Is the Minister going on for a week?
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 dUdaráis 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.)
I will not be much longer. I had almost concluded dealing with this question of the allegations made with regard to the fact that the amount of allocations from the Road Fund this year was not as high as last year. I want to point out that the fact that, in the circumstances of imminent local elections we dealt responsibly with this matter of the Road Fund and took the necessary measures to maintain its solvency, indicates our belief in the intelligence of the electorate, our sincere commitment to the work of improving the roads and our recognition of the fact that this is necessarily a long term project and that it is on us will fall the task of implementing it. We were advised, as I said, during the debate on this Estimate to learn the lessons of the past, and this is another aspect of local government from which I agree the people should learn the lesson of the past.
(Cavan): There is a marked similarity between the Minister's introduction and his conclusion. We had that at length and now we are getting it again.
As I pointed out to Deputy Fitzpatrick, I would have concluded long ago but Deputy Fitzpatrick would not let me. He is unable to listen to what I have to say but keeps on interrupting. I want to go on to this question of the importance of learning the lesson from the past. I want to show that the fact that, in these circumstances, we behaved responsibly and did not purport to allocate more money than it was advisable to do in relation to the volume of the commitments of the Road Fund and the amount of revenue available, is an indication that we learned our lesson from the malpractice of the Coalition Government in this regard in the year 1956-57.
Deputy Fitzpatrick will remember that in that year Deputy Sweetman had the task of introducing the Budget and Deputy O'Donnell had the responsibility of administering the Road Fund. In 1956-57, the income of the Road Fund was £4,762,000, the administrative expenses were £462,000, and as well as that necessary deduction from the income of the Road Fund, Deputy Sweetman abstracted, for the purpose of his Budget, a further £500,000, so that a total of £962,000 had to be deducted from the total income of £4,762,000. This left a total of £3,800,000 available for work on the roads.
(Cavan): Over £1 million was taken last year.
No. There was no deduction last year.
(Cavan): Indeed there was.
There was no deduction last year from the Road Fund.
(Cavan): A rose by any other name.
Deputy Fitzpatrick is objecting to my talking so long and now I have to stop to explain to him that there was no money taken from the Road Fund last year, or the year before or in any year, by a Fianna Fáil Government. It was decided by the Government that certain improvements in social welfare and other things should be granted and, unlike the Coalition Government, when we decided to grant these things, we also decided to raise the money with which to provide them.
One of the measures the Government decided upon in order to raise the revenue to give the necessary increases to social welfare classes and to farmers mainly was to increase the amount of road taxation. There was no question of taking any money from the Road Fund. It was never in the Road Fund. The taxation for the purpose of making these improvements was imposed in the Budget.
At 31st March, 1956, when Deputy O'Donnell had available to him a total of £3,800,000 from the Road Fund, the commitments in connection with road grants which had been allocated in previous years amounted to £2,800,000, so that with these commitments of £2,800,000 and with a total of £3,800,000 available, Deputy O'Donnell allocated, or purported to allocate, £5,177,000; in other words, he allocated £1,377,000 more than his income without taking any account at all of the outstanding commitments at the time. It is no wonder that the result of this was that when we took over in 1957 we found that every county council in the country was howling for money, not to embark on any new road projects but to honour the commitments that they had entered into to pay for work that was already done and to keep schemes that were in progress in operation, and the money was not there to do it. The first thing the Fianna Fáil Government had to do in 1957 was to allocate a sum of £900,000 from the Exchequer to meet the most pressing demands on the Road Fund which could not be met because of the irresponsible way in which the Government dealt with the Road Fund in 1956-57. I think we would have dealt with the Road Fund on this occasion just as we have done, even if we had not got the lesson of what resulted from the Road Fund being handled in this irresponsible way by the Coalition Government. As Deputy Dillon said, we were lucky that we had this example before us and we were able to learn a lesson from the past in this respect.
