Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 14 Nov 1975

Vol. 285 No. 10

Vote 27: Local Government (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,536,500 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1975, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government, including grants to Local Authorities, grants and other expenses in connection with housing, and miscellaneous schemes and grants including a grant-in-aid.

—(Minister for Transport and Power.)

Mr. Moore

The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the question of the Government paying a subsidy to the building societies is being considered and this suggests that the subsidy is about to be abolished. If the Government abolish the subsidy mortgage repayments will be increased. The news which the Parliamentary Secretary broke yesterday has had a tremendous impact on the young people who are buying or intend to buy their houses through building societies. Those people have been having a rough time for some years and to increase the mortgage repayments by even a few shillings a week would be the last straw for many of them. This brings up the question of how far the State should go in the subsidisation of building societies. The fact that these societies have been enjoying a subsidy—it was reduced in August—shows that the State realised the need for such a subsidy. What has happened since? Have we become so prosperous that we can afford to withdraw this subsidy?

The Government, if they believe that the subsidy has not been effective, should see how best the money involved can be reapplied so that mortgage repayments can be kept at a minimum. In this regard I am speaking of the young people who do not qualify for local authority houses or might have to wait a long time for such a house. These brave young couples save hard to purchase their own home. We should give them all the help possible. An increase in the weekly or monthly repayments could mean tragedy for many young couples. I am not referring only to those who live in this city; consideration should be given to all those who are anxious to buy their own homes. Therefore we should not simply remove the subsidy because if the Department are satisfied that it is not effective they should give the reason why it should be withdrawn and examine the situation carefully to see where it can best be reapplied in the hope that it will help stabilise mortgage repayments at their present level or even reduce them, which would be much more acceptable. If they were to increase further, they would be too expensive for young people.

The Minister said last night that he did not apologise for giving Dublin a very high priority in housing. I back him on this because, despite what has been done over the past 50 years, the housing problem is still very grave. We got rid of our slums but there are still many badly housed families, many families living in overcrowded conditions and young people cannot get proper housing at reasonable rates. Any re-examination of the Dublin situation would be welcomed by everybody.

I hope the Minister soon announces what he intends doing about Dublin Corporation. A few weeks ago he promised to take another look at the allocation of money to the Dublin housing authority. Some money is being provided for An Foras Forbartha in this Estimate. An Foras do tremendous work. If one were to make a speech on housing or local government development, one could not fail to appreciate the help given by An Foras.

The Minister referred to the proposed establishment of an oil refinery in Dublin Bay. I have a question down to the Minister asking when this matter will be heard on appeal. I am not in favour of the refinery but the fact that the subject is still not decided is causing anxiety to people living in the area of the proposed site, those who wish to preserve the bay or even those who wish to build the refinery. The Minister tells us that the developers have not yet replied to some of his queries and the Minister took to task the people who suggested that the decision had already been taken.

Some people pointed out advantages that would accrue to Dublin city if the refinery was built in the bay. One person told us that petrol would be cheaper in Dublin. This would make it attractive to many people. The suggestion that the establishment of the refinery was a foregone conclusion came in some instances from people whom one might consider had information which would prompt them to say what they did and so it was widely accepted as true. I was very pleased to hear the Minister refute this today and I hope the people who support the Government will take note of that statement.

In my opinion it would be disastrous to build the refinery on the designated site. I do not propose to deal at length with this today because I have spoken about it 20 times already and put forward what I consider to be sound objections. I suggest that the Minister hear the appeal and make his decision as soon as possible, because there are some people in this city, especially old people, who have read avidly all the ideas put forward on how the refinery will affect the atmosphere. If the Minister gave his decision, this would ease the minds of these old people who have written some very heartrending letters to me. I do not know if the atmosphere would be polluted by the refinery but in other areas where refineries were established close to residential areas, it has been proved that they did not help keep the atmosphere pollution free.

When we discuss local government nowadays the first thing that comes to our minds is housing. All over the country one is aware of the need for housing and the enormous sums necessary to ease the housing situation. The Minister said they built 25,000 houses last year but we all know that housing figures can be ministerpreted. Almost the sole test of the success of our housing drive is the length of the waiting lists with local authorities. I will take the authority I know something about, that in Dublin city, where we have 5,000 applications from families and individuals still on the waiting list. But that is not the entire list because couples without children who are living in any kind of accommodation which is not on the point of falling down are not eligible. We have as well many old people living alone who may have been given rooms by relatives, and they are not eligible. Some of them may not be able to leave their rooms even to do their shopping because their age does not permit them to climb stairs possibly to a fourth floor tenement room in an old Georgian house.

