On the evening of the 8th May when I moved that the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration, I had begun to try to point out to the House that the position confronting not only the Dublin Corporation but every local authority in connection with one aspect of local government—the provision of housing —had almost come to a standstill and that a very serious and critical situation still existed. In connection with some of the statements I made, there were questionable interruptions. I stated that it had always been the responsibility of the Government to provide moneys for housing—that housing was notified to each local authority as one of the priority items of local authority operations and that in every case local authorities had definitely been informed that the question of finance was not to be their headache but that it was to be the concern and responsibility of the Government.
Since 1948, when housing activities were resumed on a large scale and when, as a result of these extended operations, the provision of a large amount of money became essential, each Government, in succession, until last year, met the situation without any question so that local authorities could design a programme which would ultimately see the back of the housing shortage situation broken. In that connection, there seemed to be some doubt and some reflection was cast on the capacity of local authorities who had under Acts of Parliament power to issue their own stock, the reflection being that the local authorities did not enjoy the confidence of those who had the money and that consequently their stock issues were failures, and particularly the last one.
I should like to put some figures on record. I stated that over a period of years the Dublin Corporation has, for instance, required £26,000,000 capital moneys. The corporation issued public loans but the total subscriptions from the public in all those years towards that £26,000,000 were slightly in excess of £6,000,000. In January, 1950, there was a 3½ per cent. stock issue for £5,000,000. It was not put to the public. It was privately underwritten by the Government and the full £5,000,000 was given to the corporation. That, I take it, is evidence without doubt that the Government then appreciated its responsibilities, appreciated the situation in the money market at the time and decided, rather than have the corporation go through the form of a public issue and then have it underwritten, to give the whole £5,000,000 themselves.
In June, 1951, there was a stock issue of £5,000,000 at 3½ per cent. Of that, the public subscribed £1,397,190. There was no talk then of the corporation having failed. There was no suggestion then that the corporation had "muffed" the situation. In February, 1953, the corporation on the advice of the Government, issued a loan, again for £5,000,000, but the rate of interest was then 5 per cent. It was substantially subscribed by the public because the corporation got £3,316,590 from the public. That was one of the best results the corporation had over a long number of years. In June, 1954, the corporation again had a stock issue for £5,000,000, but it was thought that 4½ per cent. should be the proper rate of interest. The stock was put to the public at that rate and the total subscribed by the public was £1,164,660. In December, 1955, the rate was again changed from 4½ per cent. to 5 per cent. and the corporation wanted £6,000,000. Of that, the public subscribed £1,802,430, the banks giving a guarantee to take up £2,000,000 of that loan.
The total of those five issues was £26,000,000 and the total subscribed by the public was £6,680,870. That will, I hope, make it clear to the House that suggestions that the Government never had responsibility for the finding of the money should be completely knocked on the head.
I want to come back to the situation that confronts us at the moment. There seems to be quite a lot that some people have to learn about the problem. On 25th October, 1954—and I hope that is going back far enough— the corporation sent a letter to the Department notifying them of the corporation's estimated capital requirements for the year beginning 1st January, 1955. They pointed out that their total capital requirements came to £6,553,040. Nothing was heard from the Department. A letter was written on the 24th March, 1955, in connection with the matter. Then we come to the 11th May, 1955. Some six or seven months had passed; we were well into the middle of 1955 and had made no arrangements whatever about our capital requirements.
On that date the city manager wrote to the Committee of Finance of the Dublin Corporation and he said:—
"On the 15th March, 1955, I informed you that the sum of £6,500,000 would be required to finance the following capital items.... I pointed out that the corporation was carrying on its full capital programme on the assumption that the necessary money would be forthcoming at once. The corporation also has commitments under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts and the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts committing them to a further sum in addition to the £6,500,000 mentioned beforehand."
We were proceeding to do our work in the normal way in which we had been doing it year after year for a number of preceding years.
