 minutes, if he wishes to take it. Deputy O'Brien will then have the other five minutes which is left for the Opposition Deputies.
I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
Like Deputy Fitzpatrick, I am appalled by the spate of Supplementary Estimates which have come before this House in the last six weeks. £463 million is an enormous amount and under normal circumstances and with a normal Government one would expect the situation to be dealt with in a different way. These things have to be provided for and it is simply piling up the money which will have to be added on to deficits going into 1981.
With regard to the amount of money mentioned in this Vote, £12,399,000, it is only fair to say that we are not talking about additional money which will be spent now. We are talking about money which has already been spent. The next couple of weeks will have the tail end of it but in the main the money has already been spent. It might be no harm if the Minister pointed this out to his back benchers, who, having seen the Vote for this sum of money, have been going around promising that this additional money was coming in the months of December and January. They know so little about budgetary affairs that they will be spending this in the early part of next year.
I do not know, as I said recently, if the Minister and the other Ministers are living in a world different from the one the rest of us are living in because one gets the impression, listening to Ministers in the House, that they are living away back several years ago. I am not blaming this Minister for what has happened here. A game of draughts is being played by the Taoiseach who has been moving Ministers about. Some of them felt the draught the first time the move was made. The draughts are moving along and there is no point in moving a Minister or the draughts into an impossible position where they will be taken straight off the board. A few of the Ministers found themselves in that position. Unfortunately, the Minister who is in charge of the Department of the Environment knows now, but he will not get an opportunity of knowing it next year, that what he has been given is a position as Minister for the Environment where, because of a weak predecessor who was not able to fight his corner in the Cabinet, the Department of the Environment got less money than they needed to carry on their normal work. They proceeded to tell the local authorities that they must tighten their belts. While they had to tighten their belts and operate under the 10 per cent limit by which they were allowed to increase the rates, they were not told that towards the end of the year there would be a big shortfall because the farmers would not be asked to pay their rates this year. How does the Minister propose to deal with that?
The Department felt it right that they should be allowed to increase their Estimate by £463 million while they did not allow local authorities to make any movement to try to cover their losses. I do not know if the Minister is aware that most local authorities are up to their ears in debt to contractors of various kinds. Even though they entered into agreements to purchase land for road widening and building houses, they had to cancel essential contracts because they did not have the money. The Minister has said what his precedessor also handed out to me, that there has been an increase in the amount given this year compared to that given a few years ago. He must know, after listening to the outgoing Minister for Finance yesterday, what the value of money is now as compared with about four years ago. The Government should realise that they are no longer talking to people who do not understand. The people understand that they have been codded up to the eyes and they will not take it any longer.
Deputy Fitzpatrick is quite right when he says an effort was made to go back to the old Hugo Flynn days, a three-day week. There was no social welfare at the time but this time the money is made available from social welfare to pay the people on a three-day week. As a result, people are getting more money than they would get if they were working. I am not objecting to that but I am objecting, as a representative of the working class for over 30 years, to the suggestion that has been made generally that most of those who are unemployed would rather be unemployed than working. That is untrue, whether they are getting more or less when they are unemployed. Those people would prefer to continue working but they were not allowed to do this. The Minister for the Environment should have been able to make a case to have some money transferred to his Department to keep those people in employment and leave them with their self-respect. They get very little else from the Government. I am glad Deputy Lemass is present because before the last election I listened to her on television. She was very impressive and was very eloquent about the insult to the people in the country who were not allowed to work. She told them: "You are entitled to work. They are making little of you by leaving you idle". We know what the score is now. I am sure she is as annoyed about it now as she was when she spoke on television before the last general election.
Many of the Minister's backbenchers are very perturbed about the situation which has arisen. Local authorities have been left as the poor relations of the Government. The members of local authorities are the salt of the earth but they are not being treated as such by the Department. I know they got a little extra in their travelling expenses but they are not getting enough to cover their losses. This is something the rich people can take up but the workers cannot because if they do lose a day's wages they cannot make it up. That is not the type of money which should be given. Adequate money should have been given to local authorities to allow them to carry on their normal work, but this was not given.
