With this is being taken Item No. 7, the motion in the names of Deputy Clinton, Deputy Costello, Deputy Ryan and Deputy H. P. Dockrell.
Committee on Finance. - Housing Bill, 1965—Fifth Stage.
Question proposed: That the Bill do now pass.
Would you clarify the procedure in regard to the taking of the motion, as to the time that will be given or, if it is to be concluded, how and when?
I cannot say as to how it will be concluded. I can only say that the question now is: "That the Bill do now pass", and with that is being discussed motion No. 7.
I know; I am trying to find out the order.
I shall be putting the question: "That the Bill do now pass", and after that the motion will be put and, if desired, the House will divide on it.
Does the discussion conclude on both the Fifth Stage and the motion before the question: "That the Bill do now pass" is put?
Yes; the two conclude together.
And then the motion can be put immediately afterwards?
Immediately after the question. The question, "That the Bill do now pass" will be put in the ordinary way and then afterwards the motion will have to be formally moved and then will be put immediately.
There will be no discussion between the Bill and the putting of the other motion?
The two are discussed together.
When one has been put, the other is put, without any further discussion?
Yes, put in a formal way.
Thank you.
I wish to discuss the motion.
The motion may be discussed now but it is not moved now. We cannot have two questions before the House at the same time. It may be discussed.
After a long debate on housing, this is not the time to go into any great detail or to speak at any great length but in relation to the motion put down by members of my Party, I wish to make some comment.
From the days when Deputy John A. Costello was Taoiseach there was a great divergence of opinion between the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fine Gael Party in relation to the provision of housing. The Fine Gael Party felt that this was investment of a productive nature and that, in fact, the setting up of industrial projects to employ people and the adaptation of existing industries depended not only on the investment to be made in the industry itself, not only on the opportunity for profit, but also on the proper housing of the employees therein and the provision of this housing as quickly as possible and in a way that would encourage the proper type of employee to make himself available for such undertakings.
Divergence of view resulted because the Fianna Fáil Party always believed that when money got scarce or in time of crisis one of the things that could be reduced and cut down in size as far as employment was concerned was the housing industry. Of course, in the short term, politically the Fianna Fáil Party in this regard are probably right in their view because it is possible to cut down the housing industry to size in times of crisis because the workers therein are divided into two classes. There are the people who have a craft or a trade and who can usually emigrate and get a job somewhere else and they are invisible as far as unemployment figures in Ireland are concerned. There are the labourers who are accustomed to sudden knocking-off in times when a building may be finished or when there is a financial crisis. Building labourers will move from one job to another, from one employer to another, and accept this as part of their way of life. They do not like it but they know they must accept it.
We in the Fine Gael Party hold that there should be a constant and planned building programme and that this should not fall down because of any financial crisis or any political situation. If forward planning had been done by the Government and if the budgets, not only for 12 months, but for years ahead had been considered by the Cabinet, it would not have been necessary in the years after 1957 to reduce house building, and disemploy many people, who emigrated, and leave so many of our people without the houses, without which they also will emigrate.
Our young people of today are somewhat different from even those of ten years ago. Liverpool is quite close and with a £5 note in your pocket, you can be there in the morning and have something left over for bed and breakfast. This means that when we talk about the employment of our people, the expansion of industry, about the people being happily employed on the land, we must also think in terms of houses. I believe that Fianna Fáil have not done their job in this regard and did not think about housing in the proper light and that, in consequence, there has been considerable emigration. The Fine Gael line that housing is an integral part of the creation of jobs, of capital formation and the employment of our people on the land is correct and Fine Gael are also correct when they say that housing is absolutely necessary for the forward movement of the nation.
The old pattern of the Fianna Fáil approach to housing was followed in the years following the crisis of 1957. The publication Housing Progress and Prospects of November, 1954 gives figures in Appendix I on page 36 which show how this old pattern was followed. In the crisis year of 1957, the number of houses built was 10,969. In 1958, when Fianna Fáil undoubtedly had a financial crisis to deal with, they followed the old pattern and one way of dealing with their problem was to reduce the number of houses built. That is a simple thing to do. In 1958, the number built was 7,480; in 1959, it was 4,894; in 1960, it was 5,992; in 1961, it was 5,798; in 1962, it was 5,626; in 1963, 6,867; and in 1964, 7,431.
