asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware of the damage done to voluntary community initiative as a result of his decision to stop the amenity grant scheme; and if he will reconsider his decision.
6.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Amenity Grants Scheme.
5.
asked the Minister for Local Government the amount expended by his Department on amenity grants for the financial period 1974 and for 1973-74.
7.
asked the Minister for Local Government the total amount of money which has been allocated for amenity grants for 1975 and which will now be withdrawn; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
8.
asked the Minister for Local Government if, in view of the importance of amenity grants to local development groups, he will make a statement on a Press report that no such grants will be available in 1975.
9.
andMr. G. Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Local Government the amounts of amenity grants which were allocated to Cork County Council in each of the years ended 31st March in 1972, 1973, 1974 and in the financial period ended 31st December, 1974; and, in view of the fact that a sum of money had been included in the estimates for this year, if he will now reconsider his decision to withdraw these grants.
10.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he will reconsider his decision to stop further payments under the amenity grants scheme.
I propose with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 5 to 10, inclusive, together.
I notified local authorities in a circular letter of 30th December, 1974, that because of the necessity to make increased provision for priority services such as housing and sanitary services and the phasing out of the cost to ratepayers of the health services and housing subsidies, it is not possible to make any new grant allocations under the amenity grants scheme for the current year. The increased provisions made in 1975 for priority services which are vital for the welfare of the community are a concrete indication of the concern of the Government for improving living and environmental standards. It is of course open to local authorities using their own funds to continue carrying out or assisting voluntary groups in the carrying out of amenity works of the kind which were assisted under the grants scheme. The ability of local authorities to finance amenity schemes out of their own resources has been strengthened by the very great increase in assistance to them.
Sums of £239,483 and £296,415 respectively were expended by my Department on amenity grants in respect of the financial periods ending 31st March and 31st December, 1974.
The allocations made to Cork County Council since the present amenity grants scheme was introduced on 1st April, 1972, are as follows: Year ending 31st March, 1973—£24,000, including a sum of £12,000 allocated in anticipation of the provision for 1973-74; Year ending 31st March, 1974—£8,000; 9 months ending 31st December, 1974—£14,000.
An amount of £75,000 has been provided in my Department's Vote for 1975 to provide for the payment of balances of grants allocated and still outstanding at the end of 1974.
I am sure that nobody welcomed the Minister's decision to withdraw these amenity grants. I cannot accept the points the Minister made as being reasons for this decision. Would he not agree that this is a retrograde step in regard to community development, particularly in the case of local communities which are providing facilities? In view of that, would the Minister, as a person involved and interested for many years in community work, agree that a little Government incentive, no matter how small, is a wonderful inducement to local communities to collect their own money to help provide facilities for the young and the old in any community?
Out of the money available from the budget the allocation was made and it was found that if other services were to receive as much as possible it would not be possible to give grants for amenity schemes this year. If Deputies want to make representations to have other schemes reduced so that amenity grants can be made available in their areas we shall consider that, but Deputies cannot have it both ways. They cannot complain about taxation and say that it is too much and at the same time complain that they are not getting enough money for certain schemes. The amount given to each area under the amenity grants scheme was so small over the years since it was first introduced that I do not think it will have the effect that has been mentioned here. In any case, this is only a temporary lay-off and the scheme will possibly be resumed next year, I hope.
The Minister——
Would the Deputy please be brief as a number of other Deputies are offering?
The Minister is obviously playing with words in the reply. Would he not agree that communities that have prepared plans for such development work had come to expect an allocation from State funds which would help them and that it is these communities with plans prepared and ready to go ahead in the hope that they would be included in this year's scheme who are suffering most? For that reason would the Minister agree that a year's or two years' notice should have been given to these communities before the decision was made?
No. As Deputy Fitzgerald must know, there were more applications since the scheme began than there were grants available and many areas have applied for and would continue to apply for grants and would never get them. It is unfair to say that areas were waiting for grants which they knew were coming because it is the local authority that decides on the grants to be given. I have had deputations from various groups and I have had to tell them over the past two years that they would have to go back to their local authorities and they tell me that the local authorities would not give them grants because they did not think it was the right thing to do. The amount available to each local authority, and therefore to each scheme, was very small and far more schemes were left out than got grants.
