I take it that that is why he has not appeared since the by-election. He must be working out still what the verdict was in South-West Dublin although the returning officer had not any such difficulty after he had gone through all the manipulations of the votes. He declared the result and that result was evidenced here yesterday when a new Deputy entered this House. The professors are still apparently working out their philosophical calculations to try to find out who won the election.
The position is not as it was between 1961 and 1966. While it is not by any means acceptable it is better than it has been at any time in the history of the State. In so far as Dublin Corporation are concerned, there has been a substantial decline in the total number of applications on hands. Despite the fact that the list is three years old and has not been revised in that time there is a substantial decline in the total number of applications. Needless to say, when the list has been compiled the only way in which names are removed from it is when people are housed by the housing authority themselves. Other people who provide their own housing still remain on the list because the corporation have no means of knowing that they are no longer seeking housing accommodation from them. Despite that fact, and despite the rapid increase in the population of Dublin city and county, and also despite the fact that people are now getting married at a younger age in general, the total number of applications on hands in Dublin Corporation has substantially decreased. While the situation is by no means satisfactory, it has improved. There is still need for the maximum possible effort which the community can make. The Government have shown in the White Paper, Housing in the Seventies, how they intend to tackle the problem.
Some of Deputy Dr. FitzGerald's more down-to-earth colleagues, who have contact with their constituents, and who think of people and their conditions now rather than figures in a book referring to conditions which existed four years ago and who know about the improved position should acquaint Deputy Dr. FitzGerald with some of the facts.
Deputy Dr. FitzGerald went on, having dealt in a selective way with the last census and having ignored the relevant considerations without which the figures cannot be interpreted, to deal with the White Paper and asked a number of questions which, candidly, I find rather disturbing. The Deputy asked why was the figure of 55,500 households living at a density of two or more persons per room reduced to 15,000 households for the purpose of assessing housing needs. The fact that a university professor, who is being paid a high salary to teach students and train them for the future, should ask such a stupid question is, to say the least of it, rather disturbing. The Deputy tries to make out that, because there were 55,500 families in 1966 living in dwellings with an occupancy rate of two or more persons per room, this number of dwellings is needed for the purpose of relieving overcrowding, apart from any other reason.
I do not wish to be rude but it is hard to describe such stupidity and ignorance politely. This is obviously an absurd contention. Surely even Deputy Dr. FitzGerald, divorced from real life as he is, must appreciate that if a dwelling is provided for a family living in overcrowded conditions then the overcrowded dwelling, vacated by that family, is available for occupation by another family? If the 55,500 households mentioned in the White Paper were all families living in dwellings housing one family only, then if all these dwellings are to be replaced and 55,500 new dwellings are to be provided for these overcrowded families, as the Deputy claims is necessary, surely he can see there would be 55,500 dwellings vacant and available to meet other housing needs? If it is maintained that there are 55,500 houses needed to relieve overcrowding, as the logical corollary this number of dwellings must be deducted from the estimates of needs under other headings. Apparently, what Dr. Deputy FitzGerald wants to do is to rehouse these 55,500 families and simply leave the dwellings which they vacate vacant. This is an extraordinary method of meeting housing needs. If, on the other hand, overcrowding arises from two families living in one dwelling, then only one new house is required for each two families.
In fact, the truth is obviously a combination of the two situations. There are some families who have houses which are too small for them, but these houses are suitable for other families. There are cases of two families in one house where the housing of one family eliminates two cases of overcrowding and not one. I cannot describe Deputy Dr. FitzGerald's interpretation very politely. It could only be made by someone who deals with figures without any effort to relate them to reality. It is recognised internationally that the problem of assessing needs of families living in overcrowded conditions is a very difficult one.
I admit that it is a difficult one. In most cases the families in these dwellings do not want to leave them and would not take rehousing if it was offered to them, so that simply building more houses will not solve this kind of problem. It is recognised that the figure we took in the White Paper of 15,000 as representing net needs from overcrowding is a somewhat arbitrary one, but on this point it is recognised everywhere that assessing housing needs is not and cannot be an exact science, some arbitrary assumptions have to be made and all the assumptions in the White Paper are clearly reasonable ones.
The reference in the White Paper to the building of additional rooms to houses, which Deputy FitzGerald also criticised, was not intended to suggest there should be a special plan or programme for this purpose. It was simply a recognition that in many cases the building of extra rooms was the only way in which the overcrowding of rooms could be solved since the families concerned would not be interested in accepting rehousing elsewhere. Of course, while there may not be an actual scheme or programme for this type of work there are State and supplementary grants available for building extra rooms to houses as well as State grants to local authorities for the carrying out of improvements such as building extra rooms to local authority houses. These grants are being paid at the rate of 10,000 a year so that over the past five years about 50,000 houses have been reconstructed with this form of aid from the State. Somebody in Fine Gael who knows something about local government should tell Deputy FitzGerald about this work which is going on.
The Deputy went on to refer to the improvement in the density of occupation of houses which has occurred throughout the life of the State. He omitted to mention that the improvement which occurred in the 'fifties, particularly in the late 'fifties, was facilitated by the very steep emigration to which I have referred and that some improvement was maintained during 1961-66 notwithstanding the fact that emigration fell in that period to less than half its former level. Between 1961 and 1966 the number of people living in a density of less than three per room increased by 5.3 per cent and the number of two or more per room fell by 3 per cent.
Another question regarding the estimates made in the White Paper which Deputy FitzGerald asked was why the figure of 24,600 households comprising more than one family unit was reduced to 10,000 for assessing accumulated housing needs. Anybody who knows anything about the structure of society here will know that the fact that there are a number of households comprising more that one family unit does not mean that houses are needed for all these households. As indicated in the White Paper the total of 24,600 with more than one family unit includes about 10,000 households engaged in agriculture. Of this 10,000 over 8,500 are either farmers, farmers' relatives or farm managers and it is reasonable to assume that very few in these categories are living involuntarily as two families in one household and that in a very high proportion of cases there is no desire or need to have a second dwelling provided. There are cases such as an old couple living with a married son or daughter, or a widowed mother living with a married son or daughter and in these cases there is neither the need nor the desire for new houses. A further 1,100 of the 24,600 are in the socio-economic groups, higher professional, lower professional and employers and managers and in this case also it is likely that there is very little of the sharing which is involuntary. This leaves about 13,500 out of a total of 24,600. Obviously all of the families living in these 13,500 dwellings do not want dwellings of their own. As I said in many cases there would be parents living with married sons or daughters. This is borne out by the fact that there was a total of 22,650 persons aged 65 and over living in these 24,600 households with more than one family unit. Taking all these factors into account the estimate of 10,000 for accumulated need seems quite reasonable. It may be up or down by some margin but the Deputy has not produced any evidence either way and obviously the estimate is a reasonable one.
