Vol. 330 No. 14
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £30,363,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1981, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Environment, including grants to Local Authorities grants and other expenses in connection with housing, and miscellaneous schemes, subsidies and grants including certain grants-in-aid.
The Supplementary Estimate for Environment is required to meet additional expenditure on 16 subheads of the Department's Vote. The net amount needed is £30,363,000 when savings of £2 million on subhead F.2. are taken into account. This brings the total for the Vote for Environment in 1981 to £367,334,000. An unfortunate aspect of this Supplementary Estimate is that a large proportion of it was foreseen when the original Estimate for 1981 was being determined and should in fact have been included in that Estimate. The subheads involved were mostly in the area of subsidies and grants to local authorities where reasonably accurate advance estimation was possible. If a proper and true Estimate for my Department had been provided at the beginning of this year the Supplementary Estimate now before the House would be considerably less.
The amount provided for "pay" in subhead A.1. of the original Estimate did not, and this was in accordance with standard practice, make provision for the extra amounts needed to implement pay awards negotiated during the year. The additional £823,000 included in the Supplementary Estimate results in the main from the implementation of a number of such awards for various grades of Departmental staff.
The increase of £80,000 in subhead B.1. for travelling and incidental expenses arises because of increases in the rates of travelling and subsistence allowances with retrosptective effect to 1 January 1981 in each case. An extra £149,000 is included in subhead C, to meet additional costs arising on telephones and telegrams and in particular some arrears of telephone accounts from previous years.
The Tribunal of Inquiry into the fire which occurred at the Stardust Club, Artane in February of this year is now entering into its final stages. The estimated cost of the tribunal to be met from my Department's Vote this year is £650,000. This amount excludes legal fees which will be met from the Vote of the Office of the Attorney General.
Following the Stardust disaster, a special task force was established within the ambit of the Fire Prevention Council, to undertake special projects, additional to the normal programme of the council, aimed at increasing public awareness of fire hazards in places of public entertainment and resort. The task force activities include seminars and conferences, a media campaign and the production of leaflets. The cost of these activities is being met by my Department. Provision is accordingly made in the Supplementary Estimate for payment of a grant not exceeding £125,000 to the Fire Prevention Council to defray the cost of the task force activities this year. This expenditure is over and above the amount of £52,500 already provided for in subhead V.8. for payment of a grant to the council in respect of their normal programme.
Subhead X. provides for the introduction of a new State subsidy on fire service capital investment in accordance with a recommendation in the Report on the Fire Service. The subsidy will apply at the rate of 50 per cent of loan charges to all approved loans where the payment of loan charges commenced on or after 1 January 1981. £85,000 has been allocated to the scheme in the current year.
The Supplementary Estimate contains a number of items relating to housing and I propose to speak about these at this stage.
The first item is a provision of £16.5 million in subhead E.1. for housing subsidy bringing the total for 1981 under this subhead to £79.273 million. The vast bulk of this sum — £78.693 million — meets the cost of borrowing by local authorities to enable them to provide houses for renting. The need for the extra subvention is due primarily to the regrettable decision taken by the previous administration in the context of the January 1981 budget to under-provide for this item and so fail to honour the long-standing commitment to meet these costs. The scale of the shortfall resulting from that decision, which amounts to £15 million, is such that it would have placed local authorities in intolerable financial difficulties this month when loan repayments would have to be met. The balance of £1.5 million arises mainly from our decision of July last to allocate an extra £30 million of capital moneys for the local authority housing programme. The Government have decided that their liabilities to local authorities should be honoured and the extra £16.5 million will do this.
A sum of £1 million is included in subhead E.3. to meet commitments arising in the current year under the new mortgage subsidy scheme. This scheme applies to first-time owner-occupiers of grant-type new houses. It also applies to tenants and tenant purchasers of local authority houses surrendering their houses and to certain persons on approved local authority waiting lists purchasing new or previously occupied houses. Under the scheme, the applicant must take out a mortgage loan on the house and the mortgage must have been executed on or after 10 April 1981. Those qualifying under the scheme can receive up to £3,000 in six instalments over three years — two payments of £750 in the first year, two of £500 in the second year and two of £250 in the third year, subject to the subsidy not exceeding the total loan repayments in any year. As the first instalment becomes payable after the applicant has completed his loan repayments for six months and as the mortgages must have been executed on or after 10 April 1981, payment by my Department did not begin to fall due until mid-October. The £1 million now being provided will enable some 1,350 first instalments to be paid before the end of the year. To date, over 4,500 applications for the mortgage subsidy have been received and over 1,500 of these have been approved. Liabilities, in terms of public expenditure, under this scheme will, of course, increase substantially over the coming years.
