Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Apr 1970

Vol. 245 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Housing Bill, 1970: Second Stage.

I move:

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Sé cuspóir an Bhille ná deontais le haghaaidh furmhór tithe príobháid-eacha a mhéadú, deontais le haghaidh tithe áirithe a chur ar cheal agus mionathraithe a dhéanamh sa dlí a bhaineann le tithíocht.

Tá súil agam go ngríosfaidh na hathraithe seo tógáilithe chun tithe níos saoire agus de chaighdeán reásúnta a chur ar fáil. Faoin mBille seo, freisin, beidh cumhacht ag údaráis áitiúla na deontais bhreise le hahghaidh atógála agus deisiú riachtanach a íoch ina ghálaí agus sé mo thuairim go dtiocfaidh forbairt ar choinneál agus feabhsú tí dá bhárr sin.

This Bill will give legislative effect to some of the proposals in the White Paper, Housing in the Seventies, published in June, 1969. The explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill outlines its scope in some detail. I will, therefore, touch only briefly on its main provisions here.

In 1969-70, a greater number of private houses were built than ever before in the history of the State. Total capital expenditure from all sources in providing them came to an estimated £40 million. Yet, with all this effort— which is only part of a sequence which has seen close on 98.000 dwellings in all completed in the last decade—there is not, I should imagine, a Deputy in the House who would claim that there are enough houses in the country.

Paradoxically, the reasons for the continued high level of demand for housing are associated with the rising prosperity of recent years. More people are living in the country, instead of emigrating; a higher proportion of these are married persons requiring separate dwellings. In addition, with prosperity, people are no longer satisfied with the standards of accommodation their parents would have accepted. Overcrowding and housing conditions which might have been accepted in a poorer community become intolerable in a more affluent society. Basically, the changes proposed in the Bill have three main objectives. First, they will provide greater help for the erection of houses of moderate size to meet the demand for dwellings from persons setting up homes. Next, they should ensure that a greater number of houses are built for any given amount of capital. And, finally, they should encourage a greater flexibility of design according to modern tastes and requirements.

As the White Paper indicated, it is also intended in the interests of efficiency and cost reduction to use the grant provisions, if necessary, to encourage the greater use of dimensional co-ordination and of building components based on pre-determined standards. Existing legislation will enable this to be done.

As from 31st August next, the floor areas of houses and flats will be expressed in metric terms in accordance with the Government's undertaking to support the building industry's programme for the change to metric.

Under the Bill, grants will be paid according to the floor area of a house or flat rather than the number of rooms it contains. Grants will not be paid for houses or flats with a floor area exceeding 116 square metres, 1,249 square feet approximately, commenced after 31st August, 1970. Grants of up to £100 more than at present will favour dwellings of a moderate size— from 75 to 100 square metres, 807 to 1,076 square feet.

Dwellings with floor areas exceeding the limit of 1,239 square feet will not qualify for exemption from stamp duty, or for the nine year graduated rate remission under the Housing Act, 1966. A number of non-grant houses will, however, qualify for partial rate remission over four to six years under the Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Acts, provided building is completed by 31st March, 1972, and application for planning permission was received by the planning authority on or before 9th December, 1969. The loss of these concessions and of the grant could mean a difference of about £1,000 to the purchaser of a house over the limit of 1,249 square feet.

I also intend to make an order under the Housing Act, 1966, limiting grants to houses costing not more than £6,000. I do not believe that one can keep prices down solely by making an order to that effect. Neither do I believe that the order can ensure that value is given in every case for money or that the policing of the order will be easy. However, I intend the order to apply in the special circumstances now existing while other steps to regulate the flow of capital for housing are being considered. I will review the position in due course.

Section 2 sets out the rate of grant for ordinary houses. A State grant of £325 will be paid for a house of 75 to 100 square metres, 807 to 1,076 square feet approximately, commenced after 31st August, 1970. A person buying a house of this size and qualifying for a supplementary grant could obtain a further grant of up to £325 from the local authority making a total in grants of up to £650. There will be transitional provisions for houses commenced on or after the 1st October, 1969, and not later than 31st August, 1970.

It is difficult to compare these grants with what the person would have got under the present system because of the different methods of determining eligibility. In broad terms, however, the change would mean an increase of up to £100 in State and supplementary grants.

For a person buying the largest type of house for which grants will be payable, the equivalent increase would be up to £50. For a person buying a house of between 45 and 75 square metres, 484 and 807 square feet approximately, the increase could be up to £150.

Within limits, the smaller the house, the greater proportionately will be the direct aid given to the purchaser in the form of grants. Thus, a house of, say, 1,100 square feet could qualify for State and supplementary grants at the rate of about 11s per square foot. For a house of 810 square feet the grants would amount to about 16s per square foot.

Obviously, accommodation in excess of that provided originally will be required by many persons. For this reason, I do not intend to put any obstacle in the way of houses designed specifically for expansion at a later date. I have, in fact, already encouraged the National Building Agency to provide prototypes of a type of expandable house. If expansion is found to be desirable in later years the house could qualify for further grants for reconstruction under the Housing Act, 1966.

Further changes being made by the Bill in relation to grants for private houses include the provision that grants will be paid only for dwellings intended as a normal place of residence. This provision will ensure that State grants will not be paid for dwellings intended, for example, as holiday residences.

Section 3 deals with grants for farmers and certain other persons. Special provision is included in it for payment of grants to farmers providing houses in towns.

Section 4 will enable grants to be paid for the provision of flats in a building of less than six storeys at the same rate as for houses. If the flats are in a building of six or more storeys and a lift is installed the grant will include an extra £50 per flat.

Section 5 authorises State subsidy to be paid at the higher rate for dwellings provided by local authorities, in association with the National Building Agency, for the accommodation of key workers brought into an area for new or expanding industry.

Section 6 will facilitate the compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities by extending the simple procedures under existing legislation for the payment of purchase money or compensation not exceeding £500 and £1,200 to sums not exceeding £2,000 and £5,000.

At present, many smaller urban districts councils cannot afford to operate supplementary grant schemes. The result is that people of modest means building houses in the urban district have often to do so without the benefit of grants from their local authority. If they wish to qualify for a supplementary grant, they must build outside the urban area.

The building of houses outside urban areas, in localities where water, sewerage and other services are not readily available, is often undesirable. Accordingly, section 7 requires county councils who pay supplementary grants to pay them subject to the same conditions in urban districts and boroughs in their areas, other than boroughs or urban districts designated by regulations made by me. Generally, the designated areas will have a population of not less than 10,000 although local authorities reponsible for urban areas with a larger population may seek to have the administration of supplementary grants undertaken by the appropriate county council, if they so wish.

Sections 9 and 12 will provide specifically that a local authority may pay a second or other reconstruction grant where a further State grant has been paid.

Section 10 will enable local authorities to pay supplementary reconstruction or essential repair grants in instalments—as they are already specifically authorised to pay new house supplementary grants. Under section 5 (2) of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited (Amendment) Act, 1963, grants are paid by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for dwellings provided by the Shannon Free Airport Development Company. These grants are paid subject to broadly the same conditions as grants under the Housing Acts. The Shannon houses qualify for rate remission over seven years under the Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Acts. I have already announced the phasing out of this form of rate remission. However, because the Shannon houses have to conform with the same grant conditions as houses for which grants are paid under the Housing Acts, section 11 of the Bill provides that the graduated rate remission over nine years provided for in the housing code will apply to them where they were completed after 31st March, 1969. I commend the Bill to the House.

It saddens me to find that the Minister for Industry and Commerce—with whom I have, across the floor of this House, reasonable relations, based, I think, on commonsense, even if we have occasionally to prod him towards the advancement of legislation in that field—because of the absence of the Minister for Local Government, who is receiving his political medicine at by-election counts elsewhere, has had to come in here and to introduce this thoroughly bad Bill. Sufficient publicity has not been given to this Bill and our people do not realise its import or content. As a member of two local authorities, I want to deal with this piece of legislation as I see it.

It is most unsatisfactory that, because of financial restraint and constraint on the Government, we have in this year of 1970 decided to reduce the square footage of a house, for grant and loan purposes, by 250 square feet. That is a bad piece of legislation which my party will move to negative either this evening or on the Committee Stage. We would hope for greater comfort and a better way of living for our people but now the people who need these grants and loans may not provide that little piece of extra space which they were allowed up to now.

This Bill has been accompanied by a ministerial circular to all county councils and local authorities indicating that no longer will such things as presses, cookers, and so on, be provided in houses that local authorities are building. I mention this fact because reference is made to the subsidies paid in respect of local authority houses. The trend by the Minister for Local Government is to downgrade the quality of building for our people. This is a mistake. It is not true that, by so doing, more houses can be built with the same amount of money. Our people are entitled to a minimum standard of accommodation. Decades ago, that minimum standard specified a figure of 250 square feet more than what we shall now provide. I want to know how this step can be defended in this year of 1970.

Is it defensible that in 1970, when we would hope to provide better housing for the poorer section of the community, we should have a decrease in footage of 250 square feet? The net result is that people cannot obtain grants and must pay more for their houses. This Government met the international credit squeeze situation of 1956-57 by building in the years 1958-61 approximately one-third the number of houses being built now. The present rate is at about the same level as the highest level of the inter-Party Government's building programme. The housing industry cannot be turned on and off like a tap. We have now a high degree of building but the backlog accumulated in the past decade amounts to 40,000 houses and this the Minister is trying in vain to catch up with. That is the reason there are in my constituency and in the Minister's constituency families of five or six people living in one room. The remedy is not to reduce the standards. One would hope that, when people are being provided under Government regulations with houses for which they will pay, there would be a raising of standards rather than a reduction.

I should like to point to matters that should be, but are not, included in this Bill. The House may be interested to hear that at present if you have an income in excess of £1,200, no matter how many dependants you have, you cannot get a loan from the county council. It is true that building societies have, to some extent, extended their activities in Leinster and in some of the better towns in the south and a few in the west, but when one goes into rural Ireland one finds that if a person has an income in excess of £1,200 he cannot get a loan from the county council or from anybody else. If a person is not at the top of the housing priority list, perhaps living with a sick wife and five or six children in a thatched cottage, he has no hope of getting a local authority house. It is criminal and dreadful not to have in this Bill provision for an increase in the level at which persons could get loans from local authorities to build their own houses.

I wish to refer now to supplementary grants. I have not had an opportunity of examining in detail section 7 because I am standing-in for our shadow Minister for Local Government, just as the Minister now present is doing for his colleague, the Minister for Local Government. I might remark that, just as the Minister for Local Government is receiving his medicine at the two counts, the shadow Minister is rejoicing at one of those counts. From cursory examination of section 7 it seems it will disqualify quite a number of people from obtaining supplementary grants. What should be in this Bill is not a restrictive section on supplementary grants but an increase in the level of income at which a person should get a supplementary grant.

I should like to inform the House that there has not been any change for years in this regard. If you have an income in excess of £1,045, with no dependants, you will not get a supplementary grant; the grant mentioned in the explanatory memorandum circulated with this Bill is not available to you. If you have four dependants, including your wife, you will get an allowance of £100 each for them bringing you to a total of £1,445. That figure is restrictive because if a man with a wife and two children in Deputy Tully's constituency or in my constituency wants to build a house he can get a supplementary grant if his income is less than £1,345, but if his income is more than £1,200 he will not get a loan. Deputy Tully knows, as I do, that building societies will not be interested in financing the building of a house in Hackballs Cross or down in Kilmainhamwood because they might not be regarded as saleable. What should be in this Bill is not the restrictive measures proposed by the worst Minister for Local Government we have ever had, who is more interested in votes than in his work as a Minister.

The policy of this Government is to increase the cost of housing; this is their stated and deliberate policy. The position so far as rents are concerned is quite clear. We may be deflected by red herrings, such as the B-scale rents and so on. I want to define what else should be in this Bill and I am in order because reference is made in the Minister's speech and in the Bill to the level of subsidy on principal and interest repayments available to local authorities.

I am a member of Drogheda Corporation. We built approximately five to six hundred houses in three stages. At the first stage the contractor was paid £1,670 per house; the amount on which the Government a few years ago would pay subsidy on principal and interest repayments was £1,450. The second section of houses cost £2,070; at that stage the amount of money on which the Minister would pay principal and interest repayments was £1,650. The third group of identical houses cost £2,670 and the amount on which the Minister would pay principal and interest repayments remains to this day at £1,650. The present estimated cost of houses in the same town is approximately £3,250.

From these figures it will be seen that the gap that must be met from rents and rates has escalated from £200 to approximately £1,300. This is the policy of the Government and Minister for Local Government who should be in this House now. He is trying to produce red herrings of all sorts, to have rows with tenants' associations regarding B-scale rents and so on. The position is clear—the reason for the high rents is the fact that the tenants now have to meet all the principal and interest repayments on loans provided by the Department of Local Government.

I want to define Fine Gael policy. It is our policy to subsidise the greater amount of the cost of a house and it is our policy to obtain this money by taxation. It is as simple as that. If the difference six years ago was £200 and the difference today is £1,300, then we believe that the proper way to meet that difference is by levying taxation in that quarter in which taxation can be most easily borne so that the people will have decent housing properly subsidised. That was the policy from the very foundation of this State. It is not Continental policy. On the Continent people pay a higher percentage of their incomes for housing than people do here, but our policy was right. It had the effect of enabling the worker to enjoy proper housing conditions. The worker could live better on a little less money than could his counterpart elsewhere and that brought about a certain element of competitiveness for our goods on the export market.

Now the Minister is setting about implementing his policy. In fact, he has created more distrust than anything else and he has induced in our workers a determination to ensure that their lot will not be disimproved. There is only one way in which the worker can prevent a deterioration in his standard of living and that is by industrial action. As a result of the Minister's policy there is now throughout the whole spectrum a demand for increased wages to compensate for the increased cost of housing, an increased cost which should be met by taxation. Taxation would be the policy of my party.

