Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Oct 1965

Vol. 218 No. 2

Housing Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 12.

Debate resumed on the following amendment:

In subsection (1), page 13, lines 10 and 11, to delete "with the consent of the Minister and".—(Deputy Clinton).

Mr. Clinton

We spent a considerable amount of time yesterday evening on this amendment trying to convince the Minister that it was desirable to leave the job of providing houses to the elected representatives on local authorities and to leave the sole responsibility there and not to have it diversified in the manner in which it is diversified at the moment, responsibility being laid on the shoulders of public representatives, on county managers and on the Department of Local Government. We have tried at some considerable length to get the Minister to see that this division of responsibility is a serious impediment to progress in housing. The Minister insists that this must be retained. Apparently, nothing we can say on this side of the House will convince him that this bureaucratic control is wrong and is not conducive to expeditious and efficient housing progress.

As far as I am concerned, this amendment has been pushed far enough. If the Minister was going to change his attitude, he would already have changed it. I am sorry he does not see the good sense and the intention behind this amendment. There is only one intention, that is, to ensure that houses are built as fast as money becomes available to build them. The question of the amounts of money that will come from the Central Fund is something that can be decided by the Minister. I would exhort him to reconsider his attitude regardless of the fact that he seems determined to defeat this amendment. I know very well that if I insist on having a vote on this amendment at this stage, we will be defeated on the vote as well. I see little purpose in undertaking this exercise at this stage. I am anxious to see this Bill passed through the House as quickly as possible, consistent with ensuring that we at least get the best out of it. I do not want to be accused of delaying for a moment longer than necessary the benefits that might come to people who wish to be housed as quickly as possible and who hope to get additional benefits from this Bill. Consequently, I see no sense in pursuing this amendment any further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 13, subsection (1), lines 12 and 13, to insert "another housing authority or" and "other authority or by the" before "a body" and "body of" respectively.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps we could take amendments Nos. 10 and 11 which are consequential, with amendment No. 9?

Mr. Blaney

The purpose of these three amendments is to enable the housing authority, if they so wish, to assist another authority in any of the ways specified in the section. For example, a county council could help town commissioners in their area to improve town housing.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 13, subsection (1) (b), line 17, to insert "other authority or the" before "body".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 13, subsection (1) (c), line 18, to insert "other authority or by the" before "body".

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Larkin

Commenting on the amendment which was discussed at some length, the Minister indicated that the provisions of this Bill are new. We agree they will be useful and their effects may not be evident for a number of years. The Minister referred to the question of making available to bodies applying for a loan, guarantee or contribution under section 12 technical, architectural and other engineering assistance. It has been the experience in recent years that many local authorities, including Dublin Corporation, find that in addition to lack of finance and available land—difficulties which are there and which are likely to grow in the future—they also suffer from the lack of architectural, technical and engineering staffs. The Minister is aware that the development in Ballymun is being carried out in the way it is because the technical staffs of Dublin Corporation were over-burdened with the programme they had on hands.

This section gives local authorities power to give technical and other assistance. In view of the shortage of these staffs, I would like to know how the Minister envisages this can be done without prejudicing the essential work already being done by these staffs? If local authorities are to transfer these staffs from the work of providing houses to, for instance, road development, there is a danger that their main preoccupation will be prejudiced. All this appears to me to some extent to be like a general giving an army a supply of guns but not giving them any ammunition. It looks nice on paper to say that these things can be done. It looks very nice to send a regiment out to the front line with beautifully polished rifles, but when they proceed to pull the triggers, they discover there is nothing in the rifle. The Minister is aware there is a shortage at present of these staffs. Local authorities find difficulty in getting them and even difficulty in getting the approval of the Minister to increase these staffs in order to cope with the work.

It may be that local authorities would wish to utilise the powers given in the Bill at a time when the then Minister for Local Government might find himself prepared to support the application of the councils concerned to assist the bodies referred to in the Bill but unable to do so because of the prevailing financial position. With this section as it stands, they would not be required to indicate at all that finance was a problem. They could exercise the authority in the section to delay consideration of the proposals or to turn down the proposals without giving any specific grounds for doing so.

These are matters that should be mentioned at this stage. In particular, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will do what he can to ensure that local authorities will have properly trained, competent technical, architectural and engineering staff to carry on the work where local authorities apply to implement the proposals made under this section.

Mr. Clinton

I am very pleased Deputy Larkin has drawn attention to this question of staff. I made this point on the amendment but I am glad it has now been emphasised. I do not think the Minister appreciates the drain of staff because of this duplication and overlapping. Not only that, but the Minister brought in town planning legislation giving complete cover over the whole country and robbed us in County Dublin of staff and thereby clogged up development in County Dublin. We have not been able to replace the staff he took away from us. It is there I think the whole situation is wrong. There is no appreciation of the fact that work has piled up in County Dublin and that there is nobody to deal with it. Apparently there is just one way in which to get the staff required. When we wanted to hold on to the people we had, the Minister would not allow us to increase salaries, but he gave considerable increases to these people to induce them to go into his Department. We have one set of professional and technical people now checking on another set of professional and technical people, thereby holding up each other's work.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but might I point out that the section deals mainly with financial assistance given by local authorities to other bodies?

Mr. Clinton

That is true, but the Minister——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of staff does not come into it at all.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister referred to the fact that professional and technical help can be provided under this section.

Mr. Blaney

I was wrong. That is a later section. We are all wrong and the Chair is right.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.

SECTION 15.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 have been ruled out of order as they tend to impose a charge on the State funds.

Mr. Clinton

On a point of order, I know that my amendments have been ruled out of order on the ground that they would impose a charge on State funds but I think a very good case could be argued to the effect that they might reduce costs rather than increase them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendments have been very carefully considered and it was the opinion of the Chair that they would impose a charge on State funds.

Mr. Clinton

If the Chair insists, then we can only argue the matter on the section.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 14, the fourth column of the Table to subsection (2), to substitute "or" for "and" where that word secondly occurs.

Section 15 provides for a higher rate of grant for a house built in an area where public water and sewerage facilities are provided. Under this amendment, the higher rate of grant will be payable for a serviced house in an area where public water and sewerage are not available; in other words, where either or both may be missing. The amendment deals with that situation. It is necessary to bring the section into conformity with the scheme as at present administered. In a sense it is making the law conform to the practice we are now following.

Mr. Clinton

I do not quite understand the Minister's amendment. I have a note on my copy to the effect that the relationship between the grant given to a serviced house and to one in which no such services are available is ridiculous. Where people have to dig a well and provide a septic tank, they get only £25 more as compared with the position in which they simply connect up to local mains and sewarage. I cannot see in the Minister's amendment any provision for an increase. If there is such a provision, then the Minister has not mentioned the amount of the increase. It is ridiculous to expect that anyone could provide a septic tank and dig a well for an extra £25.

Mr. Blaney

The amount is £25. That has been the amount for quite a considerable time. The purpose of the amendment is to regularise in law what has developed in practice. This higher grant for a serviced house may continue to be paid even though there may be either a public sewerage scheme or a public water supply serving the houses. There may be one or the other. The practice has developed in which we pay the additional £25 and the amendment is designed to bring the law into conformity with the practice and continue the existing differential.

Mr. James Tully

I am sure the Minister is aware of what has happened. I refer to the new planning. I was rather wondering how the Minister would get around that. He has not referred to it at all. When people apply for permission to build, they are usually now refused by the local authority under three headings. The first is the traffic hazard, if the proposed building is on a main road. The second is that there is no public water or sewerage scheme likely to be developed in the area. What is the point then in talking about giving grants to people for either water or sewerage when the Minister's officials have decided apparently that, with the exception of a farmer living on his own land, nobody else will be entitled to a grant for a house or, in fact, to build a house at all, if there is no public water supply and sewerage in the area? If the Minister is not aware of that——

Mr. Blaney

If I am not aware of it, I fail to see how other people could be aware of it.

Mr. James Tully

Might I remind the Minister that I brought two documents to his office, the wording of which was a clear refusal of permission to people to build houses because public water and sewerage facilities were not likely to be available in the area.

Mr. Blaney

Quite so, but one swallow does not make a summer.

Mr. James Tully

There are literally dozens of these cases in Meath. I am sure thousands are being refused all over the country because someone interprets the Act in a way in which the Minister never intended. There appears to me to be no point in approving or disapproving grants if the Minister allows his officials or the officials of local authorities to refuse permission to people to build unless there are public water and sewerage facilities available. This may not be entirely relevant on this section, but the Minister would be well advised to take a look at the position before it goes too far. It has reached the stage now in which everyone who is anxious to build is getting the same reply. I understand this decision was taken following a conference between planning officers and the Minister's officials in the Custom House.

Mr. Clinton

The difficulty expressed by Deputy Tully in relation to this matter arises with us in the case only of a restricted site. It is tied up with densities.

Mr. James Tully

Not in Meath.

Mr. Clinton

In County Dublin it is tied up with densities and with the soil type. A density of five acres is required where a septic tank is necessary, unless there are exceptional reasons as to why that should not be so. If there is an old-established family in an area where the man is working in an industry on a small income, they may build this on half an acre provided the soil is suitable. I do not know what the position is in Meath.

To get back again, the Minister has not answered my question on this. In fact, his amendment seeks to leave the relationship between the grants in column 2 and column 3 even worse still. The relationship here is that where a person has to provide a septic tank and dig a well for a private water supply, he gets only £25 for that combined operation, exactly what the contractor gets who has only to link two local mains perhaps passing his door. That is deplorable. Now the relationship is worsened, due to the fact that the Minister now proposes in certain cases under column 2 to give an increased grant of up to £310. Is that not so? Is the Minister satisfied with the relationship between those two figures? Does he realise the cost of providing a septic tank and digging a well?

Mr. Blaney

There is a simple way of meeting Deputy Clinton to which he never seems to advert, that is, that we can bring down the grant for those coming under the public service.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister knows Deputy Clinton does not want any such thing.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy may not be aware that there did not always have to be a differential. There is now a differential and that differential has been widened in scope in order to cater for a greater number of people. While Deputy Clinton says we do not meet the intention of the amendments that have not or cannot be moved, that may be so.