In further criticism of the White Paper Deputy FitzGerald went on to say that the estimate for annual losses of dwellings was not in accordance with international practice and that it was too low. Obviously Deputy FitzGerald is not familiar with the statistics for annual average losses of dwellings stock for other countries. Figures were given in a document issued by the Economic Commission for Europe in April, 1967, showing the annual loss rate for a total of 22 countries. Two countries in the table have annual loss rates of more than 1 per cent; three countries, including Ireland, have annual loss rate between 0.8 and 1 per cent and 17 countries have an annual loss rate of 0.6 per cent or lower. I wonder if the Deputy would suggest that on the basis of these figures the estimate of 0.9 in the White Paper is unduly low. He also said that the figure of 6,000 dwellings a year which the White Paper gives as the prospective need for annual replacement of dwellings lost from the housing stock is too low and should be about 7,000. However, he has no evidence on which to base this other than the Government White Paper of 1964. This, however, does not deter him from categorically saying that the estimate of 6,000 should be rejected. He says that the period from 1961 to 1966 is not a proper period to take for assessing replacement needs because people had to go on living in unfit or abandoned houses during this period. He does not seem to appreciate that it was during this period that Dublin Corporation conducted a most vigorous campaign in eliminating dangerous dwellings. Here again, could some kind member of Fine Gael tell the Deputy some of the facts of life? Surely he has some friends who will save him from himself?
Perhaps the Deputy does not appreciate that 35,000 unfit dwellings are included in the estimate of accumulated needs and that these are treated as separate from the estimate of 6,000 given for prospective replacement needs. Here again Deputy FitzGerald in his over-anxiety to display his dexterity with figures displays even more clearly his complete ignorance of the reality of the world around him and of the proper considerations to be adverted to in interpreting figures. I do not know why I should go on at all because Deputy FitzGerald's ignorance about housing is about the most perfect thing I have ever come across. The fact is that he just does not know what he is talking about, but of course that is no obstacle to him and he just goes on talking anyway.
It was not enough for the Deputy to criticise those estimates in the White Paper for he also comes out with the statement that the White Paper's assessment of needs to meet increases in new households was much too low. Elsewhere in his contribution the Deputy said that the White Paper was clear and simple and that it was written for children. I may say it was produced in this way quite deliberately but nevertheless I am afraid Deputy FitzGerald has missed some of the points in it very badly. I presume in saying that it was written for children he meant children who could read, national school children. As far as Deputy FitzGerald is concerned obviously we aimed too high and we should have made it intelligible at kindergarten level.
He has missed the point again on the question of assessing housing needs arising from increases in the number of married couples. First of all, he gives an incorrect figure when he says that there were 14,900 marriages a year, on average, during the period from 1961 to 1966. Some of his students would be rapped on the knuckles for this simple arithmethical error. In fact, the annual average number of marriages during this period was just over 16,000. He then quotes figures for the likely number of marriages in 1969 and subsequent years but conveniently does not give an average for the intercensal period, which runs roughly from 1966 to 1970, inclusive. I will remedy his deficiency by giving this figure.
The average annual number of marriages during the current intercensal period will be about 18,900. This is about 3,000 more than the corresponding average for the 1961 to 1966 intercensal period allowing for the fact— made available to us in the report of the registrar of births, deaths and marriages—that roughly one in eight of all newly married couples emigrate each year, the effective increase in married couples in the 1966 to 1970 period compared with the 1961 to 1965 inclusive period is only about 2,500. In other words, it is less than half the increase which Deputy FitzGerald managed to produce by manipulating figures in such a way as to compare the average for the whole period from 1961 to 1965, inclusive, with the total for the last year in the period from 1966 to 1970. I do not know what anyone can do with a Deputy who is either so stupid and ignorant or so dishonest as this. I cannot help wondering whether I am being foolish in taking him seriously at all, but I do say that it would naturally make anybody worry about his students.
For the benefit of the Deputy perhaps I should explain that every extra married couple living in the country does not require the provision of an extra dwelling. Often, one or other of a couple getting married has a dwelling already or, if not, one or both of them may vacate a dwelling which becomes available for somebody else. In both these cases an extra dwelling does not have to be added to the housing stock because of the marriage. If the Deputy reads the White Paper carefully he will see that the figure of 4,400 quoted therein at page seven relates specifically to the increase in married couples between 1961 and 1966 and not to housing requirements. On the other hand, the estimate of 5,000 for the 1966-67 period is specifically stated to be an estimate of housing requirements, which is a completely different thing. This estimate of 5,000 is, in fact, some 2,000 above the corresponding average for housing requirements for extra married couples in the period from 1961 to 1966 and is ample to meet the housing requirements of the extra 2,500 married couples to which I referred earlier.
Perhaps I might put it a bit more simply, simply enough for a child and, I am presumptuous enough to hope, even simply enough for Deputy FitzGerald. As the Deputy said, the number of marriages taking place each year is going up more or less by 1,000 a year. Over a five year period this gives a total increase in marriages of about 15,000 or an average of 3,000 a year. When allowance is made for the number of couples that emigrate after marriage or that will not require extra dwellings the effective need becomes about 2,000 dwellings a year and this is in line with the projections made in the White Paper.
The Deputy referred to a footnote in the White Paper on headship rates and said that the calculation referred to is not explained at all Maybe I should explain this to the Deputy because headship rates are recognised internationally as being, together with the basis of increases in married couples that I have already dealt with, the most reliable means of calculating housing needs arising from increases in households. In estimating needs on the basis of headship one looks at the proportions of persons of both sexes in different age groups who are heads of households at different census dates, for example in 1961 and 1966, and applies these percentages, duly adjusted to take account of trends as revealed at the two censuses, to the population projected for whatever year one is trying to assess housing requirements. This was done in my Department using the detailed population projections prepared by the Central Statistics Office for the Third Programme and the results obtained backed up the separate figures made on the basis of married couples. Other projections made, for example, by at least two independent experts also backed up the projections made in the White Paper.
I want to refute categorically, therefore, the Deputy's assertion made on the basis of skilfully, if unscrupulously, manipulated figures that the White Paper's estimate of housing requirements represents either a basic miscalculation or an attempt to mislead. I am satisfied that the estimates are realistic and honest. I think I have shown that every figure the Deputy tried to produce to disprove the White Paper was based either on a lack of knowledge of the situation or was a simple attempt to manipulate the figures so as to give a false result.