I was in Kildare yesterday—a very excellent place—and I was told by a man there that when his family became too big he gave up his cottage to the county council and took a new house in Dunleer. Some of his children were working. The rent was fixed at £5 8s. One boy was sick and the income coming into the house fell and this man was anxious to go back into the cottage because he found the rent too high. That is the sort of thing which makes a man go to his trade union. That is the sort of thing which is an incentive to men to go to their trade unions.

It is an argument for the Bill.

It is an argument against the Bill. This is one of the worst measures that has ever come before this House and I hope and pray it will never become an Act.

The policy of the Minister is to increase the cost of housing. Most people build once in a lifetime and only once and that represents their greatest capital expenditure in a lifetime. The practice was that there was exemption from stamp duty and a remission of rates. I am enjoying a remission of rates myself and that remission helps to offset the initial capital expenditure. Because of the erosion in the value of money, after the first few years, the position is not as bad as it was in the beginning. This concession will be removed under this measure. The Minister says that, in regard to the smallest type of house, the cost between exemption from stamp duty and remission of rates will be £1,000. This is retrograde legislation. It is the kind of legislation I would expect from the Minister. It is the kind of legislation that will put this Government out, a Government with the biggest majority, bar one, that any Government here ever had. No longer will the man who builds his house get a remission of rates.

He will get the same remission. I mentioned that.

He will get some exemption and, for the smallest type of house, it will cost £1,000.

No. For the larger type of house.

We can agree or disagree on that. The Minister never served on a local authority and he is, perhaps, not as au fait with such matters as are those who have served on these bodies. At the moment there is a grant up to 1,500 square feet. There must be a bathroom, five ordinary rooms, water and sewerage. In order to get decent sized rooms it was imperative to build to the maximum. This will be very unlikely when the area is reduced by 250 square feet. Our young people are marrying earlier today. If this measure is enacted the area of these houses will be reduced and the ordinary worker will find himself getting a worse house than he would have got last year. Nobody can refute that argument.

We will.

The only justification offered is that one will be able to build more houses with less money. I do not believe this will make a great difference. I am not an expert but I have been involved in building. Young married couples will find themselves with insufficient space. The bedrooms will be too small. The Minister never served as a Deputy, much less as a member of a local authority.

He served on a local authority.

But not in a representative capacity.

He was a councillor in the Ballyfermot area.

God help Ballyfermot. The Minister has very little knowledge of what the people need.

He served the people well.

I would advise certain Deputies to go down to Naas and have a nice walk through the town or even go through it in an ass and cart; they would look well in one.

(Interruptions.)

I come now to the question of grants for flats. I do not find it difficult to read Bills when I have any experience of the subject matter they contain and I have considerable experience of the subject matter in this Bill because I have served on a local authority for 16 years and have always tried to do my best in regard to housing. I find this to be a most unwieldy piece of legislation in its construction, requiring a great deal of attention to discover exactly what it means. I think I am right in saying that the result of the legislation, if it goes through unamended, is that there will be a reduction in the amount of grants available for flats. There is now a difference between flats six storeys high and flats with lifts and so on but generally this legislation provides that grants available and help provided by the local authority for the erection of flats is limited—until you get to the high rise flats—to the same level as for a house. We all know that flats cost more than houses so that if what I believe is true this is a further restrictive factor which will increase the gap between the amount on which the Government will provide a subsidy for principal and interest repayments and the actual cost. This increases the rents or the rates and this is the policy of the Government embarked on by a Minister who has gone stark, staring mad.

The Bill does not deal with local authority buildings with the exception of flats for workers.

With respect, I would refer to the table setting out the amounts of grant. Flats are also mentioned and I respectfully suggest that the provision of grants to subsidise principal and interest repayments and loans for flats is covered in the Bill. While I would bow to the Chair's ruling, I suggest that it is in order to discuss how much money will be provided for a three-storey flat. As I read the Bill—I should like to be corrected if wrong—for a three-storey flat subsidy will be provided at present by the Government for principal and interest repayments at the same level as for a house of the same area.

For private construction, not local authority houses.

Where are we then?

Section 5 of the Bill refers to county councils.

Section 5 deals with specialised cases, the provision of houses for workers on industrial estates but not generally for local authority buildings.

But in this Bill at present there is a reduction in the area to which a house can be built for grant and loan purposes. There is a reduction in the square footage to which a flat can be built. Surely then it is in order to discuss these flats and houses?

This would be for private building.

I do not understand how a man could erect perhaps 60 flats and live in all of them himself. Surely the position is that the amount of subsidy from the Government in respect of this group of flats affects the rents that will be charged?

I thought the Deputy said he had some difficulty in interpreting the section but that it seemed to him that the effect of the section was that the level of grant for a flat would be reduced?

Is the Deputy referring only to the reduction corresponding to the reduction of the floor area or to something else?

I am referring to money.

It is not proposed to alter the principle which applies at present whereby the same level of grant is given for a flat as for a house with a corresponding floor area.

That is helpful. I want to make the point that the position now is that the person who would provide his own house or flat by leasing it or buying it from a private builder is in the position that he will have a smaller house and a smaller flat, if he wants to enjoy the reduction in rent which will be available if grants are to be got from the Department of Local Government.

That is a way of putting it. I would not put it that way.

This is the only way of putting it. The ordinary worker at present who decides to have his own flat or house and because of the amount of income he has, gets a house or flat which will have the benefit of grants applying to it, will have a flat or house which will be 250 square feet smaller at the maximum.

I presume the Deputy will agree that 82 per cent of existing houses would qualify under this provision for higher grants. I refer to houses that are now being built.

I do not see how this could happen and if any of them did so qualify the fact that it will cost £1,000 more because of the removal of the remission of rates will mean that a smaller house will be more expensive.

Perhaps I could clarify it by putting it the other way round: only 18 per cent of applications are for houses of a size larger than 1,250 square feet.

I suggest this is probably the result of architects and engineers knowing what is happening.

No. This is going back over quite a while.

My experience in Louth has been that everybody who has built a five-room house with water and sewerage built it, so far as I can see, to the maximum.

Louth is a rich county.

It is not. That is my experience. However, I do not want to go too far on this subject because I know that the Minister is not guilty of this legislation except to the extent that he sat at the Cabinet table when this Bill went through and, presumably, it was also circulated to his Department. We on this side of the House regard this Bill as retrograde and the Minister responsible as a disaster. When he returns from his sad journey I hope he will have seen some sense and changed for the better.

I thought the new Bill would go a long way towards solving the problem of private house-building which we all know has beset the country for quite a while. Many people some years ago were prepared to say, if it suited them, that the need for further housing was declining. The mere fact that, as Deputy Donegan said—I think the Minister also referred to it—people are not prepared to accept the standards of housing those who lived 20 or 30 years ago were prepared to accept, means that there will be a demand for new houses.

Certain grants and limits for loans were provided many years ago and, for some strange reason, the Minister for Local Government has not faced up to the present day position. He seems to adopt the principle that if it was good enough for those gone before him it is good enough for him. I do not know how the Minister can hope to sell to the House the propositions he has in this Bill. I believe many people have been building houses of less than 1,249 square feet.

There are two reasons for that. One reason is they cannot afford to build a bigger house and the second is that many people build the type of house suggested to them by the Department of Local Government or somebody else. How many Deputies have been approached by people who ask "I am thinking of building a house, where could I get a plan fairly cheaply?" Most of us will take the easy way out and say "Go over to the Department of Local Government, plan 5FC will probably suit you, it is the most popular" and off they go and the house is built. When the people have been living in the house for some time they find that the accommodation—two bedrooms and a boxroom, two living rooms downstairs as well as a small kitchen and a bathroom—is not sufficient for them and they start looking around for other accommodation. They return to the Department of Local Government and ask "Look, our house is just not big enough; can we add on to it?" and the Department, of course, will say "Well, your house is relatively new, it is only 15 years old" and unless they are able to prove that there is definite overcrowding they will not get a further grant to enlarge the house.

This brings me to something which is mentioned in the Bill and which has been tried out in Dunboyne, County Meath, by the National Building Agency. The agency built two houses with provision for expansion. I do not know who thought of this idea. I do know that in a previous Housing Bill which took a long time to go through the House there was a suggestion that a prototype house, a new type of house which could reduce costs, change the system of building or something like that, would qualify for an extra grant but this appears to be the only thing that emerged from that. People move into a house which has not been fully completed and after a few years when they have families and when they are trying to rear them they are expected to finish the house. Perhaps the Minister could explain where the money is going to come from to carry out such an operation during the really tough years for any working class family with children growing up and when money is required for so many things and there is only one wage packet coming in. The result is that this idea of improving the house at a later stage is out completely. It is suggested here again that this should be done but let us get down to the facts. When the housing grants were introduced originally it was possible to buy a site for anything between £50 and £300 or £400 but at present I do not know where you could get a site under £500. As a matter of fact, in rural districts as much as £1,200 and £1,500 is being paid for a site of one-third of an acre. Yet the Minister feels that there is justification for continuing the type of grant which was given when sites could be bought for a fraction of that money.

I remember a few years ago when in my own village it was possible for a group of people to come together and build excellent two-storey houses with central heating, built-in furniture and so on, for £1,640. The same house cannot be built today for £4,500 to £5,000. Would it not have suited the Minister a lot better if he had gone into the cost of building, all aspects of it and said "Well, the arrangements at present are just not achieving what they are supposed to achieve and we have got to make some effort to increase the amount of money which is made available to those who want to build a house"? Another thing which always surprises me is something about which the Minister made a point with Deputy Donegan when he referred to the fact that his case that high rents were being paid for a local authority house was an argument for the Bill. To a certain extent that is so but when a working person reaches the stage at which he feels he can build his own house he has also reached the stage where he cannot get a loan because the local authority will say "£1,200— you are out". I am sure the Minister is aware of this. This is the sort of thing which I thought would have been approached in the Bill and some easement introduced so that a greater effort could be made to provide houses for those who feel they can build them for themselves.

For a number of years I advised people to build their own houses if they could raise the money at all rather than depend on local authority houses. Now I feel there is no point in doing that because they just cannot get the type of money which is required; even if they have got a site from one of their relatives they cannot get the money to build a decent house. What I am afraid of—and I mentioned this already this year in a debate on housing—is that this Bill will result in our having, as the song says, "little boxes" all over the place. There is a grave danger that this will happen because people will build houses which will not be what they want but which may, perhaps, be better than what they are in but which are no use for rearing families. That does not solve the problem. The whole approach of the Minister and his Department has been wrong. He had a golden opportunity here of examining the whole field of housing legislation and instead of doing that he introduced a number of what I can only describe as gimmicks which will not solve anything. We are often told that a lot of houses are being built; a number of houses are being built and there are people who decide that if they possibly can they will build a house for themselves. Although the house in which they are living may not be too bad they build a house and by so doing they make available a reasonably good house for somebody who can rent it or repair it. The action of the Minister is now preventing this sort of thing from happening. What will happen is that there will be a clamp down and a certain type of people will have to remain in the houses in which they are although they may not be the sort of houses they wish to remain in. They will not be able to afford a new house under the conditions laid down in the Bill. The Minister has made a bad mistake in introducing a Bill in the way he has.

Another matter in which I am interested is that in previous legislation a farmer, or a farm labourer or somebody living in substandard housing conditions in the rural areas could, instead of getting a £300 grant, get a £450 grant plus a supplementary grant of £450 to make a total of £900 and I am not sure if that is being continued. There is a reference to the fact that higher grants may be paid and I should like the Minister to confirm whether the higher rate of grant is being continued.

I can confirm it now.

Where does it say that in the Bill?

It does not say it is not being continued.

But it does say certain things which throw doubt on whether it is being continued.

I understand that section 3 extends it to towns. It is extending it to that extent but it certainly is not taking away the system that existed.

I am very anxious to find out if this means that somebody living in a rural area can build a house in a town and get a grant?

Yes, though to deal with it properly I would want to deal with it in replying, but, substantially, a farmer, yes.

Does that mean the house he lives in is not suitable or can he have two houses? If he already has a house which is suitable for living in can he qualify? At the present time to qualify for a grant he must be living in a substandard dwelling. Under the new regulations is it proposed that he would have to be living in substandard accommodation if he intends to move into the town?

No, that is not correct, but I think I had better deal with this——

I wonder if we shall have Castletown House and Leinster House again.

I doubt that.

Not at the size anyway. The Minister knows there was a rather ridiculous arrangement whereby this grant to which I have referred did not apply in designated towns. There were people living in what we would call country villages who were ruled out because somebody said these were designated towns. I have one in particular in mind in County Westmeath, which I am sure is also in the Minister's mind, Moate, where something like this happened, that a man built a house for himself and because his mother lived in the town, though he himself had not lived in it for many years, it was ruled his normal place of residence was in Moate. Therefore, he could not get the higher rate of grant, but if there was anyone more entitled to it than he was I should like to hear of it.

I should like to get the Minister to give us some more information on the question of the grants for flats or flatlets. The Minister says here:

Section 4 will enable grants to be paid for the provision of flats in a building of less than six storeys at the same rate as for houses. If the flats are in a building of six or more storeys and a lift is installed the grant will include an extra £50 per flat.

Maybe the Minister will try to explain what exactly is meant by this. In regard to private individuals building houses, does this mean speculators who build houses for sale can build flats and obtain grants for them?

When the Minister was introducing his Housing Bill, 1970, he could have gone through the whole of the existing housing legislation, as was done on a previous occasion, and altered it where he found that bad mistakes had been made. Instead of doing that, he simply included a number of matters which I have already described as gimmicks and suggested this would solve the housing problem.