The old Manchester school of economics obtruded itself here. This was a big factor in the emigration figures over that period. Not only did the Government refuse to give sufficient money for new houses to local authorities at that time but they did something else; they produced a line of thought which for political purposes and to a superficial observer might seem to be the proper one. They said that the stock of houses should be preserved and that where reconstruction was possible, there would be no question of rehousing.
They dragged in section 19 of the Local Government Act of 1931 whereby a person who is living in a house in bad condition could be told to reconstruct it. If that person refused to do this, the landlord could be made do it and if he refused, the local authority could go in, raise a loan, reconstruct the house and place the repayment on the landlord. This would seem to the superficial observer to be the proper thing to do in time of financial crisis but to one with my experience of urban and rural housing, this was disastrous. My constituency is practically evenly divided between urban and rural areas and I am aware that this policy resulted in houses with mud walls being adjudged as houses from which people should not be put into new houses. These houses were never reconstructed because no county council engineer or anybody else could attempt to reconstruct them.
The figures for houses reconstructed during the period I have mentioned are also given in Housing Progress and Prospects. In 1957, the number was 8,147; in 1958, it was 7,167; in 1959, it was 7,202; in 1960, it was 8,207; in 1961, it was 9,744; in 1962, it was 8,989; in 1963, it was 9,961; and in 1964, it was 10,107. All during the period until 1964 the number of houses reconstructed did not rise by any remarkable figure. That policy of Fianna Fáil was a failure and the failure was a further reason why our people did not build new houses and did not stay in the country as they should have done.
In 1965, through extreme pressure on the Minister, largely by myself, we have had a large number of houses being built in Drogheda and Dundalk but at the present moment there are young men and women who have been married for four or five years, with three children, living in one room in Drogheda and Dundalk. This is not due to the Government's mistakes of last year but to the mistakes made since 1957 because Fianna Fáil believed that in a time of crisis the thing they could cut was housing.
In the next few days we will be considering a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce which contains a sum of £5,000 for an industrial survey of Drogheda. That happened because in the NIEC Report there was discussion on the problem as to why industrialists could not get workers at a time when there was a large number on the live register of unemployment. When that survey is produced we will find that one of the reasons why industry could not get workers is that the workers could not get houses. The Minister, in one of the best things he has done, has provided for housing for executives of industry through the National Building Agency. These houses are built by their own firm through grants provided by the Agency which has its own staff of architects, engineers and the rest. The houses are built and handed over to the firms for the use of their executives.
If that is the position for executives of industry who have much larger salaries, how much more should it be the position for the unfortunate workers on the floor? I want to suggest to the Government that one of their big failures was that in their efforts to expand employment in the Second Programme, which in any case is only a set of target figures, in their efforts to expand employment in industry and agriculture, they have failed because they did not in time produce a similar programme of expansion in houses. This is one of the Government's big failures, a failure that is not isolated from general Government policy, a failure that has inter-related with it the duty of the Opposition in this House to point out to the Government and to the people these failures and mistakes.
It would be churlish of me if I did not say that one of the best things the Minister has done was the setting up of the National Building Agency. It would also be churlish of me if I did not say that the small farmers grant was a good thing. As a result of that, the small farmer who is eligible is being given money for the reconstruction of houses in rural areas and to build his own house at a lower cost than if he were provided with a county council larger-type house or cottage. This gives a man the opportunity of being master of his own house and, so to speak, in his own castle from the very first day, provided that accommodation is built where he wants it.
There is a certain restriction. Farm workers who may have had a bit of cash because other members of the family have gone into employment may have difficulty in getting sites. That is a precluding factor in a number of cases. It is always wise to give credit where credit is due; this is one of the best things Fianna Fáil have done and I sincerely hope the position will not be changed at any stage because of exigency. The unfortunate thing is that, so long as Fianna Fáil remain in office, bad housekeeping will be the order of the day and there will, therefore, be future exigency.
I do not want to delay the House, but this motion is absolutely essential. It arises out of the evidence every Deputy has in relation to his own constituency. In Louth there are people who have been waiting six and seven years for county council cottages. We have had this hold-up because of the 1957 delay and this whole policy has infiltrated into county managers and their officials and even into county councillors. I am the only county councillor living outside Drogheda town and my position is that I have not got a site from Tullyallen to Baltray on which a house could be built for a farm worker. Two years ago we could not get sites. I proposed that we should move for compulsory acquisition. Nothing happened. Then I said: "Right; we will have to do something about this. I will give the sites. They may not be in the right place, but it is a good field and they would be good sites. I will give it at the price." I was told houses could not be built on the site because it was not near a church or a school. Two friends of mine had actually been considering building private houses on this site. All this has resulted because of the intricacies involved and the things that have been perpetrated upon an unsuspecting public from the point of view of delay.