In this year these cuts in the Road Fund grant allocations were necessary for two reasons. First of all, there was a substantial shortfall in revenue from motor taxation for 1966-67. It amounted to £550,000, and this at a time when commitments were high. The commitments at 31st March, 1967, were £6.5 million as compared with £5.2 million at 31st March, 1966. It is clear that the corrective action we took this year, with local elections imminent, was necessary, and that the only course open was a reduction in the allocations for 1967-68. This deduction was mainly effected by a reduction in the allocations for main road improvement.
As I said, the fact that this was done is an indication that we are not prepared to act irresponsibly, and the reason is that we intend to stay here in the future. We are not running out as the Opposition did in 1957. We shall be operating the Road Fund next year and the year after and for many years after that. I have to think not just of this year's allocation but also of the programme that we will be operating well into the 1970s.
There have, unfortunately, been a number of serious and tragic accidents on the newly-constructed Nass Road, and these have naturally aroused a great deal of comment and discussion both here and elsewhere. I appreciate that there is a genuine desire to do anything that is possible to avoid similar accidents in the future, and any worthwhile suggestions for improvements that may emerge will, I am sure, be implemented. I am quite confident in saying that these accidents that have taken place cannot reasonably be ascribed to any fault in design or construction of the road. It may be discovered that it would be possible to make improved regulations in regard to such things as entering on to or crossing the road, but the Naas Road itself has definitely been designed and constructed to the best standards for a road of its kind.
I want to point out that it is designed as an all-purpose dual carriageway. I am quite definite in saying that it is a first-class example of modern road engineering. The final section of the dual carriageway, that between Rathcoole and the Kildare border at Blackchurch was opened to traffic just before Christmas. Special informative signs have been erected by Dublin County Council on this section of the road. I want to point out that there is no problem of excessive traffic on the road. At present the route is, in fact, carrying less than half the volume of traffic for which it was designed. The road was not designed as a motorway and because of that, access to it is available from adjoining lands and there are a number of intersections at one grade.
I travel this road myself a number of times every day. I feel absolutely confident in saying that this road is in fact the safest road in Ireland. There is no accident-causing factor arising from the construction and alignment of the road. A road safety propaganda film issued by my Department has as its theme that accidents do not happen, they are caused. I think it is quite clear from the history of this road that even with the highest possible engineering standards of design and construction, these are not sufficient of themselves to prevent accidents happening. The full and continuous co-operation of road users is equally essential. This has been the experience in all modern countries. No matter how high the standard of roads is, accidents will occur as long as there are people who do not continuously bear in mind while they are in control of motor vehicles, that their own lives and the lives of other people depend on their exercising continuous concentration, vigilance and care in the handling of their vehicles while they are driving.
The cost of converting this road to motorway standards, including the provision of flyovers, underpasses and so on, is being examined. I may say that the preliminary indications are that the cost would be very substantial and, taking into consideration the amount of road work throughout the country as a whole that is urgently required to be done, it is unlikely that the cost of raising this road to motorway standards will be undertaken in the near future. I may say I am satisfied that excessive speed has been a factor in the accidents on the dual carriageway, and I have no doubt that the speed limits which are now imposed will contribute towards safety on the roads.
I am aware, of course, that a speed limit is not in itself a guarantee of safety, but it makes a very definite contribution towards safety and in particular it will lessen the incidence of fatal accidents. In this respect I might point out that the Road Safety Bill which is before the Dáil, and which got bogged down due to the implacable attitude of the opposition to the introduction of a statutory blood alcohol content level as a disqualification from driving includes a provision enabling the imposition of an overall speed limit if that is decided upon.