There is another reference here, which possibly the Minister might be able to explain when he is replying or maybe the Minister for Local Government will be in next week when the Second Reading will be concluded. It is the question of the remission of rates and the type of house on which remission can be allowed. Perhaps I have a suspicious nature, but I am always looking through Bills like this to find out whether something rather innocent looking is written in which turns out afterwards to mean something entirely different from what we thought it meant. It is not written into the Bill that as from a certain date remission of rates on new houses will be phased out, but remission is being taken from people who build houses over a certain floor area. I would be very much afraid this would happen to people who are building small houses.

There are some good things in the Bill and one of them is the continuation of the second house or dower house. I agree there is a good deal to be said for the provision of the second house. The Land Commission dealt with this some years ago and it was included in the last housing legislation, if I remember rightly, whereby people built a second house for the purpose of living in it and allowing their families to take over the bigger house, and this worked out fairly satisfactorily. If people who are waiting on a very long housing list for a local authority house got the right type of encouragement they might build a house of their own rather than stay on that list until such time as their turn would come for a new house. This has been lost sight of completely by the Minister in introducing this legislation.

At the present time there are certain restrictions included in the Labourers Act which was passed here a short few years ago with regard to the sales of sites on vested cottage plots. In the case of a person who was badly in need of housing and required a plot which he was getting from a neighbour who was not a relative—if it was a relative there would be no problem— surely the Minister could have made some provision under which the plot could have been given without repayment of the extra sum which the local authority must demand under the Labourers Act. If the Minister had included this kind of provision in the Bill I am quite sure he would have encouraged many people to build their own houses.

A provision in relation to low interest loans should also have been included but the Minister could have gone a long way with this. We must reach the stage where a low interest loan is far more important than a grant in the building of a house. Some countries have subsidised the interest on the loan by making available a low interest loan over a long period. The amount of money involved may not be very different but at least it means the person building the house can have all the money that is available.

Furthermore the money, both by way of grant and loan, should be made available at more frequent intervals. There is no use in telling someone who has very little money that he can go ahead with building or reconstructing a house and that when he has the job half done he can get the money, because before he starts he must get money to buy materials. The Parliamentary Secretary understands the situation because I am sure people come to him as they come to me and other Deputies. Apart from taking them to a bank and trying to obtain the necessary money, there is very little politicians can do.

I am most disappointed in the approach to this Bill. We have heard about it for the last number of months and the wonderful things it would do. Now we have it and as far as I can see it makes very little difference except it says that if you do not build a big house you will get a grant; if you build a big house you will not. The smaller the house you build the better we like it because the size of the grant is in ratio to the size of the house. This Bill may encourage people to build very substandard houses and we shall probably finish up with a country covered with little boxes.

It is better to build more smaller houses than to build a few big houses. This Bill is not concerned with the building of huge houses for the wealthy, and I am satisfied that the Bill will provide more but smaller houses. I do not think anyone has yet found out what the perfect square footage for a house is, but I presume it would depend on domestic and financial circumstances.

I would like to see grants given to citizens who have formed building groups because the fact that people build their own houses relieves local authorities from housing them.

Very little imagination is shown in the planning of most of our housing estates. Because of the legacy of bad housing we are forever trying to catch up on the backlog and this has meant that we have not had the opportunity to design a perfect housing scheme.

Deputies may be disappointed that the Bill has not gone farther but I welcome the extra grants for flats. If this grant had been available when the Ballymun scheme was being built it would have been of tremendous help to the local authority.

It has been decided that a house of 1,500 square feet would qualify for a grant, but I hope sufficient thought has been given to the idea of an extendable house to which apartments could be added at a later date. I think this pattern will be followed in the future because of changing social conditions. At the moment a person buys a particular house because he cannot afford a better house, but if a person were to buy an extendable house, say of 1,000 square feet, he would be able to extend it at a later date with great economy of material, time and money.

The test of any housing Bill is whether or not it will increase the number of dwellings being provided, but mere grants will not ensure this. I know that all Deputies in this House are serious in their desire to increase the number of houses built but I suggest that before the Bill becomes law the Minister should talk to the building trade, the master builders, the small builders and the trade unions to see if they can prepare a policy for the building trade whereby so many houses would be built in so many years because I feel that only such a scheme will end the housing problem that exists.

I have said before that one could never completely solve a housing problem in a growing city and no doubt next year or the year after we will see another Bill being brought in as the tempo increases. I know Deputy Donegan does not think much of the Bill.

That is the mildest way the Deputy could put it.

No matter what Bill was brought in I would always think of things which would make it a better Bill but I am glad that we have had a Housing Bill almost every two years because this shows the Government's interest in housing.

The solution to our housing problem is not within the scope of any one man but I feel this Bill shows a realistic approach as it is endeavouring to provide small houses for people who really need them instead of giving a grant to a person to build a big house, because he will not need the grant anyway. The Bill refers to "an ordinary house". I do not know quite what an ordinary house is.

A house for dwarfs.

I do not think many of us have houses of more than 1,000 square feet.

A few people do.

But not on this side of the House. The point is that this Bill will provide more houses at a reduced area. As I have said before I do feel that people who form groups for the purpose of building houses should get bigger grants because by doing this the local authorities are relieved of housing them. The Shannon Development Company gets a special grant as it is building houses next to the industrial estate. This principle should be extended to building groups. By increasing the number and limiting the size of houses we should be able to ease the housing problem.

The Minister stated that the housing shortage is caused by the increasing affluence. People no longer accept humble housing if better accommodation is available. Long ago people were satisfied to start off in a room. That day is gone, I am glad to say. I am in favour of increasing the housing accommodation for every family. We must have a proper standard of housing. We feel sensitive about housing in the city. I have seen thousands of houses being built. I hope I have helped in some small way to have some of them built. I admit there are 8,000 families without proper accommodation at present. We must tackle this problem. The local authority must build 3,000 houses. The present cement strike is holding up house building. I do not wish to discuss the rights and wrongs of the strike. It is obvious where my sympathies would lie. I appeal to both parties to come together immediately and to settle their differences so that cement may be provided for house building. Despite the Bills brought in here, the housing drive is grinding to a halt now because of lack of cement. I appeal to the unions and the employers——

This does not arise on this Bill.

It is a very basic problem. I know there are difficulties.

I know it is important but it is not relevant.

I will have more to say on this Bill on the next Stage. I welcome the Bill although I admit it has its limits. It is a step in the right direction. Anything which will increase the tempo of house building is welcome.

This Bill is a very disappointing production after the enormous amount of propaganda and advance publicity it got as a proposal which was going to make a serious contribution towards the solution of the serious housing crisis which continues to exist in our society generally, particularly in urban areas. The problem is not quite so great in rural areas because people have left rural Ireland. In urban areas there is a housing crisis. It is difficult to know the size of the problem. Deputy Moore, bona fide no doubt, mentioned a figure of 8,000 houses. Again, bona fide no doubt, Deputy Dowling mentioned that 19,000 houses were to be built by the Dublin Corporation. I do not know which figure is correct. No one seems to know what the correct figure is. Deputy Moore mentioned that we have a Housing Bill each year. It is astonishing to see such a relatively simple problem dealt with in this ham-handed, patchwork way. It is astonishing to see the housing problem handled so unsuccessfully. Practically every other country in Europe has been able to deal with its housing problem without making a great fuss. People have been housed without the difficulties which the present Government claim exist. This Government have been in control effectively for nearly 30 years. They claim there is great difficulty in building houses.

One cannot help but admire the introductory speech of the Minister who spoke about the paradox of the continuing high level of demand for housing being associated with rising prosperity in recent years. This is an arrogant misstatement of the reality of the situation. We should relate this statement to the recent statements of the Central Bank, the Banks' Standing Committee, the NIEC, and the Minister for Labour's statement that crisis is imminent. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister for Finance will say on Budget day. If this is prosperity, for God's sake let us look towards trying to achieve some measure of failure in economic matters. If this is Fianna Fáil prosperity. God protect us from it. We have a Bill which says we are now at a high level of prosperity and have reached the state where people are not going to live in conditions as bad as those which used to exist. Having said we now have much more money than before, that we are more prosperous than before with higher standards in relation to housing, hey presto, we are now introducing a Bill which will give the working classes smaller houses to live in.

I would be grateful to anyone who would make sense of this for me. How can anyone rationalise this extraordinary provision to reduce the quality of accommodation available to the lower-income group? This is like the old window tax. It is the kind of proposal that would have been introduced in the Middle Ages. We have Housing Bills here each year. Despite the fact that we have got rid of a million of our people through emigration, we have not been able to provide houses for those who are left. The British are building houses for the rest of our people.

We had no serious wartime destruction. We had no defence expenditure of any significance. Yet, here we are with a series of housing crises which every Deputy in his heart, no matter what side of the House he belongs to, knows continues to exist in spite of the posturing of the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Colley, now acting for him, that things are so good now that we can afford to change our policies. How do we change our policies? We start building smaller houses.

I believe that the present position in relation to working class housing, even in relation to the many new houses that have been built, has developed regardless of the implications of overcrowding in the working class family. It is a fair generalisation to say that the lower the income the higher the family. There are social reasons for that. Whatever the reasons for that one certainly finds a smaller family in Carrickmines and Foxrock than in Ballymun or Oliver Bond House. That is none of our business here except to face up to the reality that the lower the income the greater the size of the house needed to accomodate the family.

One of the paradoxes in this country is that we do not allow a serious family planning system to operate here. We do not tolerate contraception. I shall not introduce that topic now but it is relevant to the extent that we encourage large families and that large families among working class people are common but we make no serious provision in our housing policies for the consequences of advocating large families among working class people. On the contrary, this Bill flies directly in the face of this reality of social life in Ireland and there is this terrible clause here that within limits the smaller the house the greater proportionately will be the direct aid given to the purchaser in the form of grants. So we will have the unfortunate person who badly wants a home for his family and has only very little money to deposit being encouraged to reduce the area of the house so that this fiddling grant—which I shall deal with again— may become available to him.

This, I believe, is completely contrary to the correct social policy of a society with our professions. Whether I agree with them or not is not relevant at the moment. I am saying that the reality is that we advocate large families among the working class people and then introduce this kind of legislation which says effectively that they will live in grossly overcrowded conditions.

I am one of the lucky ones and I live in a comfortable house but some of us go around canvassing in flat areas. Some flats are structurally beautiful and fine buildings but I can never understand how people can retain their sanity in the conditions under which many of them live. There may be a father and mother and five, six or seven children in a small flat. There are these dreadful bee-hives that are, I believe, unfit for human habitation. These are conditions under which most of us would not like to live and I do not think we should ask anybody to tolerate them. This epitomises the "we" and "they" division that there is in our society. It is good enough for them; it is not good enough for us. We have this acceptance then of substandard housing accommodation. That is effectively what this Bill will provide —sub-standard housing accommodation for the broad masses of the working class.

Hear, hear.

The poorer one is the lower his standard of housing accommodation. First of all, we encourage the large family and then we have what I have spoken of frequently in relation to social welfare and health, one of the bitter and savage realities in our society, the problem in relation to the care of old people. Our mental hospitals are full—using a colloquialism—of old people who have been dumped in these places because they could not continue to live at home. This is not because of badness on the part of our people. It is not because of meanness on the part of the son or daughter. It is part of the reality of living in overcrowded home conditions where they are already overcrowded with the husband and wife and the children. To try to keep the father and mother as well is quite out of the question for emotional and physical reasons.

This Bill will reduce further what had been already accepted as only a reasonable figure. It is 1,500 but 1,200 is the average figure. This has been reduced so that whatever benefits might have accrued from providing domiciliary care services for the aged so that people would be encouraged to keep the father and mother in the house will be negatived by virtue of the fact that it will be quite impossible for them to envisage a further two people added on to their population even if the Minister for Local Government in his other capacity as Minister for Social Welfare decides to provide proper domiciliary services for old people. We are simply taking a slide rule or running our fingers over a computer in order to try to obtain certain computerised solutions for a problem which we happen to have. We have so much space and so many human beings. How do we cram as many people as possible into as little space as possible without any regard at all to the social implications and the implications for the human beings involved in this kind of policy?

We are dealing with this all the time in psychiatric medicine. One of our most thriving clinics is in the Ballymun area with the lack of proper recreational facilities and the overcrowding implicit in high density housing. This type of high density accommodation which we have provided has very serious emotional repercussions for the people who must live in it. The Minister knows very well that the general finding throughout Europe now is that human beings are simply not meant to live like this. Above all, where accommodation is provided we should take into account the fact that there are old people attached to the family—the extended family. There are youngsters trying to do their homework. There are the problems arising from mixed sexes growing up in overcrowded conditions, boys and girls coming to adolescence and puberty with all the consequent emotional problems which arise from living in the overcrowded conditions which are endemic throughout Dublin working class districts and, I have no doubt, the rest of our city areas.

So, basically it is a very ill thought out Bill. It seems to me to be completely insensitive to the needs of the ordinary people. It is careless of and indifferent to the social implications that must follow the retrograde decision to encourage people to live in smaller houses and, therefore, to live in what must eventually become overcrowded housing conditions. The clause relating to flexibility of design and extensibility of the house is, I believe, simply a conscience clause. I do not think it will really meet the needs of the public because, as Deputy Tully said, as the family enlarges so the demands on the income increase, and the last thing an unfortunate father would think of doing would be to call in the builders to build an extension to his house.

The Government could have tried to get some sort of stabilisation in regard to prices, some sort of control over the exploitation of building land, and some sort of control over the prices being charged for houses and over what most people believe are the unnecessarily and outrageously high prices charged for private houses. There is an element of irresponsibility in the prices paid for land in development areas simply because the speculator knows quite well that the unfortunate family, the man, his wife and children, have to have a house to live in. He simply passes on the astronomical sums now being paid for house building or property or developed land to the consumer in the same way as all the other price increases tolerated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce over the past five years, or whatever it is, have been passed on to the consumer. Purchase taxes, wholesale taxes, retail taxes and price increases have been tolerated and no attempt at all has been made by the Government to control them. The recent election speeches of the Minister show that at last they and the other authorities I quoted earlier are coming to accept that we are in a very serious inflationary situation here in Ireland. Most of the figures mentioned here are relatively irrelevant in the situation in which the value of £100 drops to £25 in a couple of years. The complete depreciation in the value of money over recent years makes most of the figures mentioned here meaningless.

