This Budget can clearly be seen to be another step in the consistent implementation of Fianna Fáil policy. The former Taoiseach said that it was our intention to continue to provide an increasing proportion of our rising national resources to improve our social welfare arrangements. This is what we have been doing consistently since 1957 and we have been able to do it only because we made it our primary duty to ensure that the national resources did rise. Having by wise handling of financial and economic policies promoted economic expansion we have been able each year to make significant advances in all aspects of social welfare.
In each year, the Budget operation has been to divert an appropriate amount of the increased prosperity in the country for the benefit of the community as a whole and for the improvement of living conditions, and this year's Budget is clearly a part of that pattern. It may not be spectacular; it was not intended to be; but, it is prudent, it is progressive and it does show that Fianna Fáil appreciate the fundamental duty of a Government to foster economic development and to ensure equitable distribution of increasing wealth. It makes a considerable improvement in social conditions and is an indication of the increased capacity of the community to finance such improvement. Once again, this year, all classes of recipients of social welfare payments have received increases which further develop the gain of all these rates of payment over the cost of living and I may point out that this has been a feature of almost all Budgets introduced by this Government since 1957 and, again, I may point out that there was never an occasion on which all the social welfare services were increased by any Government but a Fianna Fáil Government.
Because we have not been so foolish as to inhibit economic development by the excessive absorption of capital for the State's own programme, or to impose taxation at a rate that would stifle incentive, we have been able to take another significant step on the road towards an adequate code of social welfare. Again, because the national resources are expanding it has been found possible to allocate more capital to the important activities of the Department of Local Government. Further progress will be possible this year in all these directions and, in particular, in the most important field of housing.
Let me say, as Minister for Local Government, that I am not satisfied with what I have got; I could use more; the supply of capital is not unlimited. We still have to cut our cloth according to our measure. But, although, as Minister for Local Government, I should like a greater allocation in order to tackle the problems of my Department, I have sufficient common sense to see that the worst thing that could be done would be to ignore the fundamental need to ensure that sufficient capital is available for the further development of the economy. To neglect this would mean the complete collapse of the housing programme, of the water and sewerage programme and the other activities of my Department.
I want to make the maximum possible progress in all these things and it is because of that and because I never want to see the coalition disaster of 1956-57 repeated, that I say I am satisfied that this Budget has made a reasonable and prudent allocation of our resources and that it will help to ensure continuous progress in solving our social problems. It is completely unrealistic to suggest that it is possible to solve social problems by concentrating on them for a period to the exclusion of economic problems. This type of talk, so far from being of assistance, can only hinder advance.
I want to deal with some of the things that were said about my own Department, in particular about housing matters. Deputy Dillon said—I quote from volume 234, No. 3 at column 402 and at column 420—"We built more houses than we had tenants to go into" and "... we ran into serious balance of payments difficulties because we were building too many houses for the people .... We proudly and deliberately and consciously ran into balance of payments difficulties." I have to accept Deputy Dillon's word for it that the Coalition Government brought this crisis upon us deliberately in 1956-57. If that is so, that more than anything else emphasises the difference in approach between this Government and the alternative Government. We in the Fianna Fáil Party are sufficiently realistic to believe that the provision of houses for our people must go hand in hand with the economic advancement of our country. If the housing problem is to be successfully tackled, we believe it is essential that it be related to the economic advancement of the country, in other words, to the capacity of the country to provide houses.
The rate of growth of our economy over the past ten years has enabled us to increase progressively housing output over this period. Unlike Deputy Dillon, who "proudly and deliberately and consciously" ran into balance of payments difficulties, we are achieving our housing targets without imperilling the country's finances. To run deliberately into balance of payments difficulties proved to be a reckless policy and was poor consolation for the almost 100,000 unemployed in 1957, some of whom left—as Deputy Dillon often boasts—1,500 empty dwellings on the hands of Dublin Corporation. It must have been this year of 1957 that Deputy O'Leary had in mind when he said "in the past we have had the experience of there being no jobs and, therefore, too many houses". The orderly development of the country over the past ten years under Fianna Fáil Government has enabled us to sustain an increased population and, at the same time, to make progress in the solution of the housing problem.
