Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Feb 1968

Vol. 232 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 26 — Local Government (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

Go ndeonófar suim fhorlíontach nach mó ná £10 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1968, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Rialtais Áitiúil, lena n-áirítear Deontais d'Udaráis Áitiúla, Deontais agus Costais eile i ndáil le Tithíocht, agus Scéimeanna agus Deontais Ilghnéitheacha lena n-áirítear Deontais-i-gCabhair áirithe.

—Minister for Local Government.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Boland)

I was dealing last night with the purchase terms of local authority houses. I had pointed out that more than 78 per cent of rural houses had been vested already and that more than ten per cent more had vesting applications pending. I had gone on to deal with the position applying to urban houses and had dealt with the 1953 circular under whose terms urban houses could be disposed of. I had mentioned that there was another circular issued in 1956. This circular provided, as an alternative to the terms specified in 1953, that the Minister would be prepared to approve of the sale of post-1946 houses for their original all-in cost, reduced by the amount of the appropriate State grant that would have been paid if the houses had been provided by persons for their own occupation, or by the amount of the Transitional Development Fund Grant where one was paid.

Of the urban houses provided up to 31st March, 1967, schemes under the 1953 and 1956 circulars applied to 23,014 houses. As I have said, of these, only 7,100 had been sold up to that date and it is estimated that a further 2,000 houses will be sold during 1967-68 on foot of applications to purchase received by the local authorities prior to 30th September, 1967, which was the last date for receiving applications.

The Association of Municipal Authorities passed resolutions which indicated that with the rise in prices and the tendency for local authority rents to remain static, these minimum terms gave very low sale prices. There are, in fact, instances of houses sold under the sale schemes to tenants being resold by the tenants fairly soon after purchase for three, four and five times, which was fairly normal, and in some cases for up to ten times the price paid for them to the local authorities. The valuation by the Valuation Office on certain houses proposed to be included in sales schemes in urban areas indicates that the prices proposed were often as low as one-ninth or one-tenth of the current value of the houses.

I find it surprising that some Deputies are so completely irresponsible and so unconcerned with the magnitude of the housing problem as to advocate the continuance of this improvident dissipation of valuable housing stock. It was because of this experience that houses were being disposed of at giveaway prices; and on 23rd December, 1966, I notified local authorities that it was not intended to approve of further schemes for the sale of urban houses on the terms laid down in the the 1953 and 1956 circulars, but tenants of houses to which existing schemes applied were given up to 30th September, 1967, to apply to the local authorities to purchase under the schemes if they so wished. That was a period of slightly more than nine months.

In respect of urban houses, terms for their sale under section 90 of the 1956 Act, which I have indicated I will be prepared to approve in purchase schemes made by local authorities, provide for a discount from market or replacement value of two per cent for each year more than five years during which the tenant has been in occupation of a local authority house, subject to a maximum discount of 30 per cent. Nobody can claim that these terms are less than generous to the tenants concerned. At the same time, I think they are also fair to the other people who are involved.

This means that a tenant in a house that is valued at £1,800 can purchase it for £1,260 if he has been in occupation for the requisite period. As I say, I am satisfied that those terms will present a fair balance as between the tenant wishing to purchase his house and the local authority which provided it and which must continue to provide houses to meet the needs of those without adequate accommodation. The local authority represents the general ratepayers and the taxpayers for whom Opposition Deputies at the appropriate time, that is, the time they consider appropriate, show such great concern.

I may say I provided that capital receipts from the sale of houses must be used to finance the construction of further houses either by the local authority directly or by private builders with the aid of grants and loans from the local authorities. There will thus be no net diminution as a result of sales in the local authorities' ability to deal with the housing needs of their areas.

The suggestion has been made that in calculating sale prices an allowance should be made for the amount paid by the tenant in rent. This suggestion will not stand up to examination. It must be remembered that substantial annual subsidies are paid for every local authority house built. The rent usually does not cover even the loan charges on the capital from which the construction of the house was financed, not to mention maintenance and administrative costs, which are borne by the local authority. In fact, the argument could be advanced that the longer the tenant has been in the house, the more subsidies he has received and the price of the house, if he wishes to buy, should therefore be adjusted upwards rather than downwards according to the length of his tenancy.

The terms which have been circulated to local authorities are based, as I said, on the desire to be fair to the tenant genuinely wishing to purchase the house for his own use and at the same time, ensuring that the local authorities do not dissipate at the expense of the ratepayers and the taxpayers the stock of houses which has been built up by them with such trouble and expense over so long a period and which are required to accommodate persons genuinely in need of housing. If local authorities do sell under the present terms, the terms I have approved under the Housing Act, 1966, then the sale price will make a fair and reasonable contribution towards the cost of building another house to replace that which has been lost from their stock. I think this is a sound principle and I am quite satisfied that the public generally will agree that the terms are fair to all the different people concerned in the sale of a house, the person purchasing the house and the people who have contributed to its construction and maintenance, the ratepayers and taxpayers.

With regard to assistance for private housing, the Opposition have again in this debate endeavoured to make it appear that little or nothing is being done and here again the facts are completely contrary to what has been alleged. The fact is that all local authorities are at present accepting loan and grant applications for new houses and a record sum of at least £7.5 million will be spent by local authorities for this purpose in the financial year 1967-68 compared with an actual payment of £4.62 million in 1964-65 and £6.75 million in 1966-67. In addition to that, all building societies are at present accepting loan applications.

Deputies have referred to the fact that the basic grant of £275 had not, they said, been increased since 1948. At the same time they complain that those grants were made irrespective of income or in other words, as Deputy Treacy says, without an odious means test. Presumably a means test in respect to the payment of housing grants would be an unodious test. Since the State grant was fixed at £275 this grant has been doubled for persons in need of housing by the provision enabling local authorities to pay supplementary grants. Most authorities do in fact pay those grants. In addition to that doubling of the grant for those people whose means indicate they require more assistance towards purchasing a house for themselves, the grant scheme has been extended in a number of other ways such as the provision of higher grants for serviced houses in areas without piped water supply and sewerage, special grants of up to £300 for elderly persons' accommodation, special grants of up to £450 for small farmers and others in rural areas. Of course there are supplementary grants available from local authorities also. The scheme has been extended by the introduction of essential repairs grants for older houses in rural areas, which are not capable of economic repair, but which can, by the carrying out of what we call essential repairs, be made reasonably habitable for a period of time which it appears will be likely to be as much as they will be needed for and in cases where the provision of a completely new house would appear to be unnecessary.

The scheme has been extended by the grant of up to 50 per cent of the cost for experimental or prototype houses. We have the introduction of dower house grants for farmers who surrender their own house to a member of the family or certain other persons, the introduction of grants for flats in buildings of three or more storeys, the introduction of a site subsidy of £150 payable to local authorities for each developed site sold for private building and the introduction of grants for major improvement work to local authority houses. There have been many other modifications and improvements in regard to the provision of assistance for people providing their own accommodation.

I think then it can be shown, contrary to what the Opposition have been alleging, that there has been considerable improvement with regard to grants for the building and improving of private houses since the present amount of the State grant of £275 was fixed. As those improvements have been mainly oriented towards those who were least well able to meet the costs of providing their own house, they are, of course, of no interest to the Opposition Parties. The value of the assistance for which a person building a house may qualify under those and associated aids would be up to £1,080 in a rural area and up to £990 in an urban area.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): What would his income want to be to qualify for this?

Mr. Boland

This is made up, in the case of a house in a rural area, of a State grant of £450, of a local authority grant of £450 and rates remission which on average amounts to a total sum of approximately £180. That makes a total of £1,080, the maximum amount of assistance being available in rural areas.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): What about the cash income of a man just married? The Minister is distorting the facts.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Fitzpatrick is supposed to be taking care of local government matters in the Fine Gael Party. I realise he has other things to occupy his mind at present, that he has, the same as the rest of his Party, to try to keep the disintegrating Fine Gael Party together. I know he knows very little about local government matters.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Bluff.

Mr. Boland

He should at least know to what category of people these grants are available.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am asking the Minister to put it on record.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Boland

If Deputy Fitzpatrick does not know it, let him ask that question.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am asking the Minister to answer it.

Mr. Boland

The State grant in urban areas is normally £275 but, in certain cases, it can go up to £285 and a local authority grant to the same amount is available. In general, the rates remission in urban areas amounts on average to £270. In addition, there is the special site subsidy of £150 available in the case of sites which are provided by the local authority for private housing. This makes a total of £990 when the grant at the rate of £285 is available or, as it is in most cases, up to £970.

In addition to this assistance which the State gives — the State being, of course, the pockets of the people— there is also a substantial range of grants available for the reconstruction of a house and for the installation of piped water and sewerage. As for reconstruction, a person can qualify for up to £140 from the Department of Local Government and £140 from the local authority by way of grant in addition to a reconstruction loan, free of formalities, of up to £200 from the local authority, making £480 in all. It is important to remember that, in addition to the impressive level of housing output to be reached this year — at least 11,700 houses — at least 11,000 reconstruction grants will be paid this year.

A person improving his own house can also get up to £75 from the Department and up to a further £75 from the local authority for the installation of water and sewerage. The amount paid out in grants by the Department has risen from £342,000 in 1948-49 to nine times that amount, or approximately £3 million, in the current financial year.

As regards the income limit of £1,200 for eligibility for local authority house purchase loans which was fixed in June, 1965, there has been one wage round, the tenth round, of £1, since that date. A sum of £1,200 is not a very high figure but it is in fact considerably more than the average earnings of workers in transportable goods industries. It is equal, roughly, to the maximum of the clerical officer scale in the Civil Service and in State-sponsored bodies. In fact, the average income of borrowers from Dublin Corporation is less than £900 a year. The present loan limits, that is, the limits of the actual loans themselves, were fixed also in 1965 at £2,700 in the Dublin area and in the county boroughs of Cork, Limerick and Waterford and at £2,500 elsewhere. I think the £2,700 limit is reasonably adequate to cater for houses selling for prices in the region of £3,500, as I propose to show. With a loan of £2,700, with a State grant of £275 and a supplementary grant from Dublin Corporation of £206, a deposit of £319 makes a total of £3,500 and in present circumstances, I do not think that is really an excessive deposit.

There is no evidence available that either the upper limit of the loan or the income limit have inhibited building. On the contrary, it is clear that the demand for loans, even within these limits of income and the loan itself, is extremely high. In present circumstances, it is necessary to get the best return in housing units from the available resources in order to encourage the building of modestly-priced houses. I do not want to be taken as stating that there is not a case worth considering for the raising of these limits, or indeed for the raising of the grants, either, but it is a fact that, even with the record amount of money which it is now possible to provide for this purpose, there is no difficulty in having all this money taken up in these circumstances.

It is obviously desirable that the total of money available should be spread over as many separate dwellings as possible. My colleague, Deputy Clinton, was particularly critical of the upper loan limit which he declared was completely unrealistic for house purchase loans in the Dublin area. The fact is that the number of loan applications on hands in Dublin county and city has risen from £871,000 to £1,147,000 between 31st March and 31st December last. Payments in these nine months have been £1,337,000. This indicates, I think, the measure to which the loan scheme, which Deputy Clinton claims is unrealistic, is, in fact, being availed of.

I am glad to state that Dublin County Council have at last relaxed the residence qualification for supplementary grants for new houses in the county. This will reduce the burden on people who are building their own houses. As Dublin Deputies know, the majority of people building or purchasing houses in the county area were, up to now, disqualified on residence grounds from the scheme of supplementary grants. I have sanctioned a loan of £1 million to enable the county to finance their extended grants system. In so far as private housing generally is concerned, I should like to point out that the number of grants for new houses in the Dublin area allocated by my Department in the nine months to 31st December, 1967, was 100 per cent higher than in the corresponding period last year. Obviously, then, despite what Deputy Clinton says, the present range of assistance and the conditions under which it is made available are not, in fact, inhibiting the purchase of houses. However, that does not mean that I should not like to extend it. It is obvious that the full amount of money that the community is able to provide for this purpose is, in fact, being taken up under present conditions.