An Ceann Comhairle

I apologise for interrupting the Deputy but I am bound to bring to his notice that this is a Supplementary Estimate and that the debate should be confined to the items for which money is being sought. I want to dissuade the Deputy from going into local authority matters generally, which should be reserved for the main Estimate.

Mr. Moore

Housing was mentioned——

An Ceann Comhairle

Grants for private housing only were mentioned.

Mr. Moore

On the question of old people, there are some excellent private societies helping to provide houses for them and I should like to pay tribute to such societies as the Catholic Housing Aid Society, the Dublin Central Mission, the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches, the Soroptimists Society, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Iveagh Trust and to others who play a big part in providing accommodation for old people. I earnestly plead with the Minister, through the Parliamentary Secretary, substantially to increase the subsidies which these societies get from central funds and local authority finances.

I have been speaking about Dublin. There are old people living in misery in such cities as Cork, Limerick, Galway and elsewhere, old people who can very rarely if ever get out of their upstairs rooms. It would take £30 per week to maintain such people in institutions, and I venture to say it would cost the State and the local authorities as little as £300 to repay loans to private societies who would house such people. We have societies who rightly look after the welfare of discharged prisoners and these old people are sometimes prisoners in the misery of their little rooms.

Of course we on this side welcome this Supplementary Estimate, small as it is, accepting the principle that we cannot give too much money to the housing drive. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister will not do anything to increase mortgage repayment rates, particularly in the case of young people who have had the courage to attempt to own their own houses. I again ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider very seriously increasing the State and local authority subsidies to private societies who do such good work for the housing of the poor.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I welcome the Supplementary Estimate which is in keeping with the Minister's efforts since he took office to meet the housing needs of our people. I am glad to say that in the past year there has been a big inflow of capital to the building societies, making a substantial contribution to the overall housing needs. None of us is naive enough to say our housing drive will meet all our commitments because we must work within the capital we have. At the beginning, the Minister promised 25,000 to 26,000 new houses a year and this he has fulfilled.

We should be thinking in terms of a department of physical planning so as to enable us to project the housing needs of the future. In order to be able to do this we would need to be aware of population trends and of the areas in which there will be the greatest housing needs. In this way we could provide houses where the need is greatest and get away from the present system which is based on the allocation of a certain amount of money to each local authority area. As chairman of the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation, I am aware of the great need in this city for money for housing. There are about 5,000 people on the corporation's waiting list. This is a very high figure.

I take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to the Minister on his initiative, on taking office, in recognising this problem and organising a housing co-ordinator for the three areas in the Dublin region. As a result, housing got under way in the city but the question is one of ensuring that we have the finances to meet our commitments so that the housing programme can continue.

The fact that the building societies are attracting more funds should result in some people being taken off the waiting list. Every incentive should be given to the building societies to enable them to attract a greater flow of capital. It should not be a matter entirely for the local authorities or for the central government generally to fund housing. Every incentive must be given to the other agencies involved. The Government have not been remiss in this regard with the result that there is a greater flow of funds into the building societies this year compared with last year. This is a heartening development.

In a country that is emerging industrially, that is becoming very much part of the European scene, it is important that our efforts in regard to physical planning are concentrated on the provision of houses and of adequate road structures in those areas where these facilities will be required most. In the past we tended to place too much emphasis, not on building highways, but on road structure within urban areas. Indeed, one might say that roads took precedence over people. As a result of this, other development was impeded.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but, as I have pointed out already, the Supplementary Estimate before us is confined to the items for which money is sought and I am seeking to dissuade Members from embarking on a debate on local government matters generally. The Deputy will observe on the white sheet the items for which the money is sought. Of course, reference may be made also to what the Parliamentary Secretary said in his speech but a debate on local government matters generally must be reserved for the debate proper on the Department of Local Government.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Obviously, I was embarking on a local government situation but I shall return to what is in the Supplementary Estimate. There is the question of the whole situation in regard to housing. In this context I would refer to the situation regarding elderly people. In our local authority area many of these elderly people pay rents as low as 5p per week and those who own their own houses get a subsidy by way of a waiver of rates if their incomes are below a certain level. However, I would make a plea for those elderly people renting rooms in private houses and who, in many cases, are paying very high rents out of their old age pensions. There is no subsidy so far as such people are concerned but I would ask the Minister to give consideration to the possibility of a subsidy. Landlords would not consider it their duty to subsidise this accommodation so perhaps the Government could produce some scheme of subsidy in this area. At times when we are talking of spending vast sums of money on housing it is important that we concentrate, too, on the preservation of the existing housing stock. Private accommodation in some cases is let at very uneconomic rents. This results in landlords not being able to carry out general repairs to the properties which then become uninhabitable. It would be wise for the Government to consider engaging in the purchase of such houses and in renovating them and letting them.