The city manager continued:—
"Following this meeting, I sent the following letter to the Department of Local Government—‘I have to refer to previous correspondence on the subject of the corporation's capital requirements for the year beginning 1st January, 1955. I informed you on the 25th October last that an estimated £6,500,000 was required to finance capital expenditure for the 12 months from that date. The Finances and General Purposes Committee of the corporation directed that invitations be sent to insurance companies asking if they would be prepared to make large sums available to the corporation by way of mortgage loan or otherwise. No satisfactory replies have been received. The only offer was one of £50,000 at 5 per cent. for 25 years. The committee rejected this offer. The committee have directed me to point out that the corporation is carrying out its capital programme on the clear understanding that Government support will be forthcoming as in the past. The estimated capital requirements for 1955, 1956 and 1957 are £6,500,000 per annum. Accordingly, they are anxious to have an assurance that the necessary finances will be forthcoming.' "
We were told from public platforms, we were told in this House, that the corporation had made a mess of the situation and that they were responsible for the situation. The Minister himself, in meeting deputations, and particularly deputations from contractors who were engaged in the building of houses under the Small Dwellings Acts, told them that this position had resulted from mismanagement by the Dublin Corporation. Is it not about time that the Minister came down to earth and admitted that the plain simple fact of the situation is that it is the difficulty of the Government finding the capital moneys that has put us into this position and that there is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that we have not approached our responsibilities in a proper and sensible manner?
Time went on. We were committed, having signed contracts. This was in May and the corporation election took place. On the eve of the corporation election, it was obvious we might have a change of members as a result of the election. It was also known to us that our then city manager was retiring, that the new corporation, after the June election, would appear with new members and possibly a new city manager and there was no finality, as far as this situation was concerned.
I myself then got in contact with the Local Government Department to find out what was the position. At the beginning of the year, we had been authorised to borrow, by way of overdraft from our bankers, a sum of money up to half our capital requirements. The bank accorded us overdraft facilities up to a figure of £3,000,000. There was, of course, the undertaking that, within the year, the corporation would fund that debt. They would issue either a loan or get the money from the Government to pay off this bankers' debt and, at the same time, have sufficient money to carry on for the balance of the year.
What was the position? I was told —and I reported accordingly to the finance committee and the city manager—that the position was not at all as easy as we thought. There were a number of public loans to be issued. There was the E.S.B. who were going for £10,000,000; C.I.E. were looking for £5,000,000; Cork Corporation were seeking £1,500,000; the Government itself was going for £20,000,000, and then the corporation would come out of its position at the end of the queue.
What was the decision then? The Department of Local Government issued sanction to the Dublin Corporation to increase its overdraft from £3,000,000 to £6,000,000, to carry it on until the end of December and extend the period of repayment of the first £3,000,000 from June also until December. Sanction was accordingly issued to do those two things, but the Minister for Local Government seems to think that, once he issues sanction, his responsibility ends. He has said several times: Have I not given sanction? But the bankers did not agree. They said: We cannot give you £6,000,000 by way of overdraft since no arrangement has been made about when you are going to repay us. Neither are we going to allow you to extend your existing overdraft much beyond the agreed date. In fact, you will have to pay us back the present £3,000,000 by October.
The situation then became what one might describe as effervescent. The bubbles began to. burst, and, by November, we had reached the position where we were not allowed to go beyond the figure of £3,800,000 by way of overdraft. We had no indication of where money was coming from. The bankers wanted their £3,800,000 back. The contractors wanted the money from us to pay them for the work they were doing and there was then a sudden decision to issue a rushed loan in December.
By this time, our total requirement was the £6,500,000, plus money to give out on loan under the Small Dwellings Acts. We indicated we wanted £8,000,000, but were only allowed to go for £6,000,000. It is true that, in the £6,000,000, there was included an item for small dwellings amounting to £1,900,000 and this figure was kicked round like a football. The Minister said: But you got £1,900,000 for small dwellings. What are you worrying about? The Minister did not seem to be able to get it into his head that this was money which was already practically spent, except for £300,000, and was part of the overdraft that we got from the bank and which we had to pay back. I do not know if at the moment the Minister knows the position as clearly as he should know it.
I spoke about November, and now I want to draw the Minister's attention to another thing. In the month of November, when we found ourselves in this jam—it was not very sweet jam— it meant meeting after meeting over and above the normal meetings we had. It meant all kinds of approaches to the Department and the Minister. The corporation decided that, until this money problem was solved, it would be unwise to allow people to make commitments with contractors for the purchase of houses under these small dwellings loans, because each person who made such a contract paid a deposit in the belief that he was undertaking a commitment on the basis of the rate of interest ruling at that time.