The fact of the matter is—and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong —that, because of this inflationary increase in prices and depreciation in the value of money, the total amount being provided for housing is not keeping pace with the costs of land and of building. In my experience most of the grants given for house building are assimilated by the builder and the unfortunate person building the house might as well not get the grant at all. It is simply accepted by the builder as money he will get anyway and he still charges the price he was going to charge.

Quite obviously a good Housing Bill should have tried to provide some help for the person borrowing money and to subsidise interest rates in some way, so that the very big amount now paid by people in interest rates on loans for house building purposes could be reduced. Much too high a proportion of salaries and wages is being paid out in the form of rent because of the basic cost of houses. I believe that the present interest rates being charged by building societies and local authorities are disproportionately high. That is where most of the help is needed by the average person who is trying to build a house. No attempt is being made to try to keep interest rates down. Three per cent or 4 per cent used to be considered reasonable for a local authority but now the figure is the same as that of practically any building society or the bank.

I should like the Minister to explain the clause in section 6 which "will facilitate the compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities by extending the simple procedures under existing legislation for the payment of purchase money" and so on. Under this section, does he intend to take any serious powers to acquire land compulsorily in desirable building areas and, if so, under what conditions and in what circumstances? Would he set about taking over land compulsorily? I am afraid I do not understand what he has in mind here and naturally we in the Labour Party would very much welcome it if the Minister would set about dealing with this uncontrolled speculation in land which is going on particularly in the urban areas, and particularly in the city of Dublin, and which is making it quite impossible for ordinary private builders to buy land, and making it very difficult for local authorities to purchase land in competition with the extravagant prices which are being paid by speculators. Is this section intended to deal with this problem and, if so, how will it operate?

It seems to me that this Bill is one which will achieve very little to deal with the serious problem of housing. It is a very poor Bill and it is a retrograde Bill in its implications. I do not know why the Government have decided on this alteration in policy. I do not know what their rationale has been and I should be very glad to know. We see no reason why the size of the house should not be related to the needs of the family who occupy it. If a family are large and require a large house, then grants should be available for that large house. In other words, the grants should be related proportionately to the size of the families for which the houses are provided. The social implications of that are much more desirable and relevant to the needs of our particular community.

Though it might be a useful exercise for us on this side to praise the housing programme during the last number of years and to compare it with the poor record of the Opposition during their two periods in coalition, I think it is more appropriate for me to look to the future of housing in Ireland and to suggest that with more goodwill on all sides we would be able to try to keep abreast of the demand for more and more houses.

In his opening remarks the Minister mentioned that there are more and more people living in this country instead of emigrating. Obviously, if more and more people are living in this country instead of emigrating, we have an indication of a greater demand for more houses. During the years, local authorities had the horrible blockage of having to remove old houses, bad condition houses which were virtually unfit for habitation, and of rehousing the tenants or the owners of those houses. The necessity to rehouse rather than to build new houses for new applicants has held back real progress in our quest to solve the housing shortage.

We must accept that were it not for the task of removing, clearing away, bulldozing the derelict areas, we would have had much more progress, in which case we would not be here talking—the Opposition would not be talking— about our bad housing progress. Instead, we would be quite satisfied with the number of houses built and we would be engaged in planning for the future.

The marriage rate is a very significant ingredient of housing demands. In the pamphlet issued by the Department, Housing in the Seventies, the figures show that the proportion was 5.1 per 1,000 in 1957 and 6.5 in 1968. This shows that the number of marriages, 15,329, rose to 16,727 in 1966 and 18,792 in 1968. In my constituency I am very much aware of the number of marriages taking place and those which will take place during the next few years. We know that when there is a marriage, when a new family unit is established, that unit will look for, demand a house. When we talk about grants for smaller houses, I should like to make the point that whether the house is small or large the families who need houses, who are anxious to start married life on a proper level, will not be too influenced by whether the house is large or of moderate size. The crib we have been hearing is that grants are channelled to small houses and this, to my mind, is irrelevant and superfluous.

The Minister said that grants are being increased by more than £100 in respect of dwellings of moderate size. I think this development is desirable and from this point of view alone the Bill is highly commendable. There are houses not exceeding 1,116 square metres or 1,249 square feet. Any house smaller than that will qualify for these increases in grants.

The Minister said that a higher proportion of those who are married and requiring separate dwellings intend to live in Ireland because the prosperity of the country has improved and, therefore, the question of going to England is not as relevant as it was a few years ago. This suggests to me that the Department as yet have not seen the desirability of establishing a new section which would include sociologists and psychologists who would sit down and plan for the building of the states and communities of the future.

In Housing in the Seventies it has been stated that the services of the department of social science in UCD, An Foras Forbartha and the Irish Housebuilders Association have been used together with the findings on the pilot scheme conducted by the UCD department and it has been stated that these findings have been of great assistance to the Department in the design of housing estates. It is, therefore, relevant to make the point that we should employ more and more professional people of the calibre of a social scientist in this vital field so that we will not be sitting here in ten years time criticising housing and the communities that have been established in the meantime. I should like to emphasise again the need for a special section in the Department. It would be a planning section on the lines of the new Department the Taoiseach announced earlier.

It is difficult to understand how any responsible Minister for Local Government could introduce a measure of this kind having regard to the widespread scandal that exists in respect of housing in this country. The measure is a punitive and unimaginative piece of legislation. Moreover, it is a most ineffective measure. It is difficult to understand, also, why we should have a Bill entitled the Housing Bill, 1970, when this Bill shows no regard whatsoever for the burning issues involved, or for the widespread hardship, suffering and deprivation inherent in this social problem.

The Bill, primarily, deals with increasing the grants for the smaller types of houses and with abandoning the grants in respect of the larger houses. Not only does it deprive builders of the future of grants for these larger houses in excess of 1,249 square feet but it also contains some other penal measures—for instance, the non-application of the nine years' exemption from rates is deplorable.

I cannot understand why the realities of the housing situation were not faced when this Bill was being drafted and why an effort was not made to do something positive to accelerate house building, to eliminate the evils that result from an insufficiency of housing and to make it possible for people to obtain houses and, by way of adequate grants, at rents which they can afford. In this Bill there is no reference to the spiralling cost of living, just as there is no reference to the increasing costs of building materials, labour and land. All these points have been ignored and we are left with this irresponsible and puny measure that gives no solace or hope to the countless thousands of people whose ambition it is to secure decent housing accommodation. I regard this measure as being particularly retrograde in that it seeks to impose on the people in the lower income group a standard of housing which will prove unacceptable to them. Our people are entitled to the best type of housing it is possible to provide. There should be no diminution of housing standards. Therefore, the giving of a bonus by way of grant or State aid to the smaller type of house is, indeed, a retrograde step, particularly in view of the tradition we have here of large families. This factor, of necessity, results in overcrowding.

This measure will result in smaller houses being built and, consequently, we will have more overcrowding. Where there is overcrowding there are moral evils, as those of us who are members of housing authorities know very well. The problem of a growing family in a relatively small house with, say, three bedrooms is very great and it is usually difficult to provide an extra room. When a house is being built it is important that it should be built in such a way as to allow of extension and it should be large enough to accommodate an average family. It is deplorable that in this modern age the Fianna Fáil Government should encourage the building of a type of substandard utility house. In other words, the Government are saying to the people that this is all they deserve to get.

There is nothing progressive in legislation of this nature. It is regrettable that any Government would deliberately attempt to lower standards, but this is what seems to be inherent in this measure. I know that it is designed essentially to conserve capital and to effect a cut back in the building industry but it will have widespread repercussions. I hope that the provisions in respect of the smaller types of house will not be availed of, that the carrot being dangled before the noses of people in need of housing will be rejected and that they will not be influenced by this extra grant of £100. I am sure that the people will consider their real interests and insist on having the better quality and larger type of house.

It is my opinion, too, that this measure will have serious effects on the building industry, which is at a standstill at present because of a strike—a strike about which, may I say, this Government are doing nothing. Indeed, it would seem to my colleagues and I that, by their lack of intervention, the Government are condoning the continuation of this strike which is responsible for widespread hardship.

Does the Deputy wish the Government to settle the strike?

The question of strikes is not relevant to this Bill.

The longer the strike lasts the better it suits the Government.

The Chair has pointed out that the question of strikes does not enter into this matter.

I bow to your ruling, Sir, but it is pertinent to point out that many essential schemes have been held up as a result of this strike and that the hopes of many thousands of people of securing homes before the end of this year have been dashed. The refusal to provide grants for houses in excess of 1,249 square feet or in value of approximately £6,000 is greatly to be deplored. If rising costs continue, it is reasonable to presume that a house now costing £4,000 will, within a relatively short time, reach the £6,000 figure. Nowadays, you will not build much of a house for £4,000. Within a year or two, at that rate, the average house will be costing £6,000 and, at that stage, would-be purchasers will be precluded from availing of any grants and will be penalised in respect of the gradual abatement of rates. The building industry is likely to suffer also. This measure is deliberately applying the brakes to a housing progress which already leaves very much to be desired and which at the present time is virtually static.

The Minister mentions an element of rising prosperity in recent years and says that more people are living in the country instead of emigrating. He believes these factors to be the cause of the continued high demand for housing. I cannot imagine the Minister is sincere in such a statement. I am not aware of any great prosperity in this country; indeed, the contrary is true. I am not aware of a situation so good that people would seem to have a virtual choice of housing here. Local authorities have to contend with long housing waiting lists. Young married people are expected to wait until they have sufficient children to qualify them for a local authority house.

There is an acute shortage of capital for housing. There are, too, many stalling devices——

Local authority housing is not under discussion in this Bill except in so far as the provision of houses by local authorities for key workers in industry is concerned.

It is difficult to understand how the Minister can make light of the problem of overcrowding. He states that overcrowding and housing conditions which might be accepted in a poorer community are intolerable in a more affluent society. I would associate that kind of statement with progressive European countries but not with this country. Overcrowding is a serious problem in every housing authority and we shall intensify that problem with the provision of smaller houses. We are told here about the moderate-sized house but we are not given details of the number of rooms in it. The Minister carefully avoided the word "family" in the context of a suitable dwelling for persons setting up a home. It is presumed, also, that a greater number of houses will be built for any given amount of capital but this is very doubtful. Consider the limit of grant for the bigger type of house. I do not believe the £100 for smaller houses will prove the incentive the Minister and his Department seem to think it will.

I thought we had got away altogether from utility houses which were erected in the early years of this State at a time of a colossal housing problem. Unfortunate families had to occupy these rather primitive dwellings and had to contend with problems of rapid decay, dampness, cold and lack of modern sanitation facilities such as bathroom and flush toilet indoors. This Bill seeks to turn back the clock at least 25 years and asks our people to accept lower standards of that kind. It is a deplorable measure, unworthy of a progressive Government and of a Government with a proper regard for our people. It is unworthy of an enlightened Government which should seek to provide the best possible standards of amenties in the housing of our people. That part of the Minister's speech will be a great shock to the very many people who have been promoting house building here—building agencies and the very many other people engaged in providing homes for our people apart altogether from local authorities.

Dwellings with a floor area exceeding 1,269 square feet will not qualify for exemption from stamp duty or for the nine years graduated rates remission under the Housing Act, 1966. We are told that a number of non-grant houses will qualify for partial rates remission under the Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Acts. I should like the Minister to elaborate and make more clear to us the kind of houses that will secure these lesser grants because it certainly is not clear either in the Minister's speech or in the Bill.

We are told that the loss of the concessions to which I have adverted in the larger type of house would approximate to about £1,000 to the purchaser. I am certain that is a conservative figure and that the actual loss would be much greater especially as costs continue to rise. I repeat it will not be very long before costs reach the £6,000 bracket for housebuilding and these people will be in jeopardy. In the circumstances it is fair to suggest that there will be a cut-back in the housing drive for better quality houses.

I was glad to see reference to the NBA and the work they seek to accomplish and the aid and stimulant they have given to many housing authorities in this country. There is reference to the desirability of a prototype house of the "expandable" type and we would be interested to hear from the Minister regarding the progress made in provision of accommodation of this kind.

I do not wish to reflect on the grants for flats which are contained in this Bill. Naturally, anything which will relieve housing congestion is welcome and I appreciate the necessity for the erection of flats, especially in a city like this where land is scarce and expensive. However, we do not regard sky-line or high-rise flats as the best type of accommodation for the average family. There are obvious restrictions and difficulties involved in living in one of those buildings and it is the children who suffer most. In such surroundings these children do not have the facilities for playing which others enjoy. Wherever possible the normal type of house should be constructed because there have been increasing legitimate complaints about the privation and loneliness often experienced in living in these flats. In particular, there is difficulty in providing playing facilities for the children; they are simply not available and this leaves much to be desired.

For a long time we have been concerned about the number of urban authorities who were unwilling or unable to pay the local authority grant for new housebuilding, repair and reconstruction. Obviously, this was a great hardship on the many people who were trying to provide homes for themselves. It is good that this has now been recognised. There was the unwillingness of relatively prosperous local authorities to provide these grants or, if they provided them, they applied the means test and only paid a reduced grant. However, one has sympathy with the smaller urban authority who could not meet this commitment; I am thinking of urban authorities in my own constituency where one penny in the pound would only provide £25 revenue. That situation exists and it is clear that local authorities who were so poverty-stricken could not be expected to provide amenities and certainly could not be expected to provide grants pro rata with the State grants. Therefore, it is a commendable feature of this Bill that this anomaly has been recognised and that it is now possible for the county council, governing the entire area, to take upon themselves the responsibility of paying these grants. This is long overdue and it has been evident to the Minister for many years that a considerable number of local authorities were not providing these grants as had been hoped for in the Housing Acts. I would be grateful if the Minister would make clear if this facility provides for the payment of grants, not merely for new houses, but for reconstruction also.