Figures are available to prove the commitment of this Government to a housing programme. While this programme should be continued on its present lines, it is important that we know in advance the likely demands for houses in the various areas. It is all right to say that we are building X number of houses but in this development we must plan well ahead for future requirements. When finances are being distributed regard must be had to the areas of greater need. In regard to Dublin city, for instance, I should like to see some private development in housing in the city centre. This is an area in which there is much local authority development. We are in the process of acquiring 150 acres for inner city development but the ideal would be a mixed development and not to have merely one socioeconomic group moving in. What is required is a greater balance. Developers are in the business from the point of view of profit but we must endeavour to divert their attention to housing within the centre city area. This could be done in many ways, for example, by way of the tax mechanism.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. F. O'Brien

There is a reference to housing and the area I am talking of is an important aspect of that question.

An Ceann Comhairle

The matter appertaining to housing in this Supplementary Estimate refers to private housing grants.

Mr. F. O'Brien

What we are talking about is getting money into housing and I am putting forward a suggestion as to the way in which that could be done.

An Ceann Comhairle

It would be more appropriate on the Estimate proper rather than on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I believe the grant system needs examination. The system was intended as an incentive but whether it is still an incentive is open to question. I believe it should be done away with and some other system introduced. Improvement grants also need to be looked at. Do they provide a sufficient incentive for people to improve existing houses? I do not think the grants are adequate. Possibly the money provided by way of grant could be spent to better advantage in some other direction. With higher incomes now more people are moving out of what can be described as the grant situation and, when money is scarce, we should do everything possible to ensure it is spent to the best advantage.

I welcome this Supplementary Estimate. Housing is a prime essential. Man must have shelter. Living standards are improving and housing standards must also improve. The Minister is to be commended on ensuring that standards are improved. If standards are allowed to deteriorate in low cost housing in a very short time we will be faced all over again with new slum areas.

Mr. Leonard

The Minister stated that the question of continuing the subsidies is to be reviewed. There was a report in this morning's paper that the Government are considering removing the present subsidies to the building societies. That could easily result in higher mortgage interest rates. In considering this matter one has to look at the overall cost of erecting a house. One has to take into consideration the cost of the site and the cost of developing the site. Most easily accessible sites have been bought by potential builders with the result that an individual intending to build his own house finds he has to spend a great deal of money. The cost of developing the site could be upwards of £1,000. The cost of servicing the site has also increased considerably. The ESB subsidy finished last February and only recently another Member of this House was making representations on behalf of a constituent who had received a quotation from the ESB for connection in a rural area and the quotation was in excess of £1,500. Some years back connection would not have cost a quarter of that. Development alone could run into £3,000, a figure at which eight years ago one could actually have built a normal three-bedroomed bungalow.

There has been no increase in the income limit for local authority loan applicants. Very many people now find they are not eligible and they depend on the building societies to provide loans for them. The difference, of course, is that the building societies have varying rates and local authority rates are static. In future, many people will have to avail of the building societies for loans because they are outside the scope of the local authorities. An income limit of £1,950 for any young man thinking of getting married is completely unrealistic. It is a miserable limit and it should be increased to £3,000 to allow him to avail of local authority loans.

Local authority loans have not been increased for a long number of years. A young married man whose wife works part-time is ineligible for a local authority loan because of their joint income. This income limit will have to be increased as will the maximum loan of £4,500 which is completely unrealistic in this day and age. If £7,000 is required to build a bungalow, developing the site and connecting the electricity supply will bring the figure to a minimum of £8,500. Many local authorities, including my own, are anxious that the income limit should be increased. They feel it is hard for people to meet their payments twice annually.

Bridging loans were referred to earlier. These are very necessary but they can cause great hardship to people who apply for them. This is due mainly to delays in expediting documentation in the Land Registry Office. Delay in forwarding title deeds to the local authority impedes completion of the mortgage and payment. We have instances where men are paying bridging loans following the approval of their loans from the local authorities. If a bridging loan is taken for three months the interest rate can be increased at the end of that time. Indeed, many of them go into a second year and involve colossal monthly payments in bank charges. ESB connection fees, loans and housing grants should be examined together.

There are very high costs in loan applications. Recently one of my constituents applied for a very small loan to purchase a secondhand house costing £3,000 and the legal costs were £182.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be outside the scope of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Leonard

I am just pointing out that housing is a package and all those things are part of it. Any young man building a house encounters those obstacles. The bridging loan is one of those obstacles. Very few people realise that ESB connection can cost up to £1,000 and that there are problems in securing local authority loans. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to impress on the Ministers concerned the need for aid to be given by the reintroduction of the ESB subsidies for connection to new houses.