I was certain that the money situation was so changing that, apart from its restricted availability, the price of it would be dearer. I proposed a resolution which the corporation carried, to the effect that the Dublin Corporation should put an advertisement in the papers stating frankly that we had not money to make these loans at the moment and that the people who were seeking such houses should not make any further commitments until the situation had clarified itself and that we were not receiving applications.
Here is something which, I think, indicates the lightheartedness with which the Minister for Local Government approached the matter. The city manager wrote a letter to the Department of Local Government and referred to the meeting of the city council on the Tuesday night prior to the writing of this letter. He again gave them all the details and facts about the position in relation to money commitments and so on, but there was this paragraph in the letter:—
"It is, therefore, proposed by advertisement in the public Press to give notice that the corporation is not in a position at present to deal with further applications under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, and any applications received will be returned with the application fee. It is further proposed to return the applications received since November 21st."
Now the manager puts this final short paragraph in his letter:—
"Before taking this serious step, I thought it better to inform you, so that the Minister may have prior notice of the position."
What do you think was the Minister's answer to that, Sir? Here we had a serious situation with a serious step contemplated and the manager reports to us, the corporation:—
"Immediately after the receipt of that letter, the Department phoned and asked that action on the lines indicated be deferred until the Minister for Local Government, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, had a further opportunity of considering the position."
In other words, the Minister says to us: "Do not do that yet. We are having another look at the position." Now behind the scenes, they take full responsibility for the position, because, if the Government had no responsibility for the making available of these moneys, they would have said: "It is none of our business. If you cannot carry on your business, I suppose that is what you will have to do." But the implication there was: "Do not do that yet, boys. We may still be able to solve this after another consultation." And we were precluded from putting this advertisement in the paper.
What has happened? Great numbers of people continued entering into commitments with contractors for loans under the Small Dwellings Acts. They paid deposits and, to-day, the position is that many of these people have forfeited their deposits. Many more are living in the houses they intended to buy under caretakers' agreements, until such time as the situation is altered. Now we wanted to save that situation. Many people did not know that, when this consultation took place and when the Minister agreed, as a result—and this is admitted now— to my proposition that £1,000,000 might be made available as a stop-gap, strings would be attached and the people who had previously qualified outside of what is called the supplementary grant class would be excluded; and they are not yet catered for. The screening, as it was called, of the applications to the Dublin Corporation for payments out of this £1,000,000 reduced the number of applicants because those who were outside the supplementary grant class were excluded. Now, the £1,000,000 was going very fast and it was pointed out that, by the end of May or the end of June, we would be back again to where we were last November: the available moneys would be exhausted, and what were we to do then? That is the position now, but there is yet another problem with which I shall deal at greater length later on.
We have the rate of interest change. People who, with a certain limited income, entered into commitments to buy houses, believing they would cost them so much per week or per month, now find that their payments in many cases have gone up by as much as 12/- and 14/- per week. I do not know whether there will be a frank admission by the Minister that that situation has developed, not because of mismanagement, bungling or a lack of appreciation on the part of the corporation, but because of circumstances quite beyond their control.
We had the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, Deputy O'Donovan, making very sharp debating points, refusing to get down to a proper realisation of the facts and trying to make out all the time: "You made a mess of it," trying to put the blame on other people's shoulders, so that people would think that the Government were the innocent party in this matter. All the Parliamentary Secretary's interjections are reported here and, when he reads them in relation to what I am putting on record, I hope he will see that the matter is not as he would have people believe it to be.
On the last occasion on which we discussed this matter, the Minister said: "I told you to apply to money institutions." That was his advice. May I tell the Minister that every year the same procedure is adopted? Every time we write to Local Government saying we want so many millions, the Minister of the day always sends back a note asking: "Would you find out whether there is any money available in insurance companies and suchlike institutions and then, when you get some of the money, we will see what we can do for you about the rest?" But the Minister interjected in the debate as if that approach was his particular invention. In connection with the present situation, we have written to 74 different institutions. I have a list here of insurance companies of all kinds, building societies, trade unions, lending agencies, Church bodies, big institutions and big businesses. We wrote all 74 a letter asking: "Have you any money to lend on mortgage to the Dublin Corporation?" We got replies from four.