I charge the Fianna Fáil Party and the Minister with causing delay in that area. I see young married people living in hovels and I hope that these young people will remember; it is my job to make sure they do. I wish the Minister would do now what the Minister for Education did, namely, check on statements made by this side of the House and find out whether they are right or wrong, find out whether, in fact, an excellent site was refused and whether anybody believes this is anything other than deliberate delay on the part of the Government, a Government who subscribe to the Manchester school of economics theory that when you have not got the money, the one thing you can stop, and get away with, is housing.
First of all, I should like to point out that on two occasions recently I have heard a statement made—the second occasion a few moments ago when Deputy Donegan was speaking—which I should like to take this opportunity of correcting. Deputy Donegan gave the impression— perhaps he did not mean to do so— that there is a shortage of labour in Drogheda and employers are finding it difficult to get people to work in factories. That statement has done a great deal of harm. It was made on an earlier occasion by a man who is not actually in public life, but who is, like Deputy Donegan, a public figure. It is wrong that that impression should be created. The impression is that employees in Drogheda should be confined to the town. There are enough borders in the country without building another one around Drogheda for the purpose of keeping those in the country districts, who need employment, out of the town. Deputy Donegan and others like him should remember that.
There are two matters involved here —the Housing Bill, 1965, and the Fine Gael motion. The Housing Bill we have discussed pretty thoroughly already. The Bill is not as perfect as it should be, but there are certain provisions which should improve prospects generally. In sections 16 and 17 the date of operation is given as 1st July, 1965. I appeal once more to the Minister to make that 1st October, 1964, as it is in other sections of the Bill. It is a mistake to have two different dates and the Minister should make sure that he does not adversely affect the small number of people who will be affected if the date is July, 1965.
When we were discussing the Bill on the last occasion, the question of the vesting of labourers' cottages arose. By means of amendments Nos. 106 and 107, which the Minister subsequently withdrew, the Minister attempted to have a certain change made. I thought that change would adversely affect the right of a vesting tenant to have his house properly repaired, and the Minister withdrew the amendments. Would the Minister go a bit further? If he wants the amendments included, would he introduce them in the Seanad, but leaving out any reference to structural condition? It is to that reference that I object. If he is not prepared to do that, I should prefer him to leave the Bill as it is.
With regard to housing in general and to the motion before the House, the important thing is to remember that, as the years go by, more and more houses are needed. There are two reasons for this: one is that some houses, due to age, are no longer fit for habitation and the second is rising standards. People require a better standard of housing than they did 20 and 30 years ago. In the past seven or eight months, particularly since last July, there has been a complete hold-up in housing. That is a situation the Minister should now attempt to rectify. When the credit squeeze was introduced, the first thing affected was the housing programme. I can give the Minister—I have done so on a number of occasions by way of question— certain aspects of housing in my own constituency. To begin with, we require at the present moment approximately 145 rural cottages. We have screened sites. We have reached the stage at which quite a number have been put out for tender, but no houses can be started unless we get money from the Department. The Minister made it pretty clear last week that any money available will be money for the year 1966-67 and that we cannot expect any money before the 31st March this year.
Secondly, there is the question of group grants. We have groups in Old-castle, Athboy, Duleek and Laytown. We are ready in almost every case to start work and we find we cannot start, first, because we have not got the money we require to develop the sites and, secondly, because there is no point in trying to start even if we had them developed, because the money does not seem to be available. Again I presume the Minister will make an announcement for the 1966-67 financial year which may or may not include money for that type of work.
These are all people who are in urgent need of rehousing. All those on the list are people for whom the Meath County Council have responsibility to find accommodation and find it quickly. Some of them have been a number of years on the list; others have only come on it within the past 12 or 18 months, but all of them are living in either condemned or overcrowded conditions and must be rehoused. Would the Minister not agree that it is unfair that the county council should be told that the matter is under consideration and kept under consideration month after month?