With regard to private housing, I agree that in many cases the difference between the price of the house and the total of the maximum loan that is available and the grants from the State and local authority is too much for many people to bridge and this adds to the local authority housing problem and may prevent people who are anxious to purchase their own homes and undertake the outgoings from doing so.

I have shown that deposits required for a house costing £3,500 represent reasonable value at that price where a person qualifies for the supplementary grant and I think it is still feasible to try to encourage the production of houses at this figure. I have no doubt that reasonable houses can be produced at this figure or less.

Mr. S. Dunne

What figure do you make the deposit?

Mr. Boland

£319.

Mr. S. Dunne

Where will you get a house at that price?

Mr. Boland

You will.

Mr. S. Dunne

I say it is impossible.

Mr. Boland

There are a lot of houses selling at this price which are not value for the money. When a house sells at this price which is value for the money and a person qualifies for the supplementary grant, that is what the deposit would be. We have had a lot of talk about the cost of sites as an element in the high cost of houses. I do not want in any way to minimise this. I pointed it out before Opposition Deputies took it up.

The cost of the house is made up of different factors, such as labour, materials, land, rising standards, and the cost of sites. Labour costs which comprise one-half the cost of the actual building of the house are fixed by processes which are well known and I do not think anybody wants to interfere with that. The cost of materials is largely determined by factors which are outside our control.

The position with regard to housing is in fact that demand exceeds supply and in these circumstances, it is hardly surprising if all concerned try to benefit themselves financially from this position. I would be surprised if builders' profits are not maximised but they have to be related to the price obtainable and this is affected to a certain extent by the amount of grants and loans which can be got.

There is a lot to be said for the view that this factor helps to keep down the price of houses. Is it not possible if these were increased in present circumstances that the increases would go in the main to increasing profits? I do not think there is any point either in pretending that building workers also do not try to get and often succeed in getting more than the negotiated wage and this is not blameworthy when it appears that employers are making large profits.

As many Deputies pointed out, land prices are also as high as it is possible to obtain. However, although this is so, it is not correct to say that land prices comprise the biggest proportion of the cost of houses. In many cases, however, the site cost is the factor which just puts a house outside the scope of a person who is able and willing to undertake the repayments and the other outgoings on a purchased house. I fully agree that if this is not the biggest factor in the cost of a house, it is the least justifiable one and the one it is most desirable to tackle.

Land which normally has an agricultural value only becomes building land because of the provision by the local authority of water and sewerage services. These services are provided by the community as a whole for the benefit of the community and for the purpose of making it possible to provide homes for those without them and of making it possible to establish undertakings providing employment for the people. They are not provided in order to make it possible for a few fortunate individuals to make large and completely unearned fortunes. These people contributed no more than the other individuals in the community to the provision of the services and it seems intolerable that the rest of the community should have to see these exorbitant profits made from their investment and the solution of the problem for which the investment was made being thereby rendered more difficult.

This seems so obviously wrong and so manifestly against the common good that I can quite understand that people find it hard to believe that it cannot be dealt with in a simple and obvious way. Unfortunately the obvious and apparently simple solution to a problem is not always constitutionally possible according to the interpretation put on it by those deemed to be competent to interpret it. This is sometimes surprising and disconcerting to the layman.

I have been working on the obviously unjustifiable prices obtainable for land in which investments are being made by the community and I still hope to provide a solution. When and if I do succeed in doing this, I do not worry about fingers being burnt. In the meantime, we encourage local authorities to purchase serviced or serviceable land in advance of their requirements, both for local authority houses and for private houses. A new site grant of £150 per site is now available for sites for private houses provided by local authorities.

Although land has changed hands at astronomical prices in the Dublin area and although individual sites in the Dublin area have, and still are, costing as much as complete houses were costing a few years ago, the fact is that Dublin Corporation have acquired and are acquiring substantial acreages at comparatively reasonable prices. When I say comparatively reasonable prices, I do not mean to imply that I consider even these prices to be reasonable prices, but they are reasonable compared with what has been obtained in other cases.

In the very near future as a result of these purchases the Dublin Corporation have been making they will be able to make available sites to private individuals and groups, and indeed to small builders also, and this should make an impact on the present position. It is my aim that they should acquire a pool of land for this purpose, and I will have no sympathy for anybody who paid unreasonable prices for this commodity as a speculation and finds that he has burned his fingers. It is an undesirable practice in the first place, and I will not worry if such a person finds he has made a mistake. The huge expansion in building has made developed land scarce, and there is obvious urgency about drainage schemes in the Dublin area and in other areas also. One that springs to mind is Galway. No doubt one satisfactory solution for the community as a whole whose investment creates building land would be that only land in public ownership should have access to those services which the public provided.

Land being purchased by local authorities in such circumstances for housing purposes obviously would not have the present inflated values since it would not have access to the services. In present circumstances, however, the most effective way to tackle the evil of high site costs is that being followed — the acquisition of a pool of land by the local authority and the provision of extra sewerage capacity to increase the quantity of serviced land. This will eliminate the present position of scarcity which makes it possible for avaricious people to obtain these outlandish prices for land and thereby frustrate to a certain extent the intention of the local authorities in making the investment in water and sewerage which changed this land from agricultural land to land suitable for housing purposes and other development purposes.

We have had during this debate complaints with regard to delays and frustrations which were alleged to be involved in the submission of documents and plans by local authorities to my Department in connection with housing schemes. From what I heard it is clear that the Deputies making these complaints either have no knowledge of or are deliberately choosing to ignore the changes made in the procedure in recent years. It has been made clear to housing authorities that, provided a proposal is properly documented, only one full submission at sketch plan stage is necessary. This submission is necessary to ensure that the prescribed standards are adhered to and that the scheme is designed on economical lines. The submission at tender stage is largely formal, provided the tender does not exceed the approved estimate by more than ten per cent. But this submission also is necessary because of my overall responsibility for the cost of the national housing programme, and because it is the Government who have to provide the capital for it, and because the supply of capital is not and is never likely to be unlimited.

Arrangements have been made for regular consultation between technical and administrative officers of housing authorities and the Department. I have recently clarified the requirements of my Department in regard to the technical examination of schemes and made it clear once again that the local authorities did not have to come to my Department for approval to acquisition in the case of sites by agreement and that only one full submission of documents at outline planning stage was necessary. I am satisfied that the control exercised by my Department over a capital expenditure of £29 million by local authorities is as light as possible, consistent with my responsibilities to Dáil Éireann.

It seems that no matter how often I say it or write it, some Deputies just will not accept the fact that I exercise only the minimum controls which I have mentioned. Most of the Deputies who have spoken on this matter are members of local authorities. Apparently they just refuse to understand the position and prefer instead to pretend to believe that no change has been made in the procedure, although in fact, as members of local authorities, they must know what they say is not true. A number of Deputies described a rather fanciful procedure of documents being sent by technical officers of local authorities to the technical officers of my Department and being sent back many times. The facts are that this does not happen except in the most exceptional and justifiable circumstances.

As I have pointed out, it is at least two or three years, and sometimes up to four years, from the time the initial decision is made to build a housing scheme before actual building can start. Therefore the figure for the actual number of houses built in any period are not in themselves an accurate measure of the housing progress achieved in that period and do not present the full picture. But, just in case Opposition Deputies think that even on this basis the performance of the Fianna Fáil Governments can be made to appear in bad light, I want to disabuse them of this notion. Even if performance is to be assessed on this inaccurate basis, the figures show that 288,627 of the approximately 700,000 separate dwelling units in the State were provided since 1922; that is, 41 per cent of existing dwellings have been provided in the space of 45 years. Fianna Fail have been in office for 64 per cent of that time and during that period 72 per cent of these 288,000 odd houses were built. When it is realised that the Fianna Fáil periods in office included the period of the Economic War, the period of the Emergency or war years and the even worse circumstances of two postCoalition periods when they took over a badly rundown economy and when it is realised the two Coalition Governments took over a sound and expanding economy, it is clear that the Fianna Fáil Government succeeded incomparably better than the Opposition.

Mr. S. Dunne

That is good referendum stuff.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): You did not tell us about the ones you burned in 1922 when you would not accept the opinion of the people.

Mr. Boland

It is quite clear that in their two post-war three year periods in office the Opposition did no more than use up the Fianna Fáil land, plans and money. When these were used up, the Coalition Governments, the building industry and the housing programmes of the local authorities collapsed.

As I said at the outset, the housing problem is not solved and I do not expect to see it completely solved. As houses will continue to become obsolescent, standards will continue to rise. The population is now increasing because the level of economic activity in the country is able to maintain an increasing population. Consequently the replacement of existing houses and additions to our housing stock will continue to be necessary. But I do say we are within sight of eliminating the cases of gross overcrowding that have been a feature here since the British days and were a legacy of government by an outside country.

The progress made has been mainly by Fianna Fáil or under programmes initiated by Fianna Fáil. We arrange each year to devote the maximum feasible amount of our increasing resources to this important work and we take care to ensure that these resources do increase. As the Taoiseach indicated, according as the economy expands, our housing effort will be intensified until we have reached the goal we have set ourselves of a home for every family in the country, irrespective of whether they can afford to pay for it or not. Following the slight recession in 1966-67, there is, as I have said, every indication that our target figure of 12,000 to 14,000 houses per annum by 1970 will in fact be achieved. Allocations of grants for new private houses by my Department were 50 per cent higher in the nine months to 31st December, 1967 than in the corresponding period in the previous year. In so far as local authority housing is concerned, the number of houses started in the first six months of the financial year were 128 per cent higher than in the corresponding period of the preceding year. As Deputies know, the big Cork and Limerick National Building Agency schemes will commence in the near future. Deputies who do not like to face facts have been saying that anything can be done or proved with statistics. I should like to see these Deputies working on these figures for a while.

In the course of his contribution, Deputy Treacy displayed his typically irresponsible attitude in the ridiculous allegation that the Government are lavishing money on office blocks, luxury flats and skyscrapers. I have the quotation here. It is from column 1410, volume 231, of the Official Report of 5th December, 1967, and it says that the Government are lavishing money on office blocks, luxury flats, and skyscrapers. Of course, Deputy Treacy knows that this is not true. Perhaps he would indicate where these things are that the Government have been building. Office blocks have been built; some blocks of flats which could be described as luxury flats have been built; and at least one skyscraper has been built— but not by the Government.

Mr. S. Dunne

Are the Government not renting them?

Mr. Boland

I do not know. I do not think they have rented any accommodation in the skyscraper category.

Mr. S. Dunne

The general intelligence abroad is that they are.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Dunne probably knows more about the skyscraper than I do. There is only one I know about, and I do not think the Government are in it.

Mr. S. Dunne

I am talking about some of your friends' blocks of offices.

Mr. Boland

I am talking about this debate. I am talking about what Deputy Treacy said on 5th December, 1967.

Mr. S. Dunne

He probably said that speculators were building office blocks in the knowledge that the Government would take them up and pay high rents for them.

Mr. Boland

At column 1410 Deputy Treacy said:

We find, too, that the Government while skimping in respect of housing, water, sanitary facilities, and the like, are lavishing money wastefully on unnecessary projects, in my opinion, such as skyscraper blocks of offices in this city and in other cities and luxury flats far beyond the means of the ordinary people.

That is the statement which was made in the course of this debate I am dealing with.

Mr. S. Dunne

He means you are paying rent.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Dunne did not take the opportunity of making any statement in this debate, and if he had I would deal with it, but I am now dealing with what was said by the spokesman of the Labour Party.

Mr. S. Dunne

I was too occupied replying to letters yesterday about your political plans.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Dunne is too occupied in trying to shake the dust of County Dublin off his feet. He has a question down for me today which he repeats periodically. He wants to find out which part of the constituency he can ditch.

Mr. S. Dunne

I will meet you in any part of the constituency and I will do to you what I did to you before.

Mr. Boland

What Deputy Dunne wants to do is to see what part of his constituency to which he was elected he can cease to look after.

Mr. S. Dunne

There is no doubt as to where I was elected for.

Mr. Boland

Office blocks have been built in this city, and some blocks of flats which could be described as luxury flats, and there is one skyscraper I know of, but none of these things was built by the Government. I have no great objection to the flats; I have no interest in them either. I would prefer to see capital for housing spent more economically. I would prefer to see it spread over a greater number of housing units, but most people would agree that different standards of accommodation are inevitable in any type of society, even in the type of society which Deputy Treacy and his colleagues have lately been told they want to establish.