One could speak for a long time on the subject of housing. It has been utterly disappointing to us to see something styled a Housing Bill containing so little, doing so little to resolve the problem, and to accelerate the housing drive. It is a dismal and puny measure, unimaginative and retrogressive. It is utterly beyond my comprehension how any Minister for Local Government, with responsibility for housing, could commend this measure to the House as something that will benefit the homeless of this country.

This Bill, Sir, might appropriately be described as the "Pill" Bill. We have been known in this country to produce large families. Here we are faced with an ultimatum: "So far but no further". The total floor space is being reduced. That will mean smaller houses and smaller houses will mean smaller families. For a long time we have suffered from jerrybuilt houses. These were built under Fianna Fáil Governments. In my town we are thinking of knocking these down now and replacing them with decent houses. Here we are faced with a complete volte face; instead of an improvement in housing we will have a disimprovement. In the jerrybuilt houses to which I refer there is not even room to stop a razor. There is not room to turn in a bed.

The Deputy should use an electric razor.

There is not room to put in an electric plug. I am glad to see so much good humour.

After Dublin South-West why would we not be in good humour?

This is a Housing Bill.

Fianna Fáil are mapping out a poor future for the people, north, south, east and west. If bigger houses are built more rates will have to be paid and local authorities will benefit. The Minister is not, of course, interested in that aspect of the matter. The Government build luxury hotels for the tourists——

Will the Deputy keep to housing now?

I will, but I am entitled to make a comparison. I have nothing against luxury hotels for tourists but I believe that Paddy is entitled to some comforts too. The policy of the Government is to build chicken coops for the ordinary people. The Galway Corporation have given every assistance to the NBA but we are very disappointed at the rents charged for the houses built. They are not very big houses, but the rents are big. Is the policy one of smaller houses and higher rents? In my area private householders provide tourist amenities by way of accommodation. If smaller houses are built these amenities will disappear and the income which helped the local people to pay for their houses will also disappear.

We have factories. The Minister, I think, opened a few of them. I do not know how long they will stay open. I hope they will remain open for many a long day.

A prophet of doom.

One or two have closed. The Minister will agree that there is a shortage of accommodation in the area for female labour. If the size of houses is cut down——

The Deputy wants the women to build the houses now.

I really cannot understand the mentality of that side of the House. We have never asked women to build houses. All we ask them to do is to live in them. If we make the houses so small there will be no point in the women going into them. A girl from my area went to Dundalk recently and she had to stay in a hotel there. She could get no other accommodation. If this policy of smaller houses is implemented certain people will be deprived of accommodation. I regard this Bill as retrograde legislation.

Bed and breakfast.

So long as they would have a bit of breakfast I would be happy. They are entitled to that. There is a great deal of accommodation in this city of which the Deputy has no reason to be proud. I have seen it. If this policy is implemented the Deputy will have even less to be proud of.

I can well understand the approach of Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Donegan to this problem. Both of them live in big, luxurious houses. They are not concerned about the problems of the ordinary people.

The Deputy should not be personal. The kind of accommodation they have is no business of the Deputy's.

It was interesting to listen to Deputy Donegan and Deputy Browne. Deputy Treacy has no concern, of course, with the particular section of the community for which this Bill is designed to cater. In every Bill there are bound to be limitations. I am quite sure that every member of my party would like to see a great many things included in this Bill, but this is a Bill designed to do a particular job.

If we examine the Minister's statement we will discover that a fairly effective job has been done down through the years. In 1969-70 a greater number of private houses was built than ever before in the history of the State. This Bill will cost the taxpayers £200,000. I am quite sure that Deputy Treacy and the others who have spoken will not go into the Division Lobbies to support the imposition of additional taxation in order to implement this policy. They have not done so in the past. There is no reason to think that they will do so now or in the future. The responsibility will be left to those who are concerned about the provision of houses.

If we take the year 1963-64 as the base, in that year 7,831 houses were erected. In 1968-69 the number was 13,000.

Is this relevant?

In 1969-70 the figure is almost 14,000.

Are we going to have a debate on this?

The Chair has already pointed out that local authority housing is not in question in this Bill except in so far as the erection of houses for workers is concerned.

I am not concerned with local authority housing. I was speaking about housing output which is mentioned in the Minister's speech. He said: "Yet, with all this effort which is only part of a sequence, we have seen close on 98,000 dwellings in all completed in the last decade." That is what I am talking about. We had the greatest number of private houses ever built in the history of the State. Yet, Deputy Treacy is not satisfied. Nor am I satisfied. There is a housing problem and the Minister explained the reason for the problem and for the increased demand. The reason for the increased demand is that there is greater industrial expansion; there has been greater emphasis on providing dwellings for the aged; there is the question of urban renewal and people requiring higher standards than in the past. If we have houses that are not fit for human habitation we will demolish them and provide proper houses. There is no reason why in a country with an expanding economy we should not have an increasing demand. It is merely a healthy sign. A few years ago there was no demand. I am glad there is a demand because if there was not it would mean that people were on the boats for Birmingham, London and Coventry to join the ranks of McAlpine or Wimpey.

We have a situation with which we are coping effectively and within the limits of our resources. The output of houses has doubled in the past six years which is an indication of the emphasis placed on housing by Fianna Fáil. We have built the greatest number of houses ever built in the history of the State and this represents substantial effort. I should like to get the tears of Deputy Coogan, Deputy Treacy, Deputy Browne and Deputy Donegan analysed to see if there is any sympathy in them. I do not think there is. I have listened to some funny speeches and to others of far reaching and serious implication which I shall deal with later.

In addition to what I have said, 145,000 houses have been reconstructed in the past ten years and this also represents substantial effort and substantial cost to the State. To listen to Deputy Treacy and other speakers one would think the Government had no interest in housing.

The Deputy should get back to the Bill.

I know that the Deputy is concerned about the builder who is making a large amount of money out of unfortunate people seeking houses and I shall deal with that in a moment. The Government have provided a considerable amount of money but when money was required the division lists show which lobby Deputy Treacy and the others walked into; they certainly did not support any effort to increase taxation in order to provide necessary measures. Crocodile tears are flowing freely on the Opposition side but the people are well aware that speeches by these speakers are not genuine and people are now conscious that they have been fooled in the past. They want factual information such as that contained in the Minister's speech.

In 1963-64 1,750 dwellings were built in Dublin city. In 1968-69 the figure was 3,451, a very substantial increase. Who is better able to assess the situation than the Government that have been responsible for the development of the greatest building programme in our history with all the figures and facts to substantiate it? Deputy Treacy and the Fine Gael speakers have the facts in regard to house building. They know that an all time record has been created. We still feel that much requires to be done. We have analysed the situation and we know exactly where improvements can be made and building expedited. We know the type of house for which there is a big demand and we know the capacity of the people to pay. These factors have been taken into account in the present Bill.

We know that local authorities in Dublin city and county have acquired or are in the process of acquiring approximately 30,000 sites, again an indication of the anxiety of the Government, which provided money for these sites, to ensure that all our people would be housed. This Bill will ensure that people will be housed in accordance with their capacity to pay and that they will not be forced to line the pockets of big builders about whom Deputy Treacy and others were concerned.

Deputy Treacy said that the provision in regard to the grant for the smaller type of house is a retrograde step. He does not want the worker to avail of an extra £100. He wants to ensure that the builders' pockets will be lined again. The Bill ensures that the person who wants to purchase a modest type of house will gain substantially. Why should the worker not have a substantial gain as against the man who wants to build a £6,000 house? We could not care less about those who want to build £6,000 houses. My house cost less than £4,000 because I would not be able to pay more.

Why should the workers not have decent houses?

I know exactly the feelings of the man who has less money than I have and I will support any measure that will give a man like that additional State subsidy and supplementary grants. Even if the house is smaller it will meet his requirements. Why should he be forced to take a four-bedroom or five-bedroom house because of the supply and demand situation? The builder can produce what he likes at the moment in this city and sell it because there is full employment in the building trade and prosperity in the city and he is disregarding the section of the community we want to help and will help. The tears shed by Deputy Treacy and others regarding increases to be given to the workers are futile. We shall see that these increases are given to the workers who want to purchase a house despite Labour Party opposition, Fine Gael opposition or opposition by a coalition of both. I shall deal with this assistance in greater detail later. Deputy Treacy does not want the man who wishes to purchase a smaller house to get a grant. That type of man is a worker and why should he not get a grant?

Why should he be limited to the smaller house?

The Deputy is concerned about the builder who will build a large type of house. I am not concerned about him. He will build a four- or five-bedroom house, put it on the market and with the situation as it is at the moment the worker will have no option but to take it or leave it. The builder will build the biggest possible house so as to extract the greatest amount of money from the purchaser. There is a scarcity of houses and the builders are catering for a particular section in order to line their own pockets. Everybody knows this but we will ensure that the worker who wants to purchase a house with additional benefits which will reduce the deposit by £100 will get it despite whatever opposition may come from Fine Gael or Labour benches.

In regard to the size of accommodation, we are at the moment providing the largest type of local authority accommodation in Europe and we compare well with most other countries. In some cases we have the situation that full use is not being made of the accommodation at our disposal. There is this demand, there has been and will be this demand from workers and I am glad that there are sections in this Bill which will give relief to this section which for so long has been the victim of building speculators who wished to extract the last copper from the workers' pockets. Many people had to borrow £50 or £100 to pay the additional deposit because of house prices. This day is vanishing and the man who wishes to purchase a modest type house will have the opportunity of doing so. This should force builders to produce accommodation which will be more suited to the requirements of the people rather than the pockets of——

More utility houses.

The question of utility houses is not a factor——

Does the Deputy know what 1,250 square feet means?

His idea of a good house is different from mine.

I am glad to see in the Bill a section referring to design. The builder can produce a house of 1,500, or 1,600 or 1,700 square feet but the effective space inside may be 1,300 or 1,200 square feet. More effective planning will be required in order to make full use of the available space. I am quite sure that it is not beyond the competence of our architects and so on, to produce a design which will meet the requirements of our people. I am quite sure this will be done despite the opposition of the Labour Party and Fine Gael Party speakers who have spoken against this type of development. I welcome any section of any Bill that will give relief to this section of the community who are not able to go to a bank manager and get an overdraft of £100. Some of the previous speakers could get an overdraft for £100,000 but I am concerned with the workers and with their problems and I know just how far they can put their hands into their pockets. I can well realise the difficulties which some people opposite labour under when they get up to speak here. They judge matters by their own standards and the amounts they have at their disposal.

Why should a man who is purchasing a £6,000, £7,000 or £8,000 house be subsidised by the ratepayers and the taxpayers? Why should the women of Ballyfermot, Finglas or Ballymun have to subsidise the £6,000 or £7,000 house? Why should the workers have to do this? It is only right that there should be a curtailment of this type of development and that the workers should not have to subsidise the people with well lined pockets speaking from those benches. I am sure that the houses of the leading speakers in Fine Gael and in Labour are valued far in excess of £6,000. I can well understand how their minds are focussed but as I said I am concerned with the workers of the city and the workers and housewives, whether they live in Ballymun, Ballyfermot, Crumlin or Cabra, should not have to subsidise those others. Certainly the ratepayers of the city should not have to subsidise——

Only Ryans luxury hotels.

——the industrialists who purchase houses at £6,000, £7,000 or £8,000 and who can well afford to pay full rates and to do without a State grant. For far too long they have been able to avail of the State grant and rates remissions. I am glad to see that that is going. These people can afford to stand on their own feet. They will probably get the money back in some way, extract it from the workers in some fashion. It is about time they got the knock.

Ryans luxury hotels.

Will Deputy Coogan please cease interrupting?

Let Lemass lead on.

Would the Deputy please cease interrupting?

I am putting them on the right track.

Deputy Coogan referred to the pill mentality. I am not quite sure what he meant by that remark. Deputy Browne referred to contraception. I do not know what they meant by these remarks. These remarks are foreign to me and to the workers of this city.

(Interruptions.)

We have the situation that there is full employment in the building trade in Dublin and there has been for some time and there will be for a long time to come because, as I pointed out, Dublin Housing Authority have purchased 30,000 sites for building, quite apart from what is to come in the future. Those sites will ensure that building workers will have continuity of employment for a long time to come. There will be ever-increasing development in building; more buildings will be required and more renewals of existing buildings will be required. The building workers can be assured that while we are here there will be full employment and that will be for a long time to come. We know that when the Coalition were in power—and they are together again——

(Interruptions.)

As Deputy Treacy indicated, when they were leaving office there was not the price of a bag of cement and——

(Interruptions.)

Interruptions will have to cease. The Deputy in possession must be allowed to make his contribution without interruptions.

We are——

The Deputy can leave the House if he does not wish to cease interrupting.

I do not understand how these terms could be applied to housing. He referred to the pill mentality. What did he mean by this? Is it the mentality of his party? Does he mean this is being applied in certain areas of this constituency? He also referred to female labour, chicken coups and razor strops. He wants razor strops fitted into the houses, chicken coups behind them and women to build them. Perhaps some other Fine Gael speakers would explain how the housing problem could be solved having regard to the pill mentality and the other matters Deputy Coogan put on the record of the House. We intend to build houses. They will not be built with pills.

The house that Jack built.

When we came back to office there were plently of houses and no people to go into them. That was Deputy Coogan's speech. It was a masterpiece and I would advise the people outside this House to purchase a copy of the Dáil debates for today, 15th April, and they will know the type of representative he is from the speech he made. There were other very able speakers: Deputy Treacy, Deputy Donegan and Deputy Browne.

We have built more houses in the last half hour than were built for a century.

