Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Dec 1981

Vol. 331 No. 7

Private Members' Business: Housing Finance: Motion.

Mr. Raphael Burke

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to restore (a) the house mortgage subsidy to single people and (b) the eligibility of single people for local authority home loans."

I want, first of all, to put this debate in the context of the decision which we made as a Government last April in the introduction of the Housing Package 1981. At that time, as Minister for the Environment, with the agreement of the Government, I announced the introduction of a scheme of measures designed to assist prospective home owners in the first three years of the repayment of their mortgages. The scheme involved the paying of a subsidy of £3,000, broken down into £1,500 in the first year, £1,000 in the second year and £500 in the third year. The payments were to be made six-monthly in arrears.

This mortgage subsidy was available at that time to a wide range of applicants — the married, single, about to be married, tenants and tenant purchasers of local authority houses who wanted to move out from their local authority houses and purchase houses in one of the private estates, and also for potential tenants of local authority houses. In that way we were anxious, as a Government, to assist couples who wished to house themselves but had no possibility of raising the necessary deposit, although being in a position to meet some of the repayments. We decided to include them in a mortgage subsidy, whether they bought new or second-hand houses. The category that this resolution in my name and that of Deputy Moore particularly refers to is the single person. Also, at that time the county council Small Dwellings Act loans were available to single people, that is the system of house purchase loans administered by the local authorities. In the Housing Package of April we also increased the eligibility limit from £5,500 to £7,000 and the loan limit to £14,000.

Through that decision in April, we have proved our commitment to the encouragement of home ownership and the encouragement of thrift. We consciously extended the mortgage subsidy to single people because they represent 22 per cent of all first-time house buyers.

That is the percentage which is affected. The Coalition Government came into power and on 23 July, the Minister for the Environment came into the House to speak on Financial Resolutions, in effect the budget. We had had the budget on the Tuesday, a series of increases announced on the Wednesday — ESB and others — and on Thursday, 23 July, the Minister for the Environment addressed the House. Amongst other measures announced that day he mentioned:

A very large proportion of the increase in the numbers of households in Ireland can be attributed to a change in the rate of formation of the household by the younger age groups rather than to changes in the size and structure of the population. Information to be published by my Department later today shows that 22 per cent of new house borrowers from all agencies in 1980 were single persons not about to marry compared to 19 per cent in 1979, 19 per cent in 1978 and 20 per cent in 1977. A high incidence of single persons not about to marry but who can afford to purchase secondhand houses is also apparent from this statistic.

This development has serious implications for the Exchequer. Clearly, some single persons could readily postpone the purchase of a house because they are adequately housed at present. In the normal course the housing needs of families must take priority. The Government have reviewed the position and have decided that there should be no change in the position relating to the special loans and mortgage subsidies available to categories such as tenants and tenant-purchasers of local authority houses who surrender their premises to the authority and one-parent families.

The following shows a pure, Victorian mentality of discrimination against single people:

In future, however, in other cases, eligibility for the mortgage subsidy and ordinary local authority house purchase loans will be restricted to married persons and persons about to marry. Single purchasers may obtain approval to the payment of a loan and mortgage subsidy but these payments will not be made until evidence of marriage is available.

In the enlightened age in which we live, various Governments have been introducing legislation to remove discrimination from our statute books. Here we have a classic example of discrimination against one section of the community — single persons. That is not just my view, or the view of Fianna Fáil. This decision made by the Minister for the Environment on 23 July resulted in the setting up of an organisation called Single Persons against Discrimination. They wrote to me in October and enclosed, for my information, a copy of a letter sent to the Taoiseach. I shall quote from that letter dated 13 October:

Dear Dr. FitzGerald,

Single Persons against Discrimination is officially launched this week. The group's formation was sparked off by your Government's decision to end the new £3,000 mortgage subsidy for single people and at the same time to exclude single people from local authority loans. The immediate objectives of the group are in the field of housing:

1. Restoration of the housing subsidy for single people and....

2. Restoration of eligibility of single people for local authority housing loans....

Discrimination against single people is endemic in Irish society. Nonetheless it was surprising that the second class status of single people was formally acknowledged by the Government in the housing subsidies decision.