Some of the office block construction I, personally, resent, because it appears to me to be a bit extravagant in our circumstances, but I cannot see that there is anything much can be done about it. I appreciate the fact, of course, that very many workers in the city who work in offices have at present to work in completely unsuitable conditions, and unlike Deputy Treacy who considers it a crime to provide better circumstances for them, I consider that these workers have the right to look forward to more suitable working accommodation. At the same time, the housing problem is such an urgent one that I would like to see the maximum possible amount of capital made available for its solution, and for that reason I would prefer if the office buildings being provided were not on such a luxurious scale.

With regard to Deputy Treacy's charge that the Government have been "lavishing money on skyscrapers," I may say that I know of only one building which could qualify for this description, and the Government are not concerned with it in any way. Some of Deputy Treacy's colleagues were critical with regard to planning approval that was obtained for other office buildings in the city, but they have been strangely silent in regard to this particular case. Perhaps they would apply their minds as to how this proposal with 100 per cent coverage and with no provision for off-street car parking got through. Who was responsible for this — the Minister or the planning authority? And who put on the pressure? However, while it is, of course, criminal to allow better accommodation to be provided for other office workers, this building has the great virtue of providing the utmost luxury and prestige for a special category of office workers——

Mr. S. Dunne

Whom you do not like.

Mr. Boland

——paid trade union officials who will, of course, be exempt from the conditions of the classless society and who, unlike other office workers, are entitled to nothing but the best from the point of view of luxurious office accommodation. Therefore, this building must be judged by other standards, both planning and financial. If workers find housing conditions difficult, they will, at least, have the satisfaction of knowing that their paid officials are working in comfortable and luxurious surroundings and that their contributions made over the years have been used to provide this splendid and ostentatious structure which appears to have been designed with only two purposes in mind——

Mr. S. Dunne

It is breaking your heart.

Mr. Boland

——first, for prestige and luxury irrespective of cost — it is the only building in this city which was demonstrably built irrespective of cost; and, secondly, to provide a headquarters for and a site for the slogans of a political Party for which the workers do not vote.

Mr. S. Dunne

It is a monument to Larkin and Connolly, and that is killing you.

Mr. Boland

And it cost £1,000,000 which could have been used to build houses, and it is the only example of a purely prestige building. At least the other buildings Deputy Treacy and Deputy Dunne complain about remunerate their capital, but there was only one purpose for building this completely uneconomic structure, prestige.

As I have said, there has been in the debate a number of adverse criticisms of the building of office blocks, both in the context of the demolition of existing houses and of the urgency of the housing problem and the consequent desirability of using as much of our capital resources as possible for its solution. I want to repeat that there is no one in this House who resents as much as I do the squandering of comparatively scarce capital resources on this kind of building at a time where there are so many families in urgent need of housing. Whether these buildings have been built as monuments to certain people or not, they are still using up capital resources that could have been used for what I consider the more urgent need of housing.

Mr. S. Dunne

The Minister is not a member of any union. He has no right to talk about it.

Mr. Boland

If there were any constitutional way of preventing this——

Mr. S. Dunne

He does not want the workers to have any decent place to meet.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Boland

——and, at the same time, ensuring that the capital so saved would be utilised instead for the solution of the urgent social problem of housing, or other more necessary things than luxury office blocks, such as regional water schemes or swimming pools, I would urge it on the Government, but, for instance, desirable though it may be, it is not feasible to direct bodies like insurance companies to invest all their funds in housing if they claim they must use some for more remunerative investment to enable them to compete with foreign companies.

Again, in the case of organisations like the organisation which built the only skyscraper we have in this city who, because they have an assured income do not have to worry about remunerating the capital they spend, desirable though it may be from the social point of view and in the interests of the less well off sections of the community, it just is not feasible to prevent such an organisation——

Mr. S. Dunne

The Minister would like to change the Constitution in this regard too.

Mr. Boland

——spending members' money on a purely prestige and uneconomic building——

Mr. S. Dunne

Tamper with the Constitution.

Mr. Boland

——and to require it instead to invest the money in the less spectacular and grandiose though much more worthy provision of worker's houses.

Mr. S. Dunne

That is very laborious.

Mr. Boland

What is needed here is a change of mentality and outlook of the people in control of this huge amount of money.

Mr. S. Dunne

Include it in the referendum.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Dunne is one man who is in favour of the proposal.

Mr. S. Dunne

The principle is very important.

Mr. Boland

We all know Deputy Dunne is in favour of the proposal.

Mr. S. Dunne

Why should I be?

Mr. Boland

Because you do not like serving the constituency you have, and you do not do it.

Mr. S. Dunne

That is a lie.

An Leas Cheann-Comhairle

The Deputy may not use the word "lie".

Mr. S. Dunne

It is the equivalent. I withdraw the unparliamentary expression, but what he is saying is not true.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy asked a lot of questions. He had one down yesterday, and we may reach it today.

Mr. S. Dunne

I simply asked when Dublin city and county will be provided with its proper representation and the Minister is trying to twist it. He is appearing in places in the county in which he has not been seen for five years.

Mr. Boland

Where?

Mr. S. Dunne

In Lusk, for instance.

Mr. Boland

I am there very often.

Mr. S. Dunne

The Minister must be the invisible man because they do not see him.

Mr. Boland

The people concerned see me in Lusk and in other places. Deputy Dunne cannot wait to discard County Dublin.

Mr. S. Dunne

That is not true. I am willing to serve all of Dublin or anywhere else the people may wish me to serve.

Mr. Boland

There is no way in which I can direct an organisation such as this who have been spending their money in this way to spend it in a more desirable way. Unlike the position in the type of society that some members of the Opposition think they want, the what Deputy Fitzpatrick said as re-State cannot in present circumstances get hold of the money accumulated by other organisations in this way. This can be done, I admit, by rigging branch meetings and sneaking financial resolutions through stage-managed meetings——

Mr. James Tully

Is the Minister accusing the Irish Transport and General Workers Union of something? Another person did this and had to write to the papers and say he was misreported. Will the Minister say he was misreported by the gentlemen in the gallery?

Mr. Boland

As I have said, while I cannot prevent this undesirable expenditure on luxury office blocks and skyscrapers, I will certainly do anything I can to discourage it, that is, of course, where it is unnecessary. In places like Athlone and Castlebar, the construction of office blocks is not only socially but also economically desirable because, in my opinion at any rate, the cost of providing for increased population at smaller centres is likely to be much less than the frightening expenditure necessary to cater for the prospective increases in the Dublin region if present trends are not reversed. It is not just the Dublin sewerage system that must be increased in capacity to cater for expansion. The road system in the city is just barely capable of continuing the present traffic not satisfactorily, but in a manner that just permits activity to continue, and it is clear that the mere building of another bridge or two across the Liffey will not be sufficient to provide for further increases in the volume of traffic.

If the projected increase in Dublin cannot be diverted to other more suitable and more desirable areas, it will, it seems to me, be necessary either to prohibit private cars in the city, or to embark on colossal expenditure in acquiring and demolishing good property in order to provide a new road system in the city and surrounding areas. This expenditure and the provision of the necessary infrastructure for a development of Dublin city that is undesirable in itself, is something sarily involved in making the arrangements which would be called for by such development is badly needed for other more essential purposes.

Expenditure on the provision of office blocks and houses and on the expansion of water and sewerage services in the places I have mentioned and other provincial centres is economically justifiable even if there were not a social need to revitalise those areas. The office blocks are necessary to enable the Departments concerned to function and their provision in these places will leave so much less scope for undesirable investment in the Dublin area. The houses, will, of course, make a corresponding number available to help in the solution of the Dublin housing problem and whatever expansion of water, sewerage and road services is necessary is likely to cost much less than in Dublin. These initial steps towards decentralisation are taken not merely to help in the development of other areas but to help to prevent Dublin becoming an unpleasant place to live in and an incubus on the country's economy.

Similarly, the development and promotion of regional industrial growth centres is justifiable not only because of the desirability of preventing completely lopsided development, but also because it is cheaper to provide the essential services for this development in smaller areas than in Dublin. Regional planning studies have been completed in the Dublin and Limerick regions and are proceeding in the other seven regions into which the country has been divided. The completion of these studies is an urgent matter because when they are all available it is on the basis of these studies that decisions with regard to centres in the different regions will be made.

Another thing that came in for some unjustifiable criticism was the question of regional water supply schemes and sewerage schemes. Again, I should like to start by quoting the nation cannot afford. The huge amount of capital that would be neces-ported at column 1402, volume 231, of the Official Report of 5th December, 1967.

Mr. S. Dunne

These are delaying tactics.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister for Education has not finished with his deputation yet.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Fitzpatrick said:

I think it was in 1959 that the Department of Local Government asked local authorities to speed up their piped water schemes in rural areas. The net result was that all the county councils employed consultants and planners and had long discussions at county council meetings, with big headlines in the local papers.

Deputy Fitzpatrick went on to point out that the cost of the schemes so planned amounted to £36 million and he alleged that because it was not possible to do all this work in one year, all this planning was wasted. Of course that is nonsense. The sensible approach is obviously that which has been adopted, namely, to pick out the most urgent sections of the scheme and select the schemes that will be of the greatest advantage to the community as a whole and to establish an order of priority.

Deputy Treacy also referred to this matter and at column 1418 of the same volume he said:

I earnestly appeal to him to reconsider his attitude in this regard.

I wonder can Deputy Treacy be really serious when he describes as a personal attitude the necessary tailoring of the programme of regional water supply schemes to the amount of capital it is possible for the community to provide? Does he honestly think that all that is necessary to produce money is the will to produce it? Does he expect people to believe this even after the Coalition performance which arose directly from the Government's irresponsible neglect of the fundamental necessity to ensure that the community was able to provide the finance for the State's current and capital programme? The fact is that capacity to provide capital is proportional to the national income and therefore it depends on the state of the economy. It should be obvious then that economic undertakings cannot be starved of capital necessary for development without producing the type of disaster that the Parties opposite produced when they gaily dissipated the resources left to them by Fianna Fáil and when they went as near as possible to wrecking the country's finances irretrievably. I repeat what I said when dealing with housing that the most foolish thing that could be done by anyone who really wants to improve social conditions would be to devote all the capital it was possible to come by to social purposes only and thereby make it impossible to continue the programme.

There is one advantage in all the changes that Deputy Dillon has made during his career, that is, he supplies us with an inexhaustible stock of quotations on practically every subject. In regard to this dispute between Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Treacy as to when the regional water supply schemes started—Deputy Fitzpatrick agrees that they started in 1959 but Deputy Treacy maintains that they were there until this Government came into office——

Mr. S. Dunne

Regional water supply schemes go back 30 years. Tell us about North County Dublin regional water supply scheme.

Mr. Boland

I will tell you about it.

Mr. S. Dunne

And how many times you have dangled it before the people.

Mr. Boland

The North County Dublin regional water supply scheme is in progress.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy will no longer have this available to him as a gimmick. He wants to get out of County Dublin as quickly as he can. The North Dublin regional water scheme is one of the schemes that is proceeding. The pipes are being laid and the work being done and Deputy Dunne has constituents he wants to get out of serving and they can see this work going on.

Mr. James Tully

The pipes are not being laid because they were the wrong size. They are only 18 inch pipes.

Mr. S. Dunne

The Minister will not be able to find any nest for himself in the single-seat constituency.

Mr. Boland

Then why does the Deputy not vote for it? I know Deputy Dunne wants the single seat constituency. He is in favour of it.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. S. Dunne

I beat the Minister twice and will again, with God's help. The Minister is making his valedictory speech here today and he should do it with some degree of dignity.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Boland

I want to quote Deputy Dillon. Speaking on 22nd November, 1962, at column 1641 of volume 197, he said:

I am very much troubled about this whole question of piped water supply. I heard a Deputy from Kerry announce today that for a restricted area in Kerry a piped water supply had been formulated, the capital cost of which was £2,500,000. He went on to say that the rates are already almost £3 in the £ and he foresaw some difficulty in accepting this proposal. I am, I am quite convinced, as radical as any Deputy, but surely there is some sanity left amongst us. Does anybody who knows rural Ireland, and the way the houses are situated there seriously believe that an effective way of bringing water supplies to the houses of rural Ireland is by laying mains along the main road?