With reference to Slane, where it was proposed to build a group of 12 houses over a year ago, the Department approved of certain lay-out plans and subsequently decided that some of the things suggested in the plans did not fit in with the old-world style of Slane village, and bit by bit, at intervals of several months, they communicated with the county council until eventually they agreed to sanction, on certain conditions, four houses where 12 were urgently needed. Does the Minister think that is the way to deal with a rural housing obligation? If four houses would have been sufficient, would the local authority not have suggested four sites at the start, and not 12? I agree we should try to beautify our countryside and keep it beautiful. However, I do not think there is anything more beautiful than a decent house for a working man where he can live in comfort with his family. It is a great mistake to suggest there should be open spaces in an area like Slane where there are thousands of acres of woodland, fields and a river around the village. To suggest that it was necessary, in order to make the scheme work properly, that there should be open spaces within the village is ridiculous.
To come to the question of SDA loans, Meath County Council started a campaign a few years ago to try to persuade people to avail of the loans and grants to rehouse themselves. The scheme was very successful and quite a number of people availed of it. The Minister made reference yesterday to the practice which grew up of people presupposing that they would, in the normal way, qualify for a loan and proceeding with a house without having it cleared. That was the practice in Meath, and in every case the grant from the Department and the supplementary grant from the county council was subsequently paid, and if the SDA loan was required, it was applied for and was paid to the people who were building the houses. This did mean that in many cases the county council had not to build houses for people who were badly housed but were able to encourage these people to build their own houses.
Last year, 1965, many houses were built but towards the middle of the year it was found that money was becoming short for loan purposes. This was not a question of grant. This was a question of loan money which would be repaid in full and the Department found they had not got the money and started easing off. I agree that a certain amount of responsibility must fall on the county council because they had promised money to people who subsequently were not as fast at taking advantage of the money as they should have been. The result was that there was between £30,000 and £40,000 on hand, but it was bespoken to people who were in process of erecting their houses. Subsequently applications was made to the Minister's Department for another £100,000 for SDA loans. At that time Meath County Council had applications amounting to £94,500 in their files in relation to the money which they had already promised. When the Minister received in September last the application for the loan, he acknowledged it. He acknowledged every telephone call and every letter, and the matter was under consideration. Until last week it was still under consideration and then the Minister gave a further advance of £30,000 and stated in an accompanying letter that that was the amount which was going to be advanced this year, giving as his reason that it was the quarterly average which was being spent by Meath County Council and stating that no further advance would be made until 1966-67.
I do not know whether the Minister appreciates what this means but I shall try to explain to him. Meath County Council, having in their files applications for £95,400 in respect of SDA loans and having got £30,000, have a balance of £65,400 which normally would be due to people who are building their houses. If the Minister does not give any more money until after 1st April, it means that that £65,400 is already spent before the next financial year comes in, and we know what that will mean to next year's housing programme. I know one cannot get blood from a turnip. If the money is not there the Minister cannot give it to us. However, this situation was brought about because Government Ministers and, in particular, the Minister for Local Government, in this House insisted until a very short time ago that there was adequate money available for housing. Anybody who asked me or any other public representative in Meath County Council what was the situation was told: "The Minister has given us an assurance that there was no shortage of money for housing." The result was that these people went ahead with their plans, and nobody can blame them if they come back to us and say: "You told us there was money for housing" and it is cold comfort for us to say: "The Minister for Local Government told us the money was there" because apparently it is not there.
I do not know whether the Minister has made up his mind that the programme for next year is going to be cut and cut drastically, without saying that he is going to do that. If he agrees to give only the same amount of money as he has given for this financial year, it means that the programme must be cut drastically because there are plans in Meath for £65,400, and goodness knows what the situation is in other counties where there may be very much more than that bespoken by the councils.
I was under the impression that the Government programme for house building would be expanding year after year and that those who needed houses would be able to build their own houses, particularly under certain sections of this Bill which does give encouragement to people to build who normally would not be prepared to build. No matter what sections are in the Bill, houses cannot be built without money and if the money is not available, the situation will be bad. It would have been far better if everybody had faced up to the facts six months ago and let the local authorities be circularised to the effect that the money would not be available. If the Minister —he promised to do this some time ago and I hope he will do it—is now prepared to say the amount of money he proposes to give, not as a first instalment but the entire amount of money that can be made available to any local authority for the year 1966-67, at least we can be honest with the people seeking loans and say whether or not they can get them. That is the least we can ask of the Minister and I ask him to do that as quickly as possible. It gives me no pleasure to raise these matters in the House but because of the not inconsiderable embarrassment caused to myself and other people, I feel it my duty to do this. If we do not get it cleared up now, it will happen again.