As I said before, the Minister told us that in 1969-70 a greater number of private houses were built than ever before in the history of the State. Anyone who wishes to read the Minister's speech will see the development. I am very glad to have heard Deputy Treacy's speech in relation to utility houses which seems to be the policy of the Labour Party. Despite their efforts we do not intend to build utility houses. We shall build a modest-type house to meet the requirements of our people and at a rent they can afford to pay.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,

Before I was rudely interrupted by Deputy Coogan I was referring to Labour Party policy. I suggest the Labour Party should put down an amendment to meet the requirements of Deputy Coogan and the Fine Gael Party. He wants razor strops and chicken coups to be fitted into houses. Is that what you want?

Deputy Dowling should address the Chair and not be inviting comments across the House.

I am sorry. We have never asked the people to accept low standards——

In high places.

——and we will not ask the people to accept low standards now. There is a section of large builders who have lined their pockets for so long at the expense of the worker about whom Deputy Treacy has moaned and groaned here today. He believes no concessions should be given to the worker. He said it was a retrograde step to give a grant for a small house. Does he feel that the worker who wants to purchase a modest-type house should not get an additional grant? Does he think the pockets of big builders should be lined? He wants to keep the worker down by encouraging builders to provide houses of four, five and six bedrooms which are beyond the capacity of the worker who would never be in a position to own his own home. We are offering the worker that facility here in this Bill. In addition to that we have given him an additional £100 which will reduce his deposit.

A fat lot of good that is.

I could do with £100 this minute and I would consider it very good. I am sure workers who have to go to credit unions and other places to find a deposit for a house, when they digest this Bill, will be happy to know someone is concerned about their welfare. There is no reason why the housewife in Crumlin, Cabra, Ballymun or Ballyfermot should have to subsidise people in £6,000, £7,000 or £8,000 houses. Deputy Treacy did not want this situation to alter. He wanted the grants and concessions which these people will not get now by way of rate reduction still to be paid for by corporation tenants and others who are paying rates.

Every Bill which comes before this House has limitations or defects of one kind or another and these limitations are generally due to our capacity to pay. When the time comes I wonder if the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party will vote against giving workers £100 towards a house, preferring instead the existing condition which gives grants in relation to the larger-type houses costing £6,000 or £8,000. By the introduction of this Bill we are trying to provide an incentive for the man who wishes to purchase his own house. We hope this Bill will mean that a more modest type of house will be constructed. Houses with a big floor area have been built but the services provided have been at the very minimum as a result. I am quite sure that those concerned with designing and building will meet the requirements of this Bill and that as a result more houses will be available at a price people can afford. People buying houses at the moment are held up to ransom by building speculators who want to get as much as they can for every house built even though they are not offering a reasonable type of house. I am speaking here for the workers as they are the people I represent.

Deputy Moore indicated that 8,000 families need to be rehoused. Due to the Government's initiative in making available the sum of £1 million for the acquisition of land, Dublin Corporation have acquired 19,000 sites. This shows our desire to tackle the problem. I am sure building workers will be very happy to know that they will be in full employment for many years to come as long as the disasters of 1948 and 1954 do not recur. I do not think there will be a recurrence. The people are intelligent and when they examine this Bill will realise the good it will do them.

Deputy Donegan criticised the Bill but as he lives in a big house he cannot understand the problems of a man like myself. My house did not cost £4,000 because I could not afford to pay that amount for it. I know too that such a sum would be beyond the capacity of a young man who even if he does purchase a house, will probably find himself in financial difficulties in a few years time. We want to ensure that this does not happen and for that reason provisions are made in the Bill to take this matter out of the hands of the speculators and to make sure that houses are built to suit the requirements of workers of this city.

Demolition of unfit dwellings is continuing. It has to be remembered that we did not put the people into Keogh Square. We took them out of it and put them into proper houses in St. Michael's Estate. Where there is substandard accommodation it is our intention to provide proper accommodation and we will make every effort to ensure that this is done.

This Bill was described as propaganda and fuss by Deputy Donegan and Deputy Dr. Browne. The only reason I can think of for calling it propaganda and fuss was to terminate the debate at an early stage so that the Bill would not be fully and effectively discussed and the people would not get to know the full implications of it, but we will ensure that the workers will know all the implications and all the benefits that will accrue from this Bill.

Section 2 of the Bill states that a grant of £325, and a supplementary grant of £325, making a total of £650 per dwellinghouse, will be paid instead of the supplementary grant of £275 as at present. In addition, there is the usual rates remission which gives a very substantial relief to the person purchasing his own home and would amount over a period of years to something in the region of £1,000. These concessions might not be enough, and if we can afford to do better, we should, but they should be supported so that our workers will be able to purchase their own homes in accordance with their incomes.

A further change being made by the Bill in relation to private houses is that grants will be paid only for houses intended as normal places of residence. I thought this was an important section but Opposition speakers did not seem to think so. I do not think grants should be paid in respect of the shooting lodges, the holiday residences or the other types of residence that members of the Opposition, who spoke, have at their disposal.

Why should we give concessions to people with private shooting lodges? Why should such people be able to avail of grants and concessions? It is only right that they should pay because they have money. If such a person avails of a grant the worker or housewife of this country must pay additional rates and taxation to subsidise him. We have seen such gentlemen in this House from time to time. They have spoken against the provision of small amounts such as those which will now be provided for the worker to assist him in providing a home for himself. Why should wealthy men get grants to build shooting lodges?

Section 5 of the Bill authorises State subsidy to be paid at the higher rate for dwellings provided by local authorities, in association with the National Building Agency, for the accommodation of key workers brought into an area for new or expanding industry. This is very welcome. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has been developing our industrial arm. There will be great need in the future for additional houses to accommodate workers in industries which have been set up. No matter how fast the local authorities can provide dwellings, they will never be able to meet the needs and requirements of key workers brought in to ensure the development and expansion of new industries. This section appeals to me because it affects the workers. There will be rapid expansion to meet the requirements when we know the type of industrial development which will take place. We are all thankful to the energetic and efficient Minister for Industry and Commerce for providing the industries. The NBA is now being assisted to provide accommodation for key workers for these industries.

Section 6 deals with the facilities for the compulsory acquisition of land by local authorities by extending the simple procedures for the payment of purchase money or compensation. This is very important. It will play an important part in the acquisition of sites which are probably available at the moment. This section will provide a very simplified procedure.

Sections 9 and 12 will provide specifically that a local authority may pay a second or other reconstruction grant where a further State grant has been paid. These sections will benefit people who have their own houses at the moment or who are about to acquire houses. There is an important section of the Bill relating to Irish key workers who must transfer from one area to another in order to participate in the development of our industrial arm.

The reference to Shannon Free Airport and to the facilities being offered there is contained in an important section of this Bill. The Minister can be congratulated on this particular step. There will be other Bills at other times which the House will have an opportunity to discuss. Many other benefits will be made available as the resources of the nation permit. I am happy that this is a substantial step in the right direction and it opens the way for a closer look at the housing problem.

In his opening paragraphs the Minister referred to the fact that a greater number of private houses were built in 1969-70 than at any time in the history of the State. This Bill has been well thought out. There is a substantial record which can be examined in order to discover where the finances should be directed and what the real demand of the people is. The output of houses has been doubled in six years. In 1963-64 the number of houses built was 7,000. In 1968-69 over 13,000 houses were built. This record shows clearly the anxiety of the Government to ensure that the available money is well spent. All reasonable Deputies will support this Bill. They will not try to deprive the workers of the country of the £100 which would be available to them under the Bill. They will ensure that the people who have been making money at the expense of people who can ill-afford it will realise their responsibilities and build for all sections of the community. The working class section of our people should have a choice of accommodation.

I hope this step will be followed by others of equal importance. Reasonable Members of the House will support this Bill.

I want to thank Deputy Dowling for his most entertaining speech. It was entertaining because of the extraordinary illogicalities in it. If I were to indulge in such illogicalities the whole Fianna Fáil Party would descend on me, and rightly so.

This Bill is two things. It is a mouse of a Bill in one respect and, on the other hand, it is a very retrogressive Bill. To reduce the maximum to qualify for a State grant from 1,500 square feet to 1,250 square feet is undoubtedly a retrograde step. Young people who bought their houses two or three years ago had to pay what people of my age regarded as very high prices, but they were extremely lucky people compared with the young people who are trying to buy houses today. The Minister said one true thing in his speech. He said that the action he is taking under this Bill will not reduce the price of houses. It certainly will not. What intrigued me most of all about Deputy Dowling's speech was what he said about the big builders and the profits they make. What kind of advertisement did the Master Builders' Association put in the newspapers before the last election? Can anybody on the far side recollect it? I am sure they would love to forget it but there is no reason why I should forget it. The second inter-Party Government, which we have heard was so disastrous, provided so much money in the very last Estimates volume for which they were responsible that a greater number of local authority houses were built in their first year, 1957-58, than was ever built since. Fianna Fáil may talk as they wish about their achievements. They can say that last year, 1969-70, a greater number of private houses was built than ever before in the State. Total capital expenditure from all sources came to an estimated £40 million. My recollection is that the provision for local authority housing made in the Estimates volume for 1957-58 by the second inter-Party Government was £14 million and there were more local authority houses built with that money——

Which Budget was that?

I do not mind which Budget it was. It was the Estimates volume for 1957-58. You fellows produced a Budget and abolished the food subsidies.

(Interruptions.)

Since he has asked about the Budget let me answer him. You abolished the food subsidies and the loaf of bread is now 2/- whereas at that time it was 9d. and it is going up by another 3d. or 4d. If you make that sort of point I will answer it all right.

With that £14 million for local authority housing more houses were built than were built last year for the £40 million that was in the Estimates.

In 1957-58. I have already said it.

But you were not there in 1957.

We provided the money.

You ran away from it.

Do not mind whether we ran away from it or not. We provided the money and more houses were built.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy O'Donovan.

The present Government party had nothing to do with the building of those houses and in fact following that year the present Government party built no local authority houses worth a damn for seven years afterwards.

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but this Bill does not relate to local authority building. We are discussing private building only. Since other Deputies referred to it I have allowed the Deputy to make his case.

I shall depart from it, a Cheann Comhairle. This is a question of the amount of grant available for building houses and the amount of money available. The Bill which fixed the sum of £275 as the grant for houses was the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1950 introduced by the first inter-Party Government and despite the fall in the value of money since then and it has about halved——

Was it not in the 1948 Act?

Would the Parliamentary Secretary subside?

Is it fair for the Parliamentary Secretary sitting in for the Minister to act in the role of heckler in the House? It is all right to have backbenchers doing that but he is sitting in a responsible seat now.

I want to keep him on the right road.

I remember sitting in my room in Government Buildings in the year 1950.

Fond memories.

A solicitor, a builder and another man came into my room and asked me a question which I could not answer. They wanted to know if the Minister for Finance had yet countersigned the order allowing these grants under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The file had been travelling around the Department and they were there for quite a while. I chatted with them and I was intrigued to hear that this small sum of money would settle a High Court action and keep the builder out of the bankruptcy court. The house that now costs £4,000 was being built at the time for just under £2,000 and the grant then was fixed at £275. The addition of £100 makes very little difference. To my mind it would be better if this Bill had not been brought in at all. The Ceann Comhairle has very properly remarked to me that this relates to private housing. Are we to confine people to 1,250 square feet as against 1,500 square feet? A house with a floor area of 1,500 square feet is not a very big house. It is a very modest house. If we look at the kind of figure mentioned in this memorandum we see that they talk about 800 square feet and they talk about houses of 350 or more but less than 500 square feet. What would you call that?

A dower house.

I would hardly call it a dog box. Would you put a decent dog to live in it?

A dower house for single people. That is what it is. Do not try to mislead the people. Explain the reason why dower houses were introduced.

Will Deputy Foley please cease interrupting?

I am not misleading the people as much as Deputy Foley did a while ago. He was looking to the right and to the left. He was looking before him and behind him. Words poured out of him and he was looking all over the place. Is it not a fact that a house that could be built for £2,000 in the year 1950 would now cost £4,500 or £5,000? Do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that the responsibility for this rests with the Fianna Fáil Party but this kind of thing affects the Government in power when it happens.

We in this party have a solution for the housing problem and it did not originate recently in the party, lest I may be accused of being a Maoist though to be fair to the party opposite they have never accused me of being a Maoist.

Are you embarrassed by your friends?

Not one bit. I am not embarrassed by anybody, but the Government Party are very embarrassed by what happened yesterday.

We still have the same number that we had after the general election. You people are down one.

I saw the Minister's face change when he was told the result on those benches. I do not blame him.

What are you rejoicing about?

I would advise the Deputy from East Donegal not to be too sure of his seat the next time.

Keep the Coalition going now and Fine Gael will take the seats from you.

I want to keep to my point. The former Deputy James Hickey of this party was laughed at and lampooned when he proposed that money for housing should be available at 1 per cent. In relation to the value of money on the international market today that might be different from what it was at that time when money was being made available for war at three-quarters of 1 per cent and the saving bonds in Britain and America were paid at 3 per cent. That is all very fine, but if we are to solve the housing problem in this country we cannot do so by making money available for housing at 9 per cent. It cannot be done. I always felt that Deputy James Hickey had a good point and I always defended that point of view, and I am glad to say it is enshrined in Labour Party policy at present and will stay there too.

Deputy Dowling spoke at great length about providing houses for the workers and asked who could vote against this Bill since it was providing housing for workers. Of course no ordinary worker can gain anything from this Bill since it provides for private housing.

Of course he can and does.

What they are doing is putting a noose around their necks and the party opposite, I presume, are persuading them to do it. When the Fianna Fáil Party talk about how many houses they built recently, as usual they tell only half of the story. How many houses in this city have been demolished in the past ten years? Many of the houses which were demolished could have been repaired. They could have been made quite habitable. The housing problem has deteriorated substantially. It is literally true to say that in Dublin south-west housing was not a serious problem in the 1965 election and it was the most serious problem in the 1969 election. How did this happen? It happened because no houses were built for a period of seven years. For a period of seven years the Government built no houses at all.