He went on to say:

If we are to build water mains along every main road in Ireland, we will leave a blister on the rates, a blister of very formidable dimensions.

Further on in the same column, he said:

Surely we can get a sane approach to this whole business... Outside of Bedlam, would anybody propose to lay down on all the roads in all these areas water mains which, according to the calculations of the Deputy from Kerry, are liable to involve a capital cost of £2,500,000 for one very relatively small area covering an area of 25 miles around the shortage of supply?

I think that in 1962 Deputy Dillon was the current Leader of the Party to which I think he still belongs and I think we could say that his attitude to regional water supplies at that time fairly represented the Opposition attitude to the scheme when it was getting under way originally. This is the scheme about which they now pretend to be so enthusiastic.

Mr. S. Dunne

What year did you say?

Mr. Boland

1962. He may have just gone. No—he was there then.

Mr. S. Dunne

He might as well have been paraded in the by-election of 1947.

Mr. Boland

At that time in 1962 Deputy Dillon was Leader of the Fine Gael Party and I do not think he displayed any great enthusiasm for this scheme.

Mr. S. Dunne

The North Dublin regional water scheme was talked of in the by-election of 1947, 21 years ago, and we have yet to see it. I think it was first mentioned in 1939.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Boland

I want to show the Opposition that when the scheme was started the Opposition opposed it very vigorously as indicated in the quotations from Deputy Dillon.

Mr. S. Dunne

It started at the time of the Munich Agreement, in 1938. That was the first mention of it.

Mr. Boland

I am sure Deputy Dillon would appreciate Deputy Dunne's attempt to come to his rescue.

Mr. S. Dunne

He does not need anybody to come to his rescue.

Mr. Boland

Outside of bedlam, said the man whom Deputy Dunne is trying to defend, would anyone consider such a scheme? Deputy Treacy, speaking on this year's Estimate, alleged there was no money available for water or sewerage. He said these schemes were grinding to a halt, that there was a complete close down on water and sewerage. It might be better to ignore a speaker who just says what suits him, whether true or not, but it might do Deputy Treacy some good if I show him just how foolish his statement was. I have a list of the schemes which have been authorised this year—water and sewerage schemes which were released in the current year. It is a long list. The total value of the schemes is £3.7 million. In addition to these water schemes, there are miscellaneous projects to a value of £1.4 million which have been sanctioned for the same period. These include fire brigades, sanitary conveniences, libraries, bridges, abattoirs and so on. To my mind, they involve a considerable amount of money. Needless to say, I should like to have been able to provide more.

The list is a long one but the only way to nail the type of misstatement which has been made in relation to the facts is to give the facts. For that reason, I propose to read out the list for the benefit of Deputy Treacy. Deputy Treacy particularly asked me to give an answer to this matter and because Deputy Treacy is, as far as I know, the official spokesman for his Party on this matter, I think I should comply with his request, particularly because he alleges that there has been no money for these schemes this year. Contrary to what he says, this is a long list of schemes authorised this year, the total value of which is £3.7 million. I shall now read the list:

Carlow Urban District Council: Carlow sewerage improvement scheme, £55,000; Cavan County Council: Ballyjamesduff water supply extension, Swanlinbar water supply extension, £5,250; Clare County Council: Feakle installation of chlorinator, Newmarket-on-Fergus water supply extension, Broadford water supply extension, Clarecastle water supply extension and sewerage extension, Loughvella/Gallows and Gaurus water supply extensions, Parteen water supply and sewerage schemes, Scariff water supply, filtration plant, £71,000; Kilmihill sewerage extension, £340; Ballyvaughan sewerage scheme, £22,895; Whitegate water supply scheme, £20,730; Cork County Council (North): Cecilstown sewerage scheme, Kildinan water supply scheme, Macroney water supply scheme, Macroney water water supply scheme, Lyre water supply scheme, Monee/Knockbrack water supply scheme, Ballymagooly extensions, £50,000; Fermoy sewerage extension, £12,000; Fermoy water supply extension, £12,250; Shanballymore sewerage scheme £12,000; Cork Road, Mallow, sewerage scheme, £10,000; Mitchelstown sewerage extension, £6,000; Mallow Urban District Council: Quarterstown sewerage scheme, £4,750; scavenging truck, £1,660.

Cork County Council (South): Rylane and Ballinagree and Coolea sewerage schemes, £36,200; Mallow Road, Rathpeacon, extension, £3,765; Rochestown Road interceptor sewer, £27,000; Ballincollig regional extensions, £4,540; Whitegate and Upper Aghada sewerage scheme, £26,700; Kinsale UDC. sewerage extension to factory, £2,300; Midleton UDC: water supply improvements scheme £120,739; Cork Corporation: trunk main to city centre, £70,000.

Cork County Council (West): Drinagh water supply extension, £2,710; Crookhaven water supply scheme and sewerage scheme, £58,000; Goleen sewerage scheme and Dunmanway water supply improvements scheme, £67,000.

Donegal County Council: Rosses regional water supply augmentation scheme and installation of booster pump at Gweedore, £2,750; Donegal water supply extensions, £6,800; Carndonagh water supply extension and sewerage extensions, £2,650; Ballyshannon water supply extension, £560; Killybegs water supply improvement scheme, £38,500; Carrigart/Creeslough/ Kilmacrennan sewerage scheme, £54,000; Dunfanaghy/Creeslough extension, £14,000; water main to industrial estate at Derrybeg, £1,350; percolating filters at Raphoe disposal works, £1,119.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The amount of civil servants' time that must have been wasted composing this rubbish——

Mr. Boland

This is not rubbish. It is water and sewerage.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am talking of the amount of time taken up during the past two days giving us this rubbish and the time wasted——

Mr. Boland

Deputy Treacy specifically asked me to give him this information.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The waste of civil servants' time composing this rubbish would have built a house or two.

Mr. Boland

Deputy Treacy is, as far as I know, the official spokesman for his Party. He asked me for this information. He said there was no money at all. I propose to give Deputy Treacy the information he asked for. After all, it was on 5th December, 1967, that he asked to have this information furnished.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): If he had asked for it by way of Parliamentary Question, he would have been told it would be circulated with the Official Report.

Mr. Boland

I propose to give it to him.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): On a point of order, I understand there is a Standing Order that it is not in order for a Deputy to read extensively from a document. This could go on for a week. The Minister is not in order, I suggest.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In this instance the Minister is giving detailed information and he is entitled to do so.

Mr. S. Dunne

Ministers can do what they like, in other words, and Deputies can do what they are told.

Mr. Boland

The list continues:

Dublin Corporation:	£
Tolka Valley Sewer	66,000
Kilbarrack Foul Sewer	14,500
Pembroke Main Drainage and Pumping Station at RDS	45,000
Wad River Drainage Scheme	95,000
Dublin County Council:
Balgaddy/Rowlagh Extension	13,300
Dardistown/Toberbunny Extension
Nangor Road/Milltown Clondalkin Extension
Sewer and Water Facilities at Windmill Lands, Swords	5,792
Sewer and Water Facilities at Seamount Road
Brittas Water Supply Scheme	6,838
North Dublin Regional Water Supply Scheme:
Contract 5—Trunk Main from Ballycoolan to Hedgestown	510,000
Contract 6—Jordonstown Reservoir	60,700
Contract 8—Water Mains in Balbriggan
Rush and Skerries Area	140,300
Contract 9—Thomastown Reservoir	51,870
Contract 12A—Mulhuddard/Strawberry Beds	41,500
Area Clonsilla
Dodder Valley	282,000
Drainage Scheme, Stages 1 and 2

Mr. S. Dunne

Are all those to begin this year?

Mr. Boland

Yes. Then:

	£
Clondalkin Sewerage Scheme (9th Lock)	38,000
Kingswood Water Supply Scheme	5,194
Galway County Council:
Knocknacarra Sewerage	65,250
Carraroe Water Scheme	102,000
Lettermore/Tiernee Interconnection	5,900

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Boland

We were in Galway County Council.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I would just like to point out that there is only one Fine Gael man in the Opposition.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): There is one too many for the nonsense that is going on.

Mr. Boland

As I said we were in Galway County Council.

	£
Clifden Water Supply Improvement Scheme	37,08
Galway Corporation:
Galway Main Drainage—
Section I	33,250
Galway Main Drainage—
Section III	123,000

Mr. Molloy

On behalf of the people of Galway, we are very grateful to the Minister for what he is doing.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): You will be back again. If I have to listen to this nonsense, you will have to listen to it.

Mr. Boland

The people who are opposing this do not want to know about it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): They will change the Standing Orders to reduce the number required for a House.

Mr. Boland

Next comes:

	£
Kerry County Council:
Waterville Sewerage Extension	2,450
Castlegregory Water Supply Extension	720
Killorglin Sewerage Extension	550
Glenderry Water Supply Extension	1,290

Mr. S. Dunne

I want to raise a point of order. I think this really has gone too far and the Chair should take serious notice of this gross abuse of Standing Orders. This is a definite abuse of Standing Orders.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I want to draw the attention of the Chair to the absence of a House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is a House. Deputy Dunne, on a point of order.

Mr. S. Dunne

I was making the point that the Standing Orders of the House provide specifically that the time of the House will not be wasted by the unnecessary reading of lengthy documents which can be made available otherwise. The Minister is, I suggest, with great respect to the Chair, abusing the privileges and rights of the House by taking up so much time reciting facts and figures which could be supplied by him by documentary means. He is taking up the time of the House for some private purpose of his own or his Party, probably relating to the robbing of the people of their electoral rights. I am objecting to that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. The Chair has no control over how the Minister makes his statement. The Minister says it is detailed information and this kind of detailed information he is entitled to read from a document.

Mr. Boland

I rather felt that some of the Opposition might not like to hear the statements that have been made by them being so definitely contradicted. I would like to convince Deputy Dunne that his own Party's spokesman on local government matters requested this information. That is why I am giving those lists. It is simply a matter of courtesy.

Mr. S. Dunne

The Minister is wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Boland

At column 1415 of Volume 231, No. 9, of the Official Report, Deputy Treacy is reported as saying:

..., this Government and this Minister have brought water schemes and sewerage schemes to a grinding halt during recent years——

Mr. S. Dunne

Could he say a truer word about it?

Mr. Boland

——

this Government and this Minister have brought water schemes and sewerage schemes to a grinding halt during recent years.

I submit, without fear of contradiction, in respect of sanitary services, piped water and the like, no progress whatsoever has been made in the past few years. The situation with most local authorities has been absolutely static. All our hopes for the extension of piped water and the provision of sanitary facilities have been completely disillusioned and come to a grinding halt because of the inability of the Minister's Department to provide the necessary money.

Mr. S. Dunne

Hear, hear.

Mr. Boland

At column 1419, Deputy Treacy said:

The dead hand of the Department of Local Government has fallen flat on all local authorities in respect of water. Surely this is a sign of bankruptcy? No rational Government, having regard to the intrinsic worth of piped water for the home, the farm and industry, would consciously hold up or withdraw moneys or frustrate the efforts of local authorities to proceed with these essential services. If there is an answer to it, let us have it when the Minister is replying.

What I am doing now, and what is annoying Deputy Dunne and Deputy Fitzpatrick, is that I am showing that the dead hand of the Department of Local Government has not fallen flat on all local authorities in respect of water and sewerage schemes.

Mr. P. Brennan

They do not want to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Boland

I am giving the answer which Deputy Treacy asked for.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The miserable amount which Cavan got is something to be proud of.

Mr. Boland

I got as far as Kerry County Council.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): That is the letter “K”.

Mr. Boland

It is a local authority. Deputy Treacy alleges that the dead hand of the Department of Local Government has fallen flat in respect of water supply and sanitary schemes on all local authorities. The list continues:

KERRY COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Waterville Sewerage extension	2,450
Castlegregory Water Supply extension	720
Killorglin sewerage extension	550
Glenderry water supply extension	1,290
Tralee water supply extension	2,130
Castleisland water supply extension	600
Coomeenole water supply	3,850
Milltown water supply extension	1,600
Gortamullin water supply and sewerage extension	550
Castlecove Water supply scheme	19,200
Abbeydorney/Kilflynn water supply extension	2,400
Dungeagan/Ballinaskelligs Sewerage extension	250

The list includes other things such as the Valentia Bridge but I am dealing only with water supply and sewerage schemes.