As regards repairs to houses, I do not quite agree with Deputy Donegan. While there is no doubt the number of houses repaired is not as great as we thought it would be, there has been an increase. Again, local authorities have been attempting by way of loan to help out with repairs where people wanted to repair their houses but had not enough ready money to do it themselves. Once again we are up against it because we find in Meath that we are £16,000 short of the money we had promised people who wanted to repair their houses. We have asked the Minister who has said neither yes nor no. We have been paying out the supplementary grants to people repairing and to some of those who have been building houses.
I do not know whether this was accidental or deliberate but over the past six or seven years it has been noticed that Departmental sanction for house-building and repairs seems to be getting slower and slower. When Departmental sanction does not come, naturally the local authority are not in a position to pay the supplementary grant, and so the poor devil who builds or repairs a house and reaches the stage when he thinks he has finished, and is perhaps being dunned by both contractor and supplier for payment for goods and services, may find he cannot get the grant because the Department's inspector has not approved the house, has not reached it, or perhaps there is a shortage of inspectors or a shortage of staff at O'Connell Bridge House. He cannot get the supplementary grant because the Department grant has not been approved and he cannot get the local authority loan because it cannot be paid out until the grant is approved. Again there has been considerable embarrassment caused to decent people who felt that at last they had the opportunity of repairing or building a house for themselves and now find that through no fault of theirs the whole thing is held up.
The same thing has happened in regard to water and sewerage grants also covered by the Bill, except that in this case a bit of a twist has been put on it. A few years ago the Department notified local authorities that they were not responsible under SDA loans for grants for water and sewerage schemes and suggested that the council treasurer be approached with a view to obtaining money. I do not know if it is true of the behaviour of all council treasurers and all banks but my own experience is that if you have plenty of money to your credit, there is no difficulty with the treasurer, but if you happen to hit a hard time and need money, the treasurer is awfully sorry but he cannot oblige.
I think something must be done because it is too bad that where a local authority may have a substantial credit balance in the bank, earning very small interest, and suddenly require more money than they have to their credit, the treasurer says he is sorry but because of the credit squeeze or because of a dozen and one other things, he is unable to make the money available. I do not think the Minister can do anything about this. I wish he could, because I think, since the matter is one which so vitally affects local government, the council may feel that some attempt should be made to get this matter straightened out. I am not suggesting it should be taken in directly under SDA because I suppose they would say they had not got the money.
This situation is becoming more acute. At present we are told there is a proposal to plan the building trade and that it should be possible to have it stabilised so that there will not be big fluctuations of employment and no employment, but the industrial analysis of the live register for mid-January, 1966, gives details of building and contracting and works of construction in the following figures: on 14th January, 1966, on general building and construction and repair work, there were 5,742 males and 20 females unemployed. I think the Minister will admit that such a number registered as unemployed in a particular trade who should, because of the fact that houses are needed, be in full employment does not reflect much confidence in the building trade.
Experience has, or should have, taught this country that if a building job closes down and there is no immediate prospect of re-employment, the people concerned will not stay around on the exchange; they will go across to Britain where employment seems to be available for them at short notice. This aspect of the situation should be remembered by the Government because on a previous occasion, of which the Government are prepared to remind us as often as they possibly can, something similar happened and the building trade operatives left the country and it took many years to get them back again. I believe if they have to go again, they will not come back because casual employment is no use to a man, particularly a man who can earn a good living across the Irish Sea.
Perhaps that is what we want: if it is, then we are going the right way about it. I honestly believe that if the Minister is sincere about the question of houses, he must plan now. He must let everybody know the amount of money available and in no circumstances must the Government say that there is an amount of money available which subsequently proves to be not available.
There was a recent increase in SDA loans and while I have heard people saying that 10/- in £100 is not much, nevertheless 10/- in £100 on a number of hundreds of pounds over a 35-year period is quite a substantial sum. We must make up our minds that housing is so important that there must be a new approach to it. Some of the continental countries have for a long time operated a system whereby no grants are made available but instead loans are subsidised and only cost about one-half per cent. While I am not suggesting to the Minister that this is the solution to his problem, it is a solution worth considering.
