I have not been listening to all of the speeches made on the Taoiseach's Estimate, but I am glad I was here for Deputy Brennan's speech today because he made it quite clear what would have happened if Fianna Fáil had remained in office. He feels it was wrong to allow wage and salary increases. He feels also it was wrong to grant social welfare increases in the last two budgets: this has caused inflation and he is very perturbed about the fact that this has resulted in what he called a runaway inflation. He would have his solution to it, a Fianna Fáil solution, which has always been that the people at the bottom of the pile did not matter; look after the big man on the top, the fellow with the money and everything will be grand. I am glad that Fianna Fáil have been removed from office if for no other reason than that that has been their tradition throughout the years and I am sure the people of this country will not forget what they did.
At one stage he referred to the people who had been coming here to retire and he equated them, in some peculiar way, with speculators. He talked about the Minister for Finance taking money from speculators and being very anxious to ensure that speculation would not be allowed to continue; that it was necessary to tax such speculators. At the time I queried it with him he assured me that he was not talking about retired persons as being people who were speculators here. I wondered how they could be but he seemed to think that they were. Sometimes people who talk, as did Deputy Brennan here this morning, making a completely destructive speech, find it difficult to stand up to some of the things they say.
I was very interested too to hear Deputy Brennan speak about what he considered to be the differences in the present Government and the differences between the various sections of the Government. I would assure Deputy Brennan that, as far as the present Government are concerned, we are not all yes men; we do not agree 100 per cent with what everybody says; it must be thrashed out; it must be discussed and, having reached a consensus, the result becomes Government policy. But to hear a representative of a Government that was responsible for creating almost civil strife in this country— because of the actions of the Members of that Government—talk about unity within Government ranks is too ridiculous for words.
I would urge Deputy Brennan before he starts criticising the actions of the present Government, he should throw back his mind on the last few years when his junta were in office and he will soon realise that they most certainly have an awful lot of which to be ashamed and that, if anything, any of the difficulties that have arisen over the last 16 or 18 months, were legacies from the Fianna Fáil Government who did not know where they were going and who, luckily, were removed before the country was entirely destroyed.
Deputy Brennan spoke of the Prices Commission and the fact that they were established by Fianna Fáil. Of course they were. I want to make a few comments on that aspect of his contribution. Despite the fact that Deputy Brennan said that we criticised them, we did not criticise the personnel; the Prices Commission were doing their best then and now. The fact that it is a body the same as it was when Fianna Fáil were in office, carrying on the policing of prices, is sufficient evidence for anybody that the policy has not changed. As far as we are concerned, we are prepared to accept that they are doing their best to keep prices down and the fact that they have not succeeded is sufficient evidence for anybody that it is not possible to tie down prices.
But we have done what Fianna Fáil would not do. We have made the necessary officials and inspectors available to ensure that prices, as fixed, will be adhered to. That is the big difference between Fianna Fáil and us. They wanted, first of all, to give the impression that they were trying to control prices and then they let the speculators—if I may use the word in another context—get away with charging anything they liked for goods on sale.
I shall devote most of my time to matters affecting my own Department. I am glad Deputy Molloy is here this morning because there has been so much misrepresentation even when the matter had been explained fully in the course of my Estimate a few days ago. We have heard a statement in recent weeks, particularly by members of the Fianna Fáil Government and their supporters outside, some of whom have been using their positions in other organisations to try to spread Fianna Fáil propaganda that there is a crisis in the housing industry. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I want to nail once and for all the utterly false impression that the Government are insensitive to the building industry's needs. We are very conscious of the fact that the industry plays a very large part in the economic and social development of the country. We feel, and have proved that we feel, it is entitled to a high level of public capital support.
The evidence that the industry has been getting this support is clear for anyone who wishes to take notice of it. About 64 per cent or approximately £179 million of the total capital programme of £281 million for the nine-months' period to the 31st December, 1974, will generate work for the construction industry. This represents an investment of £240 million in a full year and compares with expenditure on corresponding work of £205 million in 1973-74 and £161 million in 1972-73. These are hard facts and represent a record provision of capital by the present Government which contrasts with what was clearly an inadequate regard by the previous Government for the pressing needs of the ordinary people.
The House will be aware that the Government decided recently to inject a further £9 million into private housebuilding by increasing the capital allocation for local authority house purchase loans. The total capital provision for housing in the current nine-months' period amounts to a record £69.55 million. This is equal to a provision of £90.81 million in a full year. Can anyone deny that this is an indication of the Government's support for the housebuilding industry.