	£
Listowel Urban District Council:improvement sewerage:Tay
Lane and Convent Street	600

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Surely these are things to come? Is this money that has been spent last year?

Mr. Boland

Deputy Fitzpatrick will not listen. I told Deputy Fitzpatrick we would get through this a lot quicker if we had not to repeat the information for Deputies who will not listen.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister mentioned Valentia Bridge. That aroused my curiosity.

Mr. Boland

These were schemes authorised to go ahead this year. This is the answer to Deputy Treacy's allegation that all water and all sewerage schemes have come to a grinding halt and that the dead hand of the Department of Local Government has fallen flat on all local authorities with regard to water and sewerage. I should have finished this long ago but Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Dunne, for some reason, want to have this prolonged.

Mr. S. Dunne

When did Deputy Treacy ask the question?

Mr. Boland

On 5th December, 1967.

Mr. S. Dunne

It is as a result of his question that the Minister is doing this work this year. Deputy Treacy put the heat on the Minister and he is doing the work. If Deputy Treacy had not asked the Minister the question, not a damn tap would be done. The Minister would not even sign the documents, were it not that Deputy Treacy exposed him here in the House and he had to try to cover himself.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Boland

It seems certain that Deputy Dunne and Deputy Fitzpatrick are determined that I shall not finish this matter this week. If Deputy Dunne wants it, I can give him next week, the dates on which these were sanctioned which will show that it was not done as a result of Deputy Treacy's question.

Mr. S. Dunne

The Minister will certainly finish this year.

Mr. Boland

Yes, but next week, by the look of things, because Deputy Dunne is determined——

Mr. S. Dunne

It is the Minister's valedictory speech. He is saying "dayday" to it.

Mr. Geoghegan

Is Deputy Dunne afraid to hear the truth?

Mr. Boland

We go on now to Kildare County Council. The relevant particulars are as follows:

KILDARE COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Geraldine/Russellstown, Athy Water Supply scheme	2,100
Bennettsbridge Water Supply scheme	1,365
Walshestown water supply extension	1,300
Monasterevan water supply improvement	957
Roseberry sewerage scheme	9,500
Johnstown sewerage scheme	20,500
Newbridge Trunk Sewer	35,000
Brownstown/Maddenstown Sewerage scheme	43,500
Monasterevan sewerage extension	17,000
Kilberry sewerage scheme	14,580
Prosperous sewerage scheme	27,50

NAAS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

	£
Naas Sewerage extension	19,500

Next comes Kilkenny County Council, the relevant particulars of which are as follows:

KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Grange Road water supply extensions	800
New Orchard water supply extensions	4,905
Freshford Improvements	5,950
Ballyragget extensions	6,533
Emil Village water supply extensions	2,100
Thomastown water supply extensions	760
Thomastown water and sewerage extensions	6,036
Piltown/Fiddown water supply extension	150

KILKENNY CORPORATION.

	£
Irishtown and O'Loughlin Road sewerage extensions	7,000

I come now to Laois County Council, the relevant particulars of which are as follows:

LAOIS COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Portlaoise water supply improvement scheme	9,000
Portarlington sewerage extension	8,600
Portlaoise sewerage improvements	23,400

For Leitrim County Council, the relevant particulars are:

LEITRIM COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Dromahaire sewerage scheme	13,000
Tullaghan sewerage scheme	14,500

Now I come to deal with Limerick.

LIMERICK CORPORATION.

	£
Water supply at Waller's Well	1,786

LIMERICK COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Pallasgreen Water Supply Extension	5,181
Castletroy Sewerage scheme	95,000
Oola Water Supply scheme	32,000
Oola sewerage scheme	35,000

For Longford, the relevant particulars are:

LONGFORD COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Longford/Newtownforbes/Drumlish extension
Fermoyle Pump extensions	12,000
Kenagh extensions
Newtowncashel/Elfeet extensions	14,500

For Mayo County Council, the relevant particulars are:

MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Ballycastle Water Supply extension	3,000
Various water supply extensions	15,500
Newport sewerage scheme	39,600

Mr. S. Dunne

One would not hear this type of thing at a cumann meeting.

Mr. Boland

It would take a lot of cumann meetings to cover the amount of water and sewerage schemes all over the country: it would take a long time.

Mr. P. Brennan

They asked for it.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Boland

Westport Urban District Council—Westport sewerage scheme £26,500. Then follows:

MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Archdeaconry, Moynalty Road water supply extension	875
Water supply to Shine's House	620

TRIM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

	£
Trim water supply improvement scheme (Contracts 3 and 4)	28,000

Mr. James Tully

That is eleven years ago.

Mr. Boland

The next is:

MONAGHAN COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Inniskeen water supply	9,400

CASTLEBLAYNEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

	£
Sewerage scheme—Muckno St	10,850

OFFALY COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Ferbane water supply extension	3,380
Rhode water supply extension	5,356
Ferbane sewerage extension	5,830
Birr Street, Kilcormac sewer extension	420
Clara water supply scheme	54,000
Clara sewerage scheme	49,300

TULLAMORE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

	£
Tullamore water supply scheme	42,000
,, sewerage scheme	64,271

ROSCOMMON COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Castlerea sewerage extension	6,500
Ballaghaderreen sewerage extension	2,000
Frenchpark water supply extension	800
Athlone water supply extension	3,500
Arigna water supply extension	4,620
Ardcarne/Cootehill water supply extension	160
Upper and Lower Rover, Arigna water supply extension	9,800
Boyle water supply improvement scheme	15,000
Roscommon sewerage extension	450
Rooskey sewerage scheme	22,000
Ballinlough Reg. water supply extension	1,774

SLIGO COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Springfield water supply extension	800
Lough Salt water supply extensions	4,400
Strandhill water supply extension	450
North Sligo Regional water supply scheme (Section 3, Part one)	10,000
Easkey sewerage scheme	17,800
Ballymote water extension	2,340

SLIGO BOROUGH COUNCIL.

	£
Sligo Borough water improvement scheme (Stages 1 and 2)	63,000

TIPPERARY (N.R.) COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Roscrea sewerage extensions	22,000
Newport water supply extensions	2,550
Kilcommon water supply scheme	3,000
Templetuohy water supply extension	1,600

THURLES URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

	£
Garryvicheleen sewerage extension	3,375

TEMPLEMORE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL

	£
Richmond Road water and sewer extensions	11,500

NENAGH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

	£
St. Conlan's Road sewer extension	33,596

TIPPERARY (S.R.) COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Killenaule Sewerage scheme	31,500
Limerick Junction and Monard water supply extension	13,868
Ballinaclough water supply extension	550

CARRICK-ON-SUIR URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

	£
Carrickbeg sewerage scheme	29,800

CLONMEL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

	£
Springfield Road water supply extension	940

CASHEL URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

	£
Cashel water supply extension	220
Cashel water supply improvements	350

WATERFORD CORPORATION.

	£
Kilbarry Cross water supply extension	1,000
Development of Whitfield Auxiliary Source	4,000
Ballinaneethagh water supply extensions	1,000

DUNGARVAN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

	£
Abbeyside-Friar's Walk sewerage scheme	15,000
Knockateemoe water supply extension	1,620

WESTMEATH COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Delvin water supply extension	1,250

NEW ROSS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

	£
New Ross sewerage extension	1,398
Watermain Renewal at Town Hall	783
Water supply improvement scheme	4,053

The next deals with swimming pools but you do not want to know about swimming pools. The next is Wicklow:

WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL.

	£
Ennis Lane water supply extension	2,744
“The Murrough” water supply extension	3,500

ARKLOW URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

	£
Outfall Sewer	5,000

That is the list of water supply and sewerage schemes which have been sanctioned this year.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Have you any for Wicklow at all?

Mr. Boland

This goes as far as 31st December.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Is Wicklow completely excluded?

Mr. Boland

No; this is up to 31st December.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): There will be something in the next few weeks.

Mr. Boland

This was rather a long list and I think it could safely be said to have given the lie to Deputy Treacy's allegation that these schemes have come to a grinding halt.

Mr. James Tully

They have only been sanctioned since Deputy Treacy spoke in this House.

Mr. Boland

I offered to give Deputy Dunne the dates next week.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister will never finish until the Minister for Education is finished. When he is finished the Minister for Local Government will say "O.K."

Mr. S. Dunne

He has been rambling away for the whole morning.

Mr. Boland

If Deputy Tully is interested in the dates, as Deputy Dunne is, he can get them. I will give them to him next week. These dates will show they were not sanctioned since Deputy Treacy asked the question.

Mr. James Tully

Two were sanctioned since Christmas.

Mr. Boland

It is continuous progress. They are going on all the time. I will give you the dates of them all. You will see they were not done since Deputy Treacy asked the question. The amount of £3.7 million, I admit is only a comparatively small proportion of the total value of these schemes which has been submitted which is, as Deputies are aware, £36 million.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Cavan got only £5,000.

Mr. Boland

This has to be taken in the context that the Government found it possible this year to acquire for capital purposes from the community in one way or another £109 million. Out of that they found it possible to allocate to the Department of Local Government £29 million. The country is just not in a position to do all these schemes together. As I said, £3.7 million of works have been authorised this financial year as far as 31st December, 1967. I do not think this is as Deputy Treacy says, "no money".

Mr. James Tully

Is it to 31st of March the Minister is talking about?

Mr. Boland

That is the end of of the financial year.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister said 31st December.

Mr. Boland

That is what I said and what I meant. This is the amount authorised in the past year up to 31st December, 1967. If Deputy Tully wants to get the full amount authorised at the end of the financial year, he cannot get it until the end of the financial year at 31st March.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister knows the amount he has authorised?

Mr. Boland

The amount I have authorised so far. But other schemes may be authorised between now and 31st March.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Will you sanction a few for Cavan?

Mr. Boland

What I have given you is the cost of the schemes that have been authorised this year. But that money will not all be spent in this year. That is a completely different thing. But £3.7 million of works have been authorised. Some of them may be completed in this financial year, some of the smaller ones; some may be completed in the next financial year, and some may go on for longer. The north Dublin regional water scheme, for instance, will go on for quite some time.

Mr. James Tully

If they do not get pipes, it will not be done.

Mr. Boland

It is proceeding satisfactorily. All the money will not be spent in the one year. It is not physically possible for contractors to do all the work in one year. The total amount of money which will actually be spent on sanitary services in this year is £3.5 million. That will be spent in the following way. The financing of further work on schemes already in progress at the beginning of the year will take up £2 million. These new schemes I have mentioned to Deputies will, it is expected, only account for £.7 million in the current financial year. But there are miscellaneous services projects which were not specifically referred to and I did not give Deputies detailed information with regard to those. We expect approximately £800,000 will be spent on those schemes in this year, some of which have been started this year and some of which have not.

This programme of regional water supply is a programme started, as Deputy Fitzpatrick admitted, by the Fianna Fáil Government. Deputy Treacy tried to convey that it was stopped by the Fianna Fáil Government. Because we are continuing to take care of the country's economy, the result is that the capacity of the country to finance this type of improvement will increase. This reversal of the Opposition's previous attitude and their sudden interest in and concern for the extension of regional water schemes is a little bit disconcerting. At the same time, it is a welcome conversion to the proposal to provide these improvements on an increasing scale for the people of the countryside. Regional water schemes already constructed or in course of construction amount to approximately £9 million. That is a considerable effort for the community in view of the fact that we also have such urgent problems as the housing problem to which a total of £25 million capital is being allocated in this year.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Boland

As I said, the amount of money allocated to new schemes in one year is not equivalent to the amount of the money that would be spent on these schemes in one year. That applies to housing, to water schemes, sewerage schemes and to expenditure on the roads. It is, in fact, possible for the total expenditure in any year to increase without there being any increase in the amount of the value of the new schemes that are authorised to start. As I pointed out when I was opening the debate, the cost of regional schemes either already constructed or in the course of construction amounted to approximately £9 million. I also said at that time that it would be unrealistic to expect that a programme of this magnitude could be undertaken in simultaneous operations having regard to all the other demands on available capital resources. I think it was reasonable to expect Deputies to accept that.