An extra £1.25 million is provided in subhead N in respect of the interest subsidy for building societies which was reintroduced by the previous administration with effect from 1 June 1981. As the subsidy is paid six monthly in arrears payment in respect of only the month of June 1981 arises this year.
I am seeking an additional £3 million under subhead O. for recouping local authorities that part of their bill for malicious damage to property falling on the Exchequer. Unfortunately, activities leading to wanton damage to property have been on the increase and the taxpayer has to meet the bill. It is a waste of scarce moneys which we can ill afford in the present very unsatisfactory state of our finances.
The extra £5.2 million being provided under subhead P. for the rates grant will also go to the local authorities to recoup them the cost of rates relieved on houses, secondary schools, community halls and farm buildings. This shortfall might have been predicted at the start of the year on the basis of local authorities availing of the full amount of the permitted increase of 12 per cent in rate poundages and it is regrettable that adequate provision was not made at that time.
The same applies in the case of the additional £3 million now being sought for subhead F.1., water supply and sewerage, etc. subsidies, the £160,000 for subhead M.1. for recoupment to local authorities of the expenses incurred in connection with the registration and licensing of mechanically propelled vehicles and the issue of drivers' licences, the £65,000 for subhead S. for grants for the public library services and the £250,000 in subhead T. for the rehabilitation of travelling people.
The extra £26,000 in subhead U. for the grant to An Bord Pleanála arises as a result of the recruitment of a chief officer and the appointment by the former Minister of additional board members.
Finally on Subhead F.2. offsetting savings of £2 million arise because EEC approval of the programme for implementation of the private group water schemes element of the western package of FEOGA aid was not received until April 1981. The necessary statutory regulations to bring the new scheme of grants into operation at national level were made in May and became effective in June 1981. This loss of five months has had a disproportionate effect on the level of group scheme activity in 1981.
In the Minister's brief — I do not hold him responsible for it — there is the usual allegation from Government sources when dealing with Estimates, that the previous Government did not provide sufficient for housing. I can truthfully say that never did Fianna Fáil Governments allow the housing drive to be slowed down because of a lack of money. I want to warn the Government that they are facing tremendous social unrest particularly in the larger urban areas, because of the housing shortage and the inept way the Department are dealing with the housing situation. At present there are 7,000 people on the approved waiting list of Dublin Corporation. I am mentioning Dublin Corporation because I have knowledge of it and it has the highest housing demand in the country. There are many people who would not be eligible to go on that list but are in great need of housing.
There was a great deal of confusion about the various mortgage schemes to be introduced by the Government. On one occasion a Minister announced that a new scheme was being brought in, but when some people tried to work it out they found certain essential facts were missing and without them could not make an assessment of the new scheme. The next day the Minister said the scheme was not ready. That is the kind of confused thinking that exists in the Department.
The Department, I am sure, are conscious of the need for more houses. Every public representative knows we must build more dwellings, and I suggest that the Department should look at their work and see how they are using their resources. Proper housing is a basic need. Many social ills in our urban areas are the result of houses which are not up to the required standard. Yet we face the remainder of the year knowing the housing drive is falling behind.
The Dublin Corporation's approved housing list is growing daily. Apart from the fact that buildings get older and may have to be pulled down, there is a natural increase in population in this city. Many people are returning from Britain and coming from the country to settle in Dublin. All these facts must be faced by the Government. Fianna Fáil had a more dynamic approach to the housing problem than the Coalition have.
I am sure the Minister of State is aware of the present situation. He should ask his Minister if he is doing his best to solve this housing problem. I admit this is not an easy problem to solve, but it has to be solved because we are living in a time of intense social strife. The northern troubles affect the people in the Republic because families coming here to live have to be housed.
I spent many years in the Dublin City Council and at one time thought we had almost solved this problem. Some years ago emigration eased the burden but that was never a solution we accepted. I will take the Minister around this city and show him people living in overcrowded conditions. It was said at one time that Dublin had the worst slums in Europe. Admittedly a great deal of the bad housing has gone, but we have a new problem now — overcrowding.
People are marrying younger. A daughter and her husband might live with her parents and this can lead to a great deal of tension. From bad housing conditions stem many evils and social ills. If we cannot house these people properly we may have to pay more dearly later because these people will have to be hospitalised if there is a breakdown in their physical or mental health.
