asked the Minister for Local Government the total allocation for housing reconstruction grants in 1976 and in 1977.

A sum of £1.5 million was allocated under subhead E.2 of my Department's Vote for 1976 to meet the cost of reconstruction grants. In fact, grants paid during the year totalled £2,487,958. The £4.95 million allocated to subhead E.2 for the current year includes a provision of £2.45 million for reconstruction grants.

Supplementary grants are paid by local authorities in appropriate cases in respect of reconstruction work which qualifies for a grant from my Department. A block allocation is made to local authorities in respect of all housing loans and supplementary grants and it is not practicable to identify the amounts applied by them towards the payment of reconstruction grants.

Would the Minister agree that the new conditions for reconstruction grants recently announced by him are simply a further cut-back on money for housing?

Deputy Faulkner will agree with me that reconstruction grants were allocated by his Government and the present Government for the purpose of helping people who need them to reconstruct or repair their houses, people of modest means. We find people in very wealthy circumstances applying for reconstruction grants. It is time to call a halt. Practically all those of modest means are included in the rates under which they can still apply for a reconstruction grant. A check on any of the local authorities will prove that this is correct.

Is the Minister aware that it is not possible by simply using valuations to be assured that the people who live in those houses are capable of reconstructing their own houses without help of a grant?

I think the Deputy will agree that one is far more likely to find a person of relatively modest means living in a modest house than to find such a person in a very substantial house or on a large farm of land.

Recently I asked the Taoiseach a question in relation to the figures laid down by the Minister, £20, £15 and £10 valuation, in an endeavour to find out the number of houses in the various areas which would now be entitled to these reconstruction grants. The reply I got was that the information was not available. In those circumstances how did the Minister devise a new scheme?

Because it is possible to check with local authorities and they can give a very good idea from their rate books what the valuations of houses are. In most local authority areas the housing valuation is very low. The only ones with large valuations are very large houses or modern houses which should not require reconstruction grants within the next two or three years.

I would like to make a point in reply to the Minister.

A question. Deputy.

The level of valuations he has referred to, as he is probably aware, has gone up in the last few years, and this is dismantling the reconstruction scheme brought in by the Fianna Fáil Government. It is quite obvious that very many people who make application for reconstruction grants to provide an extra room for a growing family or to house a relative——

I am anxious to facilitate the Deputy but he must proceed by way of question.

It is a retrograde step and I think the Minister should refuse——

I am afraid the Deputy may not make a speech. It is not in order to make a speech at Question Time.

He knows well——

I am anxious to assist the Deputy but speeches at Question Time are not in order and the Deputy knows that.

Would the Minister accept that ideally the scheme should be one that would accommodate a situation where a family having grown more rapidly than was anticipated or, indeed than the Minister might like, would be in need of additional accommodation, or where a family was prepared to give shelter to the father-inlaw or mother-in-law who normally might have to be provided for by the local authority? Would he accept that, even from an economic point of view apart from the social point of view, the scheme should be such that the local authorities could assess it and that if those were the reasons—that additional accommodation was required for a bigger family, sleeping accommodation or accommodation for an elderly person—the scheme might allow for that and that it could be adjudicated upon by the local authority?

It is a point, but it has not been included in the scheme at all. There are a number of things which will show up in, say, 12 months and which can allow it to be looked at again.

I would not want it for people providing flats.

There are a lot of anomalies. People who provide flats may be offering accommodation, but there are cases where everybody would say that the people would not be entitled to State aid, that such people would criticise those who were drawing unemployment benefit or assistance and would then put out their own hands for substantial amounts of money by way of State grants. I do not think they are entitled to them.

Is it not a fact that this scheme is simply a device to cut down on the money available for housing? Would the Minister not agree that in circumstances where there are 24,000 building workers unemployed this is going to add to that number? In those circumstances would he reconsider the decision made in relation to that?

The Deputy will find that the amount of money made available for housing and even for reconstruction will be much more than in previous years and this shows that there are people who will be prepared to avail of it. That answers the two prongs of Deputy Faulkner's question.

Further arising——

This must be the Deputy's final question. The Deputy never seems to be satisfied with regard to his questions.

——out of the Minister's reply, is it not a fact that if one takes inflation into account more money is not being made available for housing but less money is being made available for housing?

This is purely argument. Question No. 26.

More money will be made available and Deputy Faulkner cannot deny that unless he miscounts.

Not in real terms.

26.