The Irish Assurance Corporation, to which we referred on May 8th, gave us £500,000. The Minister said they gave us that £500,000 because of his intervention and his persuasion, but he forgot that, before his intervention and persuasion entered into it, we had been given £1,000,000 last year, without any persuasion or intervention on his part. We got an offer of £250,000 from another insurance company at 6 per cent., having borrowed the previous week £500,000 at 5½ per cent. That offer of £250,000 has not yet been accepted. It has not been rejected and it is now for the Minister to advise us as to whether or not we should accept that money at that rate. We have another letter here from the Taoiseach referring to £3,000,000 which I shall deal with later. We got an offer from a trade union of £10,000 and an offer from another trade union of £1,000. That was the total reaction to our 74 letters.
Our present position is, therefore, that we have an assurance from the Government that they will give us the balance of £3,000,000 that we cannot raise ourselves. The £1,000,000 for the small dwellings is separate. We have received £500,000 of that and we are to receive the other £500,000 in mid-August, but we have to look for £3,000,000 in order to ensure that the rate of building will be the same this year as it was last year.
The letter which the Lord Mayor received from the Taoiseach has the most extraordinary phrases and so forth, but the pertinent part is this:—
"It is expected that the corporation will use their best endeavours to raise the balance of £3,000,000 from appropriate lending agencies, subject to the consent of the Minister for Local Government to the terms. It is accepted that a special issue of stock by the corporation would not be practicable in present circumstances. If, however, the corporation should not be able to raise independently the full £3,000,000, the Government will come to their aid and make good the deficiency by advances from public funds. This undertaking is being given despite the current shortage of capital in consideration of the onerous obligations of the Dublin Corporation and the desire of the Government on social grounds to continue to devote a higher proportion of national resources to meeting essential housing needs."
We are not told when we are going to get the balance of that £3,000,000. We are told: "Look for it and, whatever you get, we will give you the balance." We have now exhausted every available source, and if we are allowed to accept this £250,000, to which I referred, at the 6 per cent. rate of interest, we will have secured £750,000, but we will be still short £2,250,000. Where are we to get it? We need it now; we are now going into overdraft again in the bank. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister to make a note for the Minister so that, when the Minister comes back from the place where I should be to-day with him, he will make sure to answer that and tell us when we are going to get this money and, further, at what rate of interest it will be provided to us or on what instalments.
The Taoiseach's letter was interpreted on the last occasion he spoke here, by both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, and the Parliamentary Secretary said: "But have we not given you £3,000,000? That is on record." What I want to get clear here is this: there seems to be a complete misunderstanding about the definition or interpretation of certain words. Are we to take it that a promise to give is, in fact, performance? Are we to take it that sanction is performance— sanction for us to get it somewhere— because we have not been given the money yet? We have been given a promise.
I have a letter here to which I want to refer also. At the time when our situation became so critical, we felt it would be more prudent for the corporation not to sign contracts until they knew where the money was coming from to pay the people with whom the contract had been signed; and we passed a resolution—one which was discussed with the deputation from the corporation that was received by the Minister—that in the future, side by side with sanction for new housing schemes, there would have to be an indication from the Government that the money would be made available. We were not going to sign new contracts without knowing that we would be able to meet the obligations. In pursuance of the resolution and in pursuance of that indication to the Government, we sent along a number of tenders we had received for schemes, asking for sanction and drawing attention to the money side of it.
A new development has now taken place. We got back this letter on the 10th May, 1956:—
"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to refer to your letter of the 8th March, 1956, enclosing tenders for the erection of 40 houses at the Coolock and Raheny housing scheme and to state that no objection will be raised to the proposed acceptance of tenders and payment to the contractor"——
whose name I do not want to mention
"——of £52,950. With regard to the financing of the scheme, I am to add that, on receipt of the corporation's proposal for borrowing the necessary capital, the Minister will sanction the borrowing."