Mr. Clinton

No; this has no reference to the amendment that I had.

Mr. Blaney

Actually what the Deputy was talking about did not necessarily have any relevance to what we are talking about, but that is neither here nor there. The amendment merely brings the law into conformity with practice. If we do not bring the law into conformity with practice, somebody will say: "You may not do this in law", and we will have to stop.

Mr. Clinton

I am not objecting to that, and the Minister knows that.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister is right. The practice has been to give the grant while there were grave doubts as to whether it was legal. However, I had hoped the Minister would have done something about this, not in the way he has suggested. It is impossible to supply water and sewerage or even water or sewerage for £25. Most local authorities will give £50. The Minister might have a look at this because it is not even in line with his own reconstruction grants in respect of an existing house. If sewerage only has to be provided, then the £25 grant referred to here stands. If water has also to be provided, there is a further grant.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. P. Brennan)

£50.

Mr. James Tully

In fact, £100. Therefore the grant mentioned here for water and sewerage is £100 less than that being granted on an existing house.

Mr. P. Brennan

No, £75. A house that has been reconstructed and is serviced gets a maximum grant of £75 for water and sewerage.

Mr. James Tully

And £75 from the local authority. Therefore, the Minister's grant here is £50 worse than the grant for a reconstructed house. Possibly the people who drafted the Bill might have a look at that aspect of it. I appreciate the Minister is tidying this up and that he is bringing the law into line with practice. Surely he should see that £50 for a new well is unreasonable. It must be dug to supply the new house just the same as for an existing house. The Minister might have a look at the provision before it comes to the Report Stage.

Mr. P. Brennan

For a non-serviced house, it is £25.

Mr. Blaney

And the serviced house gets £75.

Mr. Harte

Can you now apply for a grant for a non-serviced house?

Mr. Blaney

You can apply, but you are unlikely to get it, except in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Harte

Then that is nonsense.

Mr. Blaney

It is not nonsense.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This discussion on the amount of the grant would be relevant on the section. If we got the amendment through, the discussion would be in order.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 15, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Larkin

Would the Minister be so kind as to indicate to the House the circumstances in which he failed to bring before the House when he was introducing his comprehensive Bill some provision for increased grants to people desirous of purchasing their own houses? It is extraordinary that the Minister and his Government and other Ministers of the Government and all the powers-that-be repeatedly hold out to families in need of accommodation, to young people intending marriage, all the attractions of having a home of their own in which they can live and raise their families and contribute to the progress of the State. While making it possible by legislation for local authorities to provide sites and to make grants, they have no regard at all to what has happened in regard to house prices over the past few years.

Some years ago an applicant for a grant in respect of a house in an urban area was required to pay something around £2,000 and got a grant of £275 from the State, provided that house complied with the regulations laid down. You would not get a dogbox for £2,000 today. Ordinary working-class people, white collar workers, craft workers, and in many cases even builders' labourers who happen to do fairly well on overtime, who are compelled by circumstances to provide their own accommodation, are faced in the area surrounding this city and in many other areas also, with having to pay £3,500 for houses of around 1,100 square feet to 1,200 square feet. In some cases, they may get houses for about £3,000. Are they getting one red cent more to help them purchase those houses than they were getting when houses cost £2,000? They are not. Whether one likes it or not, the fact that these houses have gone to £3,500 and upwards is a reflection on the whole approach of the Minister and the Government in regard to housing and points to their failure to see that the prices of houses do not skyrocket. They have been sitting back and taking no steps whatever in this regard.

In regard to the people who are purchasing houses, I wonder to what extent there is even an assurance that the houses are worth the money they are required to pay. I doubt whether houses bought today for £3,500 are worth the £2,000 paid for houses a few years ago. The Minister for Local Government has permitted advantage to be taken of the people's need for houses. Those of us who are in contact with people who require houses know that there is one law, that is, that you pay whatever you can and even more than you can afford if it becomes impossible to get accommodation. When the books of the builders are full of orders, then applicants will pay whatever they are asked. There is no doubt that the price of houses has sky-rocketed and there is no doubt that the Minister failed to do anything about it. He has failed to do anything about one of the basic causes of this, that is, the exploitation of land for this type of development.

Despite the fact that the prices of houses have gone up, the contribution by the Minister to those who are faced with shouldering this great burden of accommodation remains at £275. Whether the system of providing assistance to people requiring their own houses is the best one is something that could be argued, and whether supplementary grants have in many cases gone directly to the builders and have not been of any great advantage to purchasers could also be argued. What we are concerned with here is why the Minister is not taking advantage of this comprehensive Bill and this opportunity to help by deed, and not by word, people who want to buy their own houses. We could discuss at some length whether in the long run it is of any great advantage to somebody to shoulder the debt on a loan of £2,700, which is the maximum loan now, at 6 per cent, or whether in the final analysis he would be better off to rent a house at a reasonable figure. As long as there are provisions to assist people to purchase houses, then those provisions should be related to the circumstances in which people are compelled to buy houses.

I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary knows of quite a number of cases in his area of people buying houses and where one of the complaints is why the supplementary grant has not been substantially increased. Only by substantially increasing the supplementary grant can the theoretical encouragement to the people to purchase their own dwellings be actually translated into fact particularly having regard to the fact that on the amount of supplementary grant given by the State depends the amount of supplementary grant given by the local authority.

I want to take this opportunity of querying, as a representative of an urban area, as a representative of people in industry and commerce, of people making their contribution to the progress of the State, why a person who is going to purchase a house in Clontarf, Ballyfermot or Finglas, while working as a building craftsman, or working in an engineering firm or on the railway and making a very real contribution to the development of the State, should find a disparity between the amount of grant which he can obtain and the amount given to a farmer, which is £200 more? I do not want to suggest that the larger figure may not be justified but certainly the people for whom I speak feel that they are being treated unjustly because so far as house purchase schemes are concerned, they are being treated as second-class citizens. I would welcome an explanation from the Minister as to why he has not taken advantage of his Bill to increase the amount of grants as people are buying their own homes to a very substantial extent at this stage.

Mr. Clinton

I have said before that the record of the Government in house building during the past eight years has been deplorable. Whereas in 1956 and 1957, we were spending between £10 million and £12 million on housing annually, last year we spent £7 million. I believe one reason for that is that the grants mentioned in this Bill are the same as the grants that existed in 1948. They were fixed then and there has been no change since, but they have been introduced here as new grants. This is deplorable when one considers the increase in the cost of housing during that period, increased labour costs and increased costs of materials and sites. I can remember when, if anybody wanted to purchase a house and had £75 or £100, he had no difficulty in doing so, but at present he must have at least £500 to purchase his own house.

Deputy Larkin has said that the ordinary average house soundly built today costs about £3,500 and the maximum loan on that house is £2,700. There is a State grant of £275, leaving a balance of £525. The number of people who want to live in a granttype house and who have £525 in their hands is very small and it is a source of great hardship to them that this deposit is necessary. We all appreciate how desirable it is that the maximum number of people should purchase their own houses because by doing so, in many cases they lessen the great burden and responsibility on local authorities to supply them with houses because many of those who try to build houses would be eligible for local authority houses.

At present many local authority tenants are being forced out of their houses because they could purchase their own house and build up a capital asset at the same time at a much lesser figure than is now being exacted in rent by local authorities. This is another reason why it is deplorable that these grants have not been increased since 1948. No case can be made for not increasing the subsidisation of those in the lower income group who want to purchase houses for themselves.

I put down an amendment to this section seeking to have the upper limit on area removed. This is a pointless provision. I had a question on yesterday's Order Paper which was not answered because it was not reached, but I had hoped to have the information before we come to section 15. It asked the Minister to state the number of houses built annually without a grant of any sort. So far as my information goes, the number is insignificant. The upper limit on area restricts the flexibility of planning and produces an ugly uniformity because it is extremely difficult to keep houses within the prescribed limits and allow for any sort of imagination or innovation in architecture. It may be that an extra five, ten or 15 square feet would allow an enormous improvement in a house but that is ruled out because of this upper limit. When one considers the amount of administrative costs of checking and supervising this upper limit, I think it cannot be said there would be any increased cost to the State if it were removed. It was on the ground of cost to the State that the amendment was ruled out but I think it would save money in the long run because it would obviate the checking and supervision to ensure that a house is not one foot bigger than the regulations prescribe.

I think the restriction on floor area inevitably leads to dishonesty. Any architect can design a house that will secure the grant in such a way that immediately the grant is secured, he can put two or three large rooms on to the house so that he might as well get the grant in the first instance and be allowed to incorporate these rooms in the original plan. The number of people who would build a very much bigger house than is prescribed would be insignificant because people have not got that kind of money. This limit is undesirable and unnecessary. I do not see how any case can be made for the Minister keeping grants and subsidies towards the cost of providing houses for the average person down to the figure fixed in 1948.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

This section covers a wider range of people. It is very disappointing that increased grants were not made available because those who qualify for supplementary grants in areas in which such grants are payable cannot get more than £600 for a new house. Everybody knows £600 does not represent any more than 15 per cent of the cost of erecting the house.

Having regard to the sharp increase in building costs—and I agree with Deputy Larkin when he said that building costs have increased by 50 per cent in the past four or five years—I believe there is an obligation on the Minister and the Government to analyse the reasons for this increase. Many people believe that if there were a probing inquiry into the sharp increase that has taken place, we would find some people are making more profit than they are justly entitled to make.

Coming back to the amount paid by the State as a new house grant in 1965 when such a house costs at least £3,500, one finds that a man expending that amount gets only £300 from the State and has to find £3,200 himself, unless he qualifies for the additional £300 from the local authority where that is payable. If such a man were to reconstruct his house and get an estimate of £420 for that work, in respect of that estimate he would get a grant of £280. There is no question of a means test where supplementary grants are concerned. Irrespective of his income, a man who expends £420 will get £280 except in a few urban areas where supplementary grants are not payable. This £420 is made up of £140 the man contributes himself, £140 from the local authority and a similar amount from the State. It is therefore unfair, if the man's house is unsuitable for renovation and he is compelled to build a new house, to give him a grant of only £20 more than the figure provided if he had only to reconstruct his house.