We bragged in County Meath that we had better roads than anywhere else in Ireland. Perhaps County Kildare and portion of County Dublin compared with us. The roads of County Meath were really first class. They are now appalling. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic to listen to the Minister talking about the road plan for 1981. Does he not realise that even the engineers who are employees of local authorities said earlier this year that if there was not a very big imput of money — they mentioned £20 million — spent immediately it would take £20 billion in a few years time to rebuild the existing roads, those which are being destroyed, and to maintain them. This is the situation throughout the country. We hear complaints from the AA and various motoring bodies who have at last come to realise what the situation is and are saying what they should have said months ago, something must be done quickly. The roads surfaces are so bad that at the moment the main difficulty on a narrow road is to watch out because almost certainly when one comes to a corner, if there is a vehicle coming against one, it is in the middle of the road. The person cannot drive on the edge of the road even going around a corner because the sides of the roads seem to be rapidly deteriorating. The whole structure of the roads has been destroyed.
Deputy Colley spoke some time ago about giving grants for bog roads which have not been used for some time. They are much better than some of our country and main roads. There is no point in a Minister talking about having a plan for new roads in 1981 if we cannot do something to maintain our existing ones. Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke about people being laid off in Roscommon. Cavan County Council had to lay off staff because they did not have sufficient money. If county councils keep on a full staff they do not have enough money to buy materials and if they buy materials they cannot have a full staff.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister did not know what he was letting himself in for.
I knew exactly.
These are pensionable employees of a local authority. I am not blaming the present Minister. He has to deal as best he can with what is given to him. He is an able young man and if he was there when the budget was drawn up he would not have allowed his pound of flesh to have been swiped away and be satisfied with a quarter pound which his predecessor got.
In regard to malicious injury claims does the Minister know that if such a claim is taken to court it takes two years before payment is made? A friend of mine had his car smashed in the town of Drogheda at midnight on New Year's Eve. Two years ago the case went to court and a decree was given for malicious injury payment. That person has not yet been paid. I asked the county council when the person would be paid and they said they usually pay out by the end of the year. I asked which year and they said the second year when it has been provided for. This is the end of the year and it has not been paid and I do not think it will be paid because the money is not there. It is absolutly ludicrous to have a person at the loss of several hundred pounds when his claim has been proven simply because there is no money to pay him. Something must be done about this whole system. The law says that that is the way it is done but it should not go into the third year before a relatively small sum of £260 is paid out by the local authority.
We seem to be rearing a nation of young vandals. We have reached the stage where decent young people will have to help the authorities to ensure that the odd brat — there is one in every town and village — is stopped from carrying out the mindless vandalism which they do carry out. They do not give a damn about anyone. Some 98 per cent of young people are decent but the 2 per cent can do a lot of damage. People laugh and say the State will have to pay and the county councils will have to pay but it is the people who are paying for their so-called enjoyment.
Some years ago I made a song and dance in the House when Deputy Boland was Minister about the question of reflective marking of vehicles. Eventually it was agreed that vehicles would be so marked. However, that seems to have died off now. Foreign vehicles do not have to be marked and Irish vehicles do not bother in many cases. Anyone driving along a country road at night who meets a car with a green or black lorry on his side of the road will find it extremely difficult to pass without getting into trouble. Many accidents have occurred and people have been killed because of this.
The arrangement where a red triangle was put behind a broken down vehicle seems to be forgotten. Buses are the only vehicles that do this or put out seats behind the bus to indicate it has broken down. Cars are often parked on the side of the road with no lights and with no marking. These things, as well as drunken driving, cause accidents. Repairs to vehicles are very expensive and people do not bother having them carried out.