Is that not bringing things to a farce? The Minister knows that since last November we have been screaming for money, pointing out the non-availability of it and the impossibility of our getting our full requirements by borrowing from the bank or otherwise. In the middle of all this, and when the Taoiseach, on behalf of the Government, has written us a letter, saying that they are now recognising the shortage of capital situation, recognising the needs of the corporation for housing schemes and that they must come to its aid and provide whatever money the corporation cannot borrow, we get this letter, written by grown-up men to other grown-up men, saying: "The Minister will sanction it—go out and borrow it." Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government tell us where we are to get it? I understand that we have written back saying we purpose to borrow it from the Local Loans Fund. Where else can we borrow it?
With regard to this promise of money from the Government, we discussed last week what we are to do; and the city manager will be negotiating with the banks for some accommodation, beginning at the end of June. We are not letting it go to have it come on us the day it happens. We are trying to make provision in advance and yet we will be told that, because we see the writing on the wall, and because we see these dangers, and try to provide against them in advance, we are committing sabotage. We have sanction from the Minister for Local Government to borrow £2,000,000 from the bank, but may I point out that practically every local authority in Ireland to-day is not being granted overdraft accommodation?
The Limerick Corporation only recently sought what to us in Dublin is chicken feed, £49,000. The bank would not give that money and they had to go to an insurance company for it. It was not available from the Local Loans Fund either. The Wicklow County Council has since last February been waiting for an answer to a letter in which they informed the Government that for their small dwelling loan operations they wanted £50,000. They have not even had the courtesy of a reply, and what are they doing? They intend to put an advertisement in the paper to the effect that applicants should not make commitments because they feel, and rightly so, that if they allow applicants to go along in the dark, those applicants might find themselves losing their deposits or faced with the taking of a loan at a rate of interest much beyond their capacity.
Is it not nonsense to write a letter of this kind? We want from the Government, for every scheme they sanction which is over and above our £3,000,000 commitment, a clear undertaking that once we sign this contract with their sanction the money will be made available, whatever way the Government gives it to us, either by advising us to go for a stock issue and underwriting it, or through the Local Loans Fund or any other way they like. It is ridiculous to have a document of this kind passing at this stage because we cannot sign this contract now since we have no means of implementing the last paragraph—go out and borrow the money.
It appears to me that the Department's officials have been directed to seek out every possible way of slowing down small dwelling loans. We received recently a circular, which I suppose every other local authority received, telling us that the giving of a loan under the Small Dwellings Aquisition Acts where the borrower had guarantors must cease. That is illegal now. What does that mean? Every local authority tries to operate this scheme with a certain amount of humanity. A young man comes along who is going to be married. He is in a good class of employment and is perhaps half a crown a week short in the required income according to the scales laid down. In the past, local authorities—we in Dublin did it in any event—knowing that this man would in the following year, or shortly after he had completed his application, be in excess of this small minimum, said: "You do not quite qualify but we will give you the loan provided you produce guarantors." Now we will have to say to that young man: "You are half a crown a week short of the required amount. Postpone your wedding, postpone everything, for six months or a year and come back again when you have that extra half a crown a week." That is deliberately done for the purpose of slowing down operations.
The operation of the Local Loans Fund has been very important in this part of the world anyway. I had a list made covering a few years of our operations and to show the Dáil the extent of this activity and the repercussions there must be, since this situation arose, on employment and on the livelihoods of people engaged in this business, it is necessary to put these figures before the House. From 1949 to 1953—that is a good number of years—the Dublin Corporation advanced 1,073 loans, the amount being £1,747,000 and the average loan being £1,629. In the year 1953-54, that is in one year only, the number of loans granted in Dublin was 1,456, amounting to £2,229,000, the average purchase price having now gone down to £1,500. That is a very substantial operation, to say that in one year there were accorded 1,456 loans to persons who are buying their own houses. In 1954-55 the figure was 1,120 loans, involving £1,714,000, and in 1955-56 there were 1,170 loans involving £1,790,000.
I want to point out as a member of a local authority—and I am sure it applies to all other members of the House who are members of local authorities—that it is a very good thing to see so many people buying their own houses. From the local authority point of view it is very important because no maintenance charge arises on the local authority when the individual owns his own house, and the aiding of such citizens automatically assists the rates. We must end slumdom in Dublin. We must build sufficient houses to meet the needs of those people who are qualified to be housed under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. The latest census in Dublin in connection with the needs of families with only three children shows that we still need another 10,000 houses. That does not include the newly-weds or the persons with one or two children.