Our main purpose here in discussing housing is to encourage people to provide themselves with good homes. That is what the Government want, what the people as a whole want. Our aim is to encourage our people to provide good homes for themselves and their families. We wish to encourage people to do the job themselves because already there is too heavy a burden on local authorities in the provision of houses for all those in need of them.

In west Cork, the county council try as best they can to induce people to provide their own homes. We try to facilitate our people as best we can by providing them with supplementary grants, loans and other inducements, such as extensions of water supplies and sewerage systems. It is unfair to ask the people covered by this section to be satisfied with the present level of grants. If, as Deputy Clinton has said, we gave a grant of £275 towards the building of a house in 1948, surely the grant should now be as high as £700 or £800? If we wish to get people to build more houses themselves, the Minister must be more generous in the matter of grants.

I shall not mention here the groups covered by section 16 because we shall have a proper discussion on that shortly and I shall have a lot to say on it. I repeat that the amount of the grants is most disappointing in view of the sharp increase in building costs. Grants have not increased accordingly and there should be some analysis—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would not arise on the section.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The cost of building houses is very relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have a Second Reading debate on the section.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am making the case that the present level of grants for building houses is only 20 per cent of the cost whereas 20 years ago grants represented at least 33 to 35 per cent. There has been a big decline in that respect. I suppose, in view of increased burdens on the State because of shortage of money, this is an inopportune time to say it, but we hope that the shortage will be temporary and that as the economy improves, the question of grants will get early consideration from the Minister and the Government.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I should like to add my feeble voice in support of the views expressed by Deputy Clinton, Deputy Murphy and others in making a very sincere appeal to the Minister to give more serious thought to the question of substantial increases in grants, very necessary if we are to help people to provide themselves with homes. It is no harm for the House to consider this matter seriously, in a calm and businesslike manner.

The last speaker referred to the possibility of increased grants being a burden on Government finances, having regard to the present financial state of the country and the general economy. However, too many of us are inclined to give serious thought to mere book-keeping. Which is more important for the community; houses for the people or an up-to-date form of State book-keeping? Surely the responsibility rests with the Government to provide all our people with good houses; yet we have reached the stage at which local authorities cannot cope with the demands in every town and city.

Here an opportunity presents itself to the Minister to assist people to provide their own homes. I do not pose as a prophet—I should not like to be anything in the nature of a political prophet—but I prophesy that we are reaching the stage in every big town when, as a result of rent revision, people are being driven out of local authority houses because they cannot cope with the rising rents on top of rates. Those people are giving serious thought to providing themselves with their own homes on sites they are prepared to purchase. This would relieve local authorities but the big trouble is that local authorities will find themselves faced with having houses left on their hands because of the present level of rents. I hope to say something more about this later. In Birr, new houses have been erected. I have a Parliamentary Question on the Order Paper dealing with rents which have been increased from 24/-to £2 per week.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not see how we can relevantly discuss rents on a section dealing solely with money in the form of grants provided by the Minister.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Quite correct. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that people being forced out of local authority houses by high rents are contemplating building houses but they cannot do so because of lack of financial provision. The case is being made by every Deputy, by every local authority member—Church and State have also generously contributed to the idea— that the real centre of family and parish life is the home. Is it not extraordinary that in 1965 so many tens of thousands of our people are in need of homes, that after the long record of Fianna Fáil in office, we are faced with what can be described as a national emergency in housing?

The responsibility for this desperate national emergency must rest with the Government. The Opposition have no responsibility. If Fine Gael and Labour were in a position to solve the problem, I venture to say the chaotic conditions of today would not exist.

The responsibility rests with the Government alone and I now ask them to increase grants substantially to enable people to build their own houses. It is alarming that since 1948 there has been no substantial increase in grants for private building.

I do not recollect recently seeing any statistics published by the Department of Local Government in relation to building but I am inclined to disagree very slightly with Deputy Murphy when he asks for an inquiry into builders' costs. Most of our builders are facing financial ruin and disaster and, in particular, small country builders and contractors are put to the very pin of their collars to exist. We all have a responsibility to the building industry and to the builders and contractors but, at the same time, we must assist private persons to build their own homes. Can the Minister tell us the cost of an average sized house in 1948? A house that costs about £3,500 today could have been built in 1948 for anything in the region of £1,800 to £2,000.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

For less.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Yes, I should imagine so. I want to be fair with the Minister and to be rather generous in my estimate. I do not think I can be accused in this regard at least of exaggerating the 1948 costs. To come back to this subject of a house which now costs, say, £3,500. The same contribution is paid by the Minister today as was paid in 1948 when such a house cost £2,000 or less. The 1948 grant level still prevails. That has been responsible for adding to the housing confusion. The Government have failed very miserably in encouraging and in assisting people to build their own homes.

Deputy Larkin was quite right in saying that it is the ambition of every married person to have his own home. The first consideration must be financial. A person nowadays who wants to build his own home must seek money apart from the local authority, because the maximum amount of loan the local authority can give is £2,700 and I am sorry to say that most local authorities have been very reluctant in giving the maximum amount of the loan. In the area which I represent, our county manager has been reasonably generous in this regard. However, there are certain restrictions and regulations and difficulties to be coped with by the person who seeks money to provide himself with a home. It may arise from lack of security for the money which he seeks. Some difficulty may arise in satisfying the local authority as to the financial standing of those who are prepared to act as guarantors for an applicant for such a loan.

I have always said that the house, when erected, should be sufficient security on its own. It is an asset. It is of great financial value. It is rather embarrassing for any young married man who wants to build his own house and to be independent to have to go around among all his friends and neighbours seeking a guarantor to the local authority in order that the money may be raised to enable him to build his house. I was hoping that, in the times in which we live and with the various modern types of legislation coming before this House and being forecast by the Government, we would at least be able to remove the embarrassing position whereby people anxious to build their own houses have to ask their neighbours or friends to act as guarantors for the amount of loan required to build the house. If they were leaving the country, they could not take the house with them. A house costing £3,500 should be sufficient security in order to enable a person to receive a loan of £2,700 on it. Unfortunately, much red tape in the Custom House defeats the good intentions of local authorities to provide whatever moneys they can for applicants for such loans. The Minister for Local Government should make an effort to release the bonds of red tape that surround county managers when allocating loans for private building.

Again, even if the maximum loan of £2,700 is granted by the local authority, where will the applicant raise the balance of the money? The amount of the grant is insufficient. The amount of the supplementary council grant is insufficient. I venture to say that applicants for these loans cannot approach any bank or private financial concern in order to raise the balance of the money because they will immediately be asked if a mortgage can be taken out on the house which is to be built. Naturally enough, the local authority has the first claim, by way of mortgage, on the house for the amount of the loan.

I know of people building their own houses who were refused financial accommodation of £300, £400, £500 and £600. There are some thousands of people in this country today—and I am not exaggerating when I say "thousands"—who would build their own houses and who are prepared to build their own houses and who can be provided with sites for them if they can bridge the gap between the amount that can be provided by loan, by grant and by supplementary grant and the actual cost of the house. That is where the difficulty arises and where the Minister for Local Government can now do something in a really practical form in order to help the housing drive. I could never understand why the Department of Local Government and the Minister and, indeed, the Government have not put greater emphasis on the importance of private building in order to encourage people to build independent of the local authority, thus considerably relieving the local authority of the responsibility of building houses and providing loans.

I appeal to the Minister, with Deputy Clinton, Deputy Murphy, Deputy Larkin and all the others who have spoken in this debate to take the necessary steps to reconsider this matter and to make a very substantially increased grant. The grants should at least be doubled. The Minister would be spending the money well and wisely by doubling the present grant which is available for private building. If he tells us that the financial resources of the State will not enable him to do so, I urge that, credit squeeze or no, people must be provided with houses or homes. They cannot be left under the shelter of the sky and the stars.

In that connection book-keeping considerations have outweighed the provision of houses for people justly entitled to them. I ask the Minister to subscribe to the proposal that grants be doubled in order to assist people in providing their own homes. This will serve as ample evidence to the general public that the Government are seriously helping people to provide their own homes and are aware of the necessity to relieve local authorities of the responsibility of providing houses for people who cannot provide homes for themselves.

The Labour Party and Deputy Clinton have served a useful national purpose in focussing attention on this great problem which should receive far greater and more serious consideration from the Government than has been displayed on this section or has been shown to the country in recent years.

Mr. Moore

I do not think it helps very much for a Deputy to declare that there is a housing emergency and then to proclaim that the Government are to blame for it. If any progress is to be made in the housing situation it must be realised that the population is increasing and that people of this generation are marrying at a younger age than was the case with the last generation and that, rightly, they are seeking a higher standard of housing.

It will not be denied that a young couple seeking to buy a house today have difficulty in finding the deposit. I do not know whether increased grants would remedy that situation or not. There is one school of thought that the more grants you give, the higher the costs go. That may be true or not but it is worthy of consideration.

I am speaking mainly for the city of Dublin. There is one scheme by which local authorities could help to solve the housing problem. Many years ago Dublin Corporation introduced tenant purchase schemes whereby the Corporation built houses and the tenants by paying a weekly rent purchased the houses. Hundreds of houses were built in places like Marino, Sandymount, Drumcondra and so on. The scheme worked very well indeed. In these schemes today there is an affluent section of society. The schemes were well devised. It was in the tenants' interests to purchase the houses over 30 or 35 years. Something happened and Dublin Corporation dropped the scheme of tenant purchase. They had prepared two schemes of tenant purchase houses and discovered that the demand had fallen off, one reason being that builders were producing houses which were as good as the tenant purchase type houses and were situated in perhaps a better part of the city. I am speaking of a time about ten years ago. Now the corporation are preparing to re-start such schemes. The House will appreciate how attractive a proposition it is to a young couple. If at the moment they occupy a corporation house and surrender it they can get a new tenant purchase house without a deposit and the repayments are kept within limits that people can afford. If the applicant does not occupy a corporation house and is granted a tenant purchase type house he will pay a sum as low as £80 to include deposit and legal expenses.

The time has come when the whole financial structure in relation to housing must be examined. All Parties agree that if we are to have a proper social pattern people must be able to acquire their own houses; not be merely tenants of the local authority. The whole financing of housing could be examined and the Minister should impress on local authorities the great need there is for tenant purchase schemes such as I have mentioned and the great advantage to be derived from them.