Today it was mentioned that if this subsidy is withdrawn the additional payments on a £7,000 loan over a 25 year period will be £5.18 and, on a £7,000 loan over a 20 year period the additional payments will amount to £4.90. I hope the Minister will continue to pay this subsidy to the building societies.

The Parliamentary Secretary said:

The amount of the grant-in-aid provided under Subhead I for An Foras Forbartha is being increased by £55,000 to a total of £572,000. The additional sum is to meet the cost of salary increases arising since the original estimate was prepared.

That is about a 10 per cent increase. He went on:

The final item in the Supplementary Estimate is on an extra £34,000 to bring the total of Subhead H to £174,000. The subhead provides for the recoupment of 50 per cent of the cost to county councils and county borough corporations of preparing and publishing the Register of Electors. The increase is due to increases in the remuneration of those engaged on the compilation of the register and to increases in incidental costs since the original estimate was prepared.

This increase of 20 per cent seems very high. There is a fairly substantial cost in the compilation of this register and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to clarify this.

Most of us would prefer a person to erect his own house. He should be grant-aided and helped in all ways as this gives a family a stake in the country. The ambition of all young men is to have their own homes when they marry. Unless local authority income limits and grants are increased, people will depend on local authorities for the provision of housing. That would be a very serious situation. It is the policy of our party to help people in every way to provide their own homes. Help should be given to end this trend of dependence on local authorities for the provision of houses.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

The debate, to which I had not an opportunity of listening very much, was dealt with as one would expect. I believe that even though there was severe criticism the people on the opposite side of the House do appreciate that a genuine effort is being made by the Department of Local Government to meet their commitment. I would regard some matters referred to as of minor importance, for example, Deputy Leonard's comments about the high percentage increase being sought in respect of the register of electors compared with the percentage increase being sought by An Foras Forbartha.

Mr. Leonard

What I said was 10 per cent in one case and 20 per cent in the other, both meaning salary incrases.

Mr. Tully

I am sure the Deputy will agree with me that one cannot compare like with unlike. There is no comparison between the two services.

Mr. Leonard

There was mention also of equipment for 50 per cent, which would bring that 20 per cent up to 40 per cent.

Mr. Tully

That does not make any difference at all. If one was comparing two comparable services there would be some merit in making that comment. I do not think it merits much attention because we are dealing with two entirely different things, with the system of——

Mr. Leonard

The point I was making was that there is an increase of 20 per cent, with equipment of 50 per cent, which would give the impression that that would mean a 40 per cent increase—if they were granted equipment of 50 per cent and, in the Minister's Estimate, they were given an increase of 20 per cent.

Mr. Tully

The increase in the register of electors can cover increases in other costs besides salaries and fees. At the other end of it An Foras Forbartha are dealing with the national wage increases only. It is easy enough to say why one might increase by a bigger percentage than the other.

Mr. Leonard

It was the 40 per cent that caught me.

Mr. Tully

It may sound a large amount of money. It is not very important. I am particularly anxious that the register of electors be properly compiled. I would appeal to every local authority representative in this House to impress on his local authority the necessity to have it done properly.

Mr. Faulkner

I supported that appeal last night.

Mr. Tully

Thank you very much. I would expect that. It has become a practice for those compiling the register of electors in country districts, in many cases, to simply call at one house and endeavour to find out who should or who should not be on the register in an area. Some people go to an immense amount of trouble in an endeavour to get the register correct.

Mr. Leonard

And some people do not.

Mr. Tully

Others simply do not. It is bad enough to leave off those who qualify since the last compilation but it is inexcusable when people who have been on the register of electors for many years are left off. That is purely and simply carelessness on behalf of the people who compile the register. The people who do this will have to have some type of penalty imposed on them for not doing their job properly.

In the cities and towns another problem has arisen, a serious one, that is the question of leaving a pile of forms in the hallway of a house, where there are a lot of flats, leaving them in one place, in the hope that everybody will eventually get a form for completion. In many cases that is entirely inadequate and results in those who are supposed to be compiling the register not getting the necessary information at all but rather basing it mainly on the previous register.

With the new proposals about postal voting and so on it is very important that only those who should be on the register of electors are entitled to be entered on it. If people succeed in getting on the register—people who do not live in the area but have left it many years before—there can be grave abuse of postal voting.

Mr. Callanan

Scrap it, Sir, scrap it.

Mr. Tully

No, indeed, I will not scrap it. I believe that everybody who is entitled to vote should be afforded whatever facilities can be given to enable him to vote. Even if people are ill and unable to leave their houses they are still entitled to vote in this State.

Mr. Callanan

But not collected by others.