When this whole question of housing is being discussed in this House, many of us are inclined to throw our minds back to the problem of costs. I should like to know if the Minister has made any attempt to find out if excessive profits are being made from the erection of houses. It would appear that every time there is an increase in wages which may represent an increase of £20 or £30 per house, the contractor puts on an extra £100 for insurance, just in case he is going to lose out on it. At present we see local authority houses which two years ago cost £1,200, now costing £1,750, and private houses which are similar to those council houses are being quoted at £2,500 and £3,000. Even in country districts this situation seems to exist.
The Minister must make an attempt, as he should be able to do, to find out whether or not the profits on the erection of houses are excessive. He must also make up his mind that an effort will have to be made to ensure that when grants are given by his Department, or by a local authority, they will assist people building houses and not swell the profits of the contractors. That is another problem which must be faced up to. The majority of contractors are decent people who are attempting to give good value for money but there are too many sharks in the industry and there are too many who, if they find an unfortunate person badly stuck for a house and needing one built in a hurry, will attempt to collect as much as possible, far more than they are entitled to collect from that person in ordinary honesty. The Minister should take a hand in this and it should be the easiest thing in the world to find out if excessive profits are being made. This particularly affects those of small means who are attempting, through SDA loans, to provide houses for themselves. Finally, I repeat that the Minister must now let the local authorities know what money is available for next year and he must also attempt to bridge the gap between what they had been promised for this year and what money was made available to them by the Department.
Deputy Tully and Deputy Donegan used a similar phrase in relation to the Minister when they said: "If the Minister was serious about the housing situation." Of course the Minister is serious. This Bill is one indication of his concern about the housing problem and the defects which existed and which are now being remedied in the Bill. In addition, he established the National Building Agency which was a further indication of how serious the Minister considered the entire building operations of the country. That can be further gauged by the fact that he carried out a comprehensive examination of new techniques and developments prior to introducing the Bill to see where local authorities could get better value at a lower cost. There is also the fact that in regard to housing in Dublin, the Minister, when he found that Dublin Corporation were unable to come to grips with the problem, decided to move in and to have developments carried out and have 3,000 houses built in three years. Above all Ministers who have handled this problem, he deserves credit for what he has done in a short space of time.
I am particularly concerned about housing in Dublin city. Deputy Donegan mentioned some matters in connection with building in Dublin city and in this regard there are one or two comments I should like to make. As far as the building programme now in progress in Dublin city is concerned, almost a record number of houses were handed over in December, when a total of 184 houses were completed during adverse winter conditions. This is an indication of the high rate of building at present. At their last meeting, the corporation accepted a tender for a further 357 houses which is in addition to well over 1,000 houses already in course of construction. There is also the fact that the Ballymun construction is proceeding according to plan. One would think, listening to Deputy Donegan, that no housebuilding was proceeding in the country at all, that people were looking for £5 notes to take them to Liverpool. I think he mentioned that for £5 one could go to Liverpool, get overnight lodgings and get a job. That mentality is probably a carry-over from 1958 which the Deputy mentioned earlier but that is not the case today.
The scaremongering to terrify building workers and small contractors is purely to gain political advantage. The position is not as serious as has been suggested. There are problems to be faced and they will be faced. This Government faced bigger problems than the present crisis and no doubt dealt with them adequately, and the fact that they still have the confidence of the people is an indication of that. This problem is a recurring decimal as far as the economy of this and other countries is concerned. We will face up to our responsibilities and we will find when we have tackled this that there will be great things in store for us.
We have laid the foundations in this new Bill and the Minister is to be congratulated on it. Indeed, the members of the Opposition are also to be congratulated for their examination of the problems involved. Constructive criticism is always welcome and Deputies such as Deputy Tully, Deputy Clinton and others have made a substantial contribution to the Bill. We have a Bill now. We have the machinery and, when money becomes more plentiful, there is no doubt that the building programme will reach a point it has never reached before. The rate of building this year is higher than last year, and last year was a record year. The final figure, notwith-standing the present financial position, will be more revealing than some people are inclined to think.
Almost everyone building or reconstructing a house will benefit from this Bill. Local authorities are now getting the necessary assistance to overcome the problems of the past. The Bill gives a number of substantial reliefs. Local authorities can now reconstruct existing houses with the aid of grants. That is something very welcome in Dublin city, where families have grown out of all proportion to the sizes of the houses they occupy. This relief, in itself, should help to reduce the housing needs. The corporation have concentrated on building a substantial number of five-roomed houses. With housing schemes containing as many as 45,000 tenants, it is inevitable that there should be a large number of transfers because of overcrowding in the existing houses. These transfers further delay the allocation of houses. If a person is transferred from one house to another, a period of from six to seven weeks elapses before another tenant comes in. Therefore, every transfer can delay the housing of one tenant by six or seven weeks. That, spread over 42,000 tenants, means that some people on the waiting list are put back for a considerable period. The Bill will eliminate that and reduce the waiting list in some degree because vacancies can now be allocated straight away.