A good case can be made for increasing grants but I am doubtful as to whether an increase in grants would achieve the purpose which those who urge that grants should be increased have in mind.

Mr. James Tully

Everybody speaking on this section, including Deputy Moore, is in favour of increased grants. I am not surprised at that. Those who have any interest at all in housing must know that the application of 1948 figures to a 1965 Bill is ridiculous. In 1948, for example, it was possible to get a fairly desirable site for £25 to £50 to £100. The site would have to be very exceptional for the figure to go beyond £100 and in rural areas the cost would be very much less. At the present time the cost of sites has gone over the £1,000 mark. Even in and around rural villages and towns sites are now fetching £600, £700 and £800 for a quarter of an acre or less. The fact is that not alone does the Government grant not meet the cost of the site but the combined Government grant and supplementary grant will not meet the cost of the site.

I do not know whether it is appreciated or not that the cost of planning a house is a very expensive business. The Government Publications Office supplies plans for a few shillings. The plans are excellent. Many of them are for lovely houses. The Minister may shake his head.

Mr. Blaney

I do not agree with the Deputy.

Mr. James Tully

Plan 57 C is one which the Minister should have a look at—not on paper.

Mr. Blaney

I have. We are changing them.

Mr. James Tully

As long as they are changed in the right way——

Mr. Blaney

That is the idea.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister should change not only the house but the grant. The opportunity is here now. If the Minister is all for improvement, here is the way to make it.

Mr. Blaney

Cut the price is the way to do it, is it not?

Mr. James Tully

I will talk about that in a moment.

Mr. Blaney

I know the Deputy will.

Mr. James Tully

If somebody decides that he does not like the plans which he can buy for a few shillings and decides to get an architect to design the house, the fees can run up to 10 per cent of the contract price of the house—£300 for a £3,000 house. There may be smiles on some faces but I have concrete evidence of that. That means that if the house is over £3,000 the Government grant will not meet the architect's fees. People may be prepared to have plans drawn up but when they see the cost involved they are not anxious to continue with the idea because they cannot meet the cost.

I now come to a matter on which the Minister will not disagree with me. The evidence that builders' costs require investigation is the fact that there may be a variation of over £1,000 in the tenders for a house costing less than £5,000. Where there are four or five contractors there may be a difference of £1,000 between the lowest and the highest tender. That shows that there is some profiteering. If the contractor tendering at the lowest figure had not submitted his tender the contractor tendering at the higher cost would have succeeded in getting away with £1,000 per house more than he was entitled to. Efforts may be made to try to dodge this issue but building costs must be investigated and the sooner the better. It is no use in ascribing higher building costs to increased costs of labour. Those who have gone to the trouble of checking the facts know that even the eighth round, not to mention the ninth round, wage increases does not represent a fraction of the increases in building costs. The cost of certain materials has increased, but I am satisfied that profiteering by builders is the biggest factor in the increase.

It has been suggested that the builders cannot be blamed, that they are going bankrupt, that they are not getting their money. That may be true. If they have many bad clients who do not pay them and if they find themselves in financial difficulties, that is no reason why they should lay it on those who are prepared to pay for the work they get done. That seems to be the attitude adopted by some of these gentlemen.

As far as the grants themselves are concerned, I was sorely disappointed the Minister did not take this opportunity of increasing them. I believe Deputy M.P. Murphy made the best contribution this morning when he pointed out the relationship between costs and grants in 1948 and now. As he says, we are paying two-thirds of the cost of reconstructing a house up to a maximum of £420. But if the person concerned finds he cannot reconstruct the house, that it is not fit for reconstruction and has to build a new house, he will get a miserly sum, the same sum as he would have got in 1948. We all know there is a shortage of money for housing. Our local authorities have told us they cannot pay supplementary grants because they have no money. They cannot pay loans because they have not got sanction from the Department. Even taking these things into account, the Minister, as he said himself last night, should look at the situation in the years to come when money may be more plentiful for whatever Government are in power and he should make provision for giving decent grants under this Bill. There is no incentive to anybody to build a house on an offer of a £275 grant.

I have personal views on the question of the supplementary grant. If, as alleged, speculators are grabbing supplementary grants, I believe we will have to adopt the system adopted in other countries and, instead of giving supplementary grants, subsidise the loan charges since this cannot be taken from the person who should benefit. However, that is another matter entirely. Before he allows the Bill go through, the Minister should reconsider this section. If he does—and I ask him to do so—he will have the full support of the House.

There is one matter on which I should like clarification. This Bill is long and complicated. It is difficult to relate one section to another, particularly in this case where many of the sections refer to sections in a previous Act. I see a reference here laying down a condition that a grant will be made only if:

the house is erected on a site other than a site in respect of which a contribution has been made by the Minister under section 44 or 45 of this Act....

That refers to the Department being in a position to grant subsidy on loan charges for the purchase and development of sites in certain circumstances. Would the Minister help me by saying whether or not this affects the issue where a local authority buys a site, builds houses on portion of it and sells the remaining sites at a reasonable cost to people who want to build their own houses? Am I to take it that, if that is done, those people, because of the relationship of one of these sections to another, may find that if the local authority get a State subsidy towards the loan charges for the purpose of purchasing and developing the site, they will not be able to get the grants referred to in this section? Perhaps the Minister would clear that up for me?

Mr. Clinton

I was attempting to speak before Deputy Tully because I wanted to follow Deputy Moore. Deputy Moore was obviously embarrassed by this section. He meets many of the people I meet. I can see that my colleague, Deputy P.J. Burke, is also embarrassed.

Mr. Corish

Well, that is something.

Mr. Clinton

I should like to hear him expressing a view on this. I am sure that people come to him every day telling him that they cannot meet this deposit because in all cases it is over £500. The Minister should ensure that people going into occupation of a house of their own should not have to make a contribution anything like that. If he wants to get back to the position which obtained in 1948 when these grants were fixed, he will have to reduce that gap and bring that figure down to £100. I know many people who bought their own houses with no more than £75 in their hands at that time. In fact, many people were able to go into their own houses without any deposit. If that was possible in 1948, surely it is desirable that it should be possible now.

In 1957 nearly £11 million was provided as a subsidy to housing. Nearly £14 million was provided in 1953. Last year, approximately £7 million was provided. These figures are in the White Paper. They are not my figures. They indicate how the Government have failed to provide money for housing over the past eight years. Here we are now introducing new housing legislation but we are giving no increases on the grants provided in 1948. I cannot see how the Minister can justify that. It is obvious that at least one of his Deputies believes these grants should be increased and that it is impossible for a large number of people to secure their own houses with the assistance provided. I am sure if Deputy P.J. Burke spoke his mind he would have to admit the same thing. If many Deputies in the Fianna Fáil benches expressed what they know to be true, they would say that housing is a fundamental need for any family and it is desirable that as many people as possible should own their own houses. Here we have an opportunity of ensuring that, but we are doing absolutely nothing about it.

The cost of houses has been raised and it is a matter relevant to these grants. I know a certain amount of profiteering has taken place amongst the building contractors, but I would say we have a large number of building contractors quite prepared to take a reasonable profit and a reasonable profit only. But the situation requires investigation. I have come across a case where a contractor built ten houses and took a profit of £700 per house, giving him a profit of £7,000 for the ten houses. Nobody could justify that. It is a shocking imposition on people who are depriving themselves of much they desire in order to become the owners of their own houses.

Since 1948 there have been increases in all spheres. Two big factors are responsible for the increase in the cost of housing. One of these is labour costs. About 65 per cent of the cost of any house is labour; the other 35 per cent increase is represented in the increased cost of sites and materials. When the Minister says that the way to do it is to cut down the cost I fail to see how we can possibly cut down the cost without cutting down the wages of those engaged in building houses. It just cannot be done in 1965. You cannot put back the clock no matter how good the new plan the Minister has in mind may be.

I was glad to hear him say he was bringing up to date the plans in existence now for some considerable time, available at a cost of a few shillings in the Government Publications Office Revision of these plans is overdue. However, unless the Minister cuts down the size of the houses, I fail to see how there can be any improvement. In my view the majority of houses being built at the moment are much too small. In no time at all there is deplorable overcrowding, overcrowding inevitably leading to ill-health and other social evils. Expenditure on housing grants last year represents no improvement since 1948. No Minister can deny that.

Mr. P. Brennan

We have had a lengthy discussion on this particular section. Deputy Larkin complained about the grants provided. He went on to talk about supplementary grants and housing costs. He referred to the need for some investigation into the high cost of housing. There is a variation as between costs in the country and costs in Dublin and one can well understand Deputy Larkin's anxiety to bring down building costs. The Minister has been trying to do that over the years. The Minister has been criticised by the Parties opposite, particularly those members who are also members of local authorities, because he has refused to sanction schemes. His refusal was, of course, based on the fact that he was not satisfied the costs were realistic. He was accused of holding up housing. In fact, what he has been trying to do all along is to get a sensible approach to this question of housing costs. The Minister would be only too happy if we could get costs back to something approaching realism.

Deputy Larkin's argument for increases in the grants does not hold water when one remembers that he is Chairman of the Dublin Housing Authority. I have a great respect for him. I am satisfied he is an influential member of the Dublin Corporation and its Housing Committee. Deputy Larkin talked about supplementary grants. The fact is Dublin Corporation does not pay 100 per cent supplementary grants. Dublin Corporation should put its own house in order in this respect, remembering that the Corporation can provide 100 per cent grants within certain income limits. When Dublin Corporation, through the influence of Deputy Larkin, succeed in doing that we can then come back here and talk about the Government increasing State grants.

With regard to the point made by Deputy Moore, it is accepted by members of the Opposition and by Deputy Larkin, I think, that increases in housing grants do not always benefit the person who is getting the house built. The increases may go into the pockets of the builders. The probability is that prices will remain the same, or even increase, pro rata with any improvement in the grant.

Deputy Clinton said that State grants today are the same as they were when they were first introduced in 1948. There are substantial improvements in this Bill and the Opposition are aware of those improvements. In the case of those who will benefit from the £275 grant, this will apply by and large to people in urban areas. The Government are making it possible for local authorities now to acquire sites and develop them, making the sites subsequently available to people who are interested in building. The Department will give one-third of the cost subject to certain limits.