I cannot say the Minister's brief raises any hopes that he is going to do something great in this area. Because of the rising population one can never become complacent about this situation. I am putting a great deal of emphasis on housing because in my view it is a basic need and we have to do all we can to help these people. I want to condemn the Government for not finding all the money needed.
There is no point in blaming the last Government. People looking for houses do not worry about fiscal policies or national finances. We who believe the family is the basic unit of society must do everything we can to ensure the family structure is not impaired because of substandard or faulty housing. We hear a great deal about marital breakdowns. We must ask ourselves how much of this is caused by bad housing. We all know it is not always people living in local authority houses whose marriages break down. Young people who want to buy their own. houses cannot find the necessary deposit and this Estimate will not be very much help to them.
I know there are difficulties, but the Government must have a dynamic approach and press ahead with our housing drive. I appeal to the Government to have another look at the provision set out in this Supplementary Estimate and I should like to assure them that if they require additional money for this we will facilitate them in every way. It is no harm to warn the Government that we are in a situation which could explode at any time. We must bear in mind the suffering of young couples who cannot get proper housing. They want to settle down they are good people but they are under great strain because of the lack of proper housing.
We have all heard of the exorbitant profits being made from the sale of land. I do not deny that that is happening and I consider it most immoral that anybody should make profit from something that is scarce at the expense of those waiting to get proper housing. If the Government cannot finance a proper housing policy in this city, or in other urban areas, in an orthodox way I suggest that they discuss the matter with the Land Commission because I understand that when the Land Commission acquire a farm they pay for it in land bonds. It may be possible to do something similar in regard to the purchase of land for housing. However, a new system must be devised to remove the terriuble burden of the price of land on local authorities. If we do not do something about providing proper housing, the force may well surface here in the future that will tackle such problems in a much more radical fashion.
I should like to deal with the question of malicious damage. I am sure the Minister agrees with me when I say that there is a great waste of public money because some mindless people destroy property, public and private. I do not excuse those who say they have a political motive either. Our people must pay for the malicious damage to such property and I often wonder if those who are guilty of this crime give any consideration to the fact that even old age pensioners must in some way make a contribution towards the cost of reparing the damage. The State must raise the money through taxation and consequently, everybody must contribute. If we did not have such a massive bill for malicious damage it is possible that the Government would be in a position to devote more funds to helping pensioners and other needy people. I appeal to those people, young and no so young, who set out to destroy property, who engage in this mindless occupation, to take into consideration that everybody must contribute towards the cost of reparing the damage. The media should highlight such an appeal and it should be brought to the attention of children in schools. It is no harm to show those people how ridiculous and cruel it is for them to embark on a campaign of damaging property. Compensation must be paid from State funds and maybe some day we will see a reduction under this heading.
I am worried about the frequent hints we get from members of the Government parties that rates on private dwellings will be reintroduced at some stage. At meetings of Dublin City Council members of the Labour Party and the Fine Gael party hinted at the prospect of the reintroduction of rates. They expressed the view that since rates were abolished the democratic process was weakened. That seems to indicate that if rates were reintroduced the democratic process would be strengthened. Rates were removed by Fianna Fáil because it was felt that it was an unjust tax. It is for that reason that we call on the Government to announce that it is not their intention to reintroduce rates on private dwellings. I am aware that our friends across the channel envy us when they are told that rates no longer apply to private dwellings. We have been asked on many occasions how we manage to achieve that. In fact, the removal of rates may become a national issue in Great Britain. We considered that rates represented an unjust tax on couples, young and old, because they had to find the money to pay the bill whether they had the resources or not. Fortunately, such families do not have to face the dreaded twice yearly demand for rates now.
All public representatives are deeply interested in the Department of the Environment and for that reason I regret that I do not have more time to deal in greater depth with the various schemes operated by it. While I do not hold the Minister responsible for the contents of the speech he read out this morning, I believe Government Ministers should cease bemoaning, rather untruthfully, that the last Government did not provide sufficient money for housing. The last Government faced many obstacles but they did not neglect housing. I was attracted to this party because of its policy in relation to housing and I have always maintained that irrespective of what other section of the economy is left short, the housing drive must be maintained. I have always looked upon the building industry as the barometer of national progress or otherwise. If the building industry is kept going it means more people can be housed and employment maintained. When we resume office shortly we will show the same dynamism we displayed down the years in regard to the building industry. We will always be critical of the Government until they meet the growing needs of our ever-increasing population.