Therefore, I say that to allow this very useful method of having houses made available to people to decline and go out of existence is a very grave deed. In fact, in my opinion, it would be a disaster. These people who buy their own houses are useful citizens. They pay the full rate of interest. It does not cost the Government or the local authority anything by way of subsidies on interest charges. It does not cost the local authority anything for maintenance. There is no necessity for compulsory acquisition by the local authority of ground on which to build the houses. That is all done in the ordinary run of business.
Now this whole system is to be discarded and endangered. In to-day's morning papers we see a statement issued by the Minister for Local Government following a conference over which he presided between him, the local authorities and the building societies. One would think that the problem for small dwelling loans for those over and above the supplementary class has been solved. I said yesterday to some person who showed me this statement: "What is your reaction to that?" I said: "This is a case now of not saying to somebody: ‘You hold the baby now'. This is the case of saying: ‘Would you give the pram a bit of a shove?'"
That is what it means. First of all, I know that the building societies have not sufficient capital nor are they able to get sufficient money to deal with this problem in the manner in which it should be dealt with or in the manner in which the local authorities could deal with it. Secondly, small dwelling loans were a protection to the borrower against unreasonable interest charges, and there is nothing in this statement issued by the Minister to indicate what rate of interest will be charged, if and when any transactions are completed between the building societies and these borrowers.
I made it my business within the last few hours to inquire what rate of interest will be charged by these building societies. I was informed it was 7 per cent. This is one of the things where the Government are trying to swim away from their responsibilities in connection with small dwelling loans. In 1948 the late Deputy Murphy, the then Minister for Local Government, came into this House and improved, from his point of view, the facilities for borrowers for getting these loans by reducing the deposit which they had to pay up to that date. His idea—and the House agreed unanimously with him—was that the time had been reached when borrowers of this kind should not only be encouraged but helped. Now what is this new business going to do? It envisages legislation being passed through the House enabling local authorities to give guarantees to lending bodies. Up to the present, building societies, which might be private bodies, lent 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. on the valuation and not on the cost of the house. Now the suggestion is that they shall lend 95 per cent. The difference between 80 per cent. and 95 per cent. will be made up through a guarantee which will be shared in three ways. Two-thirds of it will be borne by the local authority and one-third by the lending body and the two-thirds will be divided 50-50 between the Government and the local authority.
That looks very nice, but it does not say that the lending society will now lend 95 per cent. of the cost, which was the arrangement under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. Is this margin now to be much bigger? Are the local authorities to agree that the lending societies may fix their own valuations on the houses and then say: "We will give you the balance under this guarantee"? Or is the position going to be that the whole thing will collapse because, if they do estimate the loan on their own valuation of the house, the borrower will now be getting away from the 5 per cent. of the total cost. He will be allowed only the 5 per cent. of the valuation fixed by the building society and the difference between the valuation and the actual cost of the house will have to be found in some other way.
In addition, I understand there are requirements to be met by the Minister for Finance in connection with the income-tax side of these lending societies. The matter is not clear and will not be clarified for some considerable time. In my opinion, it is not fair to let it be thought by intending borrowers that the matter is being solved and clarified. It is getting more bemuddled, befuddled and bedevilled. I subscribe to the view that it is necessary for the Government to retain its responsibility for the provision of the necessary capital moneys for persons who are qualified under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. I think it it wrong to throw these people out into the arena or the jungle of competition to get money from different societies. It will mean that these people cannot pay the rates of interest that may be asked.
I have here a table showing how the payments will be affected by increases in the rates of interest. If one takes two types of house, the £1,200 house and the £1,800 house, every 1 per cent. that the rate of interest is increased means an increase of £12 per year on the former. There is nothing mysterious about that calculation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government might wish to have it appear so but even a national schoolboy knows that 1 per cent. on £1,200 is £12 per year. If the house is an £1,800 one, the interest at 1 per cent. is £18 a year and if the rate of interest has, as it has, advanced from the previous 4½ per cent. or 5 per cent. to 7 per cent., it is 2 per cent. extra and on the £1,200 house it will obviously mean a repayment commitment increased by £24 per year, 10/- per week. If the house is an £1,800 one, the increase is £36 a year.