Was it a serious problem in the by-election in Dublin south-west?

With your permission, Sir, I will say just one sentence. As I said before when somebody asked who won in Dublin south-west, I do not know who won it, but I know who lost it. I have no doubt what my mind on this subject is. I believe in being logical.

And honest, too.

Immediately after that election 15 Fianna Fáil Deputies met to consider the housing question. Nothing whatsoever has happened as a result of that meeting so far as I know, and I do not believe that anything will happen as a result of it.

We will invite the Deputy to the next one.

They met and the newspapers were full of the meeting.

We will ask the chairman to bring the Deputy to the next one.

I am glad to have a Fianna Fáil audience. I do not often have one and it gives me the greatest pleasure.

A further step over on this side might not do the Deputy any harm.

The idea that this Bill will do anything to improve the housing position is one of the biggest jokes ever perpetrated on this House. The Minister said that more people are living in the country instead of emigrating. One is entitled to make a comment on a remark like that. Time and again in the past two or three years the Fianna Fáil Party have said that the population went up between 1961 and 1966 for the first time since the Famine. That was a typical Fianna Fáil lie because the population of this country went up between 1946 and 1951 when the first inter-Party Government were in office.

What about 1948?

I am taking the two census years. Let us take what the former Deputy Seán Lemass said in 1947. He said we were in for four bad years and there was a supplementary budget at the end of 1947, a desperate budget, and the first inter-Party Government were hardly in office when they abolished the entire taxation in that budget. What harm did that do the country? On the contrary the country improved and there was full employment as a result. This game of working the country by higher and higher taxation will bring its own Nemesis one of these days.

Under this Bill no grants will be given, but let us be fair to the Minister. He certainly does not mince his words. He says it will cost about £1,000 to a purchaser of a house over a limit of 1,250 square feet. These people are already being driven into the ground by the present price of houses. Even I know a few builders and they have told me in recent years that the men who buy their houses, middle grade executives and people like that, can do nothing, literally, except pay the mortgages on them—the kind of houses that cost £6,000 or £7,000. A house that costs £6,000 or £7,000 is not all that fancy any longer. Not only is the grant going but they will have all these extra costs and the graduated rate remission is going too. Really it is not fair, except in a party sense, to make any point about housing in relation to the present Government. The Governments preceding them, between 1957 and 1965, created this monster, put this extraordinary millstone around their own necks. If it now submerges them, all I can say is that they earned it.

It is all right to talk about so many houses having been built over the past ten years but, in fact, I should like to know what the net increase in the number of houses was. In this city there was shocking demolition of houses. The administrator in City Quay protested publicly, and rightly so, about the way the population of his parish had gone down. This occurred because the dwellings there were demolished. In a certain climatic situation two children were killed by a falling house at the bottom of Holles Street, and two people were killed within the same month over at North King Street, and then all hell broke loose and there was demolition of houses high, wide and handsome. Four people are killed on the roads every weekend and nobody says anything about that. I believe that a huge number of houses that could have provided reasonable accommodation in this city were demolished over the past ten years and the result is that the ordinary typist who comes up to this city has to pay £5 a week for a single room in a decent place. This is an appalling position.

As I say, this is a mouse of a Bill in one respect and in another respect it has nasty teeth. In one sense it is a mouse and in another sense it is a tiger. Let us take a house costing £6,000 or £5,000 and add £1,000 to it. Let us take the cheapest house. Add £1,000. That is 25 per cent to be put on it. A similar house of equal quality was available for £2,000 in the 1950s.

What were the builders' workers getting?

They were paying 9d for a loaf and 2/6 for a pound of butter. Deputy Foley now probably wants to put a tariff on margarine. I should like to draw him on this. Is he in favour of a tariff on margarine?

I thought we were talking about housing.

Order. Deputy Foley will please allow Deputy O'Donovan to continue. Margarine does not arise.

I am grateful to a colleague for reminding me about land speculation. Deputy Dowling said one of the purposes of the Bill was to take out of the hands of building speculators and others the control they had of housing. Let us be serious about a serious matter. Whatever else the Government had done they have let this get right out of hand. They have not made any effort whatever. It is no use saying Dublin Corporation have provided 2,000 sites at whatever price you would like to put on them. This matter has got out of hand and this Bill will not remedy it.

Ceapaim nach mbeidh mé chomh suimúil nó chomh magúil leis na Teachtaí a labhair romham. Ba mhaith liom comhghairdeachas a dhéanamh leis an Aire as ucht a bhfuil sa Bhille. I will not speak at the same length and I doubt if I could speak in the same entertaining fashion as the previous speakers. However, as one who is very interested in housing generally, I feel obliged to avail of the opportunity of complimenting the Minister for introducing the Bill. I realise it is not everything that everybody would desire. I realise, however, unlike previous speakers, that to build houses you need money, whether at nine per cent or two per cent. We in Fianna Fáil as yet have not developed a system, a system which apparently is known to members of the Opposition, through which houses can be built without it.

I am concerned for the thousands of young people in Dublin getting married who are anxious to satisfy the natural human desire of having houses of their own. Here I would take slight issue with my friend Deputy O'Donovan, who seems to suggest that as he sees it a worker should not have a house of his own.

Not at all.

He never said that.

I will develop my point. If I am doing you an injustice I will apologise, but I suggest you made the point of your concern for the executive type who is buying the £6,000 plus house, and you mentioned the ordinary worker. I would not be so presumptuous as to look on myself as extraordinary. We are all ordinary. Because they earn their living by the skill of their hands as against the skill of their brain, workers to me are no more ordinary than the executive type about which we heard so much.

All I said was that he would not have a hope of buying a house under this Bill.

I will prove to you that this is the Bill that will give him that hope. I am personally acquainted with hundreds of workers in Dublin who have been in the past and who are now anxious to have their own houses. This, perhaps, offends the ideology of the socialist who would have housing a national service, who would have people living for ever in rented houses, the lock or the mantel-piece of which they could never call their own. You would have people sleeping in the boxes about which Deputy Treacy spoke, and they would never own them.

They will own little boxes under this Bill.

I will come to you. I welcome your reminder. You said this was a puny Bill.

Will the Deputy please address the Chair?

Puny indeed.

Deputy Treacy said that among the penal clauses in the Bill was one which now would deprive of assistance the man who wanted to build, wanted to have, a £6,000 house. You were concerned about how it might react on the builders who are building that type of house. That was your puny contribution. You said that something positive was needed to accelerate the housing drive. I venture to suggest that in your own contribution——

I would remind the Deputy again that he must use the third person when making his contribution.

I apologise for my inexperience in the matter of addressing you and I will endeavour to correct it from now on. The Deputy said he wanted something positive to accelerate the housing drive, and what I am suggesting is that if he reads his own contribution he will see that it is devoid of anything constructive or positive. I do not mind if we are critical. I do not mind the speaker who will criticise provided the criticism is constructive. When Deputy Treacy spoke about this puny Bill he should have remembered that it makes available to the young couples with whom I am concerned a matter of £650. According to my money standards I cannot see how the Deputy could regard that as a puny contribution and, perhaps, at some later stage when housing will again be discussed, he might suggest to us how the workers who are employed in the building industry can be paid a wage on which they can live and a wage which we wish them to be paid and how we can build more houses at £6,000 plus. When the Deputy can make such a contribution I shall welcome it as being of a positive nature.

I am not an advocate of big houses and I never have been. As other speakers have said, it is not in keeping with my nature to advocate such houses. I was reared in a three-bedroomed house and it did not affect my growth in any way. Such a house is not the utility house or the dog box about which we have heard so much from other speakers but it can be considered as being a moderate type house. I am concerned that people should be happy in small houses rather than unhappy in big houses. If this factor is disregarded there will be problems. I fail to see the economics in the suggestion that we should build big houses for workers or for anybody apart from those who have sufficient money to buy the additional furniture and to provide the heating required for a big house. The type of house I wish to see being built is a moderate, functional, attractive one, which people will be able to pay for, on which they will be able to pay their overheads and in which they will be happy. I do not wish to see a situation in which people will be paying rent for a house which they will never own. This Bill makes it possible for people, hundreds of whom I know, who, at the moment, have saved £500 or £600 which they are anxious to invest in a house to do so. Without the assistance envisaged in this Bill they could not do that. Therefore, I whole-heartedly welcome the Bill.

I must confess I have not read all the terms of the Bill but if there are grounds on which I should criticise it is in relation to the non-provision of certain protection for a person buying a new house. As I have said before, I am not happy that a young couple buying a house are getting full value for their money. I see a situation in which, in their anxiety to have their own house, they are prepared to sign any form that may be placed before them. There is an obligation on the contractor and, indeed, on the State also to ensure that their investment in the house is protected. I should like to say to Deputy Dr. O'Donovan, through the Chair, that I am not aware of there being any great builder friends in my group but if there were and if they were guilty of anything which I might consider to be unjust to the people whom they served, I should criticise them. I am mindful of the fact that I am now reflecting on some builders in Dublin City.

Young people are being rushed into buying houses without being made aware of their rights and very often after the expiration of the statutory period of a year and a half serious defects may be noticed in a house so that a couple who have to make provision for the normal repayments will find themselves involved in additional costs. I would hope that in the future the Department would exercise greater vigilance in this matter and that whether the defects arise because some of the tradesmen have been guilty of a disservice to a contractor or whether the contractor has been guilty of a disservice to his client, the rights of a young couple will be protected and the guilty party penalised. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the inspectorial system is improved and that a greater number of inspectors will be employed to carry out inspection work while houses are being built.

To get back to the point at which I started, when I took issue with the contributions to the debate on this Bill, in particular, the contributions of the Labour Party, may I say that not so very long ago the Labour Party both in this House and outside were appealing to the Government and to members of Dublin Corporation to introduce a crash programme for housing?

At meetings of Dublin Corporation members of the Labour Party—presumably the same Labour Party to which Deputies Treacy and Dr. O'Donovan belong—suggested that the corporation should house the people in chalets and should invest in mobile homes.

As temporary accommodation.

I think it was the Leader of the Labour Party who suggested that a Government who could provide billets for Army personnel should provide similar accommodation for the people of the country but, within a few short months, two speakers from the Labour Party have been endeavouring or pretending to castigate the Minister for Local Government because he is providing houses for those in need of them. It is a remarkable change of attitude, which indicates lack of sincerity and lack of anything constructive or positive from the Labour Party.

As I said at the beginning, as long as salaries and wages remain a factor in house building, houses will continue to be as dear as they are. Instead of the Labour Party suggesting that we might suggest to our friends that they make land available for housing at a lower cost perhaps it would be a worthwhile exercise on their part to suggest that the conditions and regulations applying to members of various crafts might be modified somewhat in circumstances in which it is extremely difficult to procure operatives and where builders are having a great deal of difficulty. Perhaps we might consider the possibility of not insisting that a carpenter should put nails into floor-boards. We might consider a situation in which, in view of the emergency that exists, trade unionists would consider it a worthwhile contribution from their organisation to relax, at least, temporarily, the conditions affecting various crafts. That I would see as a worthwhile exercise for members of the Labour Party who are so anxious and determined to make a worthwhile contribution in what they believe to be a housing emergency.

I am sorry the contributions that immediately preceded mine have so directed my thoughts that instead of saying what I feel myself, as normally I would like to do, I am compelled to refer to what others have said. There is a housing problem and there always will be a housing problem. I should hate to think our people would be satisfied with existing housing at any time. It does not help to have contributions to this debate which would suggest that the interest of Opposition Deputies in this subject does not extend much beyond the opportunity they feel they have, on an occasion such as this, to make attacks on political parties.

I was at a loss to understand a point made by Deputy O'Donovan. I am new to the business of politics. Perhaps the situation is that it is expected, when speaking in this House, that a Deputy conceals rather than reveals what is in his mind. I have not yet arrived at that stage: I try to say exactly what I feel. Knowing Deputy O'Donovan outside the House, I was at a loss to find the wisdom of his bemoaning the fact that Dublin people had found accommodation out of old tenement houses. I was at a loss to understand his notalgia for the horrible tenement houses which have disappeared from the Dublin scene. My concern is that such houses of that type as remain will disappear as quickly as possible and that, on the perimeter of this city, with the assistance of the Minister for Local Government, newly-weds and families will live in moderate, tidy homes which they will own and where they will have no fear of the travelling, the strange, the alien or the tough landlord.

Frequently inside and outside this House I have listened to accusations by the Opposition that Fianna Fáil are the guardians of the rich. We were told that houses which were provided by certain builders and local authorities were "chicken coops" and "boxes". Deputies who spoke in this fashion are not aware of the average size of house being provided in this country at present by private builders which is in the region of 1,000 square feet while the average local authority house is under 800 square feet. Yet we have heard Deputies describing this Bill as a "mouse", and what not, and making all sorts of allegations against the Minister for Local Government.

I shall be delighted to support any little addition in relation to housing that can be given to the poorer sections of the community. This Bill will enable people who want to build houses for themselves to get an extra £100 grant. It is a step in the right direction. We are all agreed that it is not a great deal but it is as much as can be provided at the moment.

At present, only 18 per cent of all private houses being built are over 1,250 square feet. It is possible to provide a four-bedroomed house of approximately 1,000 square feet—a house which would be very acceptable in my area to many people and I am sure the same applies all over the country.

One would imagine from some of the speeches this evening that nothing was being done by the Government in relation to housing. Ten years ago, we were spending £9 million on houses: this year, we propose to spend £35 million. I should like to see £2 million being spent rather than the £200,000 envisaged under this Bill. There are many other improvements which I should like to see in this context. It is heartening that we are continuing to make substantial progress.

It would be desirable to increase the grant for the modernisation of houses in rural areas. This grant has not been increased for some time. It is availed of in my constituency and, I am sure, in every rural constituency. Furthermore, I should like to see provision to enable local authorities to get loans for the repair of houses. All local authorities have been left with a large stock of houses that were not bought, they are in bad repair and in many cases are occupied by people who cannot afford to buy them. I should like some arrangement whereby loans could be sanctioned to local authorities so that the necessary repairs could be carried out.