At Volume 234, No. 1, column 89, Deputy T.F. O'Higgins said:
... the Minister for Local Government ... has told local authorities that he will pay a housing subsidy only related to a notional value of £1,650 per new house when local authority houses are costing £2,500 and £2,700 today. He has told local authorities to get the difference by extorting it from their own tenants.
The fact of the matter is that subsidy at the rate of about £80 a year is normally payable on houses currently being provided by local authorities. I maintain, as Minister for Local Government, that this is a reasonable rate of subsidy in relation to our resources here. This £80 a year compares with £64 a year normally payable in Britain. It is relevant to bear in mind that the total subsidy payable by the State has grown from £.6 million in 1948-49 to an estimated £4.2 million in 1968-69, while the contribution from the rates has increased from £1.05 million in 1948-49 to an estimated £3.9 million in 1968-69. Both Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Donegan, in making this allegation and describing the efforts of local authorities to require people to pay in accordance with their income for the accommodation provided for them as extortion, found it convenient not to make any reference to the increase of £.7 million for housing subsidy payments this year.
What I would like to know from the Opposition Parties is whether or not it is their policy that houses should be provided at nominal rents irrespective of the incomes of the tenants of those houses and that this load, which has been borne by the general taxpayer and the ratepayer, should be further increased in order to make that possible. Surely the justice of requiring people to pay in accordance with their income must be obvious, even to the Fine Gael Party? The extraordinary thing is that, while demanding that the rents of local authority houses should only be nominal and should not be related to capacity to pay, at the same time the same Fine Gael speakers complain of the level of taxation and of rates. We had Deputy Barry just a few minutes ago complaining about the increases in rates, while his colleagues are demanding that further burdens be put on the ratepayers and taxpayers rather than that tenants should be required to pay in proportion to their income.
Another point with regard to housing to which I wish to refer briefly is the allegation that was made by Deputy Larkin if not by others—I know I have heard it made before— that this country is amongst the lowest in Europe from the point of view of providing housing for our people. This just is not so. If differences in population trends are allowed for, we are building the same as or more than the European average and we are building bigger houses. Also, in addition to our programme of building houses, we have had a reconstruction grant scheme in operation longer than anywhere else. Under this scheme about a quarter of all houses have been reconstructed since 1932.
Deputy T.F. O'Higgins said, at columns 88 and 89 of Volume 234, No. 1, that it was clear from the Capital Budget Statement that the increased provision "of only £2.3 million" for housing was intended merely to maintain the number of completions achieved in the last year and that the increase would not cover increased costs. He said we were promised 13,000 houses under the Second Programme; at the moment we were not achieving 12,000 and it was clear that there would be a reduction in the coming year. Every single one of those statements made there is wrong. The Second Programme provided in 1964 for an output of 12,000 to 14,000 houses a year by 1970, which meant in effect doubling the output in 1963-64. In 1967, which is three years before 1970, we passed the lower target figure of 12,000 and we expect to provide about 13,000 houses in 1968-69, notwithstanding an estimated increase of about 5 per cent in house prices in 1968-69. This encouraging trend in housing output is borne out by dramatic increases in the number of new house grants approved last year, the number of local authority houses started, the increased commitment for local authority house purchase loans, and the anticipated increase in the total value of house purchase loans advanced by commercial agencies during 1968.
This again demonstrates the inconsistency of approach of the Fine Gael Party. According to Deputy T.F. O'Higgins we are not providing sufficient money in the Capital Budget for houses. Yesterday Deputy Sweetman was attacking the Government for increasing the national debt. He said that if this trend continued, and if we did not take steps to ensure that the national debt did not increase, we were heading for economic collapse. Today Deputy Barry was talking on the same line. As reported at columns 89 and 90 of the Official Report of the Dáil debates of 23rd April, Deputy T. F. O'Higgins said that there was a bottleneck in housing "because local authorities are being discouraged from embarking on needed housing schemes." Deputy P. O'Donnell had something the same to say on 25th April, when he said, as reported at column 390 of the Official Report:
... we have the greatest difficulty at the moment in getting sanction from the Department of Local Government for the building of houses. Contract documents are sent up and it may be 18 months or two years before we get sanction.