I could also have pointed out that such an amount of work could be carried out only by diverting contractors and men from the important work of housebuilding. Although the building and construction industry has been revived after the Coalition disaster, its capacity is not unlimited, and quite apart from the question of finance, there is a limit to the amount of work which it is physically possible to undertake at the same time. In the circumstances of £36 million worth of plans being submitted, I think I did the obviously sensible thing in asking the county councils to review their regional schemes so as to identify the more urgent schemes or sections of schemes in order that these can proceed to the construction stage as early as possible having regard to the availability of capital. I am satisfied that the Government have given every evidence that the importance of their overall programme for the provision of adequate supplies of piped water for rural areas is fully appreciated.

This programme, adopted, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said in 1959 was, as he will probably remember, a three-pronged one under which it was intended that the sanitary authorities and private enterprise would share in the work. The programme was that where appropriate sanitary authorities would provide piped water on a regional basis to serve large areas, while at the same time groups of neighbours would combine to provide themselves with piped water with the aid of the substantial grants that are available from my Department and from the local authorities; and that, finally, where appropriate, where neither of these other schemes were appropriate, individuals would provide their own piped water services, again with the aid of State and local grants.

Mr. Crowley

I wonder why it is there is no member of the Labour Party in to hear all this information they were seeking so strenuously.

Mr. Boland

No doubt when Deputy Treacy gets time he will digest it. Contrary to the wailing of Deputy Fitzpatrick, Deputy Treacy and their colleagues, there has been considerable progress under all these three schemes. As I have indicated already, regional schemes have been constructed or are under construction, at a total cost of £9 million, while the number of grants to groups or individuals has risen from approximately 900 in 1959, when this programme was embarked on, to almost 6,000 in 1966. I think that shows substantial progress. We have not reached the end of the programme, and, just like other aspects of Local Government, it probably will be some time before we can complete the programme in regard to extending water supplies. However, I am satisfied that we can show considerable improvement in regard to all these things.

The question of planning and planning appeals was raised on this Estimate. It was raised again yesterday on a Private Members' Bill, and was raised on the Taoiseach's Estimate before the Adjournment. I know that there is little hope of getting Opposition Deputies to take a more responsible attitude, but I want to point out again that the Planning Act does not abolish the right of private property which is guaranteed by the Constitution; it merely delimits it, as is permitted by the Constitution when the common good requires that this be done.

I assert, therefore, that it is not valid to assume, as is assumed by these people, who without any knowledge of the issues involved, pontificate on planning problems which have not been decided to their liking, that the only thing to be taken into consideration is the real or imagined amenity that they enjoy from the undeveloped state of somebody else's property. It is an important consideration, but it is not the only consideration. I believe I must consider whether the loss of an amenity of one kind or another outweighs the other considerations to such an extent as to justify prohibiting the owner of the property from utilising the property in the manner he desires. I fully realise that there are people who become infuriated because other aspects than the one that interests them are taken into account, but this cannot be helped.

So far as I am concerned, I have tried to take account of these two principles which are involved, and I intend to continue to do so in making my decisions. I have available to me the best technical advice obtainable, and while I do not claim to be infallible, I have no qualms of conscience regarding any decisions I have made.

I quoted some figures in regard to town planning appeals when I spoke on the Taoiseach's Estimate, and I think it is necessary to mention them again here. During the period from 1st April, 1966, to 31st March, 1967, 1,298 appeals were disposed of. Of these, 237 were allowed; 339 were allowed subject to conditions; 420 were refused; and 302 were withdrawn. When I say that 237 were allowed, and so on, I want to point out that the term "allowed" means that the permission that was sought was granted; that the term "refused" means that the permission that was sought was refused. Therefore, it is not possible to say in how many of these cases the decision of the planning authorities was altered, since these cases could occur under either heading.

Some appeals would be made by third parties against permission that planning authorities have granted, whereas other appeals would be made by the people who put forward the proposition to the planning authority and whose proposition had been turned down by the planning authority. Obviously, then, some of the cases in which the permission was granted would be cases in which third party appeals against decisions of the planning authority were rejected, or in which the decisions of the planning authority were upheld, while some of those who are listed under the heading of being refused would be cases in which such appeals by third parties against permission granted by planning authorities were upheld.

In any case, it is a fact that in quite a number of cases decisions made by planning authorities are altered in one way or another on appeal. As I said before, this obviously gives scope for the type of allegation certain opposition Deputies love to make. Deputy Cluskey, however, is not satisfied to confine himself to cases that have, in fact, been decided by way of appeal. He has to resort to invention in order to satisfy his desire to make irresponsible allegations, and this deliberate falsehood has been repeated by certain newspapers, and by certain television critics.

As reported at column 1609, volume 231 of the Official Report of 6th December, 1967, Deputy Cluskey said:

In Lower Mount Street and also in East James Street, Dublin, property has been acquired by a company known as Dunkerrin Estates and they have acquired several houses which were structurally quite sound and were not classified by the health authority as unfit for human habitation. People had lived in these houses for a long time and they had been kept by the previous owners in reasonably good repair until this company acquired them to develop office blocks. They acquired the property, having received permission for its redevelopment from the Department. As a result, 11 families in Mount Street alone have been rendered homeless.

Now this statement, as no one knows better than Deputy Cluskey, is completely and absolutely false. It is typical of the whole Opposition attitude, and of the attitude of certain dishonest journals, and of certain television critics who are employed, apparently, for this purpose. This attitude is a deliberate attempt to get the public to believe that all planning applications are decided by me, when they know that only a small percentage ever come before me or my Department. Only about seven per cent of all planning applications ever come before me, and it is incorrect and untrue for people to allege that the Minister for Local Government has any general right to override decisions of planning authorities, as has been alleged by a certain person on RTE in the recent past.

The facts in regard to this particular case, which Deputy Cluskey describes as a company which acquired property having received permission for its redevelopment from the Department, the facts are that on 25th August, 1965, outline permission was given by the planning authority, which is Dublin Corporation, of which body Deputy Cluskey is an illustrious and, I have no doubt, active member. Permission was given on 25th August, 1965, for the office block, and no appeal was made to the Minister against that permission. Therefore, contrary to what Deputy Cluskey says, no such permission was given by the Minister. In fact, since Deputy Cluskey is a member of Dublin Corporation, the planning authority. and raised no objection, it would be much more accurate to say, that permission was given by Deputy Cluskey than to say it was given by me. Certainly, he was a party to the granting of permission, whereas I had no hand, act or part in it. It is a malicious falsehood then to say I had, as is being said by Deputy Cluskey and other people who have access to means of communication.

Subsequent to the granting of permission for this office block, which I had no opportunity to prevent if I wanted to, on 26th February, 1966, aproval was given, by Dublin Corporation again, to detailed plans for the proposed office block. An appeal against that approval of the detailed plans was lodged on 9th March, 1966, not by Deputy Cluskey, naturally, since he was a party to granting the permission. The grounds of the appeal were purely technical points with regard to light and so on affecting adjoining houses. I rejected this appeal on its merits.

The principle had already been settled by the outline permission given by the corporation which could not be altered by me. I had no power at any time to interfere with that permission. The decision had been made and at no stage was it objected to or appealed. In fact, not even when the appeal on the actual structure itself was made, was it brought to my notice that there was any question of families being displaced. I was not entitled on this appeal against the details of the structure to rule out the proposal in principle, because outline permission had already been granted and was not appealed to the Minister by anyone, nor was it looked upon as being in the least objectionable by any member of Dublin Corporation, including Councillor Deputy Cluskey.

So the proposal to replace these homes in Lower Mount Street and in East James Street by an office block never at any time came within my jurisdiction, but it did come within Deputy Cluskey's justification and at the relevant time he concurred in the decision of the planning authority. He makes this completely incorrect statement in order to try to shift his responsibility on to me. I should also say that the area in question is zoned for office development, again by the planning authority of which Deputy Cluskey is a member, and not by me.

Another indication of the irresponsible manner in which Opposition Deputies deal with this question of planning is what Deputy Hogan had to say with regard to the proposal——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Deputy Cluskey dealt with another one yesterday. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of that.

Mr. James Tully

Is the Minister saying that the Corporation zoned the area for local authority housing?

Mr. Boland

I said it is zoned as an area for office development by the planning authority. Deputy Hogan had some criticism to pass with regard to my decision in relation to an appeal against permission granted by the planning authority for the erection of an hotel in close proximity to the Rock of Cashel. My decision in this case apparently did not meet with Deputy Hogan's approval, and I must say I can understand that possibly it might not. I think it did not meet with the approval of the people of Cashel generally, of all political persuasions, I might say. There was a considerable amount of local pressure to have this allowed. I agree that in this case there were strong arguments for and against the proposal, and although the proposal appeared quite simple to the people of Cashel and to the public representatives, and although it appeared quite simple, although with different aspects, to bodies like Bord Fáilte and An Taisce, I found it quite a difficult case to decide.

Deputy Hogan made the allegation that this case was decided in order to suit the interests of an existing hotelier in the town of Cashel. This he knows is not true. He omitted to refer to the fact that Bord Fáilte and An Taisce were parties to the objection to the proposal and this has been generally ignored by those who like to make irresponsible allegations in connection with these matters. My own opinion was that this was a typical case in which I would be condemned with bell, book and candle if I had allowed the proposal and concurred in the decision of the planning authorities. The same people who knew from newspaper reports of all the political pressure which it was attempted to exert on me by every political Party and by Cashel urban district council to allow this proposal and who were poised gleefully waiting to pounce when the decision which they so confidently expected was made so that they could swoop in with allegations they had already prepared and held in cold storage, withheld any comment whatever when they heard the result, which was disappointing to them, that the proposal was disallowed.

They were not really interested in the planning aspect of this thing; their only real interest is the scope that the decisions made in these matters provide for their slanderous allegations. These people never refer to cases like this because they cannot manipulate them to promote the type of allegation which is their stock in trade and, therefore, it is of no interest to them. Their interest disappeared once this particular proposal was turned down.

This was not an easy case to decide. Although people on both sides took different views, they all thought it was a very simple case. In my opinion, it was not a case of black and white. I went down to the site myself and considered the matter for some time before I made up my mind. The considerations of the importance of the proposal to the economy of the town of Cashel which Deputy Hogan mentioned were, in my opinion and, contrary to what the self-appointed pundits think, important ones and not to be lightly brushed aside. I did not brush them aside: I considered them and finally decided, with certain qualms, I agree, that even the comparatively slight interference the proposal would cause to the Rock of Cashel as a spectacle was not acceptable. I want to make it clear that the fact is that while I agree in this case with the views of bodies like Bord Fáilte and An Taisce, my agreement with their views is not automatic. I do not think that there is no other aspect to be considered in these matters than the aspect with which they are naturally concerned. I agree that their views are relevant and should be considered but they are not the only things to be considered and I believe that I am required to consider all other aspects.

The suggestion made in this case by Deputy Hogan, that it was the interest of the existing hotelier that was uppermost in my mind, is typical of the Opposition's dishonest approach. If the application had been granted, the allegation would obviously be that it was the other commercial interests that had prevailed over the national interest. I think it is clear that Deputy Hogan had a good each-way bet. He could make allegations no matter which way I decided this appeal, but in fact, in case Deputies are interested in the truth, all the pressure that it was attempted to exert on me was all one way. Every political Party, as far as I could see, wanted me to allow this proposal and I did not do it. This is known but because their only interest is in throwing mud, it was ignored by the craw-thumpers whose only real interest is the scope these matters provide for that activity.

I have said that it was with some misgivings that I made the decision and, as I pointed out at the time, I was largely influenced by the fact that Bord Fáilte guaranteed that there was a suitable alternative site available.