(Dún Laoghaire): This is the first occasion I have had an opportunity of addressing the House and I feel very honoured and privileged to do so. The importance of local government is evident to anybody in public life because it affects all citizens within the State. It is therefore essential that local government as a system should continue and should be expanded to make it more local and more meaningful for our people. For that reason I welcome the additional funds being given to the Department in this Supplementary Estimate. I listened to Deputy Moore's contribution about the Government's housing programme and I noticed that he conveniently forgot that there would not be any need for this Supplementary Estimate for the Department of the Environment if it had been funded properly in the 1981 Estimate. It is unfair of him to criticise the Government's housing programme when one considers that the Government have only been four months in office. It is obvious that for housing alone we were left £16½ million short. Those of us who have entered political life throught local government realise that it is essential, irrespective of the Government that is in power, that adequate funds are provided so that the local authority can carry out its proper function. Local government affects everybody.
I welcome the increase in the number of residents' and community associations that have sprung up in recent years because when one is dealing with such groups one brings local government to the people and makes it more meaningful. There is a great deal of saving on the public purse to be achieved by urging residents' associations and community associations to become more involved in their communities and environment. We all realise that this is done on a voluntary basis. It is the responsibility of each local authority to pay heed to these associations and indeed encourage them. There are many areas in which residents' associations can assist, not least of which is the encouragement of the community at large to respect their environment. Not alone should they act as watchdogs with regard to planning matters, road proposals and so on that may effect them but they have an even wider role to play in Irish life generally.
Since this debate commenced we have heard a lot about housing policy. I agree with what Deputy Moore said, that the housing policy of any government or any party is essential to the formation of any future society. I entered public life through the local government system. I am a member of Dublin County Council and am aware of the problems facing them in the housing area at present. It is essential to recognise that housing is a basic right of any individual and that the family unit — long a feature of Irish life — depends for its very existence on proper housing facilities. While a great deal has been and is being done under the local government housing programme — whether by Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council, or Dún Laoghaire Borough — it is time we ascertained where we are going. There will always be people in our society who, through no fault of their own, will be in need of housing by a local authority. But it is essential — and this Government recognise this fact — that we encourage those who are capable of providing homes for themselves to do so. In the Dublin area in recent years, because of the escalation in house prices, occasioned mainly by increased land values, it has become practically impossible for a young couple to raise the necessary deposit with which to but their own home. This means that more and more people who heretofore would not have put their names on local authority housing lists have no option but to do so.
I welcome the Government's proposal to create the Housing Finance Agency which I have no doubt will prove of enormous help to the thousands of young couples on the waiting lists of various local authorities, and indeed to those who will be getting married in the future. If we can evolve a system which will encourage young people, at an early stage of their relationship, to save through one of the lending agencies, with the Government assisting them later in raising a deposit, we will be eliminating a number of people at present seeking accommodation from local authorities and in that way, building a better society.
If I might give the House one example of this, an example which could be given by any of us here who hold clinics regularly. There is the option open to anybody to get married, find rented accommodation, but because of the points scheme operated by local authorities, most young people will take the worst accommodation they can get because the better will be their chance of being rehoused. Therefore the trend is to get married, take bad rented accommodation, a child comes along and they are all then living in bad conditions, which is bound to have an effect on the marriage and endanger the health of that child. After some considerable period of time on the waiting list the local authority may provide them with a home. Would not it be far better if we could say to any such young couple; you save a certain percentage and the State will assist you in accumulating a deposit so that you can get your own home straightaway. In my opinion the effects of that on society would be tremendous, it would assist marriages and also the health of those children who become part of the family unit.
It is essential that we get our housing programme right, that we spend money on local authority housing for those who genuninely need it, who have no option, and continue to encourage those who can afford to save and but their own homes to do so. If the State must give them some encouragement then I am all in favour of it. Certainly the proposed Housing Finance Agency should help to a greater degree in that area.
I welcome also the announcement by the Government to examine the possibility of controlling land prices. There is no doubt but they have had a drastic effect on house prices in recent years. It is only reasonable that people get a fair price for their land, but the exorbitant prices paid in recent years have gone out of all proportion. Any action that can be taken by the Government in that area will be of tremendous advantage to us all and particularly those who will be in need of housing in the future.