These allegations are incorrect. There is no question of local authorities being discouraged in any way from pressing ahead with the planning of housing schemes. It has, in fact, been made clear on numerous occasions that positive and vigorous measures should be adopted by the housing authorities in order to reach the target of 14,000 a year, which includes private housing, set by the Government for attainment by 1970.
The Housing Act, 1966, requires the housing authorities to make a comprehensive assessment of housing needs and formulate a building programme to meet those needs. All the local authorities have completed their first assessment and the majority have also submitted detailed building programmes for the period to 1970. These are at present under consideration in the Department. In the meantime there is no brake whatever on the forward planning and progress of individual schemes. The local authorities have been instructed to acquire suitable sites well in advance of requirements, so that they can achieve continuity of building. Revised procedures have being presented for the documentation of housing proposals. Subject to the observance of these procedures, only one full submission of documents to the Department is called for at sketch design stage.
There is no foundation for Deputy O'Donnell's allegation that it takes a year and a half to two years to obtain sanction for contract documents. These are submitted to the Department only for record purposes. It has been made clear to housing authorities that responsibility for ensuring the adequacy and accuracy of the detailed documentation of schemes for contract purposes rests squarely with them.
As I say, the whole approach of the Fine Gael Party to this matter of housing is completely inconsistent and contradictory. It is because we have a realistic approach to this problem, and because we really want to and intend to solve this problem, that we have been able to make the progress that is being made, and that we have been able over what can only be described as a long period to maintain building activity at a high level.
I make no apology for endorsing the objections made by people who have been sincerely working to provide houses to the scandalous series of programmes on the "Outlook" programme on television recently. Having considered the matter, and having seen a transcript of the programmes, I have no hesitation in saying that it is beyond any reasonable doubt that this series of programmes was maliciously conceived with the obvious intention of presenting a grossly distorted picture, and of disseminating falsehood in regard to the very important matter of housing. It is clear that there was no intention of having a balance, even if "balance" is taken to mean that the truth is presented as well as the falsehood, leaving the viewers to choose between the two.
The participants chosen were Mr. Uinsionn MacEoin, described as an architect and planner, Mr. Seán Ó Cionna, Secretary of the Sinn Féin Citizens Advice Bureau, Mr. Michael O'Riordan of the Irish Workers Party, and the Rev. Fr. Sweetman. No one, clerical or lay, gullible or discerning could, by any stretch of the imagination, have selected this group as experts with the intention of giving a true and realistic view of the problem.
Two of the panel were members of an illegal organisation which does not recognise the authority of the institutions of the State, that is, of the people, and which is, we are told, only temporarily desisting from armed violence, and which is concentrating instead on the promotion of civil disorder wherever and whenever an opportunity presents itself. A third is an avowed Communist whose objective is the replacement of our democratic Christian society by the atheistic tyranny operating in a large part of the world, the fourth being on his own admission "not a man of statistics", which means in plainer terms not concerned with facts.
Everything that is known about these people as individuals would make it clear that the very least to be expected was distortion, exaggeration and irrational comment. It is undeniable then that if the deliberate intention was not to present a grossly incorrect picture and one that was unfair to the many people who as members or officials of Dublin Corporation, or as Members of this House, have devoted their energies to the solution of this problem, the Chairman would at least have made some effort to acquaint himself with the facts so that he would have some chance of knowing when his programme was being utilised by his selected experts to disseminate falsehood, and so that he could make some effort to correct it in the interests of truth and fair play.