That describes the decision of 23 July very well indeed. We have heard from the Taoiseach much talk of the need for crusades to remove discrimination. He said that discrimination was rife in this country. Those are not his exact words but that was the implication. Surely his bona fides have to be questioned when his own Government introduce such discriminatory regulations as these, the subject matter of the resolution before the House.

The Government amendment, which will be moved soon, refers to "those most in need — namely married people, those about to be married and special categories of borrowers" such as tenant purchasers. This amendment attempts to divide the society in which we live as to those who are married and those who are single. We in Fianna Fáil are anxious to promote and preserve the family as a unit. It is legitimate and necessary for any Government or party to work to promote and preserve the family but it should not be done by penalising single people. Why should one section of the society be penalised not for the benefit for another section but merely for the convenience of the book-keeping of the Government, to which I will come back later?

Through employment regulations relating to women in the workplace, regulations for family home protection and recognising the rights of both spouses, and various other reform measures, all parties in Government have attempted to remove discrimination from the Statute Book. Yet here, in their first days in Government, the Minister for the Environment of this administration introduces this unheard of level of discrimination, the effect of which is to remove from 22 per cent of first-time house buyers the eligibility for this mortgage subsidy of £3,000. Surely the Government should be doing all in their power to encourage home ownership by people, married or single. They should be encouraging thrift and investment in homes. There is a suggestion in the Minister's attitude that all single people who want to buy houses are in the 21, 22 and 23 age bracket. Many single people who are more settled in years have been in touch with me on this issue. They have decided, for their own reasons, that they do not intend to marry but are anxious to set up their own homes. They have been very badly treated by this Government and they will not forget this discrimination.

I glanced at the Coalition programme on housing today to see if there was any suggestion that this Government would discriminate against single people when they got into power. There was no such suggestion. They said that they would assist house purchase through a variety of schemes, including a no deposit shared housing scheme for local authority tenants and those on housing lists, implementation of the £4,000 grant scheme for first-time buyers up to a house value of £40,000, pay-related mortgages of up to four times a person's income through a housing agent, top up loans to bridge the gap between the deposit and the amount saved for those getting loans from building societies, a purchase and lease back scheme for the elderly, an additional £1,000 for first-time Gaeltacht purchasers, measures to enable householders to ensure against redundancy and special aids for co-operatives and so on.

There is nothing in that policy to indicate that within three weeks of forming a Government the Coalition intended to remove from single people the mortgage subsidy and their eligibility for SDA loans. My colleagues on this side of the House will be speaking about this in greater detail so I will leave the main thrust of it to them. I also looked through the programme to see if there was any indication of an intention to discriminate under the heading of justice and law reform. But there was nothing there either. I thought that there might be some question in the programme of discriminating in regard to income taxation. The one thing that I found was mention of taxation and equity. Where is the equity in discriminating against single people in the manner in which they have in this decision of July last?

In their amendment the Government refer to the inadequate provision for the mortgage subsidy. The reality is that the subsidy was introduced in April, it would have been May before it could have been put into operation and most of the loan applications would not have been closed until June or July. Loan payments are made six months in arrears, so payments would be coming due only now. Perhaps a few would have been due in November.

Therefore, to talk about inadequate provision is, to say the least of it, less than honest. The provision for the main scheme would have to be made in 1982 and if we were in Government we would have made that provision and all of those originally included, married and single, would have been catered for. Reference to inadequate funds for SDA purchases is something of a sick joke when it comes from a Government who between 1973 and 1977 never increased the SDA qualifying income limit. In our time in office we increased it four or five times.

Fianna Fáil have always taken the construction industry and the purchase of homes as being a very important item of Government policy. This does not appear to be the view of the present Government and this was further confirmed in the infamous speech of 23 July when the Minister for the Environment removed the mortgage subsidy. That Minister tonight has been speaking at the formal opening of the EBS premises in Westmoreland Street. He referred there to the importance of housing in all its many aspects. He referred to the important role of the building societies and said he recognised that role and the efforts of the societies through loans.