I think we would be doing grievous harm to the type of person who seeks this assistance by asking him to have that amount of money sunk in interest charges. We will be doing the country damage from every other point of view as well. I am not being questioned at the moment or criticised on what I have said. I think something must be done by the combined local authorities to force the Government back to the situation that existed in 1932 and that existed in 1948 when everybody realised that the housing of our working classes, in view of the situation that confronted us, was an emergency that was deserving of priority treatment, that was deserving of the greatest financial assistance from the Exchequer.
We must get back to that and we must not confuse people, and by that confusion prevent them from realising that we are getting away from the responsibility. I want to say that I see through these manoeuvres but it will be very sad for the people who suffer and who cannot see through them. The whole idea now is to get away from the idea of speedy rehousing—slow it down; adopt every measure possible and suggest every possible means to take it away from our doorstep. That is what is happening and I hope the people will realise that.
I have been talking at some length and in some detail about the position of the small dwelling loans. We know that, taking into account those who qualify for the supplementary grant and those who are above that level up to the other maximum for qualifying without a supplementary grant it will mean that for a number of years, the rate of building these houses should be in excess of 1,000 a year in the City of Dublin.
The methods adopted at the present moment have not only slowed down, but have in many cases entirely stopped building, and in this year, 1956, I do not know how many houses will be constructed, but it will certainly be a lot less than 1,000. That may be one of the Parliamentary Secretary's methods of curing the need for capital money. If you cannot get it, find a way of not needing it, and if you do not need it—very well, the position is not so bad. But that is not meeting the situation as we understand it and as we understood it all these years. Every member of every political Party in every local authority in the past co-operated in dealing with this matter of housing, but to-day they are at one another's throats. We have representatives of one political Party now trying to blame the members of another political Party because of this situation.
Now we come to ordinary housing. It is very interesting to follow the development when we did not have many problems. In the year 1949-50, the Dublin Corporation constructed 1,245 ordinary houses and 254 flats and reconditioned 75 other houses, a total of 1,574, the expenditure being £3,030,000. In 1950-51, we had a total of 2,601 houses, at a cost of £3,317,000; and in 1951-52, a total of 1,982 at a cost of £3,054,000, and in 1952-53 a total of 2,209 at a cost of £2,976,000. Then we come along to 1953-54, when the number was 1,353 at a cost of £3,182,000. In 1954-55, the number was 1,937, at a cost of £2,847,000; and in 1956-57, 1,339 at a cost of £2,701,000. Now, the corporation building programme, which has been in progress since the beginning of this month, concerns the erection of 2,098 dwellings and this work is being carried out and provides employment for 1,941 men. These men are employed by direct labour and indirectly by two contractors in the building of our housing schemes. If, as I anticipate, it is the intention of the Government to treat the building of ordinary houses as they have treated the small dwellings, there will be a considerable slowing down.
I should like to say to the House that we cannot build, stop and then build again, as you would deal with a pack of cards. One deals them out, plays a game, adjourns for tea, and then goes back to the cards, and the pack of cards remains on the table. In housing, there is a constant situation: we must envisage first of all the minimum number of dwellings we want to construct, not this year or next year but for many years ahead. In order to do that, we have to acquire, in the first instance, the ground on which to build the houses. That may sometimes take a considerable period of time. First of all, we have to indicate to the Department of Local Government that we propose to take these or those fields, or this or that ground, or that we propose to acquire compulsorily a certain block of derelict houses, and when sanction has been got—it may sometimes be necessary to hold a public inquiry—it may, in the long run, mean that from the time we first put our fingers on a particular site, two years will have elapsed before we own it.
Then we have to develop it. We have to develop a site, provide roads, sewerage and so forth, and all the plans for these must again be submitted to the Department of Local Government for approval and sanction. Having done that tenders are invited for the type of houses or dwellings or flats which it is proposed to build, again subject to sanction, and from A to Z, when all stages have been gone through, a house that is occupied to-day may have been conceived in a scheme seven or six years ago.