The Reverend Chairman who decided to utilise this masquerade of a religious programme to provide a platform for these individuals made no such effort. There was no request for any information, for any facts, either from the Dublin Corporation or from my Department, nor were any arrangements made to allow some of those who are actually working to try to solve the grievous problem of housing instead of talking irrationally about it to defend themselves from unjust attack until after the Chairman of the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation, the City Manager and Deputy Moore had drawn attention to the falsehood and distortion of the programme. Even then, the ostensible balancing-up operation consisted of two programmes out of eight. These two programmes consisted of an argument between the Reverend Chairman, whose concern was apparently to justify his original action, and the participating councillors whereas the other programmes were by way of answers to leading questions which were quite obviously designed to develop the distorted picture which it was the objective to present, combined with the use of the technique of such questions as "Are you certain of these figures?" to rivet the falsehood in the viewers' minds.
Criticism of this programme by me or by anybody else is not a question of divergence of views. It is not a question of objecting to criticism as such or objecting to other views being expressed. The objection is to the scandalous misuse of the medium of television to publicise falsehood and to assist people whose only interest is the disruption and sabotage of the housing programme. This is particularly objectionable when the subterfuge of a religious programme is used. It is a question of truth and falsehood, of realism and irrationality, of constructive effort and irresponsible tub-thumping. The fact is that, no matter what armchair philosophers or street corner agitators may say, something more than a mere "social conscience" is necessary to remedy the admittedly very serious housing situation.
Land, sewerage and water services, bricks and mortar, technical skill and the inconvenient consideration of finance are all necessary. None of these can be provided by wishful thinking, by emotional and inflammatory oratory, by parades or rowdyism. They can be provided only by hard work and well-directed long term policies. The first necessity is to ensure the expansion of the economy so as to develop the capacity of the community to provide the State and the local authorities with the necessary financial resources to tackle the problem because it is only from the people that these resources can come.
People who have decided, for religious or political reasons or from mere lack of interest, not to play a practical part in the solution of these social problems can, of course, with impunity rail at the fact that all our resources are not mobilised to deal with whatever particular problem happens to come under their notice. But those who are actually dealing with the problem, instead of being engaged in destructive criticism, come to appreciate that the most disastrous thing that could be done from the point of view of a real solution of social problems or a real improvement in social conditions would be to starve economic undertakings of the capital necessary for development. Grants for industry are not given by this Government for the purpose of enabling the promoters of industry to increase their wealth. Grants for tourism are not given in order to provide amenities for wealthy foreigners. These things are given for the purpose of increasing the capacity of the community to provide finance to the Government for the raising of the general standard of living, including the provision of adequate housing. If the promotion of economic expansion is neglected then the housing problem will become really insoluble.
It is because, as I have said, the present Government have appreciated this that we have been able to maintain housing activity at a consistently high level with the result that, despite the collapse of the housing programme in 1956-57—and, with it, the collapse of the whole building industry—we are now beginning to overtake the housing deficiency, to the chagrin of those agitators. Only harm can be done by irresponsible talk that ignores this inescapable fact and pretends that all that is lacking is a "social conscience"—in other words, that the reason some people are still inadequately housed is a lack of desire on the part of Members of this House and of local authorities to provide the houses.
We have had control of our own affairs here for less than 50 years. During that time, 301,000 houses or 44 per cent of the total number of dwellings in the State have been provided. This may not impress the Reverend Chairman of the "Outlook" programme or his panel of "experts", but it is an achievement that does compare favourably with that of other countries. The amounts spent on housing by the State and local authorities here, proportionate to population, are about the same as in the United Kingdom, but, proportionate to wealth per head, ours are considerably higher —and they are higher still if the value of assistance to private housing is taken into account.
