The Fine Gael motion No. 6 is being taken in conjunction with the Bill.
Housing Bill, 1965: Fifth Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
The Fine Gael motion reads:
That Dáil Éireann draws attention to the decline in the number of houses being built in recent years and to the serious consequences resulting from the current restriction on finance available for housing, and calls on the Government to take effective steps to ensure that the output of houses is immediately expanded and that the necessary finance is made available for this purpose.
I do not think anybody can dispute the fact there has been a decline in the number of houses built. Every single week we come here we hear the Minister for Local Government taking evasive action on the question of building houses. He has been at it so long he is practically an expert at it. It seems almost futile for a Fine Gael Deputy to question him here. I naturally know more about my own constituency than any other part of the country, although I am aware of the fact that houses are not being built anywhere, or, if they are, they are long overdue because these schemes come to fruition only after many months of delay.
Last week I questioned the Minister in regard to the French's Field scheme in Gorey. It is about five or six years since this scheme was first brought in by the local authority. To my knowledge, no houses have been built in Gorey since 1952. I should know because I live adjacent to the town. About four or five years ago, two salaried people in Gorey came to me and told me they were living in lodgings but had been endeavouring to get a house. They felt they could not go on much longer unless I could give them some guarantee that a house would be built. I then became actively concerned with this scheme. That was about four years ago. It is about three years since the two salaried people emigrated because their wives objected to living in rooms or in socalled flats in which no modern facilities whatever were available.
I have questioned the Minister on the subject of the French's Field houses about four or five times in the Dáil. This scheme was sent to the Minister long ago. About 18 months ago I was told by the officials in the Department—who nowadays are not able to tell one anything without consultation with the Minister because of the unhappy state of the country's finances—that they are under consideration on some small technical point, that the matter could be rapidly cleared and that in the meantime there was no reason why they should not issue a tender. I returned to the local authority and told them that. The local authority issued a tender last August. It went up to the Minister's Department and there has been no reply yet in relation to it as to whether anything should be amended or whether anything was not in order. The reply simply is that the matter is being considered. The large group of civil servants in the Minister's Department always worked well to get these schemes through, did their best to hurry up schemes and were always at the disposal of Deputies when they went in to question any delay or anything like that. But nobody in the Department can give me any indication as to what the delay is in this case. Naturally, I do not want to embarrass them. They are employed directly by the Minister, who is in control of the Department.
The fact remains that this matter is in the Minister's office and no answer has been given on it. I asked the Minister on three occasions if sanction would be given. It is the same with schemes all over the country. They are sent up to the Department and stay there. No reason whatever is given. Any Deputy who goes to his local authority—I am not a member of my local authority but I go there—and asks them what the delay is, is told the documents are in the Department and no sanction has been received. Of course, the standard reply of the Minister is that the matter is under consideration. If one asks politely what the cause is, if there is any technical hitch, there is really no answer at all.
The Minister refers to delays, to his predecessor and suggests that housing is a matter that requires consideration. But there is no definite reply as to the cause of the delay, when everybody in the country knows this Government has not a penny to spend on anything. If the Minister were to say to a Deputy concerned about a housing scheme that there was no money, he would not be disclosing any State secrets because everybody knows they have no money. At least if the Minister said that straight out, that this Government are broke and have to wait until the Budget—which they are bringing in two months in advance to try to collect a few pounds to meet their commitments—or until the Germans "cough up" the £7 million they are borrowing from them, and therefore, could not build any houses, one would know exactly where one stood.
The Minister must know that there are people in the towns of Gorey, Enniscorthy, New Ross and Wexford who are waiting for his sanction to have a house. There are people with families of two or three children living in discomfort in lodgings waiting for some sort of light from the Minister as to whether these schemes will be implemented or not. There is no answer. It would be much fairer for the Minister to tell the Deputies concerned: "We are broke. As a result of our policies in the country, the money has not gone as far as we anticipated, but we hope to start at some distant or near date." Let us hope it will be a near date—maybe after 9th March, when the new Budget comes.
It is in the national interest that the Minister should give some indication as to what future policy is. Building has come to a standstill everywhere. Every scheme is being held up. The Government are probably the biggest employers of labour at present. The skilled hands are emigrating. When this money does become effective—if it ever does, if it is not already spent, if it is not a question of new money coming in just to balance the books and that we do not go bankrupt altogether—we would be very glad to hear it from the Minister.