Mr. Tully

I am taking the necessary steps to ensure that they cannot be collected by others. We should have a little conscience about that type of abuse because, do not forget, it was the politicians in the main who did the job of collecting. There were areas where people who should have known better did indulge in this in a big way. It is something I would like to see stopped. I am not blaming it on one political party alone; it was fairly evenly divided.

Mr. Callanan

It is a widespread disease.

Mr. Tully

It is a disease which will have to be eliminated. Of course, I should say we did not do very much of it. But, in any case, I hope there will be none of it carried out by anybody in the future.

Mr. Callanan

A dirty' flu, that was what it was.

Mr. Tully

The building societies subsidy has been referred to by Deputy Faulkner and others. It would be inappropriate for me to make a more specific statement in regard to the subsidy. All I want to say is that the building societies have been informed that it is proposed to withdraw the subsidy. The subsidy was originally put on to encourage people to invest money in building societies. That it has achieved that purpose is quite evident because the amount of money has increased. This year we estimate there will be approximately £60 million loaned by building societies. I am sure all of us in this House are very glad of this. However, there are those who would give the impression that it was put on for a different reason. What the building societies do is a matter for themselves; whether or not they decide to increase the interest rate or reduce the rate they pay to people who lend is a matter for them. I still maintain the right to the overall control of the societies' upper interest rate because, if I do that, there may be a tendency to chase the banks and other lending institutions for a very much higher rate than would be justified.

Mr. Faulkner

Would the Minister not agree that if the purpose of putting on the subsidy was to help attract money, removal of the subsidy would have the opposite effect?

Mr. Tully

No.

Mr. Faulkner

I cannot see that it will not; either that or it will place an enormous burden on people who got mortgages.

Mr. Tully

We all decry inflation but it has meant that people who borrowed money even a few years ago find the repayment of that money much easier now. I am sure Deputy Faulkner is aware of this. I do not follow his line of argument that the withdrawal of the subsidy should cause a catastrophe. There are people who will find it difficult to get the necessary money if the interest rate is increased. I am aware of that. But I am also aware that many people who will go to building societies to borrow money will offer to pay the rate, and be glad to pay the rate, obtaining at present. There is also the question which caused a considerable amount of trouble, that is, where people got their employers to give them certificates stating that their incomes were higher than they really were in order to qualify for building society loans some years ago.

There is one specific group with whom I have a lot of sympathy but for whom, so far, I have not been able to do anything. That is a group situated in Dublin city particularly and portion of Dublin county on the edge of the city who were unable to get money from the Local Loans Fund. The local authorities made arrangements with the building societies that they would borrow from them. They were fairly badly caught. They have been paying money they never expected they would have to pay. If they borrowed from the Local Loans Fund the interest rate would have remained static, but instead of that they borrowed from the building societies and the interest rate increased very much. These are the type of people I would be sorry for, because through no fault of their own they were caught in this vice. The other people who were borrowing money for the purpose of building a house knew what they were doing when they were borrowing. If the interest rate goes up, those who are borrowing have the option of deciding whether they want to borrow or not. Those who have already borrowed will not have that option because it is inflation that will push it up and has pushed it up so far. Inflation leaves them in a better position to pay their interest on the repayments than they were in before this. This is a matter which will be decided by the building societies themselves. The matter has been discussed with them, and I am sure they will be making a decision in the very near future.

Deputy Faulkner referred to the question of the fall in house building, and, like everybody else, I would like to see far more activity in the building industry. Let me repeat what I have said ad nauseam: the building industry consists of a number of sides and only 40 per cent of it is actual house building. In the house building industry there may be reductions caused by modern methods. I am told this is one of the reasons that there has been a reduction. The very expensive house is no longer being built. Very many more houses are being built now than were being built a few years ago, and, therefore, a big number of people are getting good wages building these houses. We cannot get away from the fact that two years ago it was 25,365 houses, last year it was 26,636, and I expect this year it will be something between 25,000 and 26,000. Even those who are critical of the present Government must admit that is a very high volume of house building in the present circumstances, and because of increased costs and because of the way in which the price of houses has been going up it required an enormous amount of money to keep the house building industry going.

It is now generally accepted, even by people who were critical a few months ago, that the house building situation is quite sound and a large number of very good-standard houses is being built. I was asked by a Fianna Fáil TD a few weeks ago if I would be prepared to reduce the standard of houses built. My answer is: "No". I do not think any Government should. There is no point in building sub-standard houses which will be a source of annoyance to the people who are living in them, which right from the word go will cost a lot to maintain, and with which the people who build and design them will find themselves in trouble because they will be pointed out for the few years they are still there as the houses built by X or designed by Y. I do not think this is fair to them or that they should be asked to build that type of house. I want to see the standard kept up, and, as I say, the number of houses being built is very high and I am very glad that this House has been responsible for voting the money.