As I indicated in a statement issued by me on the 19th October last, I have arranged that a number of urgent studies will be brought to completion as quickly as possible by the relevant authorities, where appropriate in consultation with An Foras Forbartha. These will include among other things an examination of the junctions, including the feasibility, costs, etc., of schemes designed to improve them, including schemes for traffic lights, lighting and so on, and an examination of other access points. An Foras Forbartha are carrying out a survey of accidents on the road, that is a survey of the manoeuvres and so on of the vehicles involving 203 accidents during the year 1966-67 for which details are available. When these studies are completed whatever measures are necessary will be taken without delay. At the same time, I want to repeat my belief that without a universal appreciation of the responsibility that rests on drivers of motor vehicles any improvement that may be made will be of little avail.
I am somewhat disappointed at the general approach to driving tests before the issue of driving licences. I do not claim that the system is perfect or foolproof. I realise that some people may not produce their normal standard performance when they are being tested and that the most experienced and competent drivers make mistakes. I accept also that the fact that a driver is thoroughly competent does not necessarily mean that he will behave responsibly at all times while he is driving. Even if some people may be unlucky, the system of insisting on driving tests, that people reach a reasonable standard of competence and have a knowledge of the rules of the road is justified if it raises the overall standard of driving even by a little bit.
There is no inherent right to drive on the roads. Incompetent driving constitutes a danger to the public and the people have a right to the maximum possible protection. They are entitled to insist on the highest standard of competence, sobriety and the mechanical perfection of the vehicles themselves. It is not an argument in favour of the granting of a driving licence to say that a person needs a driving licence to earn his livelihood. The only consideration is whether the applicant has the required degree of competence and the required knowledge of the rules of the road. I am quite satisfied that everything feasible is done to ensure that people undergoing these tests get a fair chance. If an occasional mistake is made, it is much more important that the public should have this protection.
The question of amenities generally was raised during this debate. I can assure the House that the allocation of money to my Department every year, in my experience, is made on the basis of the maximum amount it is believed possible to provide. The only way in which the Exchequer can provide money is from the pockets of the people. In addition to such essential things as housing, water, sewerage and roads, my Department through the local authorities, are responsible for the provision of amenities. When a housing scheme, whether it is a local authority scheme or a private scheme, is built and occupied, there is an immediate and understandable pressure for the provision of amenities, such as public parks, swimming pools and so on. I agree that every effort should be made to provide them as rapidly as possible but, as in everything else, we cannot get away from the fact that the provision of these things also costs money and it may be that their provision will be in competition with the needs of those who have not yet got houses. Here again, I think the demands made might be more reasonable. There should be an appreciation of the fact that progress in the provision of these things must, of necessity, be gradual but instead of that we have the same approach here, that since nobody objects to the provision of these things they should be provided and if they are not provided immediately the only explanation is that the Minister and the local authorities take some fiendish satisfaction in depriving the people of these things.
The Opposition attitude was to say that this Government are not giving sufficient money for these things whereas in fact they know the position is that the Government have only found it feasible to obtain from the community the amount of money which is being expended on all the different services coming within the ambit of the Vote of Local Government. I do not think it unreasonable to expect people to accept that, taking account of the limited capacity of the community to provide finance, the provision of such things as public parks and swimming pools, community centres and so on, essential though they may be for reasonable living conditions in modern circumstances, is, to a certain extent, in competition with more basic needs such as the provision of houses, water, sewerage, road improvements, fire brigades and many other things and that therefore some delay in the provision of these amenities may be unavoidable.
However, I agree that people are quite right to press for these things but I think it should be understood that the Minister would naturally consider it more important still that people at present inadequately housed, without facilities of water and sewerage, should have these deficiencies remedied. Also there are still, of course, people in many parts of the country who are served by really deplorable roads, at the same time, despite the demands on capital money available to my Department it was found possible to make some progress this year in the provision of swimming pools in different places throughout the country. In June last, five local authorities were notified that finance would be made available during the current year to enable them to start building swimming pools. The five areas were: Ennis, Enniscorthy, Tipperary, Tuam and Dublin City, but in addition I have recently informed three other local authorities, Carlow UDC, Ballinasloe UDC and Kildare County Council, that I am prepared to consider making capital allocations available to them in the coming financial year to enable construction of pools to start in their areas.