I said before the Minister came in that he was becoming adept at dodging the issue with regard to the Parliamentary questions in relation to housing. I admit that from his point of view he is placed in a very unpleasant position. He is the Minister responsible for the conduct of housing policy. It is crystal-clear to everybody, even to some of my Fianna Fáil colleagues, that you cannot conduct a housing policy unless you have some money with which to conduct it. The next time I put down a question—as I very soon intend to do and the same goes for some of my colleagues—asking that these houses will be built, it will be only fair if the Minister, in his reply, will give some indication of the position. We know it to be disastrous but I think it is necessary that this Dáil and, through this Dáil, the nation should be taken into the confidence of the Minister as far as housing goes and that we should know the position that will obtain in the future.
Housing is a personal matter. It is not a question of scoring a political point. It is a question of trying to provide what it is the duty of the State to provide under modern conditions, that is, housing for people who are not able to afford to build houses for themselves or who are not able to afford to buy houses.
There is another situation in regard to housing, too. On two occasions recently, cases of labourers' cottages have gone up for sanction to the Department of Local Government. I understand the position to be that when they are building such cottages there is a loan concerned with them which is sought by the local authority but they must have the sanction of and a guarantee from the Minister for Local Government. Of course, that is not forthcoming, either. There may be some difficulties involved in the Minister for Local Government giving a guarantee to anybody because, in order to do so, one must be fully solvent oneself. It does not seem to me that there is any degree of solvency whatsoever in relation to the finances of the Department of Local Government so it is probably for that reason that all buildings of labourers' cottages is held up, too.
That brings me again to the point I mentioned—the question of emigration. If money is available to build a cottage, if it is sanctioned ultimately and finally by the devious routes through which it has to go, the position then very often obtains that there is nobody left to build it. If there is no local employment in the building trade, due to the terrific credit restrictions that obtain in the country at the moment, no building can be done and the people concerned with building emigrate. Therefore, we are rearing our youth and our skilled people to let them go over to deal with the difficult building situation in which other countries find themselves.
Every country in the free world at the moment is trying to build as much as possible, and there are extensive building demands together with demands for a better standard of living, higher wages and so on. A great number of our people have gone to Britain and are likely to stay there. When they go there, skilled workers that they are, they can get a roof over their heads, which is something they cannot get here and that helps to keep them there.
Therefore, if the Minister gets the money on March 9th next, if it is not entirely absorbed in paying the debts of this Government and if there is any balance over and the Minister wishes to augment a building scheme to make up for the defects of the past, he will probably find himself without any personnel to do the building. I do not suppose that in the history of this State there has ever been such a backlog of building as there is at present. It is quite obvious that legislation in itself is insufficient to enable local authorities to build houses or to meet their requirements if new factories are being set up in, say, a rural area. Practically the first question any industrialist will ask any Deputy who may be concerned with trying to bring a factory to his constituency is whether housing accommodation is available locally. We have had legislation here whereby it is possible for local authorities to make houses available under special conditions. I understand that special money is available to augment such building in the event of a factory coming to an area. However, what is the use of legislation when there is no money to implement it?
The whole story of housing here is that there is no money with which to build houses. If labourers are waiting for cottages, ordinary workers are waiting for building schemes to be implemented. Civil servants are subject to a good deal of criticism in a democratic State—they always are subject to criticism—and are being blamed for delays which are of direct political origin: there is no other reason for the delays but the political conditions that prevail in this country at the moment.
I can see no hope or future for housing here unless the Government will create a situation of financial stability whereby houses can be built. I wish very particularly to refer to the terms of the pending loan or loans that the Government are making as far as the matter concerns housing. The House will appreciate that most of the housing in this country is done by virtue of loan. Therefore, the rate of interest is entirely in relation to the rate of repayment of loan that the occupier of the house has got to pay.
I cannot see how the Deputy can discuss the loan.
I have not mentioned it yet. I am telling the House how, when I come to refer to it, I shall——
It has no relation to the motion. I would point out to the Deputy that we are discussing the Housing Bill and that the question of the loan does not arise.
We are discussing our motion with it.
