It sounded so much like what I had heard said here on another occasion that I presumed it to be from that debate, but I would still refer him to that debate of a year ago. In that debate he will get full and adequate answers to similar suggestions made by the Deputy and others on that side of the House. I would advise him to digest them fully before occasion is again taken to raise this matter. Let me repeat that when we took office in 1957 we took over after a grand spree of spending in all directions without thought to the future, to the ability of the then Government to pay or the ability of the economy of the country, as it was then, to stand up to it. We took over at a time when this spree had of necessity to come to an end because there was little left in the kitty with which to continue it. We took it over when the evidence of the dead hand of the Coalition was there to be seen more completely in regard to matters of local government than in regard to any other matter.
Since then we have continued to arrest the decline and brought about a new upsurge in the trend, having paid off, as has been said here this afternoon, the outstanding debts that were incurred without thought by the then Government. The encouragement we have given has not been merely circular letters to county councils or grand exhortations to the members of these councils on any opportune public occasion but rather the concrete way of, first of all, clearing the decks of the Local Government Department of all the debts that had been incurred, clearing out the files and the chests in the Department wherein were buried many worth-while and worthy projects for which no sanction had been forthcoming from that Government.
We then proceeded to instil some confidence in the local authorities that the new Government would meet their commitments to the local authorities in regard to these matters. We went on from there to introduce new housing legislation in which we increased the grants under various heads in order to give greater financial encouragement to the ordinary people througout the country, the private builders and those who had houses to repair. The effects of the efforts we made are quite evident to-day and for some time past. During the discussion on the Estimate last year, it was quite clear that the steps we had taken, and are continuing to take, were bearing fruit. The results were encouraging; the trend was again upwards in these spheres and the situation to-day is that that trend is continuing despite what has been said by those who would rather not see the evidence which is so obvious to everybody else.
Deputy O'Donnell also spoke of the statements he made as Minister at some time, I think, in Bandon. He said he advocated greater attention to and spending on the repair, improvement and conservation of our existing housing stock. More power to the Deputy if that is what he said. There is no harm whatsoever in that. He also said he talked about the effort that should be made to clear up these derelict sites. It is all very well to talk, but I am asking now: did he do anything more than talk? We have. We have brought in legislation which makes it possible, in a speedy and satisfactory manner, for local authorities to clear up these eyesores. Furthermore, in a very telling fashion, we have brought in a scheme of grants by which to encourage their clearance. I want to nail this, lest, in a few years or a few months, as the occasion may arise, the Deputy or possibly somebody who has listened to him or who reads what he has said to-day may claim, in a short while, that the Parties opposite were responsible for clearing derelict sites and that all that may be done on that problem in the future will be attributed to the good work started by Deputy O'Donnell, merely by talking in Bandon some four or five years ago.
Deputy Norton raised the question of delays. I am no more happy about that than Deputy Norton or other Deputies who have alluded to delay, but, as I said before and repeat now, we have had difficulties in maintaining our staffs of inspectors in sufficient number to meet the growing demand. We have taken every possible step on several occasions—and even in recent months by way of advertisements, boards and interviews—to keep up the strength of the staff, but despite all that has been done, it is only now—and we are still somewhat under strength—that we have a situation in which the inspectorate staff are reasonably well able to cope with the demands on them. But there is a backlog which they are trying to liquidate and which may still require some little time before it is completely wiped out. That will depend also on the strength of the staff remaining at the present level.
I have done, and I am continuing to do, everything possible to minimise delay by inter-changing, by supplementing, by taking an inspector from one part and sending him to another that appears to need him more. We do not want delays, and we are trying to get rid of them, but the difficulty in regard to inspectors has been there throughout the past year or so. I hope that the coming financial year will be better from that point of view. The House may be assured that all steps necessary are being taken and will be taken to reduce the delay to the minimum. I am fully alive to all that has been said in regard to payment of instalments and I realise the advantage it would be to the people building, particularly those having the work done by small contractors without financial backing, to have payments made quickly. We are quite conscious of that, and we shall continue to try to serve those people with the least possible delay.