It is hard to know where to start in dealing generally with housing. Somebody referred to the fact that Deputy Dr. O'Connell challenged me sometime ago to resign and that he would solve the housing situation in Dublin in six months, which he later, I think, amended to 12 months. I do not know whether I should bother about that kind of so called challenge, but I should like to point out that the method of changing Ministerial responsibility for local government matters is very well established. It is done by means of elections. The people vote on the basis of proposals for the conduct of various aspects of the Government's affairs. It is not yet 12 months since the people had that opportunity and had Deputy O'Connell's projections of what he could do as Minister for Local Government in regard to housing before them and they rejected them very decisively to the tune of 18 to 75 which has now been amended to 17 to 76. What Deputy O'Connell has to do if he wants the opportunity of carrying out this proposal of his to solve the housing situation in Dublin city in six or 12 months is to reverse those figures. That is all he has to do. That is what happens in a democracy. I am assuming, of course, that his own party have already decided to give this task to Deputy O'Connell.
We had the proposals of the Labour Party, or some of the Labour Parties anyway, for the solving of the housing problem before the House by way of a Private Members' Motion some time ago. In between the disorderly interruptions of the Coalition parties, whose plans to prevent me speaking on Private Members' Motions were partially frustrated at that time, I managed, I think, to indicate the tedious, expensive and laborious process of going about the provision of houses. I have referred to it again today so I will not go into it again.
I admitted on that occasion that I had not discovered the secret methods of these people, lay and clerical, who claim to be able to provide these houses by sitting in the gutter. During the Labour Party's motion here this occult knowledge of how this can be done was still not divulged to me. However, until such time as I am shown how to build houses without the tedious, expensive and laborious processes that I have outlined, I must continue with these traditional methods which were found to be necessary when the two Coalition parties were in Government just as they are found to be necessary now. I pointed out that a considerable time must elapse between the starting of the process and the completion of a housing scheme and that the date of completion of a housing scheme depends on the date of its initiation. Therefore, completions up to 1960-61 are certainly the measure of Coalition initiations, whereas completions in the period 1954-57 are the measure of Fianna Fáil initiations in the previous three years. There can be no doubt but that the improvement in this regard from 1960-61 onwards is totally to the credit of Fianna Fáil. This substantial and continuous improvement which is projected to improve further up to the mid-1970s— we have set ourselves this ambitious target of housing — is what Fianna Fáil policy has produced and, more important, what we are continuing to produce. This is what the people of the country, as a whole, clearly said last June just as the people of Dublin South-West said on Wednesday last what they want. They do not want the type of crash programme advocated, they do not want the declaration of a housing emergency that is advocated by the Opposition which would produce the crash programme that they produced before.
One thing on which I should like to be clear is this. Is the theory that the availability of capital depends on the level of production in the country accepted or is it seriously contended that this is irrevelant and that, therefore, it is not necessary to ensure that capital will be made available for economic expansion if we are to continue with a housing programme at a high level? I ask if the availability of capital for housing is only a matter of having the will to provide it as was maintained by some Deputies here would somebody tell me what happened to the Coalition Government in 1956-57? Not merely did they neglect to acquire sites and so on and prepare plans, but existing schemes, both private and public, collapsed. If the state of the economy, the balance of payments position and the availability of credit are irrelevant now why were they so very relevant then? Why did not the two parties opposite, who have put themselves on record as saying that all it is necessary to do to solve the housing programme is to declare a state of emergency, declare a state of emergency in 1956-57 instead of running for cover and leaving the mess for Fianna Fáil to clear up?
Deputy Dr. Browne says he is sick and tired of the excuse that the availability of capital is a limiting factor in regard to the provision of housing. He says that capital is available but that it is being used for buildings other than workingclass houses. He referred specifically to office buildings but I do not think that Deputy Dr. Browne or anybody else can show any use of public money for this purpose. He says that the provision of workingclass housing is the purpose for which capital should be used and that, therefore, there is not any shortage of capital.
Of course, Deputy Dr. Browne, speaking on the Estimate for the Department of Education, can say that capital should be used for the building of schools and colleges and on the Estimate for the Department of Health, he can say it should be used for building hospitals and clinics. Even when discussing the Estimate for the Department of Local Government, he advocated increased expenditure on many projects other than housing, for instance, on swimming pools, roads, and practically everything else that comes within the ambit of the Department of Local Government so that even he is obviously not prepared to divert the total capital available to this purpose, important as it is.
I should like to ask Deputy Dr. Browne whether houses are the only constituent of the standard of living. Would he not agree that jobs for people are necessary also and is it not a wellknown fact that employment cannot continue to be available on a high level in modern conditions without continuing investment? It must be obvious that the availability of capital is fundamentally related to production and that it cannot increase if production does not increase and that production cannot increase if all available capital is utilised for purely social purposes. Factories are necessary and State investment in them in present circumstances is justified. Without this type of investment it must be obvious that the housing programme could not continue at a high level.
It should be clear, also, that to divert all public capital expenditure to housing or to hospitals or schools could only result in economic disaster and, in particular, in a disastrous crash of housing activity. Deputy Dr. Browne did make the specific allegation that enormous sums were being spent on buildings other than workingclass housing. The fact is that in the current financial year expenditure on building, reconstructing and subsidising housing is estimated at more than £70 million and money being spent on the construction of offices and shops, in so far as it can be estimated, is of the order of £7 million. This does not seem to be a disproportionate expenditure on offices and shops. As far as I know, these buildings are constructed only because they are needed and in some cases, at any rate, the rates and taxes paid on these forms of construction help substantially to pay for the subsidies necessary to provide workingclass housing. In any event, the money spent for these purposes is not public money and there is no way in a democratic State with a Constitution such as we have in which I, as Minister for Local Government, can confiscate this money and divert it to the production of local authority houses.
I should like if some of the Deputies who talk about the expenditure of money on office blocks in particular would explain to me how I could get my hands on it. I mentioned some time ago an office block which is the highest building in this city and which, as far as I know, cost £1 million. I mentioned this figure of £1 million which was, some years ago, under the control of an organisation with thousands of members, some of whom were adequately housed and some of whom were not.