Progress in regard to the areas which have already been authorised to start is at different stages in the different areas and I do not think it necessary to go into that, but there are 33 other proposals before the Department which are estimated to cost in all over £1.2 million. It is hoped that progress will be made with these gradually over the years. I do not undertake to be able to allow them all to proceed at the one time. I have indicated certain things that I shall take into consideration in regard to deciding priority.
When I introduced the Estimate I intimated that one of the considerations I would take into account when deciding on the individual pools which would be given prior claim to available capital would be the amount of local voluntary subscriptions available. As I said, in view of the urgency of other things such as housing, water and sewerage, it is not unreasonable to expect a certain amount of self-help in regard to these things. Another consideration would be the length of time a firm proposal is before the Department, in other words, other things being equal the oldest proposal should receive priority. Still another consideration would be the question of geographical distribution of swimming pools. For instance, Kildare County Council have five proposals for swimming pools before the Department and it would obviously be difficult to justify providing capital for all these towns in preference to areas which are still awaiting their first pool.
Another consideration will, of course, be—I think this is a reasonable one also—the securing of the best value from the capital available, that is, the more modest projects should be encouraged in our particular circumstances. In view of the many demands on the amount of capital it is possible to provide for local government purposes generally I think a reasonable allocation has been made for swimming pools this year.
The Government have always been conscious of the desirability of assisting farmers to undertake the improvement of jointly used accommodation and bog roads and minor drainage works. They introduced the Rural Improvements Scheme for this purpose as long ago as 1943 and supported that scheme financially in the intervening years to the maximum extent consistent with the need to provide for other essential services such as the provision of aids to agriculture, education, health, social welfare and so on, while keeping taxation within acceptable limits.
In the five-year period to 31st March, 1967, total expenditure on the Rural Improvements Scheme amounts to approximately £1,250,000, which was an increase of over one-third over the preceding five-year period. This problem of the repair of accommodation roads has to be dealt with on a long term basis. It cannot be solved overnight and despite this increased expenditure in recent years arrears of applications have accumulated and it was for that reason that it was decided in August, 1965, to put a stay on new applications until the old ones were cleared up. The arrears of applications received prior to August, 1965 have now been dealt with. It is obvious from this debate that there is considerable misunderstanding in regard to the decision to replace the minor employment, bog development and rural improvements schemes which were formerly administered by the Special Employments Schemes Office by the new local improvements scheme. County councils were asked by circular letter from my Department on 14th August, 1967 to administer this scheme which it is proposed to introduce from 1st April, 1968.
The main features of this new scheme are, first, that it will cover the repair and improvement of roads, other than public roads, used jointly by two or more landholders for the purpose of access to agricultural land or turbary and the repair and improvement of minor drainage serving the property of two or more land holders. All grants will be conditional on the payment in advance by the beneficiaries of both kinds of a contribution in accordance with the approved scale. Administrative expenses within a limit of ten per cent may be added to the cost of wages, materials and plant. The allocation of each council out of the annual provision voted by the Dáil will be based on the total of the minor employment schemes, the bog development scheme and the rural improvements schemes grants over a period of years. The design and selection of the schemes to be carried out each year will rest with the councils. Grants under this scheme need not be limited to areas of high unemployment but priority in employment will be given to suitable workmen registered at the employment exchanges. In the recruitment of gangers and other supervisory workers priority should be given to persons formerly employed by the Office of Public Works, where such persons are available and suitable.