For some reason, Deputy Blowick introduced himself as a person knowing practically everything about houses, grants, and costs and told us how totally inadequate is the grant of £300 which is available for the erection of a serviced, five-roomed house in the country. Actually, that figure should read £310 but, knowing so much—by his own profession—I was surprised to hear him say how little use the grant was compared with four years ago. At that stage, I could not help but interject that those figures were not then available. He passed from that to tell us in a very vehement and definite way that the grants were not sufficient and that a steep increase was needed.
I am sure the Deputy and other members know that the amount of money available to-day by way of grant for building houses is greater than it was at any other stage in our history. In addition, these grants of £310 for a serviced house in a non-serviced area may be, and are in very many cases, supplemented by the local authority to the tune of £300. It is possible in rural Ireland now to get £610 in grants to build a house. If that is not considerable, even though costs have gone up, I do not know what is.
One thing has increased. Deputy Blowick might know something about this, since he knows so much about housing. For the same type of house in the Gaeltacht, the grant is £450, plus anything up to £300 from the local authorities. We are thus operating on terms of £600-£750 in grants for the building of a house, depending on the part of rural Ireland in which the person resides. That is the extent of aid for housebuilding from public funds at present. Yet, we have an ex-Minister, an expert on housing, according to himself, telling us that steep increases are needed. Certainly if we could build houses for nothing, everybody would be happier or at least they would appear to be for the moment, but in our circumstances generally, I do not think anybody can say that State assistance is ungenerous as has been represented here.
Deputy Blowick also said something that did not make much sense to me when he spoke of people in the country being slow to borrow and said that he admired them for it. Presumably, he is prepared to admire them for staying in a bad house rather than undertaking to repay some of the cost of a good house in which they could live in better conditions. He actually gave the lie to the impression he had already created by talking about the very poor people who, he said, should be helped by a special grant yet to be devised and he suggested their holdings should become annuity-free and that a special effort should be made to give them special loans, repayable on an annuity basis. He cannot have it both ways: he admires those who will not borrow even though they can get the money and yet he wants a special scheme of loans to enable the particularly poor people to borrow. I leave it to the House to judge the value of his argument.
Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned the inadequacy of housing other than in the cities. I think he suggested that some people were inferring that there was no real need for housing except in the cities and that only a little remained to be done and that he did not agree with them. I do not agree with them either. There is still quite an amount of housing to be provided throughout the country, but unfortunately the position is that we are not clear as to what the amount is exactly and in what category it arises. Without that knowledge, we are not able to sit down, as we should like to do, and devise, if necessary, further steps effectively to eliminate what I believe exists—isolated bad houses throughout rural Ireland, particularly in the case of small farmers.
With this in view, I invoked the powers available to request local authorities to do their duty and in May and in August of last year, I asked them to carry out comprehensive surveys of all the houses required in their functional areas, regardless of whether or not people living in unfit houses had applied for council houses—in other words, a survey that would give us a picture in the Department of Local Government which would enable us to take any steps that may be necessary, based on factual knowledge rather than on observations of mine or of Deputies who, to a large extent, are talking of what they see in their own areas or as they pass through particular parts of the country. The local authorities have an obligation to do this: they have not been doing it in the past, possibly due to the fact—so obvious for so long—that it was a question of building what you saw was needed. You did not have to look for work.
The point is that we have asked them to honour that obligation, an obligation which they are in duty bound to observe. We are awaiting the result of the surveys. The return so far has not been as good as we should like it to be and we have sent out reminders. We have got certain promises from some of the counties. We have got quite a bit of action from others. Then there are some who are quite far behind. The surveys are being done at my instigation. It is a nation-wide survey. There is a duty on local authorities under the Inspection of Districts Regulations to do these surveys and keep them up to date. We have asked local authorities to do these surveys so that we shall know exactly where we stand. In due course, when we have these surveys, we shall be able to find out whether changes are needed in the law or the regulations in order to solve whatever problems may be thrown up by these surveys.