I have no such doubts about another case which has been mentioned here and which is currently the one which is mainly activating the minds of the professional protesters and RTE entertainers and of course which has been taken over by some of the Opposition as part of their scurrilous campaign. I already mentioned that the Constitution guarantees the rights of private property. The Article of the Constitution goes on to provide that the State may as occasion requires, delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good. This is what the Planning Act does. It is my view that it does not withdraw the rights of private property; it merely delimits them with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It guarantees some more than others.

Mr. Boland

It cannot do more than that. It is my experience that practically all, if not all, planning appeals involve something of a conflict between these two things, the rights of private property and the exigencies of the common good. In the exercise of planning control, an effort should be made to reconcile these two considerations if possible, and if this does not prove possible, then the decision has to be made on the basis of which of the two principles seems most important in the particular circumstances.

As I said, some people base their approach to these matters on the assumption that the only consideration is the amenity that they enjoy from the undeveloped state of somebody else's property. My attitude is that while this is a relevant consideration, a very relevant one, it is not the only one and whether I am right or not I believe it would not be in accordance with the Constitution to neglect to consider what is the fundamental right of private property and consider whether the exigencies of the common good are in the particular case sufficiently important to refuse permission for the development sought. I do not see that I am called upon to justify my decision in this case, the full facts of which were presented to me and fully considered by me before I reached a decision. However, since I am replying to the debate and since this has been mentioned, I propose to give some of the facts which have been skilfully concealed.

Mountpleasant Square is an open space in so far as it is not built up but it is not open to the public. It is privately-owned by a lawn tennis club, composed of young people who are members of a minority religion. It consists of a space containing some tennis courts and a pavilion which has been partly destroyed by fire. It is surrounded by some trees and bushes and by an iron railing. It is dominated by an obtrusive and ungainly advertisement hoarding and portion of the iron railing is backed by an unpainted wooden fence which was apparently erected to prevent people from looking in. It is not available for the use or enjoyment of the public but it is an open space in a built-up area and it provides a certain amount of public amenity for those who appreciate such things.

It may be correct to say that even without their knowing it, it provides an amenity for those who do not pay any attention to it. This amenity value has been grossly exaggerated. The proposal to use some of this site for a petrol station, which came to me by way of appeal, was from a private individual but there was a submission made by the owners of the property. Their case was to the effect that the club were not in a sufficiently strong financial position to provide for their members the modern amenities they demanded, to provide defence against trespassing and against wanton damage which the existing conditions in the area require.

They pointed to a current claim against the local authority for malicious damage amounting to £400 in respect of the burning of their pavilion. They also pointed out that they had been unable to deal with the problem of the dumping of rubbish, as they alleged, by people in the adjoining flats and that they had received from the public health authority notices requesting them to abate the public health hazard resulting from this dumping and to ensure that it was not repeated. They pointed out that they had tried other ways of raising finance and that they had come to the conclusion that the only way to maintain the space in proper condition and to provide reasonable facilities for their members was by the sale of a small portion of their property for a commercial use. At this point the road is particularly wide.

The decision I made in this case provides adequate safeguards. The conditions are:

Detailed plans to be submitted for approval should include a revised layout and should indicate any advertisement or advertisement structure to be incorporated in the development and should provide for the removal of the existing advertisement structure on the frontage and the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in conformity with such plans and such conditions, if any, as may be attached to any approval granted by a planning authority or in the event of appeal by the Minister.

As a result of this decision there will be a certain loss of public amenity but the loss will be very small. There is no question of the public being denied the use of even a small portion of open space to which they formerly had access. The loss is merely that of a small portion of open space which is privately owned and enclosed and which will now be built on. The loss also involves the removal of some of the bushes or trees which were formerly available as a visual amenity to those who appreciated them but which obscured the view of the open space at least as effectively as will this proposal.

This loss of amenity will be at least partially compensated for by the removal of the present ugly advertisement hoarding. The professional protestors pretend that the whole open space is to be built up though they must know that is not so. I am satisfied the loss of public amenity, if any, will be slight. I do not know if the facility for a rubbish dump is regarded as part of that amenity. As against this, the tennis club concerned will be able to provide reasonable facilities for their members. They will be able to maintain the open space in a neat and tidy manner in contrast to its present unkempt and dilapidated condition and to provide better defences against trespass, vandalism and the health hazard involved in the dumping of garbage.

The public will lose a certain minimal amount of visual amenity which will be partly compensated for by the tidier appearance of the far bigger portion which will remain, while the young members of the club will acquire the practical amenity of greater recreational facilities necessary in modern times and of the rebuilding of the pavilion which was damaged by fire. I have no doubt my decision is a just one, taking account of the legitimate interests of the owners and also the interests of those who believe that they are so infallible and indeed so incapable of error in their assessment of the exigencies of the common good that there is no need to enquire into any other aspect than that which immediately comes to their minds. I also have no doubt that when the slight loss of public amenity is compared with the substantial increase of practical amenity which will accrue to those who have access to this open space, there will be a nett increase of amenity in the area due to the fact that the space will fulfil its function more adequately.

A certain smear campaign has been started in this case by a journal which specialises in such activities. A great deal of the criticism voiced, apart from being one-sided and biased, is based on a complete misconception of my functions as the authority to decide appeals. I have not been given any general function to override the decisions of local planning authorities. Whether this is said in television programmes that purport to be authoritative ones, or in other places the fact is that it is only seven per cent of planning applications that the Minister comes into at all. There is no excuse for the lack of knowledge that has been displayed. I can well imagine the hubbub and furore there would be if there was no appeal against decisions made by local planning authorities.

The television programme to which I have referred dealt with the allowing of an appeal against a refusal of an application for a petrol station in a small country town but, not being concerned with presenting a balanced view there was of course no reference to the allowing of another appeal against the decision of a local planning authority to which I have referred here —the building of a hotel near the Rock of Cashel.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is hardly fair to allow the Minister to continue——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not make a speech.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am drawing the Chair's attention to a well-established practice in this House that the Minister or anybody else is not allowed to attack anybody outside who is vulnerable and who cannot defend himself. You ruled somebody out of order yesterday——

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, for the reason that the Deputy yesterday mentioned certain names.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister is obviously identifying people.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not intervene in this disorderly manner.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Boland

I am entitled to say that it is only after full consideration of the points brought forward by both sides that I decided these cases. It is my duty to consider the points brought forward by both sides.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): We do not object to that at all.

Mr. Boland

Those who pontificate on these things know and are only interested in one side. Their only interest is to utilise those things for the furtherance of the type of propaganda that is their stock in trade. In fact, their whole case is based on the assumption there is only one side to those problems. This particular case has been exaggerated and deliberately distorted for ulterior motives and it has been dishonestly presented to the public and the fact that there are other considerations has been maliciously concealed. I reject the arrogant claim that I am entitled to consider only one aspect. I find I have many difficult decisions to make in regard to planning appeals.

A case in point is when appeals are in respect of some development area scheduled as an area of high amenity, such as Deputy Geoghegan mentioned, where Galway County Council has an objective to preserve the shores of Lough Corrib. This is obviously a worthy objective. Places like this are important tourist amenities and valuable national assets but when a proposal comes up for let us say the erection of a bungalow in an area such as this by a Dublin businessman or a foreigner there is usually a question of hardship involved in refusing it. Behind the scenes in most of those cases is an uneconomic smallholder who has tenaciously refused to emigrate and who has managed to survive mainly because the State has been able to raise his income from the smallholding to the level of unemployment assistance which is the lowest of our social welfare services. In practically all those cases, I uphold the decision of the planning authority.

I agree with the objective of preserving the scenery, preserving the national asset, and bodies like Bord Fáilte and An Taisce, when this is done, glow with a sense of work well done but it is in those cases that I have grave misgivings and qualms of conscience when I know I have to administer a body blow to a smallholder who will not understand what is involved when he sees the only chance he has ever got, or is ever likely to get, to improve his position by the disposal of a small plot of what to him is useless ground taken away from him. He does not understand this when he sees the county council and the Minister for Local Government refusing him. The only thing he sees is that this is the only chance he has ever got to improve his lot. The reason for refusing him does not make sense to him. I have to agree in those cases that it is not feasible to allow such proposals because the eroding of the amenity of such places is an imperceptible process and it is not possible to say that even two or three houses would be all right in such circumstances but that four or five houses would be too many. To the people who are still living in those areas of high amenity, it naturally appears that the decision to prohibit them from obtaining some value for what to them has been useless ground means putting the interests of well off holiday makers first and that it is a case of preserving scenery for outsiders by condemning the owners of the land that constitutes this scenery to a permanent standard of living at unemployment assistance level.

I can remember two such cases in the Killarney area recently which I had to turn down because of the planning advice given to me. I delayed a long time before bowing to the inevitable and turning them down, but I certainly can understand the feelings of the people who owned the sites concerned. I could not hope to get them to understand why this decision had to be taken. Obviously there would be no point in talking to them about the gross income from tourism and the contribution it makes to the national economy. I am, of course, aware, as I have said, that there is this viewpoint that questions such as whether an uneconomic holder in the west of Ireland drawing unemployment assistance should be allowed to make some profit out of a small portion of his holding or whether a struggling young people's club which desires to provide facilities for its members should be allowed to do so are not relevant to a planning application. While I disagree with this view, I do not deny the right of these people to try to promote their opinion that only strictly technical considerations may be taken into account. I do, however, claim that it is, to say the least, presumptuous to assume, as they do, that no one has the right to disagree with them. I fully agree it is desirable, legitimate, and in fact essential for the community to set themselves planning objectives, but I think if a minor deviation will be of substantial benefit to an individual smallholder or as in the case I have been speaking about to a club which is doing good social work, and if it will only cause a minute diminution, if any, of public amenity, then it is justifiable to permit such slight deviation. As I said before, life must be a simple matter for people who can see every problem, no matter how involved it may be to others, as black and white, and who automatically assume that anyone who dares to differ from their views is at best stupid and ignorant, but more likely evil and corrupt. I cannot dismiss those matters in such a simple way and at the risk of offending those people I insist on considering the case before me.

The fact that there is an appeal at all is an indication there is a difference of opinion and always between technically qualified people. I have no recollection of ever having dealt with cases in which architects, engineers or planners did not put forward the case against the decision of the planning authority. Those things are just the same as law cases in which eminent counsel give their respective clients diametrically opposite advice. If they did not, there would be no work and no pay for them.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The facts are presented in different ways.

Mr. Boland

Deputy T.F. O'Higgins and some other Deputies asked what is the position in regard to the proposal involving the utilisation of the bed of the Grand Canal to augment the Dublin sewerage services. I find it hard to understand why he should ask this question. I think the position has been made absolutely clear. The Government decision has been announced. I have indicated to the Corporation that the temporary closing of the Dublin city section of the canal for the purpose of laying sewerage pipes and restoring the canal has been agreed in principle. This means that the canal will be closed temporarily while the necessary work of laying the sewers is carried out. If that does not explain it to Deputy O'Higgins, I cannot help him any further. Obviously the closing cannot be temporary unless there is a re-opening. This information has been made public and as I say, if it is not clear to Deputy O'Higgins, Deputy Dillon and all those other people who are increasing the revenue of the Post Office by sending post cards to all and sundry all over the country, I cannot help them. If they have no better way of occupying their time then they can continue with their activities.

Personally, I agree with what has been said about the amenity and the tourist importance of the Grand Canal. While the canal was built for purely utilitarian purposes and is not now needed for that purpose it is an integral part of Dublin. There is no doubt that the city would not be the same without it and that it constitutes an amenity which would not be replaced if it was lost. There are strong arguments for its retention. The Government decision on the matter is quite clear. I understand that the City Manager has instructed the City Engineer to proceed with the design of the scheme and that, to assist him in this task, consultants have been engaged. Naturally, no firm and detailed estimates of cost are available pending the receipt of technical reports. However, there is a good idea of what it will cost and what any alternative would cost. It is clear that there is not in fact any alternative.

I do not intend to devote much time to the spurious campaign against the Grand Canal Scheme. There is no intention to close the canal. The Government decision is clear. Permission is granted for a temporary closing and it cannot be temporarily closed unless it is to be reopened. The canal is to be restored after this essential work of laying a sewer is completed. This is known to all concerned. Therefore, the campaign, which purports to be against the closing of the canal, is, in actual fact, against its temporary closing for the purpose of making a badly-needed area of land available for housing by servicing it in the only way in which it can be serviced within the resources that are available.