The Opposition must be happy at the fact that houses are being built at such an enormous rate. It is a question of whether the amount of money being made available from the Local Loans Fund is sufficient. I have said again and again it would give me great pleasure to increase substantially the amount of money available to an individual borrower from the Local Loans Fund and to increase the income limit of those who could borrow. However, there are far more borrowers at present than any Government could provide money to satisfy. There must be a reason that these people are availing of this, and if I did increase to, say, £5,000 or £6,000 the amount they could borrow, and if I increased the income under which they could borrow to say £3,000, what would happen? It would simply add more people to a list which is already very long. While local authorities have got an enormous amount of money for house purchase loans this year, there is not enough for everybody, and adding people to that list would, in my opinion, be a very foolish exercise.

In addition to that, we have the situation where those who are over the £2,350 can borrow from other sources. I mentioned particularly the building societies who have for the last few months been making a very big amount of money available for people in this category, and also the banks, who, out of the £40 million made available over a two-year period, have given £20 million already this year for people who want to build houses. There are insurance companies and other banks who have been making fairly long-term loans available for this purpose. Therefore, taking everything into account, as things are now, there is no immediate prospect of being able to increase the limits and I have given the House, not for the first time, the reason why.

There is another angle to this which people should remember. To allow people who are under £2,350 to borrow say, £6,000, might have the very effect which the Opposition were talking about, of being unable to repay the money. We are very anxious to jump into debt to do something which we feel at the time is the right thing to do. There are people who would borrow more money than they can repay.

Mr. Faulkner

Could I put one point to the Minister? The Minister has stated that there is a long queue waiting for loans as they stand.

Mr. Tully

That is right.

Mr. Faulkner

Therefore, if people with less than £2,350 a year are borrowing the maximum, £4,500, they will not build a house for that and they must get money elsewhere. If the average price of the SDA loan house is £7,500, they must get £3,000 somewhere else. Therefore the argument the Minister is putting forward is not logical.

Mr. Tully

There is a phenomenon which has arisen in this country, mainly in the country districts—and I am sure it also applies to the cities and towns—that there is more saving to build a house. Many of the people who are borrowing the £4,500 or as much of it as they qualify for are people who from their own efforts have acquired a considerable amount of money.

Mr. Faulkner

£3,000?

Mr. Tully

Deputy Faulkner might be very much surprised to find even in his own constituency people who have come to me and said: "We are getting it fairly tight but we have succeeded over a period in getting this amount of money together." I would much rather see that than the situation where people would be depending entirely on borrowing. The working people of this country are still building and buying houses, and they are able to do it. I do not hear complaints, and I would hear them much more quickly than other people would.

Mr. Faulkner

I hear them.

Mr. Tully

I am sure the Deputy does. They might complain to him but he cannot do very much for them.

Mr. Callanan

If people could build their own houses it would take a burden off the local authorities. There are people with fairly large incomes asking for local authority houses who would not do so if they could build their own. It would also improve the environment of the country if such people could design their own houses.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Callanan has hit on something which is one of my pet ideas. I believe that one of the things that is wrong with the present system and which I would like to see changed is that while it is not possible to qualify for an SDA loan over £2,350 per year, it is possible, with an income of very much more than that, to qualify in some local authority areas for a local authority house. That to me does not seem right. I would like to see that changed. We have got to very quickly decide to do something with that. If there is a genuine local authority housing list and somebody on that list wants to build his own house, I would hope to persuade my colleagues that the best way of dealing with that is to give a fairly substantial loan to the person who wants to build at least as much as he could repay in order to allow those people, as Deputy Callanan says, to build their own houses. This would be good housekeeping.

Mr. Faulkner

That is part of the point we have been making.

Mr. Tully

As a matter of fact, I have been working on this for some time and I am very glad if the people opposite are also of the same point of view because it would save us a lot of trouble later on.

Mr. Faulkner

I am sure the Minister was helped by the Opposition.

Mr. Tully

I am always helped by the Opposition. The only thing I worry about is that if they had those brilliant ideas a few years ago I would have been saved a lot of trouble. I am glad of any assistance I get from the Opposition in this and I agree that some of their ideas are well worth considering. I have had the old, hoary one of who built the houses and who was responsible for the 25,000 houses. You cannot build houses without money and you cannot build houses without a programme. I do not want to get into a contentious issue here but I want to repeat, categorically, that if a change had not taken place two years ago there could not possibly have been 25,000 houses built from April, 1973 up to the 31st March, 1974. That is a solid fact and I have got all the proof that is necessary for anybody who wants to see it.