I did not go into how a small group came to be in a position to decide how the money should be expended. I did not speculate as to whether or not it was by the same disreputable means as those by which another fund of this organisation, in addition to the use of premises and the services of paid officials who are paid to do another job, was handed over to a political party that is not supported by the majority of the members. This group—I suppose I could say prudently—decided to invest the money in the most financially profitable way rather than what both Deputy Dr. Browne and myself would regard as the most socially desirable way. They opted for the prestige of a skyscraper office block, some of the accommodation of which is rented to a Government Department at a rent substantially higher than that charged for nearby office accommodation provided by iniquitous speculators. They opted for the ostentatious luxury of the highest building in Dublin rather than the less spectacular but I would imagine the more morally satisfying project of a modest housing scheme for their own members and I could not do anything about it.
I pointed out that it was not possible for me to divert this money from luxurious and prestigious office building to housing for workers. Since then Deputies will have seen a letter written to the newspapers on behalf of the organisation concerned. Quite apart from the fact that the Constitution prohibits me from acquiring the money for the purposes of my Department, there is the apparently infinitely more serious obstacle that to spend money in this way that I suggested would be contrary to the rules of the organisation. This more august document would prevent the money being diverted to the provision of houses for workers even for their own members. That just shows some of the difficulties involved in diverting the money being spent for this purpose to the purpose of providing houses.
I know that many a worker who pays his income tax, his social insurance contributions and his union dues every week would be surprised to discover that the rules he and his fellow-workers made for their organisation require their weekly contributions to be invested in a towering palatial office block on the banks of the Liffey and absolutely prohibit this money being used for such a humdrum ignoble purpose as the provision of houses for workers. I would imagine they would be even more surprised to discover that although the Constitution, the basic law of the State, can be altered by a referendum, this rule apparently could not be altered.
There have been allegations that there has been a slowing down of housing and in particular a slowing down in local authority housing. Those, of course, are completely contrary to the facts. I have given the figures but I think in this context I should repeat them. The figures for completions in 1966-67 were 10,984; 1967-68, 12,017 and 1968-69, 13,033. As I say, the indications are that there will be a further increase in the present financial year because for the first three-quarters of 1968-69 the completions were 8,980 and for the first three-quarters of this year the completions were 9,930 so we appear certain to have a further increase unless the cement strike can affect the figures for the last quarter. It is doubtful if even this will produce a result giving some credence to Deputy Treacy's allegation of a slowing down in housebuilding.
This trend of increasing completions of houses applies to local authority dwellings as well as to house in general. The number of dwellings provided by local authorities has been higher for each quarter of this year so far than for the corresponding quarter last year. Understandably, of course, the numbers provided by the special NBA projects have been somewhat less because the Ballymun scheme is now completed. Some quite unjustifiable allegations were made with regard to local authority housing. It was alleged that this aspect was being neglected. Of course, this is completely unsustainable. If a greater proportion of private houses are being built this is a reflection of the improving all round standards of living, that more people are now in a position to aspire to owning their own houses.
Here there was a very marked division of opinion in the Fine Gael Party in particular. Deputy FitzGerald complained bitterly about the iniquitous Government forcing people to buy their own houses, whereas other Deputies, such as Deputy Clinton, Deputy Timmins and Deputy Esmonde, advocated increased emphasis on this manner of providing houses, increased emphasis on people providing their own houses. Deputy Clinton went so far as to complain about the largescale acquisition of land by local authorities, thus depriving private builders of land on which to build speculative houses.
I want to controvert the blatant falsehood which was aired by some Deputies opposite that in my opening speech I predicted and, in fact, tacitly accepted a fall in the number of local authority houses to be built in the coming year. I did not imply anything of the kind. To scotch those falsehoods I want to restate the position that I described in my opening remarks which were recorded at columns 590 onwards of the Official Report of 11th February, 1970. Anybody who wants to know the truth can see from the official record that I warned of the consequences of soaring wages and price increases relative to the normal increase in capital which could be provided by the Government for public services. I pointed out that to maintain the present high level of housing output it would be necessary to find practical economies to close the gap between the new cost levels and the available capital. I am satisfied that there is very substantial scope for such practical economies. In the process it should not be necessary to affect the standard of workmanship or the level of amenities in local authority dwellings. Deputies Fitzpatrick and FitzGerald who adverted to this particular matter may be surprised to learn that I have agreed to the provision of central heating in quite a substantial number of local authority dwellings during recent months. What I cannot agree to, however, are proposals by local authorities to accept altogether exorbitant prices for their new houses.
Deputy Murphy criticised me for not releasing tenders for cottages in west Cork. I could not in conscience approve of tenders well in excess of £3,000 for rural cottages in west Cork when cottages of similar standard are being provided for Kerry County Council, only 20 miles distant, for less than £2,000 apiece or in some cases under £1,900. The facts about local authority housing are, of course, quite different from what the Opposition Deputies have been representing.
The total number of local authority dwellings completed in the year ending 31st March last was 4,613, including 1,041 dwellings at Ballymun in the special NBA project, 80 in Cork and 86 in Limerick. There were 317 dwellings provided by Dublin Corporation for tenant purchase. The total number of local authority houses provided in the two previous years were 4,045 in 1967-68 and 4,079 in 1966-67. Therefore it is quite obvious there is not a slowing down in the provision of local authority dwellings.
In addition, at 31st March, 1969, work was in progress on 5,839 dwellings, of which 1,024 were being provided by the NBA in their special projects. The number of houses at tender stage was 4,351 and the number at planning stage was 7,789. In addition, sites were available to local authorities for a further 18,336 houses and 12,689 sites were being acquired. Therefore, in addition to the fact that the provision of local authority housing has been increasing, we have a substantial programme on hands both in houses at tender stage and houses at planning stage. Also, sites have been made available. It is quite clear that unlike the position handed over on two occasions to incoming Fianna Fáil Governments by Coalition Governments, this time an incoming Fianna Fáil Government are taking over from an outgoing Fianna Fáil Government a substantial and adequate programme of housing by local authorities.
During the year 1968-69, approval was given for the acceptance of tenders by local authorities and for direct labour work to the value of £9,199,517, covering the erection of 3,769 new dwellings and site development work costing £360,870. The average number of persons employed on local authority house construction in that year was 4,477, the figure ranging from 4,864 in May to 5,308 in October, 1968, including those engaged in NBA projects in Cork, Limerick and Dublin. It will be seen therefore that Opposition allegations of neglect of local authority housing are completely unjustifiable.