To revert to other aspects of the operations of the Department, the road tax now reintroduced should solve the problems we have been encountering on our roads, certainly those in the greater Dublin area. None of us like having to impose taxes but I think the public at large would be prepared to pay a reasonable amount for the provision of a proper road network. I sincerely hope that the money collected from this road tax will be spent solely on the construction and maintenance of our roads because if we do not have a proper road network, ultimately the cost to the State will be very high. There will be additional charges to be imposed on industry, delays in deliveries, in the receipt of goods, waste of fuel, damage to health, to mention but a few. I am sure the Government will provide adequate funds to local authorities for the construction of a proper road network, which will ultimately be of great saving to the Exchequer. In this regard the Excequer is being asked to pay too much continously. There is no reason private enterprise cannot be involved in road construction. I am sure private enterprise would be only too willing to become involved in the provision of a proper roads network. This idea has worked well in other countries, as all of us who have travelled abroad will know. We have seen toll roads. If roads are provided more speedily through private funds I cannot foresee any objection. I am sure the public at large would be agreeable to the payment of a small toll if roads were provided more speedily. Therefore we should investigate the possibility of encouraging the private sector to become more involved in the provision of funds for our roads network.
We are providing a further £3 million here for sanitary a services. In Dublin country there is massive development at the moment and one of the reasons for prices being so high is because of a lack of serviced land. The money for services is provided from the Exchequer. I do not think that is the only way in which to provide the money. Private enterprise should be encouraged. The more serviced land available the cheaper it will be, because it is a question ultimately of supply and demand. Serviced land is needed for housing and industry and, if it is scarce, whatever is available will become more and more valuable. More serviced land in Dublin country is required to meet housing demands and the demand for jobs. Private enterprise should be encouraged to become involved. If we can have toll bridges there is no reason why we should not have tool services. These things should be provided speedily and we should not always have to wait for the public purse to provide the necessary funds.
With regard to planning there is a sum provided here for An Bord Pleanála. In my opinion planning is about people and local authorities should have a responsibility at all times to remember that they are dealing with people. What may appear to be an attractive scheme on a map may not necessarily result in a proper environment in which to ask people to live. An Bord Pleanála should be respect the wishes of local authorities and not grant permissions which involve a change in Zoning. Planning must be done in a properly organised way and I do not think An Bord Plannála should be involved in changes. Technical matters should, of course, be dealt with on appeal but the public should have an opportunity to become involved. The development plan gives the opportunity to the public of examining the proposals of the local authority, making suggestions for change, lobbying the public representatives and so on. If, however, an independent body not answerable to the public has the power to change zones that is detrimental to the whole planning process. It is, indeed, undemocratic.
I know the Minister is looking at the planning laws. If a planning authority has to face having to pay compensation as a result of certain decisions that is not in the best interest of the public, and I sincerely hope the law will be changed to enable local authorities to refuse planning permissions on valid grounds and not find themselves faced with compensation claims which must be met out of the public purse. If a planning authority feels some development is premature or undesirable it should be entitled to refuse permission for that development without any fear of being faced with a subsequent massive compensation claim. At the moment local authorities are faced with having to give permissions or else meet massive compensation claims. That is not right and the law should be changed. I hope that during this Government's life these loopholes will be closed and we will get down to proper planning and proper protection of the environment.
As I said earlier, local government affects everybody. We should ensure that what we do today will be something of which people can be proud in the future producing an environment in which they can live in peace and security. I doubt if the direction we are taking is the right one. The public should have a say in development. It is quite easy to provide long rows of houses with a community centre and a shopping centre and perhaps other facilities without advertence to the dangers that may ultimately arise from speeding traffic putting the lives of children in jeopardy. Such areas can, in fact, be completely lacking in a community spirit.
It is noteworthy that areas like Malahide, Dalkey, Dún Laoghaire, and Dundrum are becoming more and more attractive. The reasons why they are attractive is because of the community spirit that exists. That is the reason why housing is always increasing in these areas. People want to be part of a community. As a member of a local authority I shall always insist on our remembering in the planning process that we are planning for people and what may appear to be suitable may not necessarily be what people want. This is a point that should be remembered, too, from the point of view of appeals.
As Deputy Seán Moore said, malicious injury claims have to be paid out of the public purse. Those who scrawl graffiti on our walls or damage property should be compelled to make good the damage done. I notice pop groups are now disfiguring our walls with advertisements. Those who behave like this should be compelled to remove these graffiti. Such an abuse of public property is unacceptable. Steps should be taken to make those who carry out malicious injuries do something to make good the damage they have caused.
Deputy Moore hinted that the Government intended to reintroduce rates. That is very unfair because it creates doubt in people's minds. It has been stated clearly and often by the Minister concerned that this Government do not intend to reintroduce domestic rates. We all recognise that the rates were a very unfair system of taxation because they did not take into account one's ability to pay. Any tax that does not take that into account is unfair, and it is right that rates were removed. I would like to remind the Deputy that the process of removing the domestic rates was begun by the Coalition Government in 1974. While a subsequent administration may have removed them the process was begun by the Coalition Government.