Whether or not we are realistic about this, the fact is that one can buy a site in an urban area for £200, £300 or £400. If the local authority buy the site and develop it they can then give it to an applicant for a nominal sum or, if they like, for nothing at all. That is actually being done in one urban area in my county. The Department will contribute one-third of the cost and people who are eligible for grants of £275 can, therefore, get assistance from their local authorities by way of help in the provision of sites.

Deputy Clinton's argument that the grants have not improved since 1948 may be true but I can tell the Deputy that the number of houses provided by private enterprise speaks for itself. In 1949, 1,500 houses were provided with the assistance of State grants. In the past year the number provided was 6,900. The grants have obviously encouraged people and we are glad people are prepared to avail of these grants. We hope the assistance that will now be given by way of subsidy to local authorities for sites will encourage local authorities to provide sites at reasonable prices for those of our people interested in building houses. The minimum a site would be worth is £100 or £150 and the State is, therefore, making a substantial contribution from that point of view alone.

Deputy Clinton availed of the opportunity to charge the Government with having done nothing in regard to housing in the past eight or nine years. He mentioned a figure of £10 million spent by the Government in 1956-57. Actually, £15½ million were spent last year.

Mr. Clinton

The figure I have is £7 million.

Mr. P. Brennan

Actual Government expenditure was £15.33 million.

Mr. Clinton

Not all housing.

Mr. L'Estrange

What was the figure in 1956-57? Compare like with like.

Mr. P. Brennan

It was £15.33 million on housing last year.

Mr. L'Estrange

Compare like with like. What was spent in 1956-57?

Mr. Clinton

Does that include water and sewerage?

Mr. P. Brennan

We are discussing housing, not sanitary services. The estimated figure for this year is something in the region of £18 million and, judging by the demands from local authorities, we shall not fall far short of that figure by the end of the year. It just does not make sense for Deputy Clinton to say we are doing nothing about housing. The facts speak for themselves. In 1964-65 the sum spent was £15.33 million. That is no mean figure in my opinion. I agree we must step it up if we want to solve the housing problem, but it is a tribute to the Government that we have a housing problem because that clearly demonstrates that more people are content to stay at home in their own country. Another Government's method of solving the housing problem in 1956-57 was exporting the people. Times have changed for the better and it is a tribute to the success of the Government over the years that we have this ever-increasing demand for houses.

Deputy Murphy spoke about grants as between urban and rural areas. In the rural areas, the grants are substantially higher. Farmers under £25 valuation can get a grant of £450 and certain other categories of workers can get a smaller grant. He told us that the Cork County Council were encouraging people to build their own houses. I am delighted to hear it and if we could get more of our people to avail of the grants and build their own houses, building could be done at very little cost. Of course that is something that cannot happen in the city of Dublin where most of the people are away working in the course of the day and could not give the time to providing their own houses. Dublin has an entirely different problem in regard to house-building from that in rural parts. The costs are much lower in the rural areas.

I can well understand Deputy Larkin's anxiety in regard to the cost of houses in the city of Dublin but I do not think it would relieve the position to increase the State grant or the supplementary grant. However, Dublin Corporation have the where-withal. They have the power to give 100 per cent grants and at the moment they are not doing it. They should have a look at that.

Deputy Tully spoke about the cost of employing an architect. While I agree it is desirable to have a house properly designed and properly supervised in its erection, at the same time it is a bit much for an architect to expect to get a ten per cent commission, which is much higher than the average rate of commission paid to consultants and other people in that field in the country generally. Certainly a man who is prepared to pay £300 to an architect to design a house for him is in a class all to himself and I do not know whether he should be entitled to a supplementary grant at all. I do not think any case could be made by Deputy Tully in that respect.

Deputy Tully said he appreciated the efforts of the Department in providing the plans from the Publications Office at 2/6 a copy. The Minister says he intends to change them somewhat. He does not like them to the same extent as Deputy Tully but he hopes that the introduction of the new plan will bring down the cost of housing. That has been his main concern in recent years. It has been said that the Minister held up sanction of schemes unduly. He did so because he was not satisfied that the prices were realistic. In doing so, he was running the risk of being criticised by the local authorities and of the point being made that it was because of lack of money that the Minister did not want houses built. Nothing could be further from the truth. His whole aim in recent years has been to try to get the costs down and if local authorities cooperated in this field, it could be done. Increasing the grant, particularly in the urban areas, would not in any way contribute to a reduction in the cost of the house to the purchaser.

Deputy Flanagan dealt with the question of loans. The question of loans is a matter entirely for the local authority. They have income limits within which they have to work and having decided on the scheme, they can proceed to implement it. The only time it comes to the Minister is when an application is made in relation to the Local Loans Fund for the purpose of financing these loans. Therefore it is not true that there is a lot of red tape in the Department of Local Government in regard to Small Dwellings Act loans. It is a matter entirely for the local authority to provide their own scheme and, having decided on the scheme, to implement it as they wish.

Mr. Reynolds

Listening to the Parliamentary Secretary, one would certainly get the impression that it is his intention that we should have more houses built. We on this side of the House agree that they should be built but the question arises as to what is the best way to go about it. Prices have gone too high and he seems to think that if there was more competition, which they hope to get under this new plan, it would help to solve the problem. I should like to quote for him a case that arose in my county very recently. The local authority advertised for the building of houses. They sent up to the Department of Local Government for sanction but it was refused because the Department felt the price was too high. However, when it came to be re-advertised, six or seven people tendered for those houses but the net result was that the price was still higher. The reason for that is that while there was this delay on the part of the local authority and the Department of Local Government, the price of material had substantially increased and labour costs had substantially increased. The Minister and the Department would be rather foolish to back that horse too heavily.

The Parliamentary Secretary conveyed that if the Dublin County Council and, I think, the Dublin Corporation put their house in order by paying the full amount of the supplementary grant which they were entitled to do under the Act, then they could come in here for increases in the Local Government grant. He also conveyed in that statement that the grant should be increased, and that would be a much better line to follow here. We all realise that this new planning scheme has added to the price of houses. The price of sites has increased substantially, as has the price of everything in regard to building material—timber, cement, slates, asbestos and everything one can think of, as well as labour costs. If we are serious about getting an increased number of houses built and reconstructed, then the only thing to do is to increase the grant.

The 1948 figure was mentioned and, while I have not an idea of what the cost of a house was in 1948, I know that the figure today is substantially higher. If we make a comparision between the grants paid in 1948 and the grants paid today, we find that they are in or about the same. We must be honest with ourselves at this stage and realise that if we are going to allow that trend to continue, we will not get our houses built.

I do not know if I am in order in referring to this question but in my county we do a good deal of work under section 5, and we find that the usual procedure is that the applicant fills in the necessary form and sends it to the local authority who send out an engineer who gives a specification of the work to be carried out. The work must then be passed by an inspector of the Department of Local Government. It very often happens that the inspector from the Department requires more work to be done. I do not think it would be unreasonable for the Minister or his Department to accept the word of the local authority engineer just as the local authority accept the word of the housing inspector from the Department of Local Government when they are paying supplementary grants.

An Ceann Comhairle

That seems to be a matter of administration.

Mr. Reynolds

I felt that, but that is the point I wanted to make. We find the position very difficult and I would ask the Minister to look at it.

Mr. P.J. Burke

First of all, may I say I am delighted that the Minister has enough money to pay the loans and the grants? This is a matter which concerns every one of us and we are glad that we can go ahead with our housing schemes. Reference was made to contractors. In the city and county of Dublin, we have the rather unique position that sites went as high as £1,500 per site, and land went at £1,000, £2,000 and in some cases £2,500. Some of this land had to be developed afterwards but the average was around £1,500. The Dublin Corporation had to buy land at Ballymun at almost £1,500 per acre, land which a few years ago could have been got at £300 or £400 per acre.

The price of land is one of our chief problems in the city and county of Dublin. No matter who is going to build, whether it is Paddy Burke, or Neil Blaney as a private individual, or Mark Clinton or somebody else, the first thing he is up against is the cost of purchasing sites. In 1947 and 1948 and up to 1950, you would get a three-roomed house for about £1,800, but that is not the case today. We have a number of people in the city and county who are anxious to purchase their own houses but who are finding it difficult to get the deposit money, which is around £500 or £600, whereas in the old days, it was £100 or £150. This is a problem every aspect of which we must consider.

The price of land in the city and county of Dublin is due to the prosperity of the nation and the demand for land. I am sorry for a section of people who have come to me and to other public representatives, people who are involving themselves in purchasing houses for more money than they can afford. These are people who, if they were not enterprising, would have to be housed by the Dublin city and county housing authorities, but they are anxious to get into houses of their own and to have some capital investment.

My colleague, the Minister for Local Government, has a very difficult task. His task is to keep housebuilding going, to keep grants as they are and to keep the loans going. We are deeply grateful to him for doing this important work and for keeping the subsidy on local authority houses going. This is a big problem and we cannot close our eyes to the whispering that is going on in regard to the credit squeeze. The only thing is that we on this side of the House are facing up to it and meeting the position.

Mr. L'Estrange

Tell the people the truth about it.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Am I getting a little help from the other side? I am grateful for it. I want to make a special plea for the enterprising men and women who are anxious to purchase their own homes; they are relieving the ratepayers in the city and county of Dublin and reducing the large subsidies that normally would be provided by the Department of Local Government for the building of local authority houses for them. I should like the Minister to have another look at this matter and to see, if times improve, what can be done to bridge that gap. In the long run, the Minister would save money if he can do this after having a further look at it. We are depriving a number of people from purchasing their own houses, putting them on the local authority list, and the Minister is giving two-thirds subsidy to local authorities to build houses for these people who are deprived of the opportunity of purchasing their own houses.

Another thing which the Minister has done, and for which I am grateful, is that he is giving a two-thirds grant to service local authority land. If we got our local authorities to acquire more land and give it to private people and private builders, we could reduce the cost of land. I have people coming to me day after day pointing out how difficult it is to collect £500 or £600. Loan charges in 1950 were 3¾ per cent but today they are 6¼ per cent if you go to a building society. That is the way things have gone but I admit that wages have gone up accordingly. This is one of the questions I should like the Minister to consider.