That is no argument.
While the Minister says that this is only a temporary move, would he accept that it may be impossible to resurrect community interest in these projects if allocations are cut off suddenly like this?
I do not agree, because there are communities that took the necessary steps even before those grants were introduced and they will now continue to take steps to improve their areas, grants or no grants. The local authorities have the right to give the money if they want to do so.
Would the Minister not agree that never was community effort more necessary than at present?
It is always necessary.
Does the Minister not realise that certain county councils—and I mention Wicklow in this respect—had priority lists within their own areas and these lists were devised in consultation between local voluntary groups and local representatives who have a background knowledge of matters? While the Minister might say that certain groups have been left out in our county, would the Minister not agree that these people felt that they were fairly close to the top of the list? Could the Minister also repeat the total figure for the financial period in 1974? Was it £300,000?
I am not aware that Wicklow County Council had a priority list drawn up. If they had, there is nothing to stop them from giving support to the areas in whose favour they had decided even if it was not as much——
Out of ratepayers' money. This defeats the Minister's argument. This is scandalous.
There is a lot of talk about this. I am posing the question again: what schemes would the Deputy suggest should be cut in order that the money would be made available for amenity schemes?
(Interruptions.)
I must pass on from these questions and make some progress. I shall hear Deputy Molloy and Deputy Cunningham to end the matter.
The figure Deputy Murphy asked for was £296,415.
You must be really broke if you have to cut down on a small amount like this.
Would the Minister accept a serious suggestion from me to reconsider the decision in relation to amenity grants? He may not have anticipated or had any idea of the serious effect it would have. In view of representations that must have been made already in the matter from the Minister's own side, from voluntary organisations and from the Fianna Fáil Party, could we make a special appeal to the Minister to reintroduce these grants because a very serious blunder has been made?
I do not think there is any point in pursuing this. Of course there are numerous things that should be done and could be done if money were available. We have decided to spend the money available in a certain way and we believe that amenity grants are not the highest priority. There are higher priorities——
With the National Coalition.
We have given money to the high priorities but of now I can see no hope of an improvement in the position.
In view of the fact that other payments to local authorities have already been cut—in the case of Donegal the Minister made no provision for bog roads with the result that the council had to take money out of the ordinary road fund which was cut by £250,000, something that cannot be done in respect of amenity grants—would the Minister consider, as an extra effort on the part of the Government, and it would not be a big effort, to keep these schemes in operation?
Deputy Cunningham was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government for years and during most of that time no increase whatever was given to the Road Fund.
We doubled Road Fund grants in one year.
They never gave an increase in the Road Fund and they expected people in ten years to spend the same amount of money doing twice as much work. Deputy Cunningham had his tongue in his cheek when he asked that question.
Due to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply given by the Minister I should like to give notice that it is my intention to raise the subject matter of these questions on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
Will Deputy Molloy assure me that he will not walk out of the House after he has had his say as he did on the last occasion he raised a matter on the Adjournment? Will the Deputy keep his temper down for a few moments while I answer him?
While we have to accept what the Minister says that the Government no longer have funds available to them, I should like to ask the Minister if he is saying that it is Government policy to discontinue these schemes? Does the Minister realise that this discontinuance is a disincentive to local development associations? This is a very serious matter and it will be remembered in regard to the performance of the Minister.
The Minister asked us if we could suggest ways he could save money otherwise. I suggest he could cut down on some of the jobs for the boys.
Deputy Lalor is one man who can tell us about jobs for the boys or do I have to remind him?
What about a cut in ministerial salaries?
The Deputy and his colleagues cut their salaries one time but they sneaked that cut back again within a couple of months.
What about selling the Mercedes?
The young and old are very important and the Minister should realise that.
(Interruptions.)