A point that seems to be overlooked in current discussions on the housing programme is that the previous Government target in respect of housing, as set out specifically in their 1969 White Paper, was to raise the level of output by the mid-seventies —I presume they are talking of the years 1974-1976 between 15,000 and 17,000 new houses a year. In other words, the ambition of that Government was to raise output to a figure that would be no less than 8,000 to 10,000 houses below the level that we set as a target and which we have achieved. These are facts which should be put on record. The Fianna Fáil target was set out specifically and unambiguously in their White Paper. Now they must either admit that they were grossly out in their estimate of need or say that we are building too many houses. I should like to hear which of these alternatives represent the Fianna Fáil view.
It is important to keep in mind, too, that we did not hear any protestations or cries of slump when the 1969 paper was issued. One wonders whether the so-called slump derives simply from the fact that certain people expected housing output to continue increasing at the rate of 6,000 new houses a year. Did they think that because we built 25,000 houses last year, 31,000 should have been built this year? Is that the reasons why the Fianna Fáil generated row is being carried on?
The growth which has taken place in respect of local authority housing has been equally spectacular. The indication of this is afforded by the fact that total expenditure on loans during the two years 1973-74 and 1974-75 will amount to about £57 million. This amount equals a total expenditure on these loans during the previous eight years up to 31st March, 1973. Therefore, since we came to office we have spent more on local authority housing than Fianna Fáil spent during the last eight years of their government. Yet, they have the hard neck to send a representative in here to say that we are not doing enough for local authority housing.
Further, the expenditure of £26.4 million in the current nine-months' period, equivalent to £35 million in a full year, represents more than three times the rate of expenditure during the last year of office of Fianna Fáil —1972-73. This, again, is a record provision by a government who are in touch with the people's needs. The facts speak for themselves. What this Government have done to support the building industry and to promote the better housing of our people has not been bettered by any previous administration and, certainly, has not been equalled by any Fianna Fáil Government.
Questions have been raised in the House—specifically by Deputy Molloy —about the availability of the extra £9 million which the Government are providing for local authority loans in the current nine-months' period. I assure the House that the increased provision of £29.85 million for loans and grants, including £26.4 million for loans, has been allocated in its entirety to the local authority. Any Deputy who wishes may have a copy of the circular letter which has been issued by the Department in conjunction with a statement showing the amount allocated to each local authority. This deals with Deputy Molloy's suggestion that the money was on paper only and was not available in effect. The Deputy appeared to be surprised the other evening when I drew his attention to his comment that the £9 million would not be taken up. I assume from that, that in some peculiar way the Deputy was saying that the increase was not worth while as it would not allow people build houses because the local authority loan limit was too low. The Deputy has been saying recently that the limit should be increased to £3,000 and that loans should be as much as £6,000. Let me remind the Deputy that when I took office in March, 1973, the statutory maximum loan limit which had been operated from the 1st July, 1972, was £3,800 in the County Boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, in County Dublin and in the boroughs of Galway, and Dún Laoghaire. In all other areas the limit was £3,400. That was the maximum amount that one could borrow.
On the 21st May, 1973, I increased the loans in all areas to £4,500. This represented an increase of £700 in the areas where a higher limit had been applied and £1,100 in all other areas. These were the biggest increases ever given in respect of loan limits. Also, I increased the income limit, first from £1,800 to £2,000 as and from the 25th May, 1973, and it was increased further to £2,350 as and from the 21st September, 1973. Incidentally, I note that some of the newspaper people got the figure wrong —perhaps they obtained it from somebody like Deputy Molloy who, obviously, did not know what the correct figure was when he was speaking here the other evening.
Opposition Deputies are trying to make play of the alleged inadequacy of the loan limit. The real test of the adequacy or otherwise of the limit is the extent to which the scheme is being availed of by house purchasers. On this basis it is beyond argument that the scheme is meeting the demands of purchasers in a way that is probably unprecedented. Here again, the figures speak for themselves.