That is what I have been told. I am trying to draw a parallel in relation to dear money. If money is borrowed from people at a high rate of interest and is re-lent to local authorities for the purpose of house building, the housing charges will be dearer than heretofore. The repayments will be higher. In fact, the whole housing situation will become uneconomic because of dear money. The Minister is not responsible for that matter but he should take the point into consideration that, if he implements housing schemes at a very much later date than was originally intended, they will now cost a great deal more money than they would have cost, due to increased wages, increased charges, increases in the price for the land, increased money due for the servicing of such loan.
It stands to reason that if a Government borrow money at 7 per cent and the local authority want that money for housing they must pay a certain percentage more than that to service the loan and cover the loan charges. Therefore, not only have this Government not built houses as a result of their policy but, when they build them, they will be dearer houses with bigger repayments than heretofore—that is, if they ever do build the houses. That is the unhappy and unsatisfactory record of this Government and of this Dáil which is only a year in existence and that is what the country has to look forward to as far as housing policy is concerned. The Minister should go to his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to get more money to subsidise these houses so that they may be available at a more economic rent. If you start to peddle with money, you have to protect the weaker sections of the community. I want to know from the Minister if it is his intention to protect the public generally against high loan charges.
The problem of housing is now so great that it is not possible for the Minister for Local Government adequately to cope with the serious situation that faces the people in regard to it. The only way the problem can properly be dealt with is by including a Minister for Housing in the Cabinet, a Minister whose sole concern it will be to see to it that effective steps are taken to ensure that, instead of sliding back, as we are at present, we will overcome this very serious problem very rapidly.
We know that in Dublin alone there are approximately 10,000 families on the waiting list for housing. The situation at present is that the corporation are trying to deal with families of eight persons living in one room. The pendulum is swinging back and forth. Some four or five weeks ago the corporation were, in fact, housing families of five persons living in one room. The elected representatives on the corporation have been informed early this week that the situation now is that the corporation are trying to deal with families of eight persons living in one room. This is nearly three years after the very serious situation in Dublin was highlighted by the collapse of houses in Fenian Street with consequent unfortunate loss of life. I speak with particular reference to Dublin but it is well known and generally accepted that the situation outside Dublin is no better.
We have a Minister for Local Government who, apart from the very serious and complicated business of providing houses, is responsible for many other activities. He is responsible for roads, sewerage, planning and has all sorts of commitments. We feel that the housing situation which affects the lives of so many of our people justifies the appointment of a Minister whose sole function would be to see that the people were properly housed.
One of the greatest difficulties that local authorities and private builders face with regard to the provision of houses is the speculation in land that is allowed to continue. Land on the perimeter of Dublin that was bought ten to 15 years ago for a few thousand pounds can now command fantastic prices because there are people who are willing to take advantage of the need of the community in general and the Minister, who is well aware of the situation, does absolutely nothing about it.
There has been no effective action even suggested by the Minister for Local Government or any of his colleagues to deal with one of the basic problems facing a large number of people who are trying to provide their own homes. In order to be even in the running for a house built by a private contractor it is necessary to have an initial deposit of £500 to £600. This deposit is demanded from people who are starting out in life and who anticipate that they will be rearing families within a few years. Apart from finding the deposit of £500 to £600, they have to furnish at least to some extent the new homes that they have acquired at tremendous personal sacrifice.
I would suggest that the Minister would examine the situation in relation to the very large deposits that are demanded and see if some financial assistance could be afforded to persons who are endeavouring to buy their own homes, ensuring, at the same time, that the builder cannot increase the price by the extent of the Minister's financial assistance.
It has been stated here repeatedly that this is not the best time to ask any Minister to spend money because the facts are that the Minister has not got it but it should be borne in mind that we cannot go on like this indefinitely and that money must be available at some time. When money is available, this would be one very serious aspect of the housing problem that the Minister could possibly consider.
I asked the Minister today by way of Parliamentary Question as to the reason for the delay in the production of houses being built through the National Building Agency for Dublin Corporation. I have a very definite personal interest in the scheme in Ballymun. As a member of Dublin Corporation, I attended all the discussions and conferences that took place between the Minister and that authority. Quite frankly, at the time, I agreed with the Minister that the only possible way to overcome the very serious problem existing in Dublin was by some departure from traditional building and I supported, against very heavy opposition from many sections, the plan in relation to Ballymun but I did so on the assurance that was given by the Minister, the guarantee that was given by the Minister, that these houses would be available to the corporation for letting not later than July, 1965. That is seven months ago. So far the corporation have not had any houses from the Minister or from the National Building Agency. I do not think it is enough for the Minister to come into the House and say this is entirely due to weather conditions. The weather is no worse in Ballymun than in any other building site in this city. There have been continuous completions of houses by other contractors. These houses have been made available to the corporation for letting but not one house or flat has emerged as yet from the Ballymun scheme. The Minister, I think, owes the people of this city a far more satisfactory explanation in relation to this than he gave today in reply to a Parliamentary question.