It is true that, in those 46 years, we have not succeeded in solving the housing problem—and this despite the efforts of successive Governments and local authorities. It is true also that we have other urgent and pressing social problems still with us. I may be called defeatist, as other people have been, on this television programme for saying that my experience leads me to believe that it is likely that we shall always have social problems to some extent to deal with. Other organisations than governments and local authorities have found the problems they were set up to deal with intractable, too, and they have been concerned with them for a The efforts of Irish Governments to solve the housing problem have been proceeding for a matter of decades, not centuries, and, although success has not been achieved, there is undeniable physical evidence of progress. I think it is not unreasonable to suggest to people who are given unbridled access to the television screen that they would be well advised to solve the problems to which they undertook to devote themselves, and for which they are trained, before presuming to castigate those who are doing their best—and with more demonstrable success—in regard to temporal problems.
Inciting people to civil disorder will contribute nothing to the provision of houses. The tone of this particular series of programmes was set by the statement made by the Chairman, in concluding on Tuesday night, 23rd April, 1968, that "we as Christians cannot evade our responsibilities as electors, that is, citizens of this country". In the context of the programme and of the individuals selected to appear on it, this can be interpreted only as an indication that the solution of this serious problem would be hastened by turning from those who had actively been labouring in this field to the people put forward on the programme as being really concerned in its solution.
Comments in the programme were based on a series of inaccurate or distorted statements which were made by other speakers and which were emphasised by the Reverend Chairman. For instance, one speaker alleged that the number of houses built was 9,000 a year and that this represented a deficiency of 3,000 a year in comparison with needs. In fact, the number of houses built in recent years has been 11,255 in 1965-66; 10,984 in 1966-67 and just over 12,000 in 1967-68. Output in the current financial year is estimated at 13,000 houses. In other words, the programme is already on the 1970 target of 12,000-14,000 houses a year, announced by the Government in 1964.
The number of houses now being built is, in fact, more than twice what it was seven years ago. In addition to these new houses provided, a further 10,290 houses were reconstructed with State aid in 1967-68. This brought the total reconstructed in this way in the past ten years to 89,714. Another example of falsehood in the programme was the allegation by a speaker that only 2,000 houses had been provided by the local authority and by private enterprise in Dublin last year. This false figure was, in fact, emphasised by the Chairman. The fact of the matter is that the number of houses provided in the Dublin area in 1968 was 5,595. This was almost three times the figure that was given as a fact on this programme. In the past five years some 23,000 houses have been provided in that area. The number of houses built last year was almost three times the output eight years ago.
I suppose, to a person concerned with higher things, anything as worldly as money is irrelevant, but those whose task it is to grapple with bodily rather than spiritual matters find that this inconvenient matter of finance is very relevant indeed. I have said that successive Governments and local authorities who were assailed on this programme as neglecting their duty on behalf of the community in the matter of housing have, in fact, in trying to grapple with the problem built up a debt for housing to the extent of about £200 million and the community who have to contribute believe, I think, that they are put to the pin of their collar to service this amount of debt. I have pointed to the fact that here in this House, in this debate both yesterday and today, we had members of the Fine Gael Party sounding a note of warning in regard to the amount of debt that has been created and largely created in order to try to solve housing or other social problems, maintaining that the Government have been going too far in this direction and that we are running the risk of economic collapse. I do not believe that is so because I know that, so far as this Government is concerned, we make an assessment of what it will be possible for the economy to provide for various purposes in any year and we try to keep a close watch on the situation.
I certainly agree that it is something that must be watched closely and that there is grave danger involved in incurring debt in excess of the economy's capacity to support it. It is completely unrealistic for people who have not the responsibility of considering the interests of the country as a whole to suggest that there is any degree of lack of concern on the part of the Government in regard to this matter. I think the fact that we are being accused on the two fronts, on one, of acquiring too great a load of debt in tackling these problems and, on the other, of not providing enough houses, is in itself an indication that the Government are certainly doing their best and we have shown up to now at any rate that we have been acting wisely in this regard.
We have managed to keep housing activity going at a high level without the sudden collapse that marked the two Coalition periods of Government. In this financial year, the Government and local authorities are providing £28.81 million in capital, or about three times what was provided about seven years ago, for the construction of houses. In the current financial year also, Government and local authorities are providing a further £12.2 million approximately to subsidise the rents of local authority houses for those who cannot from their own resources provide themselves with decent houses, as well as to help others to provide themselves with a house.