I am very glad that the Minister can keep financing the SDA loans and also the local authority grants and loans for houses, but on the other hand I should be grateful if the Minister would have another look at this because it is a serious matter which is deterring a number of people who are anxious to do something for themselves from doing so.

Mr. Cluskey

I wonder is Deputy Burke pleading in vain with the Minister to have another look at this after hearing the reply from the Parliamentary Secretary a short time ago. I got the impression that the Minister had made up his mind and that, irrespective of what is said, he does not intend to change it and so Deputy Burke's verbal back-slapping may be in vain. There is no doubt in anybody's mind, including the Minister's, regarding the price of houses now and the difficulty of accumulating the money to purchase one compared with seven or eight years ago.

I know of one case where, for a deposit of £100 in 1956, a three-bed-room house was purchased for £2,100. The same house now can be bought for £3,800 and the deposit necessary is £550. One qualified for a £275 grant from Local Government in 1956 and that figure has not changed. It is absolutely impossible for a large number of people who are getting married, or are already married and have two or three children and whom the local authority are not in a position to house, to accumulate this kind of money.

If one buys a new house, apart from the minimum of £500 deposit, one has to furnish the house with certain minimum necessaries before one can move in. That entails another £200 to £300, or you can get it on hire purchase, but if you do you end up by finding that between repayments, ground rent, rates and hire purchase commitments, you cannot live. Surely the Minister is aware of this situation just as every other Deputy is and when this opportunity presents itself, surely he should face realities and realise that £275 now does not compare with £275 in 1956 or 1950.

On the prices I have quoted for a particular house, it would be necessary for the Minister to increase the grant to £412. This is a factual figure. Despite what the Parliamentary Secretary said, we have the situation that builders and utility societies are refusing to deal with people who are seeking local government or local authority loans because they say they have to wait too long for their money. The result is the people have to go to a building society and add an extra one, one and a half, or two per cent. That is due to this delay and this shuttling service between the local authority and the Department of Local Government. Surely the Minister is aware of this.

Deputy Burke has mentioned the price of land. No doubt there is deplorable speculation. A figure of £1,500 for a site is no exaggeration. This happens because people are allowed to come in and reap a harvest out of a crisis situation and I see no measures being taken by the Minister or the Government to remedy this situation. Surely this is an ideal opportunity to take effective measures to ensure that people will not cash in on the misery and need of the remainder of the community.

I wonder if the Minister would reconsider his apparently stonewall attitude in regard to this. I doubt it, but in view of what has been said this morning, not only on this side of the House but also by Deputies of the Minister's Party, surely he should face up to the position and realise that if there is not a substantial adjustment in regard to grants, he is making it absolutely impossible for a large number of people who are in dire need to provide their own homes.

Mr. Healy

Last year set an all-time record for housebuilding by and for private individuals in the Cork area. As one who for many years has advocated the social advantages of encouraging people in every possible way to build their own houses rather than have them provided by the local authority or the Department of Local Government, I am rather disappointed in some cases that have come to my notice in Cork. The Minister and his Department should do everything possible in this Bill to ensure that the persons who build the houses get good value for their money. I know that much has been done but much more remains to be done, and the experience in Cork, and I am sure in other parts of the country, is that a good deal of the initial capital is swallowed up in professional fees.

Worse still, to my mind, is the fact that before the Government grant comes through and the supplementary grant from the local authority, the builder will not surrender the key— not all builders; I am talking about some—until the owner or client has borrowed that money from some source and given it to the builder. The owner then gets the key, but if the house is not satisfactory, the builder has gone and has the full payment for the house. I think that defeats the whole purpose of the Government grant. If the client goes to his solicitor, it is found that the solicitor has been acting for the builder. That is very unethical and gives the unfortunate client a very poor chance of getting all the advantages he should get. I welcome the departure here of allowing money for the development of sites because I think the answer to the problem is that the assistance should be paid in kind rather than in cash so that the advantage goes to the man building the house rather than to those who build it for him.

Everybody on public bodies has had suspicion for a number of years that the more State and local authority assistance given in money, the higher the price of the house went and very little advantage accrued to the man trying to build his own house. From my own viewpoint, and I am very sympathetic and keen to assist those trying to build, Cork Corporation adopted an enlightened attitude when they reduced the interest, or rather subsidised the rate of interest, on loans for people building their own houses. That departure should be followed by every local body that can afford it. I am confident we shall not always be in the financial position we find ourselves in at present. I hope that will be changed in a short period. Another encouragement would be if local authorities reduced the rates of interest by one per cent, two per cent or three per cent. It would encourage people, who otherwise could not possibly raise the money, to build their own houses.

The Minister is on the right track when he pays in kind by giving money for the development of sites. I would ask him, if possible, to examine the position as I see it whereby money for grants is handed to the builder before the key is surrendered. The builder can walk away and the client has no redress if there is a fault in the house.

Mr. Clinton

I wish to intervene again to deal with certain figures in regard to moneys provided for housing. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary is back from lunch because he got a bit mixed up in his figures. On page 38 of the White Paper, Housing Progress and Prospects, are given figures for State aid for housing. I shall quote a few figures in round millions. In 1953, the amount was £14 million; in 1954, £13 million; in 1955, £12 million and in 1956, £12 million. Last year the figure was less than £10 million. At one stage during the period it was down to £5 million and there were figures of £6 million and £7 million. That indicates beyond all doubt that State aid to housing has been steadily decreasing since 1956-57.

Deputy P.J. Burke said "Thanks be to God, the Minister has the money both for local authority housing and for grants and loans for private building". He is living in cloud cuckooland. I am aware that a scheme we had been trying to get through the Department for several years for 152 houses cannot be proceeded with because of lack of finance. We cannot pay for sites bought last spring because of lack of finance. We have work costing £1 million awaiting Departmental sanction. They are facts and I am anxious to hear the Minister contradict them. Why can we not proceed with our schemes if the money Deputy Burke says is there is available? If it is, it is not being paid and it is a serious embarrassment to people who sold their entire farms and bought other farms but cannot pay for them.

Of the Government Deputies who have spoken, none has made a case that it is reasonable State grants should have remained static for 17 years. No case can be made for it. Grants have been the same since 1948 and here we produce a new Housing Bill without alteration in that respect.

Mr. P. Brennan

I should like to deal with the point just made by Deputy Clinton in relation to moneys spent on housing. I gave a figure of £15.33 million spent by the State on housing of all kinds in 1964-65.

Mr. Clinton

It relates only to local authority housing.

Mr. P. Brennan

The total expenditure on housing, both private and public, last year was £15.33 million.

Mr. Clinton

Is this table wrong?

Mr. P. Brennan

It is not wrong. The Deputy referred to the possibility of increased grants, saying it did not make sense that grants should have remained static throughout the years. In 1950, an opportunity was given to local authorities to provide supplementary grants and it was 1954 before they had taken on.

Mr. Clinton

I am speaking about State grants.

Mr. P. Brennan

It is 1965, and these grants have still not taken on with Dublin County Council.

Mr. Clinton

We pay supplementary grants.

Mr. P. Brennan

You pay a percentage when you are allowed to pay pound for pound.

Mr. Clinton

We pay pound for pound, if the income is right.

Mr. P. Brennan

That is not my information. I am glad to hear it. There are some qualifications. There is a residential qualification.

Mr. Clinton

As there is everywhere.

Mr. P. Brennan

Not at all.

Mr. Clinton

There is a four-year residential qualification.

Mr. P. Brennan

I was a member of a local authority who gave hundred per cent supplementary grants to anybody living in the county council area, provided the income was right.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Discussion has been allowed on supplementary grants.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The section deals with grants provided by the Minister.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Incidental to that, discussion has been allowed on supplementary grants provided by local authorities.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in the section about supplementary grants.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The total amounts available in grants to house builders were mentioned, but if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle feels this is not appropriate on the section, I will not insist. In relation to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Clinton on supplementary grants, four or five years ago I made the case that it should be mandatory on local authorities to pay one hundred per cent grants. In the western region of Cork County Council area, we have paid the maximum the State allowed from the day the grants were introduced. I have never heard of the residential qualification—that a person must be four years in a house to qualify for a supplementary grant. In the area of which I speak, one could get a supplementary grant within a couple of weeks of getting the State grant.

In urban areas where there are different housing authorities, some peculiar anomalies arise. For instance, if one builds a house in Bantry, he will get £275 from the State and the same amount from the council. If he builds the same house in Clonakilty, he will get the State allocation but nothing from the council. It is unfair that a person should suffer in this way simply because he lives in one town instead of another. I realise it is impossible for small urban authorities to meet commitments in regard to water, housing and other public services. They are not able to do so. The money is raised locally and it might be going contrary to what we have stated already about State interference in dealing with local funds, but I think there should be an endeavour by the Minister, by consent, if possible, to have payment of supplementary grants in all areas. Were it not for such grants, people who have built their houses would not have been in a position to do so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in the section about supplementary grants. It deals with grants allocated by the Minister.

Mr. L'Estrange

On this section, I wish to say that I sincerely hope Deputy Burke did not embarrass the Minister too much when he was speaking. He reminded me of the boy whistling when passing the graveyard. We are repeatedly told that the money is there and yet why is there such a delay in meeting the legitimate claims of the different county councils and individuals?

Deputy Clinton told the House, and I know it, that last February, Dublin County Council purchased land. They applied to the Local Loans Fund for money to pay for the land. Everything is in order; yet their letters are being ignored and they have not yet got the money. The same can be said in relation to many other county councils. Nevertheless, we are told that the money is there. If it is there, why not pay immediately the legitimate claims of those people who have been waiting so long to get their money from the Local Loans Fund and from the appropriate authorities?

Other people have stated, and even Fianna Fáil Deputies agree, that the grants should be increased. There has been no increase in the grant since 1948, despite the fact that due to the inflationary policy of the Fianna Fáil Government since that time, the £ now, compared with 1948, is worth only about 9/-. Money has lost its value and each and every one of us is aware of it.