I am puzzled about the additional interest which building societies charge. While officially they have a rate comparable to the banks the rate they charge is 1.1 per cent higher than that because of the system they operate. I do not know if the ratio is what it is supposed to be. I do not know if it was carried on in my time but it is something that must be looked at closely. Interest rates are high enough without people having to pay more. I give fair warning to the Minister that if we take part in Government we will re-introduce home improvement grants. Building houses is one way of building up a stock but if we do not do something to ensure that existing houses are kept in good repair and are habitable we are allowing the stock to run down. It is the same as spilling water into a barrel that has a hole in it. This would relieve considerably the demand for home loans which is very high. People want money to build houses and they cannot get it. Deputy Fitzpatrick is correct. Where I live there are 20 houses within a mile radius which have been for sale for a long time and nobody wants to know.
The list of applications for planning permission is smaller than it used to be. People are not able to afford to build houses and this is a serious matter. The people waiting for home improvement and heating grants are dissatisfied. The Minister cannot do much about it because the money is not there. That is unfortunate for him and for his officials who have to deal with correspondence from public representatives and applicants. Something must be done about this. So many people applied in the last few weeks before the axe came down that there are three times the normal number of payments required and the money is not there to pay the normal number of applicants. The Minister says he has been given an additional £4 million for the purpose of paying the £1,000 grant.
In relation to the cost of a house, what is the value of this £1,000 grant? When the old grant was done away with its value at the maximum was £900, not £645 as some people think. therefore, the difference is only £100. Many people were promised this grant but they are not getting it. When I did away with the payment of supplementary grants to relatively wealthy people Fianna Fáil, on this side, created a song and dance — boy, what a noise. Good luck to them, they had the neck afterwards to come along and do away with the supplementary grant.
There are two most important aspects in all this. People who looked for the grant, with the supplementary grant from local authorities, are being told by the local authorities that they are precluded from the supplementary grants, and it is the poorest of the poor who are being affected. Having committed themselves to work which would qualify them for the first part of the grant they are being told that they cannot get it at all.
There has been a lot of talk about the insulation grant, but people are getting letters from the Department saying they are not finishing the job and that if they had not finished the job before 20 October they are not entitled to the grant. Either the grant is there or it is not, and there should not be this fiddling about with it.
The position in regard to the heating grant is the same. It has been most difficult to get payments. Financial provision should have been made for it. The latest date for receipt of applications was 31 January last. Many people in Dublin handed in their applications on that day at O'Connell Bridge House but they were ruled out as being ineligible because the applications were not on the desk before 1 February. The Minister cannot do this to ordinary people throughout the country. They have done the work, either through borrowing or on trust by small contractors. This is not the sort of thing Departments are for. The Minister's predecessor told us that he would reconsider the cases of people who sent in late applications, but so far we have not had a comment from him or from the present Minister.
Generally in this debate what we are talking about is academic because the money has been spent. The Minister is about to prepare the Estimate for 1981 — he will not be there for the spending of it — but will he see to it that his Department will get a fair share of the funds and not be letting his stronger colleagues run away with the lot?
The success or failure of a Department's plans depends on financing, and we all agree that the Department of the Environment have been starved from the point of view of funds. The two previous speakers referred to roads and housing. I have only five minutes and I intend to use most of it to deal with these two subjects. First of all, I will refer to reconstruction grants. I have here a Departmental circular, dated 26 November 1979, referring to supplementary grants. It states:
As regards supplementary grants, the attention of local authorities is directed to paragraph 21 of Circular B.C. 8/79 of 22nd August, 1979. Local Authorities should note that the payment of supplementary grants after 31st January, 1980, will be invalid unless application for the grant was received by the local authority on or before 31st December, 1979, and application for payment of the grant was received by the authority on or before 31st January, 1980.
Any enquiries in regard to this circular may be made to Housing Grants Section, Floor 5, O'Connell Bridge House, Dublin 2. (Phone 713377).
My local authority in County Limerick have had this system in operation for some years. I do not blame the local authority, but they have been sending out supplementary grant forms to applicants and if the Department do not notify payments the local authority cannot know whether the applications were in order. In this way hundreds of people have been deprived of this grant. Many of them who had spent money were hoping to get payment by Christmas but they have been told by the local authorities they will not get it.