The carrying out of work under this scheme will not involve any responsibility for the council for future maintenance. Legislation will be necessary in order to introduce this new scheme and a draft Bill empowering county councils to carry out these minor schemes is almost ready. It will contain enabling provisions for minor drainage schemes as well as roads. There are a number of advantages in amalgamating these three schemes, minor employment schemes, bog development schemes and rural improvements schemes, into a single scheme. For instance, the three former schemes dealt basically with the same types of work, accommodation and bog roads and drains, and the pooling of the schemes ensures that grants will be allocated impartially for the most necessary work. The local contribution is a test of the real need for a work. The distribution of minor employment schemes grants on an employment basis took no account of the real volume of urgent work in each area and in the electoral divisions where unemployment was high; saturation point in regard to work requiring to be done was reached and there was a shortage of suitable work on which to expend the money, while in other areas the employment allocation was too small to do worthwhile improvements. Now, while employment will still be through the employment exchanges the work can be done where it is most needed. Lastly, the unified scheme is more economical to administer.
To compensate for the fact that there will be no full cost grants which were available for the minor employment and bog development schemes, a new scale of contributions has been approved by the Government giving very low rates for landowners with low average valuations. The new scale for the lower valuations compares favourably with the old scale. For valuations under £5 the old scale was ten per cent contribution, the new scale is 2½ per cent. For valuations of £5 and over and under £7, the old scale was 12½ per cent whereas the new scale is five per cent. For valuations of £7 and over and under £10 the old contribution was 15 per cent and the new one is ten per cent. For valuations of £10 and over and under £15 the old contribution was 20 per cent and the new one is 15 per cent. For valuations of £15 and over and under £25 the old contribution was 25 per cent and the new contribution will be 20 per cent. For valuations of £25 and over and under £50 there is no change, the contribution is 30 per cent. For valuations of £50 and over and under £75 the old contribution was 40 per cent and the new contribution is also 40 per cent. For valuations of £75 and over and under £100 the new contribution will be 50 per cent as against 40 per cent under the old contribution. For valuations of £100 and over, the new contribution will be 60 per cent as against 50 per cent formerly. The position is that contributions in respect of valuations up to £25 will be less than formerly, whereas contributions in respect of valuations between £25 and £75 will be the same, and for valuations over £75 the contributions will now be higher.
There were suggestions that the payment of local contributions should be made compulsory. I want to say that it is not proposed that this should be done. Apart from other objections this idea is not practicable. Compulsory powers could not be enforced without detailed investigations of individual circumstances, without considering a person's objections and so on, and there would have to be the right of appeal. Such a procedure would be unworkable in relation to these minor schemes. In any event, experience does not show that such powers are necessary. The ratio of contributions which I have read out is moderate for landholders with medium and low valuations and it is a joint contribution and there is nothing to prevent other beneficiaries making up the deficiencies caused either by the unwillingness or the inability of a particular landowner to pay. Therefore it is not proposed to make these contributions compulsory and in fact I do not see how it could be done.
As I said, county councils have received a circular letter from my Department regarding this. So far, 19 councils have agreed to operate the scheme; five counties have not decided; two counties have referred it back to the Department, mainly on the question of the amount allowed for administrative costs; and there is one county which indicated that they are not prepared to operate the scheme. In regard to this question of the amount allocated for administrative costs, which is ten per cent, one of the main reasons for the transfer of the schemes was the high overheads involved in maintaining a separate organisation engaged exclusively on the operation of these schemes and the expectation of substantial economies by using the existing county council administrative and engineering machine. I think that was a reasonable thing to do.
Does the Minister think that extra engineers might have to be appointed in order to operate these schemes?
I think that Deputies and councillors should co-operate in trying to keep administrative costs as low as possible and we should not be too ready to assume that extra staff will be needed for this. Certainly in many cases extra staff will not be required, there may be some in which there will be, but we should all have the same interest in regard to trying to keep the administrative costs as low as possible so that the maximum amount of money available will go into new work. To facilitate councils they are being allowed the maximum degree of freedom in regard to their organisational arrangements. As I said, the funds available to the scheme are necessarily-limited and it is undesirable to divert too large a proportion of them to administrative expenses. It would be desirable that it should be accepted on the basis suggested for at least a trial period.