Members of the House are aware that I am standing in for the Minister for Local Government. This debate has been for me very interesting and revealing. It could be assumed, since I am standing in for the Minister for Local Government, that the line I might take in regard to the principle of this Bill is based on the fact that I am substituting for him and that the doctrine of collective responsibility applies. Both of these things are true. However, I should like to make it clear that so far as I am concerned I believe the principle enshrined in this Bill is of vital importance. I have been surprised at the vehemence and the viciousness with which the principle of this Bill has been attacked, both by Fine Gael and the Labour Party.

After listening to that attack I thank God that I belong to the only party in this country which has a genuine social conscience. Fine Gael may talk loudly about its Just Society policy and the Labour Party may talk equally loudly, or perhaps more voci-ferously, about its concern for the weaker sections of our community. Actions speak louder than words and the actions which are being taken by this Government, and in particular in this Bill, speak loudly of our genuine concern for the housing problem situation.

I should like to remind the House of the context in which this Bill is introduced. That context is that last year we built the greatest number of private houses ever built in the history of this State and we spent more money on housebuilding than was ever spent before. However, none of us is satisfied with the progress that has been made but we realise that there is a limit to the resources available for any purpose, however worthy. I know there is nobody in this House more concerned with the problems which arise for people due to lack of housing than the Minister for Local Government. In this Bill he is taking a practical step to improve the situation. I should like to tell the House that the measures proposed in this Bill to encourage provision of more houses of moderate size will, it is estimated, produce up to 1,000 additional houses per annum at current cost for the same capital expenditure as we have had in the past year.

This Bill was described by Deputy Treacy as puny. These people have talked at great length and have shed many crocodile tears, both inside and outside this House, about the housing situation. They will have to answer to their constituents for this description of a Bill which will provide 1,000 additional houses for the same amount of money—I should certainly not like to have to do that.

It is alleged we are going to rule out a large number of people who, at the moment, would be entitled to the grant and the consequent benefits of a lower rate of stamp duty or of rates remission. Earlier in the debate I interjected to give the statistics in this regard in the vain hope that Opposition Deputies would avoid making fools of themselves. Let me repeat, as things stand at the moment under the present regulations, 82 per cent of applicants for grants would qualify. Of the 18 per cent who would be excluded, quite a number—although I have not got detailed statistics—are people who can easily afford to do without the grant. It is true that among the 18 per cent there are some people who, because of the size of their families, would require a larger house than the 1,249 square feet maximum provided for in this Bill. However, as I indicated when introducing the Bill, the effect on these people is that they can get the maximum size house provided for under this Bill, get a larger grant than they would have got before and they can extend their house with the aid of plans provided by the Department. In the specially designed prototype house two additional bedrooms can be provided for £500 or possibly a little more.

Taking all these factors into account there is no doubt that the policy enshrined in this Bill is right. However, to my mind, there is another vital factor involved which was mentioned only by Deputy Joe Dowling. That is the establishment of these limits with the losses involved by going over the limits—the loss of stamp duty exemption and rates remission—is inevitably going to create a new pattern in the kind of houses built by private builders. This is what we want. Not only are our financial resources limited in the context of spending more than we ever did before, but our resources in men and materials are also limited. When you have a housing problem as exists now, does it not make sense to try to get the maximum value from your resources, financial, human and material? This is exactly what this Bill is aiming to do; and, by altering the pattern of building by private builders, we will achieve that to a much greater extent than we have heretofore.

Deputy Dowling touched, as I said, on this and indicated something that is known to everybody who knows anything about the building situation particularly in Dublin city; there is a tendency for builders to build houses which suit them, houses which will give them the kind of profit they want. This results in the building of houses bigger than what are really required by many purchasers. It also results in the provision of fewer houses per acre. In theory a purchaser does not have to take the kind of house he does not want: in practice, because of the housing shortage, he very often has no choice and is, therefore, forced to take on a house bigger than he actually requires, costing more than he can afford to pay and utilising more of our resources than should be necessary to satisfy his requirements.

The most important aspect of this Bill is, in my opinion, the fact that it is very likely to change that unsatisfactory pattern and, by doing so, it will produce for the same amount of money an additional 1,000 houses per year. This is what is described as a puny Bill.

Come off it.

The Deputy may not like the facts, but he will get them.

I belong to the only party with a genuine social conscience.

Give us the facts.

I have given the facts but the Deputy does not like them.

The Minister has not. The Minister has stated there will be an extra 1,000 houses a year provided under this Bill. Tell us how. The Minister has made that statement twice.

I will repeat what I said. The provisions in this Bill designed to encourage more houses of moderate size will, it is estimated, produce up to 1,000 additional houses yearly at current costs. Is that clear?

I have given the House the information available on the best estimates of those who are experts in this field, whose integrity I have no reason to question. If Deputy O'Donovan thinks this information is wrong then let him establish that it is wrong.

The Minister has given us no facts.

If the Deputy thinks the information I have given is based on statements made by people lacking in integrity, let him say so.

The Minister is talking ex cathedra.

The fact is that the Labour Party is setting itself up to oppose the Bill, a Bill which will provide 1,000 additional houses a year for the same cost. Labour and Fine Gael have accused us of reducing housing standards. Someone said we were providing chicken coops and dog boxes.

I said dog boxes.

The fact is that we are talking about houses of up to 1,269 square feet.

1,249 square feet.

I should have said 1,249 square feet. Some 20 years ago I built a house of 1,250 square feet. It had four bedrooms; two of the bedrooms were not very large. I no longer own the house, but it is worth a great deal of money today. As I say, it was 1,250 square feet. Deputy O'Donovan would describe it as a dog box or a chicken coop. Do Opposition Deputies know, I wonder, what is going on in the housing situation?

We all know about the price of houses.

The majority of those applying for housing grants are either newly weds or people with small families. The small number of applicants outside of these are catered for in the way I indicated earlier. The distribution of houses on the basis of new grant applications for a number of years past is as follows: under 800 square feet, 3 per cent; between 800 and 1,000 square feet, 47 per cent; between 1,000 and 1,250 square feet, 32 per cent and between 1,250 and 1,500 square feet, 18 per cent. It will be clearly seen from that that the vast majority who avail of grants are not alone included but are getting increased grants. Of those who are excluded quite a number do not need the grants. Simultaneously, we will get better value for our money because we will get more houses for our money. I hope there will be a big change in the pattern of private house building, a change which will be welcomed by those concerned with getting more of our people housed as fast as possible.

Deputy Donegan referred to income limits for local authority house purchase loans and suggested fewer and fewer people would qualify. Expenditure by local authorities on house purchase loans has been as follows: 1964-65, £3.2 million; 1965-66, £5 million; 1966-67, £5 million; 1967-68, £4.8 million; 1968-69, £6.6 million and 1969-70 £9.2 million. In 1970-71 local authority house purchase loans are estimated at £11 million. All houses built with the help of house purchase loans under the local authority scheme are, without exception, within the proposed 1,249 square feet area limit. Again, the houses are larger than those built in some of the most advanced and affluent countries in Europe. Reference was made to the allegation that we have the worst housing record in Europe. Actually the houses we build are larger than those built in most European countries. We must cut our cloth according to our measure and try to get the maximum number of houses from the resources available. It should be quite clear by now that, far from putting our people into dog boxes, we are, in fact, providing increased grants to assist people into moderate sized houses and getting more houses at the same time.

Deputy Donegan, too, seemed to think that section 7 of the Bill would disqualify some people from getting supplementary grants. Section 7 will actually extend the number of persons who will qualify for supplementary grants.

Deputy Tully referred to the standard house plans produced by the Department of Local Government. Steps are being taken to revise existing plans produced by the Department. The 1969 White Paper suggested an architectural competition for prototype house plans and this competition is at present being prepared. The Deputy also referred to the expandable house at Dunboyne. This could be regarded as an example of what can be done. Two extra bedrooms can be provided in these houses for about £500 or, in fact, less than this if the work is done by the man himself. The restriction on second grants is nothing like as rigid as the Deputy suggests and the Department interprets overcrowding provisions very liberally.

Deputy Tully also referred to the grant for flats and he seemed to have some difficulty in grasping the intentions in the Bill about these grants. The proposal is that houses and flat dwellings will be treated alike in regard to floor area categories and amounts of grants up to the point where the flats are over six storeys high and have lifts installed. In this case an extra £50 grant is provided per dwelling as a contribution towards the substantial extra cost involved in the construction.

Deputy Tully also said there was nothing in the Bill to indicate that the rates remission is being phased out. The reason is that it is not being discontinued for houses for which grants are paid. The remission for houses for which grants are not paid is provided for under legislation and this other legislation, the Local Government (Temporary Reduction of Valuation) Act, will deal with this other type of rates remission.

Deputy Tully asked if the higher grants of up to £450 for farmers and certain other persons residing in rural areas are being continued for houses up to 1,249 square feet. Section 3 of the Bill provides for the continuance of these grants. Section 3 also provides that a farmer building a house in a town will qualify for the higher rate of grant, whereas under the Housing Act, 1966, a farmer had to build in a rural area in order to qualify for a grant at the higher rate.

Deputy Tully also asked if the farmer building a new house in a town could get a grant at the higher rate even if he had a house in the rural area which was fit for habitation. Such a farmer would have to satisfy the Minister that he proposed to use the new house in the town as his ordinary residence in order to get a grant at the higher rate.

Deputy Browne asked for clarification of the provisions of section 6. This is a procedural provision. The reasons underlying the proposal are spelled out in paragraph 7 of the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill. Briefly, the idea is to reduce the legal complications associated with the payment of compensation for land acquired compulsorily by local authorities for housing.

Deputy Browne said in regard to house prices that the supply of money was not keeping up with the rise in prices. In 1969-70, 800 more houses were built than in 1968-69. In 1968-69 more houses were built than in 1967-68 and so on with only one exception for the past nine years. In other words, the supply of money has enabled more houses to be built each year in the last nine years than in each preceding year.

Deputy Treacy asked if the arrangements under section 7 for the payment by county councils of supplementary grants in urban areas extend to reconstruction grants as well as to new house grants. The arrangements will apply to all types of grants, both new house and reconstruction grants.

Deputy O'Donovan, I understand, asserted that the £275 new house grant was introduced by the 1950 Act. In fact, it was introduced by the Housing (Amendment) Act of 1948 brought in by the then Minister, Mr. Seán MacEntee, and passed in January, 1948, under a Fianna Fáil Government. The 1950 Act merely extended this grant to houses built for sale by builders.

All I can say is that the increase from £275 to £325 under this Bill is not a great increase considering that the value of money has been halved in the meantime.

Consider the effect of it and what has been achieved in the meantime. Deputy O'Donovan was also mistaken in his recollection when he said that £14 million was provided in the 1956-57 Budget for local authority housing and that more local authority houses were built in that year than ever before——

Let me give the facts. In 1956-57——

I said 1957-58.

I am sorry, but my record says 1956-57.

No, I said 1957-58 quite clearly.

I understand the figures are actually worse from the Deputy's point of view in 1957-58.

That is not true.

In 1956-57, in fact, only £7.2 million was provided for local authority housing in the Budget and 4,800 houses were built. Neither figure was a record either up to then or since. Indeed, it was part of a pattern of economic decline which particularly affected housing and which set in under the Coalition Government. For example, when Fianna Fáil left office in February, 1948, the incoming administration found themselves in the very happy position of having local authority schemes in progress comprising 3,840 houses and schemes authorised or being prepared for an additional 13,094 dwellings.

We always hear this from Fianna Fáil.

I know the Deputy does not like it. The Deputy made an assertion and I am giving him the answer. A major programme of land acquisition had been organised by the outgoing administration and the stage was set for a steady and expanding run of house building to deal with current and anticipated needs.

That was why the inter-Party Government did so well— is that it?

To correct the impression which Deputy O'Donovan sought to create let me cite the facts of the situation as the Fianna Fáil Government found it when they took over in March, 1957. They had the job of salvaging the economy after the second era of Coalition Government. Contrasted with the 17,000 houses which were in progress or in the pipeline in 1948 only 5,524 houses were in progress or in tender when the Coalition finally departed. The reserve of sites for future development had been run down. The building industry had been demoralised and contracters were going bankrupt all over the country.

Was it not as many as Fianna Fáil built in the seven years afterwards from 1958 to 1964?

We were trying to catch up on the job that was left to us. However, this debate has made clear, if it needed to be made clear, that when it comes to genuine concern about social problems and real action to remedy social ills, the people know and have indicated on every occasion for a long time past when the chips were down which party is the one to rely on. Despite the tremendous progress which has been made in housebuilding under the present Minister for Local Government, who has been attacked here— and who was in fact referred to as the worst Minister for Local Government we have ever had by one Deputy; he was talking in the context of house-building and I do not know how he can reconcile that with the facts I have given, but I do not suppose that the Deputy likes to be confused with the facts—and despite the very successful efforts he has made he knows as I do that there is still a major housing problem. Indeed, he has personal experience, as I have in my own constituency, of meeting people with the most appalling housing problems and it is heartbreaking to have to meet these people and not be able immediately to solve their problems.

It is in the light of that situation that the Minister for Local Government has brought forward this Bill. I am very pleased and proud to have the opportunity of going on record as being fully in support of any Bill which will not alone assist more than we have done the vast majority of those who avail of the housing grants but will also enable us to do far more for the money we spend, to get more houses built and will, as I have indicated, most likely change the pattern of housebuilding especially in this city for the benefit in particular of the smaller people, the less well off section. They are the people with whom the Government are concerned. The Opposition can prate how they like about their concern for these people but they have shown in their approach to this Bill that their concern is one about which they will talk but on which they will not act.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 21st April, 1970.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 16th April, 1970.
Top
Share