Roads are a terrible problem. A lot of money has been spent in operating the breathalyser system, but to my mind the Department, and I include the Minister, are as dangerous to the public as any man with drink in him behind the wheel of a car. The condition of our roads is so dangerous that people's lives are at stake. Recently in my constituency a man was knocked from his motorcycle near Rathkeale because of a deep pothole. He took the case to the District Court and justly was awarded damages.
This sort of thing will continue unless our roads are rendered safe. I have discussed this with car drivers and I have advised them to take their problem to their solicitors. This is totally justified because people have been paying rates for a long time and they have not got roads on which they can travel safely.
I will go back to grants. I was in O'Connell Bridge House recently about a specific case and a courteous lady came to me and told me the file had been handed to an inspector last May. What has the inspector been doing with that file since last May? That is only one of nearly 200 cases I have had to inquire about in the last 12 months. It is rough justice to the people concerned to be told: "We have not got the staff". Why have they not got the staff when there are 130,000 people unemployed? Why do we bother to talk about unemployment when we hear that one of the most important Departments have not got the staff to deal with even the most urgent hardship cases? What is the purpose of the Minister handing us this script today talking about 1981 when the position in 1980 is something none of us wants to hear about again? This Government are literally bankrupt. Whether we like it or not, it must be known to the people. As a public representative in rural Ireland it is embarrassing being approached by people talking about their roads and about bad bends.
Another aspect which is very important in rural Ireland is——
The Deputy has gone over the bend now. His time is up.
I would like to refer to group schemes. Three or four years ago it was a great thing to start a group scheme because one only had to ask people for £30 or £40. Today it costs £350 or £400 to join group schemes so the group schemes are gone.
The Minister is allowing Deputy Lemass five minutes.
I would just like to tell Deputy Tully a little story. He mentioned that I was very concerned about employment and spoke on it at length. I am still very concerned about it and always will be and I still think that every citizen who needs employment and wants work has the right to get it. But there is a factory in the Dublin area which recently sent out 5,000 leaflets to 5,000 homes stating that there were 5,000 potential jobs in their factory if they got the workers. They got 12 replies. That probably means that the type of job——
Could we have the name of the factory because then they might get the workers?
That probably means that the type of jobs available are not wanted by young people. They want white-collar jobs and are not prepared to go into industry. Maybe it is our fault. We should train them more and try to convince them that it is honourable to work in industry and in a factory. Until we can get this across to the young people those jobs will still be there with nobody to go in and do them. The factory I am talking about could double its production if it got the workers.
Let us go back to Environment.
I am just going to say a few words about the housing situation in Dublin. A lot has been said recently about the housing crisis in the city. I have been in many cities in Europe and nowhere in the whole of Europe is there better local authority housing than here. Has anybody been to Hamburg or Berlin? Nobody there has a three-bedroomed house with a garden at front and back. Here we have three new cities being built up around Dublin at the moment — Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown. We are now in a position where families of three are on a housing list, are eligible to get and are getting a three-bedroomed house from the local authority. This house is probably costing about £20,000 to £22,000, and in a short time that family are in a position to purchase that house at a subsidised amount of money.
Fianna Fáil have built more local authority houses than any other country in the same circumstances. I am proud of what Fianna Fáil have done. Seventy per cent of those on the housing list at the moment are families of three. That is because there are so many more young people in the country, so many more people getting married at a very young age. This is why our housing list is so long. There are very few families on that housing list with four or more children and a lot of them would already be housed if they were not waiting to be housed in a particular area in the city. There will always be a housing list. No Government can ever eliminate it totally, because there are always young people coming up. Our population is increasing very rapidly at the moment and we will always have people looking for houses from the local authorities.
I am very grateful to the Minister for allowing me the few minutes to say these few words. I hope he will be particularly sympathetic to Dublin Corporation in the coming year with the allocation for housing because, as he and everybody else knows, one-third of the population is now living in Dublin. We have a very young population, it is increasing and we need more houses. I know the Minister is doing great work. In the fifties the Coalition, in two terms of office built no houses because nobody was looking for houses — they had all emigrated. Every road in local authority areas had vacant houses which were boarded up. It is only when we are doing well that we have a housing problem and that is what is happening now.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Deputy is telling us we never had it better.