It is imperative, therefore, that local authorities should be made aware of this position. They should be told frankly that if the Government fears it cannot carry this baby any longer, or cannot push the pram at the same pace—very well, reduce the building, and let them take responsibility for it, or alternatively, let them say: "We have not changed our approach to the building programme, and you should go ahead as you have been doing previously." The Minister for Finance told the deputation which called on him that a survey was to be completed before the Government could be expected to give any indication of a long-term nature such as I have suggested. Surely a survey is not necessary in the City of Dublin, where we know that we need another 10,000 houses immediately? It was pointed out to us that the survey included also availability of capital moneys. Therefore, it is quite clear to me that we will be faced very soon with a series of manoeuvrings and manipulations which will result only in a slowing down of housing and a deliberate attempt by the Government to blame the local authority for it.
I hope it will be accepted, in this debate, that the housing of our people is endangered and has been affected by a situation that is not the responsibility of local authorities. The Minister or the spokesmen for the Government should indicate the true position. If their difficulty is inability to inspire sufficient confidence in the public to give them all the money they need for their programme, they should say so. I believe there is a lack of confidence. I know that there are people who feel that this Government is no longer worthy of the support they previously gave it. That applies to a great extent to people who would underwrite loans. If that is the position, let the Government spokesmen say that, instead of making matters worse by trying to undermine the confidence of the people in their local representatives.
In the course of this debate, on 8th May, I said, at column 166, Volume 157, No. 1 of the Dáil Debates, in reply to an interjection by the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I must compliment on his silence to-day:—
"The Parliamentary Secretary will not put me off... We have been told by the Taoiseach in the form of a long letter that we may go and borrow up to £3,000,000 from anybody who is prepared to give us money and that, if we cannot get the full amount, the Government will make up the deficit."
The Parliamentary Secretary's interjection at that stage is worthy of repetition:—
"Was the Deputy surprised at the letter?"
The Minister for Local Government said:—
"He was flabbergasted."
Then the Parliamentary Secretary, said:—
"What happened the speech the Deputy had prepared?"
I was surprised and I was flabbergasted, because the letter does not bear the interpretation that has been put on it by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the Minister for Local Government. I do not know whether or not they still think it, but they certainly thought on May 8th that we had got the money or, alternatively, if we had not got the money, that we could go to the bank and discount this promise.
On that occasion, I pointed out that the Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation were still looking for their £200,000, that County Dublin was looking for £1,250,000. When I said that the Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation still had not got the money which they had applied for last November, the Minister for Local Government, ably supported by the Parliamentary Secretary, said that they got it that morning. Again I was flabbergasted, because I knew, that afternoon, that they had not got it. What did they get that morning? A body that previously got all its money from the Local Loans Fund received that morning a letter sanctioning their borrowing. In the opinion of the representatives of the Government in the Dáil, that night, that was the granting of the necessary money.
I do not know whether the Dún Laoghaire Borough Corporation will be accused of mismanagement or whether it will be suggested that they did not apply in time. I do not know what the excuse will be in that regard, but the fact is that this situation is general and the Government must do something about it, other than pretend to the public that everything is all right, that these fellows must be put in order first of all, that they do not know how to manage their affairs and that the Government are the men who will teach them how to manage their financial business.
Up to last year, the capital requirements of every local authority were met in one of two ways, either through local loans advances, or, in the case of Cork Corporation and Dublin Corporation, by sanction to issue their own stock, which was always underwritten by the Government and the banks, or by the Government itself, if necessary.
That is a situation to which we must get back. It is some years since I said in this House that it was ridiculous to have local authorities competing in a limited arena for money. Obviously, the Government, when borrowing money, should be able to get it at a cheaper rate than the rate at which a local authority can borrow. Nevertheless, a situation was allowed to develop to the extent that, not only are the Government and some local authorities competing in the market for money, but there are additional undertakings, all competing with one another for the money that is available and paying a higher rate of interest for it. Has the time not been reached when the Government should be the sole borrowing authority and should give out of its borrowings the requirements of other borrowers?
I have put down a parliamentary question which will be answered to-day. I cannot anticipate the answer. What is happening to-day? The vocational education body in Dublin want money to build three vocational schools. They have been told to borrow it. Where? They are competing with us.