The position in the current financial year is that the total number of local authority houses completed in the nine months to 31st December last is 3,572 houses including dwellings completed by the NBA in their projects at Ballymun, Cork and Limerick. In addition, there were 189 mobile, demountable, prefabricated dwellings. At the same date, the total number in progress was 6,727, including 2,027 by the NBA and 105 emergency houses. The number at tender was 3,855, including 594 in the Cork project. The number at planning stage at the end of that period was 17,038, and in addition the local authorities had sites available for 22,802 dwellings and were in the process of acquiring sites for a further 11,855.
Thus, all the evidence is available for Deputies to see clearly that allegations of a slowing down in local authority house building are without foundation. To conclude on this point, I want to refer to the capital expenditure involved in local authority housing. It has risen steadily in the past seven years, the provision this year being more than three-and-a-half times the amount in 1963-64. The figures since that year are as follows, and I speak in million of pounds: 1963-64, 4.6; 1964-65, 6.8; 1965-66, 9.87; 1966-67, 11.942; 1967-68, 14.25; 1968-69, 15.75; 1969-70, 17.35.
That does not show a decrease in the provision for local authority housing nor does it show a decreasing proportion of the total capital expenditure for housing devoted to local authority housing programmes, as both Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy FitzGerald maintained. To illustrate this, I shall give the total public expenditure on housing during the period, again in millions of pounds. In 1963-64, it was 12.88; 1964-65, 15.95; 1965-66, 20.96; 1966-67, 22.11; 1967-68, 25.74; 1968-69, 29.72; 1969-70, approximately 34 to 35. Deputies will note that in 1963-64 the proportion of expenditure on local authority housing to the total public capital expenditure on housing was slightly more than one-third and that in this year it will be slightly more than one half. That shows there is no foundation for the allegations made by Deputies Fitzpatrick and FitzGerald that there is a decreasing proportion of public capital expenditure on housing being provided for local authority housing.
The allocation of capital money for the financial year 1970-71 has not yet been finalised, as Deputies know, but I can assure Deputies Fitzpatrick and FitzGerald and others opposite that the allocation will show a further substantial increase and will effectively refute Deputy FitzGerald's stupid and false allegation that there is a cut-down in capital for housing. I have given those figures for capital expenditure on housing because I find the availability of capital to be a very relevant thing in connection with the carrying out of the housing activities of my Department.
The Opposition approach to the whole question of housing finances is as usual simple but insincere, as is their approach to every problem. That approach is designed to be popular to all sections of the community. It is that rates, rents and taxes are all too high, that they should all be reduced, and that more houses should be provided. I cannot think of any more popular policy than that. It is no wonder that Deputy FitzGerald is tearing his hair in frustration; it is no wonder the Labour Party complain about the rejection of this policy of theirs by the people; it is no wonder that Deputy Ryan came back after the last general election and talked about the stupidity and the ignorance of the people who continually refused to snap at this gaudy bait of lower rents, rates and taxes and higher social welfare benefits, improved health services and accelerated expansion of educational facilities. I am getting tired of telling them it is wrong to assume that the people are fools and that it is unwise to continue to endeavour to be all things to all men.
However, in the confident knowledge that they are incapable of treating the electorate as intelligent, I would point out that, while it may be all right for an entertainment medium such as television to adopt the attitude that all protests are 100 per cent right, even when they are directly contrary to one another, the electorate will see through a political Party which pursues this type of dishonest approach and will continue to reject them as they rejected them no later than Wednesday.
I should like to say a few words on this complaint of Deputy FitzGerald, in particular, that the Government are forcing people to buy their own houses; that we are concentrating on grant-aided houses, at the expense of local authority houses, in order to fake our housing production. The fact of the matter, of course, is that grant-aided houses, if they are financed by SDA loans, are more expensive: they absorb more capital per house. Therefore, if we wanted to produce the maximum number of houses from the available capital, we would produce them in the other way. In any case, I should like to know what is the objection to people, because of the higher living standards that prevail now, owning their own houses or aspiring to own their own houses. We have not forced people to buy houses. We help them in so far as is possible. The Deputy also objected to the sale of land by the local authorities for the provision of private houses although his colleague, Deputy Clinton, shortly after that, objected to the fact that the local authority had ever acquired this land and suggested that they should have left it there for private enterprise to acquire and build houses on it. The Government's policy is to encourage and assist every person who can do so to provide his own dwelling and to cater for families who cannot afford to do so by public housing. Fine Gael should make up their minds what their policy on the matter is.
Deputy FitzGerald says that the country which is 40 per cent better off than we were 20 years ago builds less public housing than it did then. It is because of the fact that the country, and therefore the people, is 40 per cent better off, that the people are now 40 per cent better able to provide themselves with housing and that they are inclined to do this. Approximately 58 per cent of all persons using loan facilities provided by local authorities to people buying their own houses had incomes of £1,050 or less per annum in the quarter ended 31st December, 1969. These are the sorts of people who, if their future was a little less secure than it is under a Fianna Fáil Government or if they doubted their intention of staying in the country, might apply to a local authority for a rented dwelling. Instead of that, they are willing—and because of the prosperity of recent years, they are able—to gather together a deposit and put it down for a house and undertake the substantial commitment of buying a house by way of a loan.
Building societies find that their statistics show a somewhat similar trend. Over one-fifth of all borrowers from building societies have incomes of less than £1,200 a year. These, again, are people who, if they felt a little less secure, as naturally they would under a Coalition Government, might decide to opt for local authority housing instead. Deputy FitzGerald apparently objects to the fact that these people are now prepared to indicate their confidence in the future of the country by undertaking the provision of their own housing. I just do not agree that this in an undesirable trend. It is an indication of the change that has come about in the country as a whole.
I should like to refer to this question of comparisons with European countries. Deputies opposite love to get hold of tables giving comparisons with different European countries, and to interpret them without any reference to relevant considerations, in order to appear to substantiate their own favourite thesis that this is "the most distressful country that ever yet was seen." Unless these statistics are complemented by background information, they are worse than useless; they are completely misleading. As Deputy FitzGerald should know—he has shown in his contribution to the debate—the number of houses needed in a particular country is dependent partly on the number of persons in that country who are married. As will be seen from an Appendix to the White Paper from which he quoted, the number of married persons in this country, as a percentage of the total population, was 33.5 per cent in 1966 and this is the lowest percentage of any of the countries for which statistics are given. The country with the next lowest percentage of married persons is Switzerland with 44.8 per cent of the population there married in 1960. Every other country mentioned has a higher proportion of persons married. This, of course, accounts for a sizeable part of the difference in the rate of building per 1,000 of the population.
Another reason why houses are built is that the population increases and an increased population requires more accommodation. Here again—in this matter of rate of increase in population—this country has been at the bottom of the list though the position may be starting to change now.