It is necessary in this context to refer to the restriction moneywise on credit for housing, both private and municipal. We know that many local authorities find themselves unable to plan and unable to proceed with houses, houses vitally needed by those people normally catered for, and the Minister and his Department have been anything but helpful in this respect. The situation with regard to housing is far too serious for any Party to play politics with it. If the Minister finds there is no money available, he should clearly say so to the local authorities and to the people who are dependent on supplementary grants, loans from local authorities, etc.
I do not know whether the Minister is aware that people qualified for loans and grants have committed themselves financially in many ways in anticipation of the local authority and the Minister living up to the implied promise that, provided they had the qualifications, they would automatically get loans or grants. Not too long since many of these people found themselves well fitted and with all the qualifications but with no certainty that they would get a loan or grant since the corporation did not know whether they would have the money. That situation arose because the Minister chose to play party politics and would not state definitely what the situation was from the point of view of the availability of money for SDA houses. It is only right, and people are entitled to expect, that a situation which can affect them to a very large degree should be clearly stated. I would ask the Minister now, if that situation still exists, or if it arises again at any time in the future, at least to inform the people and the local authorities in a forthright manner as to what exactly the situation is.
There is another aspect of which I am sure the Minister is aware from the point of view of a slowing down in building. If there is a slowing down, we will undoubtedly lose a great many people in the building trade. Building operatives are not the most fortunate in the country. They are affected by many things: by weather, by wet time, by seasonal fluctuations. If they become unemployed, and cannot find employment here, they have no alternative other than to go and find employment elsewhere. We know from past experience that if they are forced to take the boat, they will find there is continuity of employment elsewhere and a certain amount of security for themselves and their families. They are not likely to be induced back to this country. If we allow a slowing down in building, we will face a very serious situation from the point of view of the availability of skilled craftsmen when we again arrive at the position in which money is available to go on building. I do not want to detain the House but I suggest the problem is one of such magnitude it clearly indicates the necessity for a Minister for Housing to deal solely with housing.
Deputy Cluskey's statement that there has been a continuous completion of housing schemes since last July is correct. That applies not only in Dublin but all over the country. Side by side with that, even if there is a credit squeeze, there has been no great slowing up in private house building. Over the past three years we had a situation in which the housing drive was such that work was held up owing to sufficient labour not being available. Our main difficulty in Donegal was in getting contractors to tender for schemes we had advertised. Even though there is this credit squeeze, the slowing down in house building is not as great as one would expect. That is especially true of the private sector in which it is difficult even at the present time to get a full complement of skilled labour for some of the work that has to be done.
I do not know whether Deputy Esmonde's views represent Fine Gael policy but I think his speech will do a good deal of damage. His speech, containing such expressions as "not a penny to spend on anything; building has come to a standstill" can only do harm. These statements are not correct and Deputy Esmonde should know that. He admits he is not a member of a local authority but, nevertheless, he should be properly informed.
There is no delay in Donegal as far as private building is concerned in the payment of departmental grants and very little in the payment of supplementary grants. I hope the statements made by Deputy Esmonde are not made on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. They could be very damaging to the economy. We know money is scarce but the Minister is to be congratulated on making the best possible use of the moneys available to him and ensuring that proper use is made of them and that those concerned are getting the best value for them. I hope that will continue. As a member of a local authority, I find that the money is being spread evenly over a period——
And thinly.
——rather than thickly over one period and having a holdup in another period. The design seems to be to preserve continuity so that the least disruption will be caused in the building trade and amongst building operatives.
Another point is that planning is not being held up. The councils are being told to continue with planning and the purchase of sites. This is something which caused a great deal of harm in 1956-57, when a complete stop in planning took place with the result that it took some time after the credit squeeze was over to get the machinery moving again. Despite this credit squeeze, the Minister is to be congratulated on keeping an even balance in the output of housing and also keeping in mind the needs of the future and planning for that.