Specific Instance building schemes are not being availed of to the fullest extent. Some local authorities appear to be vaguely aware of the scheme. Some utilise it a little. If local authorities drew up schemes and forwarded them to us for approval, there would be less need for criticism here in relation to housing for the poor and the small farmer. I exhort members of this House who are also members of local authorities to bring Specific Instance schemes before their local councils, with a view to relieving some of the hardship that still exists because of lack of proper housing for certain categories. There are people who prefer to live in rather dire circumstances in rural areas rather than migrate to nearby towns or villages. They will not accept houses in villages or towns, even if they could get them without paying any rent at all. There is good reason for their reluctance to leave. They can eke out some kind of existence in their present homesteads. The Specific Instance procedure should be adopted more widely in the case of such people.
Deputy O'Sullivan talked about his own town and about people living there in primitive conditions. If these appalling conditions exist, then the members of this House who are also members of local authorities brand themselves as lacking in any sense of duty towards their constituents. It is their duty to ensure these primitive conditions cease. Every Deputy who is a member of a local authority and who charges the Government with responsibility for these conditions, hoping the charge will stick, shows himself up in a rather sorry light. I hurl the charge back and tell the Deputy to go back to his local authority, do his job there properly, get houses built and wipe out these primitive and appalling conditions from his town or village. There is no reason why such a situation should exist. Those responsible should get on with the work. When cases of this nature come to the Department, the money is never refused. I exhort those who criticise so freely to go back to their local councils and set about taking steps to build new houses for these people who, they say, are living in primitive and appalling conditions.
On the question of supplementary grants, these grants are available. Schemes are at the discretion of the local authorities. Naturally, local authorities adopt whatever scheme will give the best value in particular circumstances. This is permissive legislation. It does not really come within the ambit of the Minister or his Department. It has been my experience over the years that the approach to these schemes is a sensible one.
Deputy Flanagan made quite a noise here about the housing situation in his constituency, with particular reference to Portlaoise, Birr, Tullamore and Portarlington. He claimed that a couple of hundred houses are needed in Tullamore, 100 in Birr, 100 in Portarlington, 100 in Portlaoise. A survey has been sought from the Deputy's local authority area. At the moment the survey is complete in three dispensary districts and partially complete in two—five surveys altogether. There are 15 in the area. We asked for these surveys eight months ago. Fairly recently reminders were sent out.
In relation to Birr, where the 100 families are supposed to be in extreme need of houses, plans were submitted to my Department on 11th January from the Birr area for two houses. In Portlaoise, where it is obvious that 100 houses are needed and where there are three or four families to each house, we have had a 52-house scheme proposed for that town. Approval for that scheme issued on 20th January, but, according to Deputy Flanagan, we need at least 50 more houses. The Deputy is a member of the local authority and it is for him to bring to the notice of the local authority the "500 appalling cases" he speaks of in order to have appropriate action taken. I believe that when the facts of these "500 appalling cases" in these four towns are examined, the Deputy's statement is likely to be very far from a statement of the true position.
The Deputy also stated that a new housing code was required. In case there might be credit given in any direction for anything being done at present, Deputy Flanagan brings in this umbrella cover that a complete new code is needed, that more money is needed and that, unless there are world-shaking developments to meet a situation that exists more in his imagination than in reality, the Government may be accused of not doing their duty. That is typical of the Deputy and does not require comment from me.
What we were called upon to discuss here is the matter of the moneys required for the continuation of prompt payments of all grants that fall to be paid between now and 31st March. I have indicated that this money is definitely needed—needed, in fact, within a matter of days. We are down to the last of the moneys available to us from the ordinary Vote. Due to the increased demand, which we are glad to see, we require this extra £200,000.