We in Government recognised the importance of a cash flow to the building societies. We appreciated that they would have to increase their deposit rates to encourage the inflow of funds at a time when their competitors, the banks and other agencies, were increasing their interest rates. We also realised that mortgage holders would have to be protected against savage repayments and for that reason we decided, when in Government, to subsidise interest rates. But on 23 July, the Minister for the Environment removed that subsidy. What has been the outcome? When we left office on 30 June last, mortgage holders were paying 13.15 per cent as a result of our subsidy. Now they are paying 16.25 per cent as a result of the decision of the Government to remove the subsidy. That speech of 23 July totally reneged, after three weeks in office, on commitments in both the Fine Gael and the Gaiety Theatre documents.

This morning a Bill was circulated to set up a housing finance agency. The Bill is purely an enabling measure to set up the agency, and it waffles on without going into detail. During the weekend a Fine Gael backbencher spoke at a meeting of the group called Single Persons Against Discrimination. I assumed he was speaking with Government approval when he said that loans would be available for single people through this agency. I should like to get confirmation of that from the Minister when he is speaking on his amendment. Was everything the Deputy said correct? If loans are to become available, and I hope they will be, it would be meeting one part of our motion in regard to SDA loans but it will not meet the other important part of our motion calling for the restoration of the housing mortgage subsidy to single people.

It is not my intention to hang my case on the unemployment situation and the effect it will have on the building industry or the effect the removal of the mortgage subsidy for single people must have had on the construction industry because of its effect on new house purchases. It is no secret that the building trade are going through the worst time in their history. It is a cliché, but it is true, that the health of the construction industry is a barometer of the health of the economy generally. Today's figures of the unemployment situation show that there are about 134,000 people out of work, many of them in the construction industry. At such a time it is surely the responsibility of the Government to adopt the approach in this motion and not to try to hide behind their amendment which states that the Government were compelled to confine house purchase loans and the mortgage subsidy to those most in need. Why divide society? We have enough division on this island without further dividing the married from the single.

I appeal for the support of all Deputies on this issue. Many Fine Gael Deputies have been speaking outside the House regarding discrimination, the role of single people, the protection of citizens' rights, about discrimination at all levels. I appeal to all of them to recognise by voting in support of this motion that the Fianna Fáil proposal is correct and appropriate at this time.

In particular I appeal to the Independent Members of this House for their support for this motion. A number of them have been vocal against discrimination of all types, and the need to remove discrimination from our society with which I heartily agree. Tomorrow night when we have a vote on this motion, as it appears we will have because the Government have put down an amendment, I appeal to the Independent Members to walk through the lobby with Fianna Fáil and support this motion which attempts to remove discrimination from one area, the regulations of the Government. Some of the Independent Members are noted, and even noted by themselves, for their stand against discrimination in all its forms. Tomorrow night they will have an opportunity to show in a concrete fashion just how sincere they are in their claim to be opposed to discrimination.

I have concentrated on paragraph (a) of the motion which refers to the mortgage subsidy to single people. My colleague Deputy Callanan and others will speak at greater length on the eligibility of single people for local authority home loans. The Government's administrative decision to put together the two incomes of married couples is having a shattering effect on the construction industry and building jobs. Every time we mention housing the Government throw around the figure of £15 million which was supposed to be the great saving in the local authority house construction sector for 1981, totally disregarding everything else done by the Fianna Fáil Government.

Government speakers have put great emphasis on this £15 million. Rather than trotting out that old chestnut, when the Minister moves his amendment he should answer the legitimate charge of discrimination against the Government. The Minister of State is guilty of being a junior member of a Government whose Cabinet have decided to introduce a further level of discrimination into our society. The Government are led by a Taoiseach who parades himself and calls for crusades against discrimination in all forms. We regret that the Government have introduced this new level of discrimination.

The Minister may not be aware of a letter addressed to Dr. Garret FitzGerald, Dáil Éireann, dated October 13, 1981. I was sent a copy by the lady who signed the letter, Miss Bernadette Marsh, Chairman of Single Persons Against Discrimination. I will quote the last two paragraphs:

S.P.A.D. awaits, with interest, to hear whether the recently announced pay-related mortgage scheme with an upper income limit of £9,000 will apply to single people.