A fact that is always completely ignored by Deputies opposite is that the houses that are built here are among the biggest in Europe. The average useful floor space of a house in this country in 1968 is given in the ECE Annual Bulletin for Housing and Building Statistics for Europe as 85.9 square metres and this is the highest of any country for which statistics are available, apart from Iceland. It is all very well to build perhaps 100,000 houses if each house has only two rooms. You cannot compare this 100,000 houses with, say, 20,000 houses that have six rooms each but that is exactly what Deputies opposite are doing in making this type of comparison.
The contribution made to the housing drive and to the housing stock by the scheme of reconstruction grants which has been in operation here, more or less in their present form, since 1933 —longer than in any country in Europe —is also ignored by Deputies opposite. Under this scheme, houses are being improved by the addition of extra rooms, or by works to repair structural defects, at the rate of 10,000 a year, so that, in addition to the actual output of new houses, existing accommodation is being made more suitable for the persons who are living in it at quite a rapid rate. Existing houses are being conserved by means of this work. This sort of change has been going on for a long time. Therefore, to get a true picture of the figures, the results of reconstruction grant work must also be included in the reckoning.
Deputies will see, if they look at the White Paper appendix which I have mentioned, that the average number of persons per room in the different countries in Europe is also given and with .9 persons per room on average in this country we compare quite favourably with other countries in Europe which have a higher standard of living and a greater wealth per head of population than we have. I admit we are not as good as the best, but this is probably a little bit higher than we can aim for just at the present.
As I have said, the Opposition are always very diligent in their search for international statistics which, without reference to the different basis on which they were compiled, can be manipulated so as to support their habitual portrayal of this country as a place of object misery. When we bear in mind the fact that the basic wages in the building industry in this country are certainly as high as they are in England, the average rents of local authority houses provide a fair measure of the level of assistance given from public funds to the housing of local authority tenants. I have comparative figures here. As the existence and significance of these comparative figures seems to have escaped the Opposition researchers I would like to supply the deficiency in the material available to them in order to make an objective comparison of conditions instead of the comparison made by the Opposition with its usual, traditional and deliberate anti-Irish bias.
The figures I have here for the average weekly rents of local authority dwellings in England and Wales are from a publication called Housing Statistics No. 15, issued in November, 1969, by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The average weekly rent of local authority dwellings in the Greater London area in April, 1961, 28s 1d, and in April, 1969, was 53s 9d. If Deputies look at Housing in the Seventies, Table 11, on page 20, gives the average weekly rents of local authority dwellings in this country. In 1961 the average weekly rent of dwellings owned by county borough corporations, was 12s 2d as compared with 28s 1d in the Greater London area; in 1969 the average weekly rent in county borough corporation areas in this country was 20s 2d— that figure is not actually in the table because it has become available since it was published—and that figure of 20s 2d in the city areas here compares with 53s 9d in the Greater London area. That figure of 53s 9d is 266 per cent more than the Irish rent and the rent increase since 1961 in the Greater London area has been 91 per cent whilst in this country the increase from 12s 2d to 20s 2d is an increase of 66 per cent. These figures are figures of international comparison also and they certainly give factual proof of the exceedingly low average cost to the tenant of local authority housing in this country as compared with the cost to the tenant of similar accommodation under a socialist regime in England. We see the vastly greater recognition given here, in a country with a substantially lower income per capita, to the principle of subsidising local authority tenants both from the Exchequer and the rates. I think the comparison shows how ill-founded the campaign against the renting system operated by local authorities in this country is because the rent contains a very much greater element of subsidisation than is the case in socialist England.
I shall go on to deal with the question of the rents of local authority houses and in particular the differential renting scheme which is operated by a number of local authorities and which obviously, from the point of view of social justice, should be in universal operation. The first thing I would like to deal with is what is described as the B scale differential rent scheme operated by Dublin Corporation. The tendency is to portray this as a terrible draconian measure and to pretend that it applies not only in Dublin but in the country as a whole. Of course, it does not. The B scale renting scheme applies only in Dublin. It is a scheme drawn up by the Dublin Corporation and submitted to me with the approval of the then Dublin City Council, whose proposals were amended substantially in favour of the tenants by me.
The first point I want to make with regard to the rent of local authority houses, apart from the point I have already made about the vastly greater subsidisation to local authority houses in this country as compared with socialist England, is that the initiation of these schemes and the detailed administration of individual differential rent schemes is a matter for the local authority providing the houses. They are sanctioned, or approved, by me as Minister for Local Government initially and certain guidelines are laid down by the Minister as guidelines to local authorities making the schemes. These suggest that rents should range from a nominal figure of say 2s 6d a week up to the cost of providing and maintaining a house and within this range rents are based on one-sixth or one-seventh of the income, after certain deductions have been made from that income.
In Dublin the B scale rent for a new letting of an ordinary local authority house or a four-roomed flat provided since the 1st January, 1954, ranges from 6s 6d a week to 85s a week. These rents include sums for rates up to the level the rates had reached in 1964-65. If the rates are excluded the actual figures for rent ranges obviously from a negative sum, since the minimum of 6s 6d would be insufficient to cover the rates up to the level reached in 1964-65, to about 73s a week on average. Now the rent based on the average cost to the corporation of providing, maintaining and administering a house now is equivalent to approximately £6 a week and the cost of a flat is substantially higher. For example the cost of a four-roomed flat in Keogh Square, Inchicore, is equivalent to a rent of more than £10 a week and these figures do not include any sum for rates. The fact that the maximum figure for the rent is, on average, 73s under this B scale, whereas the average cost would be £6 a week, is an indication of the high level of subsidisation by taxpayers and ratepayers many of whom are not as well housed themselves and not as well able to pay as those whom they are subsidising, particularly those who would be paying anything approaching the maximum rent.
I would say that anyone who has any sympathy with the present agitation should reserve that sympathy not for those who are liable for the maximum rent but for those in between, because I would certainly agree that those people whose incomes do not justify the maximum rent in accordance with this scheme are very hard-pressed and their outgoings must leave them with a Spartan standard of living to say the least of it. The peculiar thing about the agitation that is going on is that it is about the maximum rent and not about the people who are not paying the maximum rent. It is aimed, as has been admitted in an article in the Irish Independent, at benefiting the least deserving section of the tenants rather than the most deserving.