Mr. Faulkner

We do not accept that at all.

Mr. Tully

I know the Deputies opposite do not accept that because I was listening to them during the by-election in Mayo. The people there did not listen to them. I do not believe anybody now believes that arrangements were made by the previous Governmen to have these houses built.

Mr. Faulkner

I explained the progression in a number of speeches I made.

Mr. Tully

Progression is not the way I would describe what happened before I took over. As everybody knows, things have improved much more than many people are prepared to say and it is only right that I should point out all indications are that the housing sector—I particularly stress the housing sector—of the construction industry is in a healthy position. The number of houses completed in the first nine months of this year was 19,315 compared with 18,442 in the preceding nine months. New house grant allocations by my Department have been rising steadily. There were 3,867 in the first quarter in this year, 3,977 in the second quarter and 4,392 in the quarter ended 30th September, 1975. More local authority dwellings were commenced in the first nine months of 1975 than in the preceding nine months.

The amounts approved and paid in house purchase loans to the 30th September, 1975, were up very substantially on the amounts to the 30th September, 1974. Sales of bulk cement in September last were up 9 per cent on those for August. Employment in the private sector of the construction industry was higher in September than in August—this is after the by-election —and I am now giving those figures. This is the situation. We want to be fair and honest about those things. Deputy Faulkner usually tries to be fair and honest.

Mr. Faulkner

Always.

Mr. Tully

Usually. I feel he will have to admit that the position appears to be pretty healthy in the industry. Most of the matters were covered over and over again by the people who spoke. Deputy Faulkner and others praised the work of An Foras Forbartha and suggested they should concentrate more at present on dealing with the immediate and practical problems facing the building industry. In fact, that is what they are doing. An Foras Forbartha cannot be too highly praised. They are doing tremendous work and I am quite sure from the comments I heard from Deputies on all sides of the House that their work is appreciated.

Deputy H. P. Dockrell referred to the working party on the fire service, referred to the recommendations made in their report and said that Dún Laoghaire should not be merged with the Dublin Corporation fire brigade. When the Parliamentary Secretary made his opening speech he said that this report had been published without commitment, that the views of the public, including local authorities, had been sought and no decision has been made. Of course, Deputy Dockrell's views and the views of other people who feel the same will be taken into consideration when the matter is being finally dealt with.

Deputy Carter, as always, made a number of very interesting points about housing matters. He suggested that a competition might be held to find out the type of house which was most functional and economical. One of the first actions taken by me as Minister in 1973 was to have a very wide range of house grants prepared and circulated to local authorities which reflected the wishes and needs of typical families rehoused by the authorities. These are highly functional and economical and can cater for a wide range of needs to be met by local authorities, small dwellings for elderly persons, three bedroomed houses for average sized families and bigger houses for larger families.

The Deputy also commented on the high cost of local authority houses. I do not deny that the costs have risen appreciably over the last two-and-a-half years but to put this into its proper perspective we must remember that, apart from the dramatic effect of the increases in the cost, there has been a big change for the better in the quality of local authority housing. I made a boast shortly after taking over that the local authority houses should be, and would be, able to stand four square with grant aid houses anywhere in this country. I am sure the Deputies opposite will agree with me that that is the situation at the present time.

When I took office I found local authorities tied to a programme of low cost housing. House sizes and standards of construction were pared down to the lowest possible level. This saved money in building costs but it resulted in exceptionally extensive repairs and maintenance and, worse still, it generated intense resentment on the part of the unfortunate families appointed as tenants to the houses. Shortly after I took over I was asked to officially open some of these houses. It was a bit odd to go officially to open houses which had only recently been occupied and find people standing at every door with a list of complaints about the houses which they wanted to hand out to me and ask to have them repaired.

Again, let me say that the local authorities, the builders, the designers and the unfortunate NBA, for some extraordinary reason, came in for most criticism, everybody forgetting that those people only built to the design and standard requested by the Government. I set out to stop that. I was not able to do it quickly enough to prevent some of this work being done during my term of office. The improvements have resulted in a very high increase in the cost of the houses but I still believe it is much better to build good houses that will, as they should, stand for years without needing repair rather than having the tenants waiting for the first person they thought was any way official coming around to hand him a list of repairs which they wanted done immediately.