There is reference in the Bill to high-rise flats. In Dublin we have a peculiar problem. We have built out as far as we can without going into the adjoining counties. The answer to that problem is high-rise flats. The fact that they can be built near the city centre will alleviate distress among people who have to travel a distance to and from their work. At present we have perimeter areas seven or eight miles from the centre of the city and a considerable time is spent travelling to and from them. All members of the corporation, irrespective of Party, will welcome the development of high-rise flats.
Local authorities are now permitted to include newly-weds in any scheme of housing priorities they may draw up. There was some vagueness about this up to now. Some authorities operated schemes for newly-weds, but others did not. That situation has now been changed. Further benefits are the payment of the two-thirds subsidy in respect of housing of the aged and the fact that persons with incomes of up to £1,445 with dependants are entitled to a supplementary grant from the local authority. These are substantial improvements, particularly the supplementary grants. We know the difficulties experienced in the past because of the ceiling set and the fact that dependants were not taken into consideration. The new provisions will bring relief to a substantial number of people. It is people in that bracket who are buying their own houses.
I will not deal in detail with all other changes in the Bill but merely comment on one or two of them. We have experienced over the past number of years an upward swing in the demand for houses. That upward trend continues, but, when the improvements made in this Bill are carried into effect, I believe that situation will be arrested, and I do not believe it will be very long until it is.
Almost all the Fine Gael speakers mentioned the housing position in 1958. The Labour speakers did not concentrate on that year at all. At that time people were emigrating and running away. Deputy Donegan talked about emigrants to the port of Liverpool with £5 in their pockets. That may have been the position then because unemployment had reached such a high level that people were running out of their homes.
Fianna Fáil were back in power for 15 months then. Deputy Donegan made a mistake and Deputy Dowling is falling into the trap.
It was the aftermath of the Coalition, whereby people had to leave their employment. They were forced out of their own homes and, as a result, a substantial number of vacancies arose.
The Deputy knows that is completely untrue.
I know it is right.
Deputy Harte might allow Deputy Dowling to make his speech.
Provided he states facts.
Deputy Harte should observe order.
I will not bother the Deputy with the figures.
I have them in front of me.
This was a carry-over from the deplorable situation left by the Coalition. I should like to welcome the Bill and to say that all the improvements made in connection with supplementary grants, old people and newly-weds will be evident when it becomes effective. I am sure that, when we examine the housing position in the years to come, we will see that the time spent in discussing this Bill has not been wasted. A certain amount of credit can be claimed by all Parties, the members of which, by their forthright expression of approval or disapproval, have played such a part in formulating the Bill. When the next Housing Bill comes before the House and if the present Minister is there——
That is the question.
It may not be for 30 years and he may be retired by then. If he will be Minister for that length of time, I do not know, but, having enjoyed the confidence of the people for so long, he will be here. The Minister has built on solid foundations and the problems of the past are now being eliminated. His efforts will be appreciated in the future by the people, the people who have supported him for so long.
There are a few things I should like to mention. Before I move on to them, I must say I could not help thinking, while Deputy Dowling was on his feet, of a particular friend. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Deputy Dowling mentions all the good points in this Bill. Basically, it is a consolidation of all the previous Bills, with slight adjustments in grants. Listening to Deputy Dowling praise the Minister for Local Government, I began to imagine Deputy Dowling in the sittingroom or office conversing with a constituent who had a housing problem. I wonder, having listened to Deputy Dowling today, what the expression on the face of that constituent would be if he repeated the same things in his office or sittingroom. I wonder if that constituent would go out and say "I have got my house". I doubt very much if Deputy Dowling would express himself in the same manner to one of his constituents as he did in this House a few minutes ago, so much so, that I actually praise Deputy Dowling now for backing up his own Minister, knowing in his heart and soul that the whole thing is a lot of cod.
We can talk from now until Doomsday about building houses and about the different schemes that are available to people to rehouse themselves. Talk is cheap. What we want now and what the people want in Ireland is action. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle represents County Donegal. He knows the constituency of South-West Donegal which is very similar to the North-East constituency.