Deputy Mrs. Lemass knows how to deal with the workers. Keep them down.
I congratulate Deputy Lemass on her perception of the situation and thank her for her words of encouragement with regard to progress in housing in the Dublin area. Much more has to be done. I met a deputation from the housing committee of the corporation last evening and we discussed the matter. They made some very important points which I will be taking into account in deciding on the allocations for the various authorities in 1981. However, it is something that we should be proud of that in our capital city 70 per cent of those on the waiting list are families of three.
Do not take Deputy Lemass's word for it. That is not a fact.
We will have no interruptions. We have had enough interruptions today already.
Bad as they are, they are not as bad as what happened earlier on. Deputy Fitzpatrick attacked the whole principle of the Supplementary Estimates for various services being processed through the Dáil at this time and ignored the fact that the Supplementary Estimates were a regular feature of the administration which he served in from 1973 to 1977. He went on to attack the limit of 10 per cent in rate increases applied this year as being in some way related to the Supplementary Estimate although there is no provision in the Supplementary Estimate for rates relief grant. He also ignored the fact that the 10 per cent rate increase meant in effect that an average of 13 per cent extra funding was available in income from rates and that there has been a very substantial increase in the State subvention and capital allocation for the various services — all building up to an unprecedented flow of State funds to the local authorities. He also criticised the provisions being made for roads and employment. He appears to forget how little his own administration spent on the roads and the low level of employment afforded on that service.
Deputy Tully covered many of the same points and I would like to give them the facts. Are the local authorities being left short of money? They have £750 million to spend between current and capital moneys this year. That is an increase of £117 million on 1979. An estimated £106.565 million will be paid to the local authorities in 1980 in respect of the abolition of rates on domestic and other dwellings. The approximate cost to the Exchequer of the agricultural grant in the current year will be £43 million. A total of just over £150 million will thus be paid to local authorities directly for the relief of rates this year and the total current expenditure of local authorities this year will be close to £520 million. About £307 million or almost 60 per cent of this will come from State grants including the £150 million which goes in direct relief of rates.
As I said in my opening speech road grants totalling over £58 million have been allocated to local authorities this year. That is more than double the amount allocated by the Coalition in 1977. By way of further comparison this Government, since taking office less than three years ago, have allocated road grants totalling £149 million, whereas the Government in which the two Members opposite served made available grants totalling £68 million in the three years 1975-77. Even when account is taken of inflation, it must be recognised that the Government's performance leaves no room for criticism by the Opposition, especially by two members of the former Cabinet. One direct result of the increased investment in road works has been an upsurge in employment by the road authorities. In 1976 the average monthly employment of road workers was 9.540 and since 1977 this figure has increased substantially. Despite this year's financial constraints I anticipate that the road works programme for the year will absorb up to 11,000 workers compared to the 9,500 employed during the last year of the Coalition.
References have been made to the present standard of the roads and the Government's commitment to the proper maintenance and improvement of the roads can best be gauged by the level of funds made available to the road authorities since they took office. Legal responsibility for public roads is vested in the roads authorities and it is their statutory duty to maintain and improve the roads for which they are responsible so as to keep them fit for the traffic which uses them. While my Department reimburse a large proportion of the expenditure incurred on road works by way of annual road grants, nevertheless it is the road authorities who decide the extent of overall investment in the annual roads works programme. It is estimated that the total expenditure on road works in 1979 amounted to £96.29 million, of which the local authorities expended more than 50 per cent from their own resources. Since the vast bulk of their investment is in maintenance work, the condition of public roads outside the national road network — for which I make available full cost maintenance grants — is dependent largely on the level of their funds, including the amount of their own resources which they apportion to road works. In the case of the maintenance of national roads I have allocated grants totalling £11.451 million for work this year which represents a generous contribution. In 1977 the corresponding grants amounted to £5.266 million. As regards other roads, the funds available this year to local authorities should enable them to carry out a satisfactory programme of road upkeep.