Local authorities should be given power to raise some finance of their own. That need not necessarily be by way of tax. It is quite common in the United Kingdom for local authorities to run their own lotteries and they have made a considerable amount of money as a result of this. If local authorities here were given that power, the moneys collected could be used to provide further amenities for the county involved. We have been very fortunate in Dublin that some years ago we began a parks programme, the benefit of which is now to be seen throughout County Dublin. I do not see why local authorities should not be able to raise their own funds through a lottery system and the money raised could be spent on the provision of amenities in the county in which they were collected. It would also give the local authority an opportunity of raising funds without having to depend on the Exchequer. We all realise that there is only a certain amount of money available, bearing in mind the demands on the Exchequer, for local government but, because of the growing demand on local government, it is impossible to keep pace with these demands. Therefore we should look at other ways of raising finance. The lottery system would be optional and would be of tremendous benefit. I hope that local authorities will be given the power to raise their own funds through this system.
I would also like to mention the funds made available for special environmental grants. Recently Dublin County Council, with a relatively small sum of money, £160,000, were able to create 45 jobs. There is room in the local government system to give employment of a productive nature. Local authorities can carry out works which will, ultimately, be of overall benefit if they are given the finances to do so. I have met a number of unemployed people who would be delighted to work for a local authority if they were given an opportunity to do so, even on a temporary basis. We should examine the possibility of transferring funds from the Department of Social Welfare to the Department of the Environment, provided the local authorities could show that the person was being employed by them. I do not accept, as has been suggested, that there are large numbers of unemployed people who do not want to work. Of course there are people in every society who will try to abuse the system and who are not too particular about working, but the vast majority of unemployed people would be pleased to be given an opportunity of working. If we can do it through the local government system, even on a temporary basis, it would be of tremendous benefit to the State and local authorities. There are numerous areas where this could be done, in provision of amenities, road maintenance and sanitary services. It would only involve a transfer of funds from one department to the other.
I am sure this suggestion has been looked at before but I ask the Minister to look at it again. It would not involve any additional expenditure. Dublin County Council managed to provide 45 jobs for a sum of £160,000 and, at the same time, carried out works which are going to be of tremendous benefit to the residents of County Dublin. If that can be multiplied it is easy to see the number of jobs which could be made available in this area.
It has been a privilege for me to address this House, and I hope the points I made will be of some benefit.
The Chair congratulates Deputy Barrett on his maiden speech.
I join with you in congratulating Deputy Barrett on his maiden speech. It is always difficult for a new Member to address the Chamber. His contribution was of the standard I expected from a chairman of the county council. While we differ politically, I have considerable admiration for his grasp of the local government system. He is a fine chairman of Dublin County Council.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the problems facing the Department of the Environment and the appalling decisions that have been made since the election of the Government. In the speech by the Minister of State, there is what is now becoming a discredited catch cry with regard to the accusation of underprovision of finance in the original Estimate which I introduced at the beginning of the year and which other Ministers introduced for their Departments. The Minister spoke about underprovision and then referred to additional services, schemes and charges for the Stardust Tribunal inquiry, which could not have been calculated at the time of the original Estimate. The Government should catch themselves on with regard to labelling the previous administration with not providing enough funds. We have had some well publicised meetings of the Government to consider the Estimates for the various. Departments for the coming year. We will be keeping a very close eye on the Government and will be making every effort, through this House, to see that the progress we made during our four years in Government will be continued, I am talking about progress made in the provision of roads, sewerage schemes, water schemes, housing schemes, mortgage subsidy schemes, the rates programme, abolition of rates, library services, the concern shown for the travelling people, the strategies we were pursuing with regard to toxic waste and industrial waste dumping, various environmental works and the improvement of the fire service. We will be insisting, as far as we can in Opposition, that the Government continue the progress we have made.
I wish to refer first to the mortgage subsidy scheme for which provision is being made in this Supplementary Estimate. This relates to a scheme introduced by me as Minister in April last for first-time owner occupiers of grant-type new houses. It was a provision of a subsidy of £3,000 spread over a three-year period. In the first year £1,500 was to be paid, in the second year, £1,000 and in the third year, £500. This scheme with other items introduced in April comprised our housing package of 1981. That mortgage subsidy scheme included payments of subsidy to single people but perhaps the greatest example we have of discrimination on the part of this Government is the decision to exclude single people from the scheme. This has had an effect throughout the construction industry. In addition it has implications for the morale of the nation in terms of one section of the community being discriminaed against. Our scheme provided for a mortgage subsidy for both married and single people alike but in July the Minister for the Environment announced that the mortgage subsidy would no longer apply to single, first-time owner occupiers. According to his figure these people comprised 22 per cent of all first-time owner-occupiers. That 22 per cent is on a national level but if we were to take the major urban areas I would suggest that in respect of Dublin, for instance, the figure would be at least 30 per cent and possibly up to 40 per cent. By a single stroke of the pen the Government have discriminated against single people.