As I said, I think that a reasonable contribution from the rest of the community and I think, in view of the size of the impost that is on other people, that it is reasonable to expect those who have in many cases incomes comparable with or exceeding the incomes of people providing themselves with their own houses, to pay reasonable rents for the accommodation provided by the local authorities. People like those who have been given access to television to deal as experts with this problem can gloss over the provision of 192,000 houses by local authorities and a further 160,000 dwellings provided by the aid of the State and local authority grants since the inception of the housing programme, as of no importance. They prefer to adopt a negative, carping attitude which can only hinder progress towards the solution of the problem but, in fact, this achievement when it is considered in relation to our resources represents a major effort by the community to catch up on the legacy of bad housing and it compares favourably with other countries.
One of the speakers on this programme on Wednesday, 24th April, said about himself—and I quote—"Well, really, I am not a man of statistics but all I know is that the housing problem is very wide". It is on the basis of self-confessed ignorance of the problem like that that people were chosen to speak as experts on one of the most difficult and most intractable problems of our time. How anybody can consider this a useful contribution to the solution of the problem is difficult to see. The ignorance of the so-called experts on this matter was again demonstrated by another speaker who referred to Dublin Corporation as voting an extra £10 million over and above what the State provides for housing. Of course this is absolute nonsense. If the Corporation were to vote an extra £10 million for housing, the rate in Dublin would be £3 1s 9d in the £ higher than it is. In other words, the rate would practically double in a single year. This ignorant statement is a fair indication of the value of this particular expert's contribution to the problem.
In the so-called balancing up operation of this series of programmes, the chairman referred, I thought cynically and rather sarcastically, to the members of Dublin Corporation as a body of devoted men. While appearing to give the impression that he accepted their figures, he tried to spring an unworthy trap on the members of the corporation who appeared on this programme on the concluding night by confronting them with projections in the advisory report of Professor Myles Wright taken completely out of their context. He conveniently neglected to point out that the professor himself had said in his report that his projections were of maximum social need on certain stated assumptions and that effective demand for all the dwellings he mentioned might not in fact arise during the plan period. This report, of course, is based on the assumption of the uninterrupted continuance of present trends. The other regional surveys have now been carried out and the reports will be presented to the Government shortly. It is the declared intention of the Government, by pressing ahead with the development of the other regions and by developing counter magnets to the attraction of Dublin, to arrest the present trend towards lopsided development in the Dublin area.
I know that some people are interpreting the fact that members and officials of Dublin Corporation, and of this House and of the Government, have complained about the false and distorted nature of this programme, as interfering with the television authorities, and I have no doubt that the same allegations will be made now, but I think this discloses a complete misconception of the position. RTE is financed by public funds, and it is a monopoly, and when it is used to disseminate falsehoods, when no effort to ascertain the truth is made, and when a one-sided platform is provided for disruptive elements to distort and exaggerate a problem in order to attack those who are trying to remedy it, and in order also, as events have proved, to incite public disorder, I think responsible people are entitled to object.
My reason for speaking here is to endorse, as Minister for Local Government, the objections that were made by the Lord Mayor, by the Chairman of the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation, by the City Manager and other members of the corporation, and by Members of this House. I say that this was a disgraceful programme, and there was clearly never any intention to be fair or factual. That was demonstrated by the selection of the people who were brought on to appear as experts on this problem, although not a single one of them is a person who has ever taken any active part in contributing anything to the solution of the problem.
If there was any such intention to be fair, then at least some of those who are actively engaged in dealing with the problem would have been selected. It is a disgraceful thing that people who are devoting their lives to this problem should have their efforts frustrated and ridiculed by people who have contributed nothing and never made any effort themselves to contribute anything. As I said, my main reason for speaking here was to endorse the complaints these people have made.