In 1948, there was a grant of £275 by the State in respect of a house costing £1,400 or £1,800 which would be a reasonable house at that time for that sum. That represented a grant of one-quarter to one-fifth of the cost of the house. A similar house today would cost from £3,000 to £3,500 to build and yet the same level of grant is given by the State, £275. In other words, the State is now giving a grant of one-tenth to one-twelfth of the cost of the house. Where is the encouragement there? Do we not all agree and know that a good case can be made for increasing the grant?

The Parliamentary Secretary told us that in the past the Minister refused to accept tenders because he believed them to be too high and that he was running the risk of being criticised by local authorities. Certainly, he was and he did—but the real reason was that it was Government policy at that time: the dead hand of Fianna Fáil had fallen on housebuilding. There was an abundance of red tape. Every proposal sent to the Department was returned with a request to dot the i's and cross the t's and that sort of thing would continue for from six to eight months.

In Westmeath, when we sent up the tenders, the Minister refused to sanction them. It went on for a year or a year and a half and he had afterwards to give sanction for a higher amount than we could have got them for initially. It was all part of delaying tactics by the Government to make certain that the houses were not built during those years.

Deputy Clinton pointed out to the House that the figures are there to prove what we say. If you look at page 38 of this Housing Progress Report, you will see that Deputy Clinton's figures cannot be contradicted. I do not know where the Parliamentary Secretary is getting his figures but they have not been supplied to this side of the House. This is State aid given both to private housing and to local authority housing under the heading of Loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, and Supplementary Grants. We find that in the disastrous years when, according to Deputy Burke, there was not the price of a bag of cement, there was as much as £12,559,000 paid—in 1956, £12,260,000; in 1957, £10,814,000. Now we have a progressive policy and we are told that the money is available. What happened? The level dropped each year. In 1958, under the dead hand of the Minister, it dropped to £7,169,000. In 1959, there was a further drop to £5,961,000 —only a little more than one-third of what was being paid in 1956 and 1957. The amount continued to drop in 1960 to £6,031,000 and in 1961 to £6,518,000. In 1963, there is a slight improvement, £8,506,000, and for 1964, according to the figures we have here, the amount was £9,900,000. It is just nearly three-quarters of what was being paid in what we are told were the disastrous years.

Mr. P. Brennan

Did the Deputy not say they were local authority houses?

Mr. L'Estrange

It is all aid to private housing, local authority housing, loans under the small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, supplementary grants: the whole lot are totalled there and I am giving the totals for those years and this is State aid to house building as published in this White Paper.

I want to come back to the point that some local authorities are not paying the maximum grant. The Parliamentary Secretary and his Minister cannot have it both ways. On the night of the adjournment, when the Minister made a scurrilous speech and outburst here, he accused the Opposition and the members of the Fine Gael Party of increasing the rates for the different county councils in order to embarrass, as he said, the present Government. Can you have it both ways? The Minister claims councils were writing for permission to increase the rates to meet their obligations and yet the Parliamentary Secretary comes in here and tells us they were not doing their duty.

We are in the predicament we are in today because of what has taken place through Government policy from 1957 to 1964. The Government refused to live up to their responsibility and that is why we have the present housing crisis. If an end is to be put to it—and I think each and every one of us wants to see proper housing for all sections of our people — then State aid and those grants should and must be increased and should and must bear some relation to money values because if money has lost value, it is due to the deliberate policy of the Government. Therefore, if the Minister is in earnest in trying to solve this problem, he should and must increase those aids and grants to people so that they can get ahead with housebuilding and so that we shall not have houses falling on our people in this twentieth century in Ireland.

Mr. Blaney

I take it that the figures being quoted, or misquoted, I should say, are taken from page 38 of the White Paper as circulated, Housing Progress and Prospects. Would the Deputy just read what lies on top of the panel which says “Local Authorities”? Those figures which the Deputy has been quoting relate only to local authority housing activity.

Mr. L'Estrange

What is the reason, then, for the words "Aids to Private Housing"?

Mr. Blaney

They do contribute to private housing as well.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The figures over the years relate to the same type of houses. His argument is true to that extent.

Mr. Blaney

It is only part of the housing.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

They relate to the same type of housing.

Mr. Blaney

It is only part.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Despite the decline in the value of money and the increased cost of building, it is quite evident that the number of houses being built is declining. That is quite evident from the figures.

Mr. Blaney

It is not evident that they are declining.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Quite evident

Mr. Blaney

Not evident at all.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to speak.

Mr. Blaney

I assert that the figures read out are not comparable with the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary. Although both sets of figures are true, they are quoted wrongly in that this referred only to part of the housing within the State and the £15.3 million referred to as having actually been spent last year includes the expenditure from the Exchequer and these other expenditures by local authorities on both private and public housing. That figure is the figure one has to look at in considering what is being done and the amount being spent.

If we want to talk about figures, the whole argument seems to revolve around whether or not the grants introduced in 1948 should be the grants that obtain today. If these grants were the only thing of significance in 1948, and it would appear that they are the thing of real significance today if housing is to proceed in the private sector, let us go back to 1949 and 1950 and consider the position then. In 1949, there were 1,500 houses built privately at a total cost to the State of £342,000. In 1965, the number of private houses built with the aid of grants from the Exchequer and otherwise was 6,900 at a total cost of £3.2 million in respect of the aids provided. In 1966, the estimate is that this figure will go up to 7,000 grant assisted private houses at a possible outlay of £3.5 million. Deputies should try to relate these figures.

Mr. Clinton

What was the corresponding saving in local authority housing at the same time?

Mr. Blaney

I am not talking about savings at the moment. I am talking purely on the section as it has been expanded by those who wish to use it as a vehicle for having a Second Reading debate as to why housing grants should be increased. I am merely putting it to the House that the basis is not merely the question of the cost of a house now compared with what it cost then. Let us put it another way. If we were to give somebody one-half the total cost of a house, what good would it do, whether it is this year or was ten years ago, if he could not be provided with and could not find the other half of the cost?

Mr. L'Estrange

People are getting it hard to find it today.

Mr. Blaney

By thousands, they found it far harder to find the relatively small cost of a house in 1949 than they do in 1965 judging by the fact that only 1,500 could avail of the grants in 1949 as against 7,000 who availed of the grants in 1965.

Mr. L'Estrange

They might not have needed the houses. The houses they had might last for another 20 years.

Mr. Blaney

This is a question Deputies cannot gloss over. It makes obvious the conclusion that, no matter how high the grants, they are not the only factor in the erection of a house by a private person. Many circumstances have to be considered. Take the two extremes—1965 and 1949—in one case 1,500 houses built at a cost of £342,000 by way of aids and in 1965, 6,900 at a cost by way of aids of £3.2 million.

Mr. L'Estrange

Take the other extreme. There was not a house built when you left office in 1947.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. L'Estrange

The late Deputy Murphy cut all the red tape.

Mr. Blaney

Facts speak loudly. Do not try to shout them down. It will not work.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister gave a good example of shouting on the night of the Adjournment.

Mr. Blaney

Under the Bill, which Deputies opposite say does nothing more than they did in 1948, the additional cost projected to the Exchequer, the estimated impact through increases and benefits to go to persons building houses, is no less than £600,000 in the first full year——

Mr. L'Estrange

If you had allowed houses to be built then there would not be a backlog now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should allow the Minister to make his statement.

Mr. Blaney

In addition to that £600,000 additional estimate for the first year's operation of the new grants system projected under the Bill the local authorities operating their new extended powers and limits and values of grants will contribute, it is estimated, £200,000. It must also be remembered that the loan charges being provided out of the rates by the local authorities as of this present year come to almost £600,000 and are rising £600,000 in that period, and will be added as the years go on, on foot of the repayments of the moneys raised by them for this assistance.

This is the background that must be taken into consideration when suggesting, as some people have suggested, that supplementary grants should go up and that there should be power taken to increase them further. These are the actual figures as of now and we should not forget them. Neither should we forget the fact that under no previous Government were there as many private houses, grant aided, built in a single year as there were last year. This is the background against which the complaint is made that grants are too low and so niggardly as to mean nothing. The whole purpose of grants is to encourage people to build houses by helping them to fill the gap so that they will be able to build houses that otherwise they might not be able to build. We are helping thousands more than were helped by the grants given in 1949 and 1950. I am making no argument about it. I am merely putting that to Deputies. When Deputies talk about increasing grants and relating the grants only to the cost of building and the production of houses, I put it to them that that is only part of the story and that that fact should be kept in mind.

Another thing that should be borne in mind is that while the basic grant— and it is only a basic grant—of £275 was introduced in 1948, there was introduced in 1950 supplementary grants in their original form and amended in 1952 and, as has been mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, they really did not catch on until about 1954. In addition to all that, there was the benefit, which is a greater benefit today than it was 15 or 20 years ago, of rates remission, which must be considered, and there was also the reduced tax fee applicable in relation to grant-aided houses of one per cent as against three per cent. On the basis of the grants obtaining some years ago, £275 from the local authority, £275 from the Government, and the rates remission calculated on a valuation of £25, probably, on the national average rate per £ obtaining at that time, the total value of all these things was not just twice £275. It comes to nearly £900.

If we look at the grants projected today in this new Bill, we find that the people in the rural parts of the country are, by and large, being placed in the position that they may get grants of up to £450 as against £275 or £300 obtaining the year before. They may get pound for pound from the local authority, which will bring it up to £900. They will still enjoy the rate remission and tax concessions I have mentioned. Add all that up and you will begin to see that grants have not remained static, despite what has been said opposite. The figure for the numbers availing of these grants has been steadily increasing. Last year's figure of private house completions was an all-time record but we are expecting it to be even better this year.

People who should know better were talking about loans from the Local Loans Fund and the impediments put in their way by the Department of Local Government. This is a lot of bunkum. The SDA loans are administered by the local authority concerned. The local authority acts as lender in these cases. The money is provided from the Local Loans Fund to the local authority. Somebody said there has been shuttling between the Custom House and local authorities. The only shuttling that has taken place is the shuttling initiated by me and my Department to get certain local authorities to cut out the red tape and get on with the job of giving loans up to the new limits announced some months ago.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

That is a very useful statement.