In the past year there has been an increase in the number of applications lodged from 8,737 valued at £23.1 million, at 31st March, 1973 to no less than 15,239, valued at £49.9 million, at the 31st March, 1974. Yet, Deputy Molloy tells us that the money being made available will not be taken up. The Deputy knows that he is not correct in saying that. Naturally the person who wishes to purchase a fancy house will not consider a £4,500 loan to be very attractive but a person earning less than £45 a week will not be too anxious to buy a fancy house. What such a person would be seeking would be a house that was adequate for his needs and there are a number of houses being built within that range. The tax-payers must subsidise housing but there is no onus on them to help to provide houses that are much bigger than those used by ordinary people. If they do they must find the money elsewhere. We should not ask the ordinary people to pay for this subsidy in their taxes.
In an adjournment debate last Tuesday, Deputy Molloy tried to illustrate the alleged inadequacy of the loan limit by quoting an average house price from the quarterly bulletin of housing statistics issued by the Department. The figure he used was £8,000 which he said was the average price for houses qualifying for loans under the Local Loans Fund. Either he did not know or he was trying to fool the House. What he quoted was the average loan that was approved in the March quarter by all lending agencies. This includes people who were borrowing to the maximum of £7,500 from building societies. Not alone was it an inaccurate figure, it was an attempt to try to make the position much worse than it was. I should like to clarify that the average gross price of houses for which local authority loans were approved in the March quarter was £6,564. This puts a very different complexion on the matter.
There have been comments about the number of local authority houses. An attempt has been made to try to prove that by trying to get a bigger proportion of the housing target in local authority houses there was something wrong with that. I want to assure the House that it is my ambition to see the vast majority of houses being provided by the local authorities, as is the situation in the North and in Britain. I want to see the State providing money for those who need housing and are unable for financial reasons to build their own houses. We must encourage the building industry to continue to build houses for other people. There is no question that in the North and in England the situation is three to one in favour of local authority housing while here it is three to one against. Incidentally, in the last few years of Fianna Fáil government the ratio was four to one against. I want to see that changed. I shall try to get as many local authority houses built as is possible.
People who cannot house themselves must get proper accommodation provided for them by the local authorities. In my opinion, the previous Government allowed the local authority sector to fall away shamefully. In the last year of Fianna Fáil Government, local authority housing accounted for little more than one quarter of the total built. This did not reflect the real needs of the community. I make no apology to anyone when I say that local authority houses will get the major share of the money available.
I am happy to state that following that policy the latest progress report shows that the total number of local authority dwellings on which work is in progress has risen to 11,292. This compares with a figure of 8,720 in progress when the Government took office. In case it might be thought that these figures were specially selected, I would point out that we have started an average of 700 local authority houses per month in the last 15 months. This compares with an average of 440 in the last five years of Fianna Fáil Government. I should like to pay tribute to the members and officials of local authorities for the efforts they are making to accept the new responsibilities devolved on them for undertaking virtually all their programmes without unnecessary reference of documents to the Department of Local Government. They are doing very well and they will get every encouragement from the Government to ensure that the work is carried out.
The National Building Agency have come under criticism from certain people. Unfortunately the Agency were criticised when, in fact, it was those who gave instructions as to the type of houses to be built who should have been criticised. Under the present Government 1,700 houses are already under construction in the special emergency programme and plans are being prepared for 3,000 more houses. I am particularly pleased that a large share of the work in the emergency scheme is for Dublin County Council who are faced with the heavy task of trying to overcome the backlog of many years of neglect in meeting the housing demands of Dublin.
It would be unfair not to refer to the type of houses being built. We are taking care to build bigger houses of sound construction. I do not intend to dwell unduly on the so-called low-cost housing but it has demonstrated in a stronger way than anything else the folly of the former Fianna Fáil Government in pursuing a policy line where the amount of money for local authority housing was restricted while covering up the situation by producing fifth-rate housing. It was a disgrace and every Fianna Fáil Member who had anything to do with it must be ashamed of what happened. If these people do not believe this is so, they should look at the houses built under Fianna Fáil, particularly in the last few years. They will see the disgraceful type of housing built but, of course, it was only for the working class and anything was good enough for them according to Fianna Fáil.
We are expanding the housing programme and we are taking care to ensure that the houses being built are adequate for family life and are well constructed. The outcry from the tenants, the purchasers and the public about defects in the low-cost houses has underlined the short-sightedness and the lack of feeling for the needs of the less well-off which characterised the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government. They penny-pinched on essentials and they pound-pinched on capital allocations. There is only one way to get houses of good quality—provide the money to build them and to build them to proper standards. That is what we are doing.