This is the enabling Bill about which I spoke earlier. The letter goes on:

The majority of single people in the country would be eligible on an income basis and the scheme would be of great assistance to them. However, when Mr. Barry has done his sums, perhaps we will again be told that "single people don't need housing".

I look forward to hearing what the Government plans to do for single people and would remind you that single people have votes. At the next general election, a candidate representing the interests of single people may stand in a constituency such as your own, Dublin South-East, where there are large numbers of single people of all ages.

I would ask the Minister and the Government to reflect on that cautionary note as expressed by Miss Marsh on behalf of members of Single Persons Against Discrimination. The only word to describe the decision of 23 July announced by the Minister is discrimination. I would ask the Minister to please accept our motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Creed)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute:—

"takes note that because of the inadequate provision made for expenditure on housing by the Department of the Environment in 1981, the Government were compelled to confine, at this stage, house purchase loans and the mortgage subsidy to those most in need — namely married people, those about to be married and special categories of borrowers."

It is a measure of the poverty of ideas on the benches opposite that at a time in which so many matters of national importance merit debate the Dáil should be required to spend hours discussing once again one limited area which was well covered barely three weeks ago in the debate on the Supplementary Estimate for my Department. I find it difficult to understand the motivation behind their choice of a motion the discussion on which must highlight again the causes of the measures the movers wish to have reversed and the responsibility of their party for those measures. Fair minded, sensible people — and these comprise the majority of the electorate — have accepted the realities of the present national crisis and have accepted also the honesty of the Government's analysis of the situation and the validity of their determination to tackle it, even taking measures which may hurt the less vulnerable sections of our community.

There is no political bonus for any Government in introducing measures or restricting benefits such as the local authority house purchase loans and the mortgage subsidy, which are bound to be unpopular with sections of our people, but in a crisis situation unpopular measures are inevitable. When we took office last July we discovered that an unprecedented financial crisis had developed and, after four years of irresponsible attitude by the previous Government and deliberate underestimation in their budget last January, urgent corrective steps were essential.

It was in that context that decisions had to be made which would undoubtedly have undesirable repercussions on certain individuals while continuing to assist other persons whose needs were relatively more acute.

I do not overstate the position. As the Taoiseach spelled out for the Dáil some months ago, we found ourselves in a position last July in which, after 50 years of independence, the national debt amounted to £1,000 million. But, over a mere ten years, by the end of 1980, this debt has grown to £8,000 million — in other words national borrowing had grown from a mere £20 million yearly to an annual average of £700 million. This debt must be paid for out of our taxable resources and more than one-tenth of all the proceeds of taxation must go to foreign bankers because of the prodigality and lack of proper housekeeping by the previous Government. Money which could otherwise have been used to promote industry, assist agriculture and provide a better living standard for all our people must now be used to service the debts they so irresponsibly created.

This country needs development in many areas if our growing population is to have jobs and if unemployment is to be reduced to tolerable levels. But, if this is to come about, if we are to bring about a situation in which the scope for national investment is to come into line with our partners in the European Community, then we have to eliminate debit trade balances; we have to reduce the inordinate level of foreign debt; we have to increase our trading competitiveness — possibly accepting lower living standards in the short term — and we must review drastically and selectively the level of financial support from public funds demanded so vociferously by many sectors of our people. In the ultimate, the ordinary taxpayer must pick up the tab for all these financial supports and it is the job of the Government to decide on the relativities of the demands to the burdens which can fairly be placed on the taxpayer.

While the subject of the motion is limited I feel it necessary to set the background against which the demand for a liberalisation of certain housing loan and subsidy systems must be considered. Housing is a very emotive area, affecting families and individuals, but it is also an important part of the public capital investment programme and cannot be considered in isolation from the general capital situation which poses so many problems for the country — problems which must be determined by the Government in planning their overall investment programme.

Having set the general background I want to deal specifically with the aspects raised by the motion and to support the amendment which has been tabled by the Minister.