Regarding housing grants, last January, when the termination of the house improvement grant scheme was announced, the Department received the equivalent of a full year's applications in ten days and this severely disrupted normal procedures and it was not realistic to expect that all those grants could be paid at once. Every possible step was taken to streamline procedures and expedite inspection. On 14 August it was announced that we were dispensing with first inspections of improvement works and that the last date for completion of the works had been extended to 31 March 1981, provided that a binding commitment had been made before 21 January 1980. A considerable amount of overtime has been worked by staff and all this means that the total number of grants paid this year will exceed 50,000, the highest number ever by a long way. The figure of 50,000 grant payments also refutes absolutely the frequent allegations by Deputies opposite who like to give the impression that grants are not being paid. The additional £4 million provided by the Government last September for these grants brings total expenditure to £27 million. By comparison, in their 1977 Budget the Coalition Government provided only £4.95 million. I want to give an assurance that every effort will continue to be made into next year to see that all outstanding grants are paid as early as possible.
Deputy O'Brien referred to the provision under which supplementary grants could not be paid by local authorities unless work had been completed before 31 December 1978 and the grant applied for before 31 December 1979. This provision was not imposed by departmental circular but was made by the Housing Act of 1979, which was fully discussed in the Dáil and Seanad. It would not be open to me or my Department to change the law on the subject without further legislation.
If an instalment was paid, would there not have been an application to the local authorities?
No. Regarding house purchase loans, Deputy Fitzpatrick alleged that there is a scarcity of such finance. This is not in accord with the facts and there is more money available for mortgages than at any stage in our history. During the quarter ended 30 September 1980 all lending agencies — building societies, local authorities, banks and assurance companies — paid out £104.4 million for the purchase of 7.382 houses. This compares with £81 million for 6,591 houses in the corresponding period in 1979. The results of the availability of this money will be seen when the total number of houses completed this year is ascertained. It will be an all-time record. In the first eleven months of 1980 a total of 26,468 new houses were completed and I am satisfied that the number for the full year will lie between 27,000 and 28,000
The Deputy was critical of the provision made for SDA loans. For the record, the original provision in the Public Capital Programme for house purchase loans was £64.5 million and a further £7 million was provided last September, bringing the total for 1980 to £71.5 million. This compares with expenditure last year of £52 million. In 1978 it was £33 million and only £19.5 million in 1977 in the last Coalition budget.
Deputy Tully spoke about the legal requirement of the marking of heavy vehicles. The enforcement of the law is a matter for the Garda Síochána and I will draw their attention to the Deputy's observations, particularly regarding the use of triangles in the case of breakdown of heavy vehicles.
Deputy Tully also mentioned delay in the payment of malicious injury claims. I appreciate that there are delays and in many cases very lengthy delays in court proceedings. Once a decree has been given, present law, which is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, requires a local authority to make a provision in the Estimate for the following year to meet that decree. Of necessity this involves further delay. However, Deputy Tully will realise that the Minister for Justice has at present a Bill before the House to reform the law on malicious injuries. I understand that this Bill has a number of provisions which could speed up the payment of awards.
Regarding the 10 per cent limit and the criticism by Deputy Fitzpatrick, he appears to want it both ways. He claims to be put out by rate limits which he sees as a threat to the freedom of action of local authorities and on the other hand he seeks to lay the blame elsewhere for the consequences of unpopular local decisions. He does this by using the excuse that local authorities have decisions forced on them by a shortage of money and the facts speak for themselves.
(Cavan-Monaghan): By statutory ministerial direction restricting any increase to 10 per cent. The Minister's brief is wrong.
The local authorities taken together were better off financially at the start of 1980 than at the end of 1977. There is no reason why all local authorities could not be in the same position. There are, as there always have been, differences between local authorities; but if there is a small number of cases where individual local authorities believe that they are being forced to take unpopular decisions by shortage of money, they would be well advised to look closely at their finances and priorities. The present financial position of each local authority is in some measure the result of their own decisions freely taken in the years to the end of 1977 and equally freely taken since the derating of domestic and other property.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Nonsense.
In conclusion. I wish to compliment the staff of the local authorities throughout the country for the excellent work they have done on behalf of the nation during 1980.
Vote put and agreed to.