I would ask the Deputy not to bring the Chair into this.
I do not wish to. I want to use the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, as a very responsible person in this House, to bear out what I am about to tell the House as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
We have at the moment in Donegal a serious housing situation. People who were waiting for the local authority to build houses for them came to realise after two or three years that it would not be done for them. Then they go, on their own bat, to borrow money from friends across the water or the bank. They apply for an SDA loan. They calculate that, between all the money they can borrow and get themselves, and with the grants which would be available to them, they can build their house but find that they have committed themselves to such an extent that they cannot meet their commitments due to the fact that the present Government have not given local authorities money to pay supplementary grants.
I have, and no doubt the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has, too, gone into the county council offices in Lifford to inquire about supplementary housing grants. Some few months ago, we were told, "There is a slight delay. Certain papers are not in order". That excuse is now gone and we are being bluntly told that there is no money. Why do the Minister for Local Government and his Parliamentary Secretary not get up and admit that fact in this House? Why do they repeatedly mislead the people? Why do they repeatedly make promises of new housing schemes, SDA schemes and other schemes, hoodwinking the people and making them believe that they will build houses?
In 1956, in a year of crisis, when Deputy Dowling and some of his colleagues on the then Fianna Fáil Opposition benches were very much louder in their criticisms than members on these benches are today, 9,837 houses were built in this country.
He was not here in 1956.
I am here in 1966.
That was a year when the Fianna Fáil Party criticised the inter-Party Government for being in a financial crisis. Why were they in a financial crisis? One of the reasons why they were in a financial crisis was because they built houses. The First Programme for Economic Expansion, which the present Government introduced in 1958, recommended to them in relation to houses, that that great social need would soon be solved. By deliberate policy, the present Government have refused to build houses because their First Programme for Economic Expansion pointed out to them that it was a bad investment. The thinking was that it would be much better to build luxury hotels. If Deputy P.J. Burke were here now he would tell us that it would be a better investment to buy Constellation aeroplanes or Boeing Jet 707s. Yes, it is good to do these things but, in my ethics, first things come first. It is a very bad principle to buy aeroplanes and to build luxury hotels for the wealthy, lazy foreign millionaires who use this country as a playground if our own people must be made to suffer for it.
You did not buy them. You sold them.
I might remind the Deputy that, if we sold them, we built houses. Deputy Dowling has just told this House a story. If he tells a similar story to the next constituent who comes into his house or office inquiring why there is such a delay in the housing situation, the expression on that constituent's face should be interesting. We have a scheme in Donegal known as "the cottage scheme" where the applicant produces a site and the county council will build a cottage on it. We have had many delays. We have had so many delays that I raised the matter on numerous occasions in this House, so much so that I had to use the public press to spotlight a grievance of a particular applicant in Donegal. But the new crisis is that the county councillor is now writing to the contractors and asking them: "Why is there such a delay? Why do you not get on with the work?" The simple truth is that the contractors cannot get money from the county council to pay their suppliers.
Numerous small contractors come to me inquiring: "Why can I not get money?" and no doubt the same people, or people like them, go to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. We go to the county council and we are told: "That will be paid. It is on top of the file and it will be paid on Friday week." When we come in, a fortnight later, we are told: "The local clerk of works had to go out to inspect the job but it is now on top of the file and will be paid on Friday week". This has been the pattern for so long that the local contractors cannot honour their debts to the local suppliers. The local suppliers feel the financial pinch just as much as the present Government and the contractors do and they cannot get extended credit from the general suppliers. We now find ourselves in a vicious circle which has stemmed from the present Government who, from 1957 to 1966, have refused to build houses.
We heard much talk at the general election about the building of houses. We heard that 45 or 50 houses were to be built in Milford, only to discover that there was no such move afoot at all. Now, Fianna Fáil members of the council come in and advocate that more houses should be built. Prior to the election, they would not admit that there was such a housing crisis. This is the codology that sickens me about new legislation in this House.
There is one other point which I would like to make before the House moves on to questions. The recent Town Planning Act has presented problems which have a delaying effect on people who wish to build houses for themselves, knowing that the local authority will not provide a house for two or three years. The Minister should instruct local authorities to expedite all town planning applications in respect of persons who wish to take upon themselves the duty of a local authority and the duty of a Government.
Debate adjourned.