Deputy Carter also referred to the high cost of bridging finance to persons availing of local authority house purchase loans. I suggest the remedy lies generally in the hands of the local authorities themselves. It is up to them to streamline their arrangements for processing loan applications so that the waiting period is reduced to the bare minimum. I know of people who are borrowing money from local authorities, SDA loans, who find for one reason or another that there is a very big delay in having the money paid from the local authority to the person who is borrowing. This may be due to the fact that, perhaps, the title to the site is not cleared. If the title is cleared, if the work is of the standard it should be, there should be no undue delay. I have appealed again and again to local authorities to try to streamline this particular activity. I know that one local authority have been complaining that they had not enough legal men to deal with it. I also know of a local authority who have the responsibility for the first inspection of the houses before even the Department can pay their share of the grants. If we are serious about housing people who need houses, at local authority level, we must cut out unnecessary delay. If we find someone has got a "thing" about the way he does this work, the local authority must immediately act to ensure that the views of such an individual do not override the views of the public representatives and the local authority.

Deputy Moore mentioned the oil refinery. I got the Parliamentary Secretary to refer to this matter briefly because of statements made by people who should know better. The Deputy said the implication that the oil refinery was going through was made by people who could be regarded as having the confidence of the Department and of the Minister. I do not know if he listed Deputy Colley among those people but he made a categoric statment that he was aware that the Government were making arrangements to give permission for the oil refinery. He made this statement to the people in the area and I want to say now that there is not one word of truth in it. I do not know why it was made; I am surprised at Deputy Colley, who is normally a reasonable person, making that statement but he did make it. Deputy Moore talked about people who are regarded as having the confidence of the Department and of the Minister. I think he was casting a slur on my Department and on me which I am not prepared to carry. It is a pity Deputy Moore did not accept my word that I do not do that kind of thing. Snide remarks made in this House by people, no matter how respectable a background they may have, are not the way in which matters of this kind should be dealt with.

Deputy Moore also suggested I should hold the appeal as soon as possible to stop people worrying about what might happen. The Parliamentary Secretary's opening statement referred to this point. Let me repeat it. Because of the fact that I knew people were worrying and because I wanted a decision to be taken as quickly as possible, I had my Department write again and again to the principals who made the application asking if they proposed to proceed with it. When eventually they were given a time-limit within which to reply they said they were going to proceed. Without an application being received from anyone, I decided it was of such importance that there must be an oral hearing which, in fact, is a public inquiry. Nobody asked for it but I decided on it. Then those people who are kicking up a row about delays and the dangers of an oil refinery bombarded the Custom House with appeals to have it deferred. When I fixed a date they wanted it deferred and, of course, the company who originally applied for permission were only too glad to get a deferment. People cannot stand with their feet on both sides of the fence; they must decide which side they are on. Either they want the inquiry to be held soon or they do not. As far as I am concerned, whether they like it or not the inquiry will be held as quickly as I can arrange it. Because it is an oral hearing, every opportunity will be given to those who want to support or oppose it. When the matter is thoroughly investigated I will give a decision very quickly. It is most unfair that Members of this House should attempt to cast a slur not alone on me but on my Department by suggesting that there is something going on behind backs when they know there is not one word of truth in the suggestion.

I think I have dealt with all the important points raised unless Deputies opposite consider I have left out something——

Mr. Callanan

What about the suggestion regarding an increase in the grants for private houses?

Mr. Tully

This matter has been investigated over a long period and we have reached the stage where we have two schools of thought on it. There are people who think grants towards the erection of private housing should be increased. Naturally, this would take a considerable amount of money that must come from somewhere. There is the second school of thought who consider that grants are not the way to encourage people to build houses. In fact, the primary grant given by the Department of Local Government does not go to the person who builds a house; in many cases it goes into the pocket of the speculator or a builder who is building hundreds of houses. I agree that some arrangement may be made in the country where a man is building a house for himself or where a small group of houses are being built but I am satisfied that in many cases where there are large schemes that the person who is buying a house is not even aware that a grant of approximately £325 is involved. That is taken into account in the price element. I am convinced we have to make a decision on this.

Perhaps there are other ways of dealing with it. Perhaps the only people who should be considered are those who are getting a supplementary grant. Some people ask if it is right that well-to-do people should collect the same amount of grant from the State as those who are struggling to build houses. Some people consider that the best way to deal with the matter would be to subsidise interest rates for people who have a low income, as is done in many countries. Quite rightly, Deputy Callanan has raised this point on a number of occasions because, like many others, he is interested in housing and how it will be financed. Unfortunately, the situation is that we cannot make a decision on this matter overnight. It is a matter that is, and will continue to be, thoroughly investigated. We must not forget that while the amount of grant per house is small, the amount paid throughout the country in respect of grants is a very substantial sum. Therefore, it would be my wish that the money be spent in the best way, not in the easiest way. I hope the Deputy will forgive me if I tell him he will have to wait a little longer. I hope soon to be able to say to him across the floor of this House how it will operate in the future.

Mr. Callanan

I hope it will mean an increase in the grants.

Vote put and agreed to.