This addition of land is an urgent one if people without houses are to be provided with them within a reasonable time. The provision of this necessary serviced land inevitably involves a temporary loss. This loss is of two kinds—(1) the small number of people who use the Dublin section of the canal for recreational boating will be without it for approximately three years during which time they will have to travel by land as far as Inchicore; (2) those Dublin people—and that is by no means all of the citizens of Dublin (and visitors)—who appreciate the visual amenity of this stretch of water will be without it for the same period. three years. This is a loss but I do not think it is a very great loss since it will be only a temporary one. It will be felt by a comparatively small number of people. On the other hand, the benefit to the community as a whole will be very great indeed. I have no doubt whatever that the decision that was taken was the proper one. I cannot conceive of any Government with the people's interests at heart taking any decision other than the decision to make this necessary area of serviced land available for the necessary relief of the housing problem in Dublin in view of the fact that it involves only a temporary loss of amenity which will be felt by comparatively few people. I do not know what Opposition Parties hope to gain by assisting in this campaign. I agree that as far as I can see, on this as on other issues they do not all seem to be taking the same line. In this debate, a number of them took the line that this service should not be provided. The campaign and the decision that is demanded by these protesting groups is definitely a demand that this developed land be not made available for the relief of the serious housing problem. As far as I am concerned, the grant of that demand is just out of the question. I consider it an indication of a very selfish attitude of mind that a vociferous minority are not prepared to accept a purely temporary loss of amenity—a recreational amenity in most cases—in order to enable people without houses to get them. I have no sympathy whatever with their attitude. There is no question of a permanent closing. I have not time to indulge in the nonsensical windmill tilting in which these people are trying to engage because apparently they have nothing better to do. I can see no point in reiterating the decision or in endeavouring to explain it to people who have already made up their minds to believe what they want to believe and have no intention of changing their minds.

We had again on this Estimate some comment about the actual amount of allocations from the Road Fund to different local authorities. This was dealt with in the same exaggerated and inaccurate way as were other matters. Deputy Fitzpatrick apparently sees something Machiavellian in announcing cuts in Road Fund grants—as he says—on the eve of local elections. It shows the irrational nature of the whole Opposition approach—to attack without reference to facts, to say anything whether or not it makes sense. I can understand that if I announced increases in the Road Fund allocations on the eve of elections and particularly if it was possible to show that these were not justified by the revenue position then I can understand being accused of using this important aspect of local government as an election gimmick. But apparently Deputy Fitzpatrick's brief is to attack everything whether or not what he says makes sense. Therefore, in this debate, he categorised the announcement of cuts in Road Fund grants on the eve of the local elections as an election gimmick. I find it difficult to follow his reasoning in this. Is he suggesting that we were not trying to win the local elections, that we were deliberately dragging our feet, because he and his colleagues went on, in this debate, to try to make it appear that so far from cuts being necessary, increases should and could have been given. I do not think that it is realistic to suggest that I made cuts when increases were appropriate and that I did it on the eve of an election and that this was done not because it was necessary due to the revenue position, due to the state of the Road Fund, but that it was done for the purpose of winning an election. Indeed, if that is what Deputy Fitzpatrick considers good election tactics, it is no wonder that his Party is where it is—or is he really trying to suggest that we were trying to lose?

I think the fact is that Fine Gael are just incapable of appreciating responsibility in Government. They are incapable of appreciating that a Government could do such a thing, could reduce the Road Fund allocation on the eve of a local election. They did not do it when they were in a similar position, when cuts were obviously in order and obviously required if the Road Fund was to be safeguarded from bankruptcy. Deputy P. O'Donnell who was then Minister for Local Government, and Deputy Sweetman, who was then the Minister for Finance, did authorise increases in Road Fund allocation at a time when the situation obviously required that the allocation should in fact be cut. Not alone that but at the same time Deputy P. O'Donnell co-operated with the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Sweetman, in abstracting from the Road Fund a sum of £500,000—half a million—on the eve of an election in order to attempt to balance the faked budget that was introduced for election purposes at that time.

Deputies will remember that on the 20th June last year I dealt with this matter in some detail. Although on that occasion I know that Opposition Deputies refused to listen, still if they are interested the facts are available in the Dáil Report for that day. I pointed out at that time that it was true that the estimated income of the Road Fund for 1967-68 was greater than the actual income for 1966-67 but that it was necessary that the Road Fund allocations, that is the allocations in respect of new works for 1967-68, had to take account of all the factors, including the growth in commitments consequent on a short fall in revenue in 1966-67 and the fact that a substantial amount of work remained to be done, and paid for, under grants allocated prior to this year.

As I pointed out in regard to other matters of Local Government, water schemes and so on, the value of the work that is authorised to start in any year is not an exact measure of the amount of money that will be spent in that year because there are schemes that started in previous years still in progress and, in fact, the work authorised to be started will not all be finished in the financial year but it is the total of work in progress and new work that has to be related—if the Government are wise—to the amount of money that it has been possible to get from the community for this purpose.

I pointed out that it was not realistic to make comparisons between the allocations made available this year and those made available last year unless this was borne in mind. There are always delays associated with land acquisition, the preparation of plans and specifications and sometimes in the placing of contracts. As a result, it is inevitable that the full amount of the allocation will not be spent in the financial year and because of this allocations notified in a particular year are not an exact measure of the actual expenditure on roads in that year.

It is my responsibility, and a responsibility I accept, to preserve a reasonable balance between the total volume of grants paid for road works and the amount of grant payments on foot of such work. The actual amount available this year for payment of grants is estimated at £8.9 million against £8.4 million last year, but the work done in different local authorities will consist of a combination of new works to be started and existing works which are now in operation. The whole question of financing the work on the roads is a complicated matter, and it is dishonest for Opposition Deputies to endeavour to equate exactly the work to be done in any one year with the allocations notified for that year.

I think Opposition Deputies would like this Government to do what they did, to make allocations without any reference to expenditure because, they know, that is what they did. If this were done the Road Fund would quickly become insolvent as it did under the Coalition Government. I do not intend to do this. Obviously what has so enraged the Opposition is the fact that once again in this instance the present Government on the eve of an election has acted responsibly when the tactical political considerations which actuated the other Government in similar circumstances would have suggested a different approach. The Opposition knew that they would have taken the short-term view and that they would have taken the chance of doing what they did before, by allocating more than they could hope to pay out; that they could once again have acted in a way that would inevitably bankrupt the Road Fund, as they did before.

Mr. L'Estrange

You denied in this House to Deputy Sweetman that they were cut. You stated that some of them were not notified——

Mr. Boland

The Deputy would not listen to what I had to say; he was thrown out.

Mr. L'Estrange

I was not; I was here.

Mr. Boland

Were you here the whole time? You were making so much noise——

Mr. L'Estrange

Do not talk about noise; we have been listening to the supersonic boom for the past three or four hours.

Mr. Boland

I understood that Deputy L'Estrange got himself thrown out but as he has stated here that he was not I accept that.

Mr. L'Estrange

Others were thrown out in their day; Deputy Aiken was thrown out in his day.

Mr. Boland

I think Deputy L'Estrange is on the way to establishing a record.

Mr. L'Estrange

You are well on the way to establishing another record.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy did not listen to what I told him. I gave him a reasonably detailed submission——

Mr. L'Estrange

Yes—that grants were not cut.

Mr. Boland

I gave this information in the form of a tabular statement. I should have read it out as I did now with regard to the information Deputy Treacy asked for in relation to water schemes.

Mr. Treacy

On a point of order, I understand that the Minister made capital out of the fact that I was absent for some time during his reply. I was here for prayers at 10.30 a.m. I remained for a few minutes and I then went to the Committee on Public Accounts and when this was over I came back. I am sorry; I understand the Minister referred to water schemes in my constituency and I sincerely hope he will give the money we require.

Mr. Boland

It is not correct to say that I made capital out of the Deputy's absence.

Mr. Treacy

I heard the Minister did.

Mr. Boland

I gave certain information which Deputy Treacy asked of me on the 5th of December, 1967 and the members of Deputy Treacy's Party who were filling in for him during his absence at the meeting the Deputy mentions did not seem to relish the information I was giving at the request of Deputy Treacy, to the extent that Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) tried to frustrate that information by calling repeatedly for a quorum and disrupting the work of the Committee of Public Accounts. If there was any reference to the paucity of representation on the Labour Benches and the absence of Deputy Treacy it was not made by me and was due to the repeated calls Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) made for a quorum. I gave the information because Deputy Treacy asked for it and I regret he did not find it possible to be here to hear it. I suggest to him he might read it in the Dáil Debates.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Mr. Boland

As I was explaining to Deputy Treacy, when Deputy L'Estrange interrupted, if Deputy Treacy had found it possible to be here, I am sure he would have agreed that the information I gave for the special purpose of facilitating him did in fact contradict his opinion in regard to the matter of sanitary services, piped water and the like and that it did show, contrary to the impression he had, that progress was being made and that it was not factual to state that the extensions of piped water and the provision of sanitary services had come "to a grinding halt" since.

Mr. Treacy

Would you give me an assurance about the £2¼ million being sought by us for regional water schemes for the past 2½ years?

Mr. Boland

Since he was not here to digest the information—I am not going to read it out all over again—he should read it some time for himself. We are proceeding with a reasonable amount of momentum taking into account the awkward fact Deputies opposite do not like to take account of —the capacity of the community to provide money for these things.

Mr. Treacy

Can you even get any of these schemes off the ground?

Mr. Boland

It is under-ground you put these, and they are going under ground. The sum of £9 million is the value of the work either constructed or in progress. I do not want to repeat myself just because of the fact that Deputy Treacy's duties as a Member of this House, the same as other Members, required him to be elsewhere this morning. I am aware of the fact that Deputy Treacy and other Deputies were disconcerted by Deputy Fitzpatrick's unwillingness to listen to the information Deputy Treacy had requested and that they were also performing these important duties. As I was saying in regard to the question of Road Fund allocations, what has infuriated the Opposition is the fact that on the eve of an election the Government acted responsibly.

Mr. L'Estrange

This is the fourth time he has said this.

Mr. Boland

I do not want Deputy L'Estrange to lose the trend of what I have been saying, that is the fact that in the circumstances of an imminent election we dealt responsibly with the Road Fund.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Is the Minister calling a reduction of £127,800 in the grants to Cork County Council as dealing with the Road Fund responsibly? The Minister should be aware that a number of workers have been rendered redundant at present. He has disrupted the whole structure of road grants in Cork.

Mr. Boland

If Deputy Murphy's duties had permitted him to be present he would realise that is exactly what I have been saying. Although the revenue to the Road Fund had increased, because of the fact that commitments had reached such a high level the responsible thing to do, even though there was an election approaching, was to relate the amount of the new allocations to the amount of commitments and taking into account the revenue available to the Road Fund in the coming year. I was dealing with the allegation by Deputy Fitzpatrick that I cut the Road Fund grants at a time when increases were appropriate on the eve of an election as an election gimmick. I am sure Deputy Murphy would not agree with that.

Mr. L'Estrange

He never said such a thing.

Mr. Boland

At a time when the correct thing to do, according to Deputy Fitzpatrick, was to allocate more, because admittedly the revenue to the Road Fund was increasing, Deputy Fitzpatrick says that in those circumstances I deliberately cut the Road Fund allocations on the eve of the local elections as an election gimmick.

Mr. James Tully

The next time we get an agreement with the Whips to finish a debate in a short time, the Minister will not get a chance of speaking for five hours again.

Mr. Boland

The Whips made an agreement before Christmas and Deputy Tully sent Deputy Larkin in here deliberately——

Mr. James Tully

That is untrue, and the Minister knows it. He has been talking now for five hours a lot of bloody nonsense. He will not get a chance of doing it again.

Mr. Boland

In the process of trying to ensure that the agreement with the Whips would be utilised so that one side only would be presented and to prevent the Minister from replying, a lot of irresponsible things were said and a lot of allegations made.

Mr. James Tully

You spoke for a couple of hours before on the Taoiseach's Estimate and said the same thing.

Mr. Boland

I will report progress and continue.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.