Even if a person is on the maximum of this B scale rent he is not paying what similar accommodation is now costing or what he would have to pay for a privately rented flat. A man with a wife and four children would, in fact, need to have an income of £28 10s a week before he would pay the maximum of the B scale rent. With £18 a week he would have to pay only £2 10s a week plus the post-1964-65 rates which would average out at about 11s. If a man's income falls because of unemployment, strikes, illness or retirement, his rent falls also so, in effect, the scheme is a form of insurance for those whose income is liable to fluctuate.
It is worth comparing the figure of £2 10s a week plus the post-1964-65 rates increase which a man on £18 a week would have to pay, not only with the cost of providing accommodation now, but also with what he would have to pay if he were to buy a house with the aid of a small dwellings loan from the local authority. This is not just an academic comparison. It is a real comparison because the statistics published by my Department show that about 58 per cent of all persons raising housing loans from the local authority have incomes of £1,050 a year, which is £20 a week approximately. A great number of them have smaller incomes.
Assuming that the borrower puts down a deposit of £800 and borrows the average amount of a loan in Dublin of £2,850, his outgoing on the house, after taking into account State and local authority grants, will be over £5 a week plus ground rent, insurance and the cost of maintenance and, in addition to that, he will have to pay one-tenth of the rates in the first year, two-tenths in the second year, and so on. That compares with the fact that a man with £18 a week has to pay only £2 10s a week for his dwelling under this B scale rent system in Dublin, plus, as I said, about 11s a week for rates.
The contention that there is something particularly draconian in the B scale rents, as such, is completely wrong. The major difference is that the maximum rent of 73s is more in line with current costs and current incomes. Apart from this the scheme is, in fact, more favourable to the tenant. In particular, the allowances under the B scale rent system for persons with low incomes or with many children are more generous than those under other corporation differential rent schemes. As is obvious, it is not with people with low incomes or with large families that the agitation is concerned but mainly with people who should be in a position to undertake their own housing.
Many hundreds of persons have in fact opted of their own accord to go on to the B scale rent since it was introduced some years ago and have got reductions in their rents of up to 19s a week by going on to the B scale rent system. It is probable that many more would have done this but for the fact that they were scared off from taking this very sensible step by the activities of those who are fostering this agitation including, I may say, the two evening papers circulating in this city. The effect of the new rent scheme is concealed from the bulk of the tenants whom it is hoped to dupe into acting as pawns for those who should not be in local authority houses at all.
The cost of keeping rents of corporation housing so low in comparison with what it is in socialist England is met by the State from general taxation, and by the local authority from rates. In 1964-65, in Dublin city this amounted to £1,577,000. In the current financial year it is estimated at £3,500,000. This is for the Dublin Corporation area alone. Next year it will be higher again. There is an obvious need for a differential rent scheme which allows persons to get decent housing at a rent far below the cost. Without this sort of system many persons who are now in good housing simply could not have got it, and many persons on the local authority waiting list could never get it.
There is need for subsidies to maintain the system. Subsidies have to be provided by the ratepayers and by the taxpayers many of whom, as I have pointed out, are less well housed than the people they are subsidising and less well able to provide the money. My concern is that these subsidies, which I agree are necessary and justifiable, should not go to persons who do not need them, and that they should not absorb money which should be used to build decent homes for the many thousands of people who are still without them.
The £3,500,000 to be spent on subsidising Dublin Corporation housing in 1969-70 could build another 1,200 houses if it were available for that purpose. The £14.9 million paid in subsidies for Dublin Corporation housing alone since 1964-65 would have built another 6,000 houses. I have no hesitation in saying that it is unjust to subsidise people who do not need it at the expense of people living in deplorable conditions. This, in fact, is what is being demanded. I am confident that the many thousands of persons now living in the comparatively good accommodation provided for them by the local authority would not willingly be a party in this way to a slowing down of the drive to house those who have still not got decent housing including in many cases their own sons and daughters who may be living with them or in other overcrowded or insanitary conditions and waiting for a house.
I recognise that many persons in corporation houses who pay rents which vary with income would wish to buy their own houses and so convert their varying payments into a fixed sum each week or month for purchase. I understand that the corporation are pressing ahead with their scheme to give tenants an opportunity to buy and that over 8,000 tenants have, in fact, expressed an interest in purchase. I have also asked the corporation to take steps to try to reduce the number of persons who fall into serious arrears with their rent through no fault of their own. I am confident that the local authority are taking steps to this end. I understand that they are at present communicating with the tenants on the subject.
I agree that there has been, as far as my experience goes, a certain inflexibility in regard to the actual administration of this scheme and that there have been some anomalies in it. I am satisfied that the local authority is doing everything possible to eliminate these, and that is the only fault I will admit in the scheme. The scheme itself as sanctioned by me is thoroughly justifiable and defensible on any grounds whatsoever. The maximum rents charged are not excessive and are based on a reasonable proportion of the tenant's income after certain deductions are made. The case was made that overtime earnings should not be taken into account. Anyone who examines that contention will see that it has no justifiable basis. It may be that there is a case for taking these overtime earnings into account in a different way and that possibly some proportion of them should be omitted because of the contention that there is extra expense associated with overtime earnings. I would certainly be prepared to consider any proposals of that kind that may be submitted to me by any local authority, but I do not agree that there is any justification for asking that overtime earnings as such should be ignored.
It is a great pity that articles should appear in national newspapers containing deliberate falsehoods obviously designed to foster opposition to a system of rents which enables housing to be made available irrespective of capacity to pay. These have appeared in at least two of the national dailies and constitute, in my opinion, a cynical and deliberate attempt to perpetrate a confidence trick on local authority tenants by pretending to be on the side of the less-well-off when in reality the campaign is, beyond any shadow of doubt, a campaign by the haves against the have-nots. If people who can afford to pay reasonable rents for the accommodation provided for them do not pay it, then the capacity to provide adequate housing for people who cannot afford to pay for it will be reduced.
There was one article which appeared in the Irish Times shortly before the recent by-election and was obviously published with a view to affecting the result of that by-election but which did not have that effect and which contained the most deliberate and exaggerated misstatements of fact. That newspaper demonstrated its adherence to the principle of fair play and free speech by refusing to publish a contradiction giving the facts. For instance, it was stated in the article that these rents were based on one-third of the income whereas, in fact, they are based on one-sixth after deductions have been made. The article states:
According to their differential rents scheme they will have to pay as high as £5 13s a week when Tommy is working. The rent is estimated as roughly one-third of his wages and this is assessed every three months. Then 3s 6d is charged on every £1 earned over the stated amount, which does not encourage working overtime or honest declaration of "nixers", and this extra bill sometimes amounting to £30 or £40 can arrive out of the blue causing further chaos in the budget.