I would suggest then that Deputies and Councillors should co-operate in trying to get the optimum results from this new scheme and from the amount of money available and that they should wait and see how the scheme operates at least before pressing for any increased allowance for administrative expenses. Obviously the more money that can be utilised for actual improvement the better it will be so that it is desirable to keep the administrative expenses to a minimum.
Would the Minister tell the House what counties have opted out?
There is only one I said and Deputy Treacy knows that one—South Tipperary.
What is it proposed to do with counties that opt out?
We have not accepted that their opting out is final yet. We have written back to them.
It should not be taken as final.
We hope that every county will agree to operate this and that they will co-operate with us and that they will not press for an increase in the allocation for administrative expenses until at least it can be shown beyond doubt that this is necessary; that they will try to utilise as much as possible of this money for the purpose of getting this very essential work in rural areas done.
I should say also that the Parliamentary Secretary has received a deputation mainly in connection with engineers fees and the case that was put forward to him is being considered.
A number of Deputies referred to the fact that the Rural Improvement Scheme had been operating very much in arrears and that the provisional allocation based on the current year's provision of £350,000 does not adequately allow for this. As I pointed out today this is a provisional allocation only and each county's share was based on the amount of grant allocated in the five years up to and including 1965-66. I have no doubt that there will be difficulty in dealing with the backlog of applications within this allocation and as I said the total amount that will be available for the purpose has not yet been decided. Therefore, there is still a possibility that these provisional amounts notified may be increased when this total amount available is known. This problem of arrears of applications derives to a certain extent from the cut in the provision for the three schemes which it was necessary to impose in 1966-67. The allocation for 1965-66 was £576,000 but in the financial circumstances that existed at the time it was necessary to cut this to £256,000 in 1966-67 and this obviously accounted for a certain amount of the arrears. The outstanding application forms are being passed to the county councils according as each council confirms their intention to operate the scheme and at the same time the persons who have asked for application forms are being told to apply to the councils if they will wish to pursue their applications. It has been agreed that an excess of £20,000 on this year's provision of £250,000 for the Rural Improvement Scheme may be incurred in order to complete schemes for which contributions have been paid. Persons to whom offers of grants have been made but who have not yet paid contributions have been informed that our time limit for the acceptance of contributions has now expired and that if they want to have the offer re-opened next year they should apply to the county council. The number of live offers still outstanding is not very great.
I should like to ask Deputies to co-operate in getting this scheme going which I think will result in having this work done more expeditiously, more satisfactorily and in having a more intelligent selection of the works to be done made.
This year then once again I think we are able to show considerable progress in every aspect of local government but as I pointed out not without a considerable increase in cost and that is how it will be in future. Our programme for the conduct of the nation's affairs can be very simply stated. It is, first of all, to increase the national income so as to make it possible for the Government to improve social conditions and it is only because we realise that social improvements can only be made if there is economic growth that we have been able to maintain a continuous improvement over the years. Our interest in economic expansion is to increase the scope for re-distribution of income and for the improvement of living standards all round. My own opinion is that the Opposition would be well advised to approach the matter of local government services in a more responsible manner, to abandon the attitude that they have shown here of demanding more in every possible service and at the same time demanding lower rents, lower rates and lower taxes. The people have sufficient intelligence to know that this is not possible and that is why we continue as Government. I would suggest to the Opposition that this fatuous approach of ignoring the inconvenient and inescapable problem of finance is not appropriate to public representatives who have undertaken to try to remedy problems such as the housing situation. It is, I suppose, not quite so incongruous coming from a person who has already taken the precaution of precluding himself from ever playing a practical part in the provision of houses especially if he is a member of a religious order that is not noted for its commitment to the principle of holy poverty and who is therefore well insulated from the necessity of having to consider such worldly matters as money but who, because—unlike housing, education is within the sphere of activity of his order, might be expected to have more interesting views on the question of whether or not the standard of education available to children should be related to the capacity of the children's parents to pay for it.
Vote put and agreed to.