Tenants and purchasers of the low-cost houses have had to put up with many defects. They will not thank the former Government for leaving them in the position where they have not a flue or a chimney in the house, with the result that they are forced to rely on central heating which costs a prohibitive amount for many people on low incomes. I have given instructions that, in future, local authority houses must be built with two fireplaces and no central heating. It is ridiculous to go to the tremendous cost of putting in central heating in houses for people who are unable to pay the bills. The houses built by the last Fianna Fáil Government without a flue or a chimney will now have them installed at the expense of the State. This will cost £8 million. It is another legacy of Fianna Fáil who either did not know or think of what the result would be.
Items such as a fuel house or a rear entrance were omitted from many houses built by Fianna Fáil. The attitude was that the tenants did not matter. The fact that a tenant had to wheel a barrow of manure through the hallway, or allow the coalman to carry the coal through the hallway, was not a matter that concerned the former Government. Perhaps it was that tenants of local authority houses were not expected to put up wallpaper or to have carpets. Now the new arrangement will give the people what they require. It is obvious the former Government were completely out of touch with the people.
Thanks to the Government's emergency supplementary programme, the Dublin area as a whole has seen a most welcome expansion in public housing. There was an increase of almost 44 per cent in the total programme for the three housing authorities, the Dublin Corporation, the Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Corporation, since the Government took office. One of the most important objectives in the Dublin area is the progressive revitalisation of the central city areas, with major emphasis on residential development. I am glad to see the corporation have acted on my initiative in improving the organisation needed to bring back the life of the central city areas and the planning of a programme is in hand.
In this connection I would mention that plans for a housing programme for the Liberties which was ignored for so long are well advanced. After so many years of Fianna Fáil government when the heart of Dublin City has seen sad decay, we can, hopefully, look to the time in the not too distant future when it will come to life again under the National Coalition Government. It is only fair to say that Dublin is not the only place that requires assistance in this way. It is right that what we have initiated in Dublin should in turn be taken up in other cities and towns which suffer from run-down central residential areas. I would include Cork and Galway in this particularly. There are a number of other places. Waterfore, indeed, is one I have in mind.
People who have attempted to do something about their own houses have been prevented from making any kind of useful effort by the fact that their next-door neighbour is either too rich to bother about the type of house that has been lying derelict there or too poor to do anything about it. I propose that in either case we will assist those who cannot do it themselves or arrange that in the case of those who will not do it it will pass into the hands of the local authority or somebody who will do it.
It does not make sense that capital which has been invested in existing services, shops, schools, churches and so on should be allowed to evaporate because of the fact that the population that was there has been moved away and there is nobody there to use them. I hope it will result in a general economy that these things should be changed and that we will have people back in the areas where facilities are available.
We have heard a great deal about building societies. The subsidy introduced by the Government in May, 1970, had the effect of attracting additional funds into the society while at the same time ameliorating the effects on borrowers of current interest rates. Apart from the subsidy, the Government took special action in October last to provide the societies with a fall-back borrowing facility amounting to £6 million.
A number of people, including Deputy Molloy and Deputy Brennan and people outside, have been shouting that they want more money for the building trade, that they want it now. I said and I repeat that when the need is proved we will provide the money. In fact, we have done this. We provided far more money for housing than Fianna Fáil ever thought would be possible and last year when we found that they were able to spend that and because of one or other causes, particularly the question of increasing costs, that it was not sufficient, we provided more.
This year the Government have arranged, at my suggestion, to give an extra £9 million to the local authority end of it and we have negotiated for a projection of £5 million/£6 million to the building societies which will be made available to them on the same conditions as obtained last year. This again will help. If there is a shortage we will help in the provision of extra money. We do not have to make any apology to people who have been shouting about the fact that the building societies or the general housing agencies who have been providing money have not got that money because so far this has not been proven until very recently when it became evident that the building societies because of the fact that they were not getting in as much money as previously were therefore unable to give as much money out.
I should like to talk about employment in the building industry. I have been listening to people like Deputy Molloy in this House giving firm figures of unemployment in the building industry. I went to the trouble of having the major building sites in the country checked to find out what the position is. Deputy Molloy claims to have special information about one firm that he did not want to name and I most certainly will not name it although he and I know the firm we are talking about. He asked, did not these people tell me in a deputation? According to Deputy Molloy the other night, and according to a number of other people, the firm concerned had laid off 300 men. I have been checking and they have in fact laid off 38 apprentices and a few workers.