That is the type of falsehood circulated in so-called responsible newspapers which brings about this type of unjustified agitation now taking place. The maximum rent, this article in the Irish Times states, is £5 13s per week. It is not. I gave the maximum rent, which includes a figure for rates up to the level they reached in 1964-65. If there was such a maximum rent, which of course there is not, the tenant would have to have an income of £37 18s per week excluding children's allowances which in the case of the family described would be approximately £2 10 per week.
There were a number of other misstatements in the article in respect of which the newspaper refused to publish a contradiction, which is a typical attitude of the paper concerned. It is a pity that this type of deliberate misrepresentation should go on in regard to such a vital matter as housing and thereby help to bring about an agitation which is designed to interfere with the provision of houses for those who are still in need.
At other times both of these national daily newspapers complain about the level of rates and also, at the appropriate time, they complain about the level of taxation. I have shown the substantially higher subsidisation of local authority houses here by means of rates and taxes than in socialist England, and this therefore is a demand for a still higher degree of subsidisation. It is a demand for the higher level of subsidisation not and specifically not for those who are most in need but for the better-off section of corporation tenants.
It is clear that if this campaign is to succeed, first of all, the higher the subsidisation of existing houses the less the capacity to build new houses for those who are still in need of them. Secondly, it must surely be admitted that many ratepayers are less well able to pay their present rates and other outgoings on their housing accommodation than the people on whose behalf this campaign is being conducted by the media, which, as I say, complain so bitterly about rates and are also conducting this completely contradictory campaign.
The case was made more extensively in the Irish Independent of 5th March. We can see from that case that not alone is this campaign aimed against those still seeking houses and against the ratepayers but it is not even for the benefit of the most deserving and the most numerous section of the tenants. It is obviously an effort to trick the great bulk of the tenants into allowing themselves to be used as pawns. For as many years as I can remember there have been widespread complaints about the high total income alleged to be going into some houses provided by Dublin Corporation compared with the incomes of people undertaking the task of providing their own houses. Yet, it is specifically stated here that one of the main objects of this campaign is to ensure that no account whatever is taken of any income except that of the tenant himself. This means that the tenant with four adult children, earning possibly substantial incomes, is to pay only the same rent and receive the same subsidy from ratepayers and taxpayers whose circumstances may in many cases be much more straitened as the tenant who has a similar personal income but has four schoolgoing children and no income additional to his own coming into the house and who has far greater expenses. This is stated to be the main objective of the campaign and the main injustice which, it is represented, exists.
A number of Deputies spoke of the hardship both before and after marriage undertaken by many young couples who have pinched and scraped to accumulate a substantial deposit and who are paying the full cost of their housing, except for the State and local authority grants, which, I admit, are comparatively meagre. They are paying this out of incomes that are in many cases less than the incomes of local authority tenants. Certainly, in the vast majority of cases of people availing of SDA loans, as I have pointed out the income, in fact, would be less than that of a tenant who would be liable for anything approaching the maximum differential rent. The campaign is to compel people who are providing their own accommodation to subsidise local authority houses at a higher rate both by way of rates and taxes and this is not even for the benefit of those in greatest need, for those inadequately housed or even for the tenant liable for the maximum rent on the basis of his own income. It is for the benefit of those who, in addition to their own income, have children who no longer represent financial commitments and who have substantial subsidiary incomes.
The campaign being conducted against differential rents is clearly a selfish one carried on by those who have houses themselves and, in the main, by those who have substantial incomes against those who have not houses and who have low incomes. If successful, it must considerably reduce the housing drive, preventing people— including in many cases, sons and daughters of those campaigning—who are living in very bad conditions, from being housed. This is something that cannot be allowed to happen. People who are well able to pay a reasonable share of the cost of their accommodation cannot be allowed to bully local authorities in this selfish way into neglecting housing of families still without houses for this purpose. I want to make it as clear as I can that differential rents are absolutely essential to the housing drive which cannot otherwise proceed at anything like its present level. Differential renting is a social welfare service making it possible to offer housing accommodation of the same quality to all those eligible irrespective of the capacity of the tenant to pay. It is essential in common justice as it is a way of ensuring that the subsidy paid by ratepayers and taxpayers is distributed in proportion to the need of the recipients.
Individual schemes and their administration are a matter for the local authority, not for me, but the Government intend to proceed with the housing drive with increasing intensity and this cannot be done without differential rents. It cannot be done if we are to pay the same subsidy to people who do not need it as is paid to people who do need it. The money used to build local authority houses has to be borrowed and paid back and it is repaid from three sources, taxpayers, ratepayers and the tenants. If any of these sources dries up the housing drive must either stop or slow down. We intend to continue with our efforts to provide houses. This is an attempt to unload an unreasonable and unfair share of the cost of local authority housing on to the backs of those who must provide their own housing—and on to the backs of the less well off local authority tenants—and it is for the benefit, as I said, of the better-off tenant and against the less well off.
Having said that, I admit that it has been my own experience that there is some unreasonable inflexibility in the actual administration of differential rents schemes generally in Dublin city. I do not think there has been adequate appreciation of the fact that some people need help to enable them to keep up with their commitments and avoid debt. In particular, obviously one thing that happened in regard to B scale rents is that people have, in fact, whether through not being sufficiently alive to what they should do or otherwise, found themselves presented with bills for large amounts of arrears which were really accumulated through no fault of their own. This is something that is completely indefensible and, as I said, I understand that the local authority are now in the process of drawing the tenants' attention to what they should do in the event of their incomes increasing so as to make sure that they do not fall into arrears in this way.
Once this type of anomaly is eliminated I think there is no fundamental defect in this renting scheme. It is eminently just in regard to the maximum rents—which, remember, are maximum rents and are not unreasonable—and there is no just case for agitation on the scale on which it is at present taking place. I think it is being provided, while it will not be possible administratively to make actual weekly assessments of rents, that tenants themselves may pay whatever extra amount would be due on the basis of any increases they obtain between periods when assessments are made. This is a simple calculation. The deductions in respect of the tenant himself and in respect of children and subsidiary earnings have already been made: it is merely a question of adding one-sixth of the extra income to the weekly rent and this will be accepted and credit will be given for it at the next assessment. In this way it is possible to ensure that substantial arrears do not arise. I hope that this campaign will not proceed any further and that normality will be restored. I am satisfied that the local authority are making every effort to ensure that the renting system is administered in a reasonable way. I move to report progress.