(South Tipperary): If the Minister is to be congratulated on anything, it is on his technical ability to dodge Parliamentary questions. Over the past few months, I have, under pressure from my own local authority and from individuals, put down Parliamentary question after Parliamentary question, No. 1, to try to get some information as to what is likely to happen as regards sanctioning of various projects and various loans and, No. 2, in the hope of prodding the Minister into taking some action in the matter. In this matter let me say at once that one cannot blame an individual Minister specifically. He is merely a member of a Government. The blame lies fairly and squarely on the members of the Cabinet in their capacity as a Government. On 25th January last, I put down a question to the Minister:
... if he will now sanction the loan of £116,000 to Carrick-on-Suir Urban Council, Co. Tipperary, for the erection of 52 houses at St. John's Road, Carrick-on-Suir, for which application was made on 24th August 1965 and the tender for which has been accepted and approved by him, as the contractor is anxious and willing to commence the work and in view of the hardship and additional cost involved in further delay.
This request was made to me by the Carrick-on-Suir Urban Council. The Minister's reply was:
I am not yet in a position to say when this loan will be sanctioned but I hope that it will be possible to give a decision in the near future.
On the 14th December last I put down another question to the Minister:
... when the remaining £60,000 of the £120,000 loan for the building of rural cottages by Tipperary South Riding County Council, which was applied for on 15th June, 1965 will be sanctioned; and if he is aware that building at the rate of one house per year in some recent years has now made the local authority housing position rather serious.
The Minister's reply was as follows:
The loan of £60,000 already sanctioned is, I understand, sufficient to meet immediate requirements in respect of approved works. Tender proposals in respect of twelve additional cottages are under examination in my Department. I am not in a position to say when an additional amount of loan is likely to be sanctioned.
Building has not been at the low rate mentioned by the Deputy since 1959. The average number of cottages completed each year by the council in the five years ended on 31st March last was 24. So far this year, they have completed 22 and have work in progress on 41 cottages.
The years I mentioned in which only one cottage was built by South Tipperary County Council were the years 1959 and 1960. In both of those years, in a fairly wealthy county where there are nearly 4,000 cottages, one was built in 1959 and one in 1960. Again, on the same date I asked the Minister another question:
... if he will state in respect of the £11,200 loan for which Clonmel Corporation is awaiting sanction (a) when the application for sanction was made and (b) the nature and extent of the projects envisaged.
The Minister's reply was:
(a) Application for sanction was made on 3rd November, 1965; (b) the loan is for the provision of water and sewerage extensions to housing schemes at Gortmalogue and Jackson's Cross.
I do not know whether or not that loan has even been sanctioned. Again, dealing with individual cases, I put down a question to the Minister on the 4th November, last:
.... why clearance has not been given to Tipperary (South Riding) County Council regarding 20 compulsory purchase orders, as the final date for objection to such orders appears to have expired since 22nd September, 1965 and most of those concerned are in urgent need of rehousing.
The Minister's reply reads:
I assume that the Deputy is referring to the Tipperary South Riding Compulsory Purchase (Labourers Acts) No. 3 Order, 1965, under which the county council propose to acquire 13 plots for the erection of a total of 20 cottages. The latest date for the making of objections to this order was 28th September, 1965.
As an objection to the order has been received as respects one plot, it is necessary to hold a public local inquiry into this objection. The inquiry will be held on 7th December, 1965.
The order, in so far as the other 12 sites are concerned, is under consideration and a decision in the matter will be conveyed to the council as soon as possible.
On the 27th October last I put down a question to the Minister:
.... whether loan permission has been granted to any other local authority since the date it was refused to Cashel Local Authority.
The Minister's reply reads:
The Deputy's suggestion that a loan has been refused to Cashel Urban District Council is incorrect. The remainder of the question does not, therefore, arise.
The fact of the matter is that for years we have been attempting to build a few houses in Cashel. Having got everything ready and the contractor having been appointed, we now find that the loan is being held up by the Minister. We are told repeatedly in this House that this is standard practice; local bodies have been told they must not proceed until sanction for the loan has been given. We know also that this regulation is now being enforced all over the country.