I appeal to the Minister of State to use his good offices to persuade the Government to make the subsidy available for single people as well as for married people. I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of State on his appointment to the Department of the Environment. I know that he has a background in local government and I am confident that he will share many of the views I express here, including the view on the mortgage subsidy.
Another decision made by this Government was the abolition of the mortgage interest subsidy. In Government Fianna Fáil recognised the burden of mortgage repayments. We recognised the burden of continuously-rising interest rates and, consequently, we decided to assist mortgage holders through the difficult period of worldwide high interest rates. However, this uncaring Government, this Government of pseudo-economists whose main concern is for figures rather than for people — though they do not even get their figures right — removed the mortgage interest subsidy with the result that since July last a mortgage holder with a building society has been paying 16.25 per cent compared with a mortgage when we left office of 13.15 per cent. I should be interested to hear the Minister of State's response as to how he can justify this type of action at a time when interest rates have been increasing so much. Has he any idea of the burden that the removal of the interest subsidy is placing on the shoulders of mortgage holders? Has he any idea of the effect it is having on householders, on marriages and on family life? This decision together with the other decisions taken in July by the Minister for Finance in the context of the 5 per cent increase in VAT and the various other increases leaves us with a current inflation rate of between 23 and 24 per cent. Despite this we have a Government who are asking the workers to take reductions in incomes and in living standards supposedly in the national interest.
The Government are also composed of members of the Labour Party, who purport to represent the workers. I will come back in greater detail on another occasion to the removal of the mortgage subsidy from single people and the question of mortgage interest. As a result of other decisions made in July the whole local authority loan scheme is in tatters because the Government have not yet sent out instructions to the local authorities about this scheme in relation to joint incomes. The income of the husband and wife being taken together has to be under £7,000 a year. When both incomes are taken together very few couples will be earning under £7,000 a year. At Question Time the Minister of State said that the wife could be in temporary employment and then her income would not be included. When we asked him to define temporary employment he could not define it for us.
Many of my colleagues come to me with complaints about their local authorities in relation to the operation of the SDA loan scheme, which is falling apart. What is the Government's response in this area of house purchase? It is the announcement of a Housing Finance Agency. We have heard a lot of talk about it but we have not seen the legislation. I understand the enabling legislation, rather than the setting up of the agency, will come before the House before Christmas.
I welcome any additional funds that can be made available from any source for the housing industry and to assist young couples starting off to buy their own homes. I welcome any scheme which will assist them in the early years when they are facing the problem of deposits and early repayments. It was that concern which guided me in the preparation of the mortgage subsidy scheme, the £3,000 spread over three years to assist the first time buyer over the first three difficult years of the mortgage.
What do we know of the Housing Finance Agency? If we are to take the Fine Gael programme as the guiding principle for the agency, this scheme will provide mortgages at a fixed percentage of the income of the mortgage holder varying from 17½ per cent to 20 per cent. If we take 20 per cent, this fixed percentage will carry on throughout the life of the mortgage. Let us take a 20 year mortgage of £20,000. In the first year the mortgage-holder will pay a fixed percentage of his income, £1,000 in the first year. I am being conservative when I say that the average increase in salary will be 10 per cent. If we take a 10 per cent increase over every year of the 20-year mortgage, this person will find himself still paying 20 per cent of his income in the twentieth year of the mortgage. In that year he will pay more in his mortgage repayment than the original mortgage was. Figures were published recently by a respected financial journalist which suggests that in the mortgage period of 20 years on a £20,000 mortgage the unfortunate mortgage-holder will repay in the region of £130,000 to £140,000.
There will be another occasion to discuss this Housing Finance Agency when the Bill comes before the House. I would like to set this marker down for the Minister of State. If that is the type of scheme and that is the type of rip-off which is in mind, I suggest he should reconsider his situation and look again at the type of mortgage. I also want to set down a marker for him that he should not interfere with the operations of the local authority loan scheme at this stage and incorporate it in this new bureaucratic structure of an agency.