Mr. Blaney

I do not give two hoots whether it is useful or not. That is the position.

Mr. James Tully

We have applied for £100,000 from the Local Loans Fund and we have not got sanction yet.

Mr. Blaney

Deputy Clinton talked about looking for 152 houses for Swords for years, the implication being they are held up by the Department for years.

Mr. Clinton

More or less.

Mr. Blaney

He was followed by a colleague who said that letters from the Dublin County Council to the Department seeking money and loan sanction had remained unanswered.

Mr. Clinton

I did not say that.

Mr. Blaney

I am not saying the Deputy did. I am pointing out the manner in which exaggeration progresses. If somebody makes a statement not quite correct, the next fellow adds yards to it and the fellow after him adds miles.

Mr. L'Estrange

I did not say they were not answered. There were letters. I said they had not been attended to.

Mr. Blaney

I did not say it was the Deputy.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I think, the Minister is telling us his own story now. He is a good hand at exaggerating.

Mr. L'Estrange

I did not say they were unanswered; I said they were unattended to.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy said they were ignored.

Mr. L'Estrange

Certainly. The money has not been paid.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy said they had been ignored. Does that not mean they were without a reply?

Mr. L'Estrange

What they want is money.

Mr. Blaney

Letters seeking money to provide the 152 houses Deputy Clinton said he had sought for years were ignored. The two things are tied together. I think that was the intention. In fact, the application for the loan only came in on 14th or 15th of last month.

Mr. L'Estrange

Dublin County Council purchased land last February. They applied for permission to get the money to pay for it and have not got it yet.

Mr. Blaney

I was only giving an example of progressive exaggeration.

Mr. L'Estrange

Like the way the Minister carried on on the night of the Adjournment Debate.

Mr. Blaney

The situation about the Adjournment Debate was that it was not intended I should get the halfhour which, by order of the House, I was entitled to. I got 15 minutes and succeeded in saying more in the 15 minutes than I could say in an hour.

Mr. Corish

Let that be a lesson to the Minister. He can say more in 15 minutes than he can in an hour.

Mr. L'Estrange

I hope the Taoiseach agrees with all the Minister said because many of his own colleagues on the Front Bench apologised to us for his unruly behaviour. They said they were shocked.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputy L'Estrange please allow the Minister to make his statement?

Mr. L'Estrange

I am glad I got that one in. That is the truth.

Mr. Blaney

I will leave it at that. I suppose there are queer fellows on every bench.

Mr. L'Estrange

There is a queer fellow over there.

Mr. H. Byrne

It was interesting to hear the contradictory figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Clinton and Deputy L'Estrange. Most of this talk was irrelevant in so far as it does not alter the situation. The fact is that everything associated with houses seems to be muddled, bewildered and confused. Most of what was said here this morning was motivated by the bad housing situation in Dublin, but we should wander down the country, too. I speak as a member of a local authority and I share in this confusion. On a couple of occasions I have heard comprehensive statements on housing made by the Minister which conflicted completely with statements made by the manager of the local authority of which I am a member. I would like to know, once and for all, whether the Minister or the manager is telling the lies. Anybody listening to Deputy P.J. Burke today would think that everything was lovely so far as housing was concerned. Deputy L'Estrange says that Deputy Burke has probably confused and embarrassed the Minister. He certainly embarrassed me because, while he told us that all the money required for housing was available, the manager told us no later than a few days ago that the credit squeeze was on and was hampering progress in housing and he was not in a position to tell us when the money was likely to be forthcoming. There was talk about people looking for money for years. I do not want to invent stories to get in political blows, but there are people in Laois who applied to their local authority for housing and have been waiting from ten to 27 years. Surely it is not fair for the county manager to say it is the Department's fault if it is not the Department's fault?

I do not see anything wonderful in this Housing Bill. A short time ago, Deputy Cluskey indicated with facts and figures the difficulties confronting any man trying to build a house for himself today. I do not think the Minister and his Department can lightly pass over these figures. I know when a fellow is talking bunkum, and I know Deputy Cluskey was not. He was making a factual statement. The Minister and his Department will have to refashion their whole approach to housing. I had the painful experience of the allocation of a few houses in the midlands where people who were sub-tenants——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have allowed the Deputy to cover certain ground that other Deputies were allowed to cover, but the Deputy should now come to the question, which relates specifically to grants by the Minister for the provision of houses. Anything else is irrelevant on this section.

Mr. H. Byrne

I am sorry if I wandered too far off. I think that even the State aid envisaged in the Bill will not be sufficient to promote housing and much more requires to be done.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister's statement was very clear. The reason he gave in his explanation, stripped of all its trimmings, as to why he feels there is justification for the same grant obtaining in 1965 as obtained in 1948 is that there are so many houses being built. In 1948, the number was 1,500. Last year, with the inflationary trend, it went up to 7,000. Now what kind of an argument is that? One can only assume from that argument that, so far as the Minister is concerned, there are too many houses being built. We on this side of the House, particularly those of us who are members of local authorities, are trying to induce people to provide their own homes but we have felt for some time now that the brake was on in the Department. Today the Minister let the cat out of the bag in order to justify the same grant obtaining in 1965 as obtained in 1948.

Can the Minister and the Government not be honest? Why not say openly and honestly that they think too many houses are being built and that is why they are keeping the grants down? With the grants available today, only people with money can build houses. Possibly there were people in years past who were able to build houses without any grants at all, but there are several people today who would like to build their own houses, if they could get a reasonable grant. The Minister's excuse that the increased number of houses being built is responsible for keeping the grants at a static figure is neither fair nor reasonable.

The importance of the case made on these benches cannot be over-emphasised. If we hope to get people in increasing numbers to provide their own houses, we can do so only by giving them fair treatment in the line of grants. Mark you, I am doubtful that there will be any savings to the Exchequer as a result of keeping the grants down, if the Minister feels the grants are fair enough in so far as some applicants are concerned, then there may be a case for introducing a means test in respect of people covered by section 15, giving an added incentive to those living in towns, workers and others with certain incomes, to build houses for themselves.

As a result of the increased cost of houses and as a result of grants being pegged down, more people are going over to local authorities for houses. What may be saved by keeping grants at this low level will be lost ultimately because of the higher cost of subsidising local authority housing. The proper thing to do would be to compare the money value of the grants in 1948 with the money value of the same grant today, making the adjustment that comparison calls for and thereby inducing more people, who are now dependent on local authority housing, to provide houses for themselves. I fail to see what can be achieved by the Minister wasting the time and energies of his Department addressing letters to local authorities and public representatives exhorting them to do everything possible to push on with the housing programme, when, according to his statement here today, he feels that this sum of £3.2 million provided for houses this year is getting rather too big. We accept the Minister's explanation as to why the grants are kept at the same level as being a truthful explanation, but that level is neither fair nor reasonable in the light of the high cost of erecting houses in 1965.

Mr. Clinton

I agree with Deputy Murphy that what the Minister seems to be doing now is using this section to keep the number of private houses being built as low as possible. This is a brake on private housebuilding. The Minister as much as admitted that. He said the State was not able to bear any increased burden and the only way to keep the number from increasing was by keeping the grant at the 1948 level. Make no change in the grants that existed in 1948! Seventeen years without a change! Everyone knows that all through the election campaign last spring one of the Government's strong arguments was: Put us back in power and we will give you a new deal in housing. A new deal! In no section of this Bill is there as much scope for a new deal in housing as there is in section 15. Had Government speakers during the election campaign revealed the fact that the new deal was, in fact, the deal the people had in 1948, would the Government have been returned in the strength in which they were? I say not in Dublin certainly.

I asked the Minister to deal with the upper limits of area in house building. I asked why he continued to insist on an upper limit of 1,500 square feet. It was 1,400 square feet. The 1,500 square feet applies only in cases where a bathroom is provided and services laid on. Everybody knows that the laying on of these services and the provision of the bathroom takes up the additional 100 square feet. For some reason, the Minister refrained from commenting on that. It may be that, when he investigated as a result of my question asking for information with regard to the number of houses built with no grant of any kind over the past ten years, he discovered that the number is insignificant and that there should be a change but he does not now want to go to the trouble of changing it. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will comment on it now. It is an important aspect. It restricts planners and architects and it calls for extra expenditure, which is completely unjustifiable, in both checking and administration.

Mr. P. Brennan

Deputy Clinton now charges the Minister with trying to reduce the number of houses being built. In actual fact, the number of private houses built by State aid last year was the highest on record. We hope it will be even higher this year.

Mr. James Tully

It could not be higher. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that no money is going out.

Mr. L'Estrange

And he knows, too, why it was higher last year: because no houses were built between 1957 and 1963.

Mr. P. Brennan

With all the emigration, there was no necessity to build houses.

Mr. Barrett

Any houses built were occupied.

Mr. P. Brennan

Not in the city of Dublin.

Mr. Barrett

In the city of Cork they were, anyway.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. P. Brennan

Deputy Clinton knows there are substantial increases by way of grants in this Bill, grants to private individuals to provide their own houses.

Mr. Clinton

We are dealing only with the section.

Mr. P. Brennan

Deputies are deliberately getting away from the section.

Mr. L'Estrange

There is no inducement.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Larkin

Would the Parliamentary Secretary make his remarks to the section?

Mr. P. Brennan

There are additional incentives to people to build their own houses and there are opportunities under this Bill——

Mr. James Tully

Quote.

Mr. P. Brennan

——to provide additional facilities by way of subsidy in the provision of sites. The Opposition Parties have deliberately tried to misrepresent the position in relation to grants.

Mr. L'Estrange

The figures are there.

Mr. P. Brennan

We know that in section 16 substantial improvements are provided for a very substantial section of our people. There is provision for substantial increases in grants and there is no point whatever in the Opposition trying to tell us we are not doing our job. The fact is last year we built the greatest number of houses ever provided in this country, 6,900 houses. That is ample proof that Fianna Fáil are doing their job.

Mr. L'Estrange

You built none for the previous six years.

Mr. Clinton

Will the Parliamentary Secretary not deal with the question raised by me, that is, fixing the upper area limit at 1,500 square feet? I think he got on his feet to reply to that and got lost in a political speech.

Mr. P. Brennan

That amendment by the Deputy was ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.