On 17th November last I asked the Minister when the loan for £22,800 would be made available to Cashel Urban Council. The Minister's reply was: "...I am not in a position to say at this stage when the loan is likely to be approved." A series of other questions dealing with loans in general, and particularly with our local water supply, all received the same type of reply: the Minister was not in a position to state when the loan would be made available. At no stage has there been a positive answer stating: "We have not the money and, therefore, we cannot give it to you." The loan has always been rejected on one pretext or another. As other Deputies said, it would be far more honest if the Government said: "The money is not there. Do not torment us with these questions. When we have the money we shall give it to you." On one pretext or another these schemes have been held up by the Minister for Local Government in an effort to stop building being carried out because they have no money at present.
I have here an OECD Observer Report for November, 1965, which gives some tables which compare our position with that of other countries. On page 26 there is a list of housing units completed per thousand of the population and I find that our position is the lowest in Europe with the exception of Turkey. Austria has a figure of 5.9; Belgium, 6; Canada, 7.8; Denmark, 8.2; France, 7.6; Germany, 10.7; Greece, 7; Iceland, 7; Italy, 8.8; Netherlands, 8.4; Norway, 7.4; Portugal, 4.7; Spain, 8.2; Sweden, 11.4; Switzerland, 9.7; United Kingdom, 7.2; Ireland, 3.2 and Turkey 2. As we know, half the Turks are nomads and live in tents. Our position is not one with which we can be particularly pleased.
We have in Clonmel 91 condemned houses occupied. That was the last figure given me by the Minister in answer to a Parliamentary question. We have an accepted figure of 181 in the case of the county council as in need of housing. This accepted figure is based on the most rigid type of survey bearing no relationship to the type of assessment which we are now envisaging under the Housing Bill.
One's position had to be really desperate regarding housing in my constitutency before one was put on the list for rehousing. There was certainly no generosity in interpreting housing requirements there nor probably anywhere else. I believe the figure of housing needs is far in excess of the 181 mentioned for South Tipperary; we could pick up that number in a couple of our smaller towns. Without going into statistics anybody who drives around the country and goes through our villages and compares them with what he has seen in villages elsewhere must appreciate that we have many substandard houses and that it will take many years to bring our housing up to a decent level.
I deprecate the Government policy which deliberately set out to cut down on housing after the last election. I realise the difficulty housing presents in connection with the balance of payments; I realise that the large amount of housebuilding that took place under the last Inter-Party Government may have helped to put them into economic difficulties and I also realise that the Government have panicked away from any danger of repeating that experience. Yet they have succeeded in getting into financial difficulties otherwise.
One speaker mentioned the question of increased cost of building sites. That has been adverted to several times in the House and it is probably not peculiar to this country. It is mentioned in reference to the position in Germany in the OECD Report on page 29. I quote:
TOPICAL PROBLEMS:
PRICES OF CONSTRUCTION LAND.
Land prices go up as a result of the disproportion between the supply of construction land, which only slowly becomes available, and the more rapidly increasing demand. In countries where private ownership, including private land property, is guaranteed by the Constitution, problems of land procurement will never be solved completely.
All efforts made to suspend the principles of free development of land prices have failed. The price stop, valid in Germany since 1936 was circumvented in many ways. In passing the Federal Construction Law in 1960, the lesson was drawn from this situation and the price stop annulled. Since then the development of land prices clearly reflects the shortage. It is the development of construction land prices on the outskirts of particularly attractive cities that proves the necessity of a balanced deployment of the population. A planning law was passed this year after negotiations with the Länder and the communal organisations.
This is the position in a highly organised and pretty well socialised country like the Federal Republic of Germany. It is clearly set out that they have tremendous difficulties in trying to control speculation in land for houses. It is all the more imperative that we here should take immediate steps to try to circumvent and control, in so far as it is controllable, excessive speculation in house-building sites. It may indeed be that because of the small size of our population such speculation may be more controllable than in a complex society such as exists in the Federal Republic of Germany. Nonetheless, the problem is a difficult one and I would particularly draw the Minister's attention to it. I think he is pretty well acquainted with it already because apparently this problem has presented itself in every other country.
Time and again in this House we have blamed the Minister for his failure to build houses and time again he has blamed the local councillors and when he gets tired of that, he blames the county managers. Of course, the truth is that neither the county councillors nor the managers are to blame and the Minister is not specifically to blame. The blame rests upon the Government as a body and upon Government policy which five or six years ago deliberately set out to cut down on the building of houses. The notion was that it was not productive expenditure. After all, if you regard the human being as nothing more than a production unit, then the man who is not properly housed and lives in a hovel can do as good a day's work as the man who is properly housed. That was the hard economic policy pursued by the Government up to the present and we now find ourselves with a backlog of houses to be built. What was a deliberate policy under the previous Government has now, because of the financial stringency, become an obligatory policy under the present Government. To a great extent we have squandered our resources and one may ask how has this position come about?