Why is an agency needed? If there are additional funds available can they not be put into the SDA loan fund? The administration of that fund runs at about a half per cent, which is very low when compared with mortgages from building societies, insurance companies and banks. The Minister of State does not need a new agency. Apparently one of the ideas behind the agency is that it will have the power to raise funds, provide funds and so forth, but this can be done under the Office of Public Works. They have the power to raise money in the manner in which this agency intends to do so. I believe this agency has a nice title, but the substance of the agency is questionable. I welcome any additional funds made available to the housing industry to help provide houses for young people starting off.
With regard to local authority houses, a percentage of the population through no fault of theirs are unable to buy their own homes and they must be housed by the Government through the local authority housing programme. It is the responsibility of any Government to provide adequate housing for those people. Fianna Fáil in Government have always recognised that position. Last year and in each of the four years of our term of office we built over 6,000 local authority houses. Last year was a record year for housing construction when we built nearly 28,000 houses. In relation to local authority houses and those on waiting lists we also took the imaginative step last April of assisting those who could afford the repayments but could not afford the initial deposit if they got a house. In our housing package for 1981 I introduced a scheme where tenants of local authority houses or those on the local authority housing list for one year and who had one child could get a mortgage of up to £18,000 and would also be eligible for the new house grant and the mortgage subsidy. The mortgage subsidy would be paid whether the house was new or second-hand.
One of the problem of housing generally is the cost of the site. This is a major element in the cost. One important way of reducing the cost is to provide adequate sewerage and water supply facilities throughout the country. Taking the law of supply and demand into account, the more serviced land that is available the less will be the cost of the site. With this principle in mind, this year we provided in our estimates for sanitary services record allocations for the provision of sewerage and water supply schemes. I was Minister for the Environment at the time and I sanctioned schemes amounting to approximately £75 million so that we could provide adequate serviced land for our housing and industrial programmes.
As a party we are totally opposed to the windfall profits that some people get as a result of the extension of sewerage facilities and water supply schemes to their area or of decisions of local authorities regarding zoning of land. In such cases the landowner concerned benefits from what can only be described as windfall profits. We will examine and support a scheme introduced by the Government to tackle this problem. Accusations were made by members of the Government parties about our attitude on this matter, but I want to put it on the record that we will support such a scheme if the Government put it forward.
Fianna Fáil did not bring in such a scheme.
The Deputy was not here when the National Coalition were in power from 1973 to 1977. They did nothing about the matter then but we will wait and see. A matter that is causing much concern at the moment is the hint of the reintroduction of rates in some guise by the Minister for the Environment. In a significant move, the Minister recently wrote to the chairmen of local authorities and asked that meetings be held to discuss reorganisation of local government and means of raising additional funds by local authorities. I want to put the record straight on this item also. Fianna Fáil are totally opposed to the reintroduction of rates in the domestic sector. When we came to office in 1977 we took the courageous decision to remove rates from domestic property. We will oppose at local authority and at national level any attempt by this Government to reintroduce rates.
Very innocently the Minister asked local authorities to advise him on how they would like to raise extra funds. A previous speaker spoke of a lottery. There is merit in a lottery system and there is the element of choice. I wish to emphasise that we will oppose totally the introduction of charges for services such as the collection of domestic refuse or any other charges that may be suggested by this Government. If the Minister has proposals to make about reorganisation and funding, he should make the decisions. He is the Minister and that is his responsibility. He should not ask local authorities to do his dirty work for him.
When we were in government I proposed a system of charges to be made for planning applications. At that time I had in mind charges for planning applications where local authorities were faced with unusual applications: for example, there was the case of Wexford County Council who had to deal with the application for Carnsore Point for the nuclear power station and there was the case of Meath County Council who had to deal with applications for Tara and Bula. In such cases there is a considerable charge on the local authority concerned as they have to bring in specialist advisers. It was my view that where there was commercial benefit to be obtained, the commercial operators should make a contribution towards processing their planning permission applications.
We will oppose totally any proposal by this Government for the introduction of charges for domestic extensions or other types of extension to domestic property. This Government will be totally opposed by us in any attempt to introduce rates under any name. The Minister for the Environment is chasing around the country in his efforts to introduce certain charges but we will oppose them. He spoke in Limerick on the matter. He asked local authorities to tell him what they would like to charge their people. It is merely an attempt to reintroduce rates. The Minister will not get away with it. He will be fought tooth and nail by this party on any proposal to reintroduce rates.
Before commencing Question Time the Chair would remind the House that there is a total of 541 question on the Order Paper. Apart from Standing Orders I am asking for and anticipating Deputies' co-operation in trying to discharge a fair number of these Questions.