A big factor, I believe, was the shameless method by which the Government squandered our resources in order to buy back the popularity which they lost when the turnover tax was introduced. In 1964, we spent on wages and salaries £62 millions more than we spent on wages and salaries in 1963, and in 1965, we spent £87 millions on wages and salaries more than in 1963. We did that because there was a by-election in 1964 and a general election in 1965. That is the bill which we are now paying, in effect. The Government are great dispensers but in effect the recipients are no better off personally because the purchasing power of their money has gone down and the community is no better off because many of the improved social services which we hoped we might have been able to secure are not now available and housing happens to be one of them. However, Fianna Fáil are in power and apparently that is all that matters.
It is said that it is an ill wind that does not blow somebody good and I do not know whether the Fine Gael Party will succeed in getting out of this motion what they would like to get. In the motion they deplore the decline in the number of houses built in recent years. We had Deputy Hogan telling us that having won the second last general election, the Government immediately decided to cut down on their capital programme as it related to houses. The Deputy did not go to the trouble of finding out what the activities in relation to house building were over the past four or five years that have elapsed since the election in 1961. While the Fine Gael motion deals with the recent house building programme, they have made it a point to go back to the period from 1957 up to and including 1964. Let us start from the year 1961 and see what has been the approach of the Government in relation to house building and what has been achieved as a result of their efforts.
In 1961-62, there were 5,780 houses built and in every year since there has been a substantial increase in the number of houses built. In 1962-63, there were 7,020 houses built; in 1963-64, there were 7,580; and in 1964-65, there were 9,430. In the present financial year, it has been estimated that we will build 11,000 houses. That in itself indicates that the purpose of the motion tabled by the Fine Gael Party was to gain some political support by making propaganda. In this year we hope to build 11,000 houses and spend something over £20 million, a record figure. Nevertheless we agree that the number of proposals and schemes before the Department are, for the first time, far in excess of the money available for this purpose. It will be some information to people who try to suggest that the Government have no money that next year the house-building programme will benefit to the tune of an extra £1 million more than we spent in the present financial year.
One is surprised at the attitude of the Labour Party to a motion such as this because it must be admitted that they are keener men on their job and they must know that housing activities in the past three or four years have increased, that the output of houses has been increased, and that therefore, there is no substance in the charge made by the Fine Gael Party that there has been a decline in the number of houses being provided through State aid. Deputy Hogan informed us that he was requested by the local authority to table questions in order to try to get some information regarding schemes as they affect his constituency. I was a member of a local authority for a long time and I was a member in the dark old days when money was not available. I never was requested by the local authority to raise a question in the Dáil and I doubt very much if the South Tipperary County Council asked Deputy Hogan to do so. However, he was quite entitled to do it if he wanted to and if he wanted to let the people know how active he is in the Dáil. We know the purpose that such questions serve. As I said, he is quite entitled to raise the matter and more luck to him, but he should not do it on the pretext that he is doing it at the request of the South Tipperary County Council.
(Cavan): The Minister for Local Government is now the Minister for delays.
Deputy Donegan set the ball rolling on behalf of the Fine Gael Party. He had quite a lot of things to say in relation to the Housing Bill generally but he had a good word or two to say about the Minister. He had something to say in relation to the activities of the NBA, the National Building Agency. He made the point that the National Building Agency are now engaged in the provision of houses for industrialists, or, at least, for the executives of industries throughout the country. It was a pity, he said, that the same could not be said for the ordinary man on the floor. I am glad to inform Deputy Donegan and the House that in my own county, at any rate, the NBA have been very active in the past 12 or 18 months. They have not alone provided houses for the executives and managers of a factory, but have also provided some 30-odd houses for what is called the ordinary man on the floor.
The same thing has happened in other parts of the country, such as Nenagh and one or two other areas in the country, so the NBA are extending their activities to cater for the small man who, if you like, is in a position to finance his own housing. Deputy Donegan may not be aware of this. I just thought I would mention it because it is something I am very pleased about. I am very pleased with their activities in my own county. I have visited some of the sites in other parts of the country as well.
Deputy Donegan had a general complaint to make about the non-payment of grants in relation to new houses and reconstruction. The general impression he created was that all this was due to the fact that the Government had no money. I would not be the one to deny that there may, in some cases, be a delay in the payment of housing grants but you will find, if you request the Deputy to give you details of a case which he has in mind, that when that case is investigated, there is some very legitimate reason for the delay.
I will give an instance of what has happened in my own county in the past month or so. A man carried out a reconstruction job on his house. His wife and his aunt lived in the house and it was never known that the house was without some member of the family being present. Unfortunately on the day the inspector called, all three were away burying a relative. The inspector returned the file to the Department and said there was no person present. Anything like that can cause a delay of three, four, or possibly five weeks. Those are legitimate delays which take place in relation to the payment of housing grants.
There were also other cases of an inspector calling and finding that the work was not completed. He is compelled to go back a second time to find out if the work has been completed. Otherwise the job would not be half-completed. An applicant would always be anxious to get the grant, whether the job was completed or not. There is an obligation on the inspector to see that this work is carried out as nearly as possible to his satisfaction and it may mean one, two or three visits before he is satisfied that the work has been carried out to his satisfaction and therefore, he could recommend the payment of the grant.
There is no foundation whatever, as far as I am concerned, for the charge being made that grants are held up because of lack of money. We all know that if some individual is under pressure for money, and there is a delay of one week, two or three weeks, he will go to his local councillor to have the matter looked into. Many come to me during the weekend, and also during the week, not alone from my own county but from the adjoining counties. Most TDs come to me from time to time but you will find that the housing grants that are paid after representations have been made by public representatives are a very small percentage of the total number of grants paid out in the year. Most of the grants are paid after the inspector has sanctioned the work without any TD or councillor knowing a halfpennyworth about them. That is a good job. It is only where we have some legitimate holdup that it comes to the notice of the local Deputy or councillor.
A number of Deputies raised the question of the high cost of building. The suggestion was that the colossal profits made by the builders here in Dublin and elsewhere was the reason for it. The Minister appreciates this as much as any Member of the House. As a matter of fact, he introduced a section on the Report Stage under which he will make more profit out of it. It is brought to his notice, to do something about it. It is a very difficult problem and we must all appreciate that. It is not necessarily so that because a man is paying £3,500 for a house, he is being charged too much or that the contractor is making an excessive profit. It is quite possible that the contractor who produces a house at £3,000 will make more profit out of it. It is quite possible that the person purchasing it would get a much worse bargain if he had to pay a much higher price. We will have to try to consider the value the individual is getting for the money he is asked to pay and this might have to be related to the cost per foot of space provided and to the standards of workmanship in a good house.
We all know that you can get a very expensive house but it might be a cheap house at the same time if the fittings and workmanship are such that they could easily justify the amount of money charged to the individual. However, I want to say this in relation to housing costs, and I think it applies to the local authorities as much as it does to the people who are housed in SDA houses: instead of coming in here and telling the Minister that something should be done about it, the local authorities can help out quite a lot. Recently, I was present when the Minister met a deputation from a local authority in regard to housing proposals for which they were seeking sanction. The Minister was not prepared to sanction the proposal because of the cost of the scheme. Some eight or nine people arrived in the Custom House and they came there with one idea in their minds, that the reason the Minister was holding up the scheme was that he had no money.
It was a fairly reasonable guess.
If you had the Deutschmarks, you would be all right.
The extraordinary thing about that was that as a result of the discussion we had, they got the grant and they can go ahead with the scheme. I am sure the Fine Gael members of the authority concerned are very disappointed that they got the green light to go ahead with their scheme.
They did not get the green light in Westmeath.
The only reason they came at all was that they thought the Minister was holding up the scheme deliberately because of lack of finance. He indicated that the money was there and that the only thing he wanted—and they could do so by negotiation with the contractors, with their consultants and with officials of the Department—was some agreement on bringing down the price. As a result of this conference, they achieved that and have since got the green light to go ahead with these houses. The most disappointed people, I am sure, are the members of the Fine Gael Party. That was the Minister's approach, and if local authority members are prepared to co-operate with him in that, it is the only way in which we can come to grips with this question of costs. We had Deputy Cluskey complaining about the houses being provided in Ballymun——
Six o'clock— Private Members' Business.
That is a pity—I was looking forward to hearing the Parliamentary Secretary on Ballymun.
Debate adjourned.