I am amazed that the movers of the motion have the nerve to try to justify it having regard to their involvement in the creation of the dire financial situation which I have briefly outlined and which forced the Government, reluctantly, to decide to restrict eligibility for the mortgage subsidy and local authority house purchase loans to married applicants and those about to marry.

Deputies do not have to be informed that the major part of the finance which local authorities issue to applicants approved for house purchase loans comes from the Exchequer through the Local Loans Fund. The necessary provision for the schemes has to be made in the Public Capital Programme each year. The Public Capital Programme provision is approved by the Government after consideration of estimates of requirements prepared in the previous year by the Department of the amounts which are likely to be required. These estimates are calculated by reference to existing maximum loan limits and income limits, existing overall commitments of local authorities and likely new commitments based upon the experience of local authorities with inflows of new applications and so on. The Estimate for 1981 was prepared and considered in this way and the Department were in due course notified that the Government had approved £101 million for the service for 1981. It is important to note that the Estimate was calculated on the basis of the income limits of eligible applicants not exceeding £5,500 a year and the maximum loan not exceeding £12,000.

Subsequently, as we are aware, in May 1981, the previous Government announced their Housing Package 1981, in which it was decided to increase the local authority loan limit to £14,000 and the income limit to £7,000, to phase out the low rise mortgage scheme but, at the same time, while it was being phased out, to introduce a new special scheme for tenants and those on the waiting list, with a maximum loan of £18,000. The inevitable consequence of this decision was an increase in the demand likely to arise in the current year for money over and above that which would arise on the basis of the lower limits. The increase in the income limit from £5,000 to £7,000 made many more potential borrowers eligible while the increase in the loan limit was, of itself, of the order of 16 per cent; at the same time a new scheme with maximum loans of £18,000 for which no provision — and I emphasise no provision — had previously been made was also announced.

Notwithstanding that the Government were aware that the effects of these proposals would require an additional £9 million in 1981 no additional provision was made. The estimated increase required for 1982 was estimated at £26 million. Local authorities were informed, by circular dated 8 May, of the new limits and the new schemes but no change in their original capital allocation was notified. Local authorities commenced processing applications on the new basis and incurring liabilities from that date. The situation when the present Government took office was that already a number of local authorities were finding their monthly allocation totally inadequate and were building up backlogs of applicants seeking payment in respect of houses completed and where their contracts for purchase required immediate payment. Local authorities had on hands applications for loans totalling £153 million, compared with £138 million at the beginning of the year and a provision in the Public Capital Programme of £101 million. Yet no additional provision had been made for the new schemes.

The Government were faced with yet another situation in which commitments had been entered into without provision for the day of reckoning. In this case the commitments were growing and individual borrowers were likely to be seriously hurt financially where they obtained approval for loans and were liable to find that, when their loans matured for payment, the money would not be available to pay them. The consequence would be an indefinite delay during which they would have to manage on expensive bridging finance. In that situation the Government felt obliged to ensure that the available resources would be issued on the basis of reasonable priorities and in this case decided that those in the greatest need would be applicants who were already married or about to marry. Single applicants for whom loans had already been approved were, of course, funded as their commitments matured but it was obvious that some rather drastic measures would have to be taken to limit the demand for loans under the scheme in the remaining months of 1981. It was in this context that the Government were constrained to confine the loans for the time being to the most deserving categories of applicants. The relative degree of hardship in the case of a married couple or family needing a house is generally more acute than that of a single person.

The Government are fully aware that many single applicants have been aggrieved by the decision and accept that some have good and valid reasons to purchase their own homes, but the demand continues to be so great from applicants already married or about to marry that, regretfully, there is no possibility for the present of being able to provide the funds that would be required to enable the extension of the schemes to single applicants.

I would remind the House that the present restriction of house purchase loans to applicants who are married or about to marry is not absolute. Local authorities may, without regard to the marital status of an applicant, make loans of up to 98 per cent of the approved net market value of a private house up to a maximum loan of £18,000, to tenants and tenant purchasers of local authority dwellings who surrender their premises to the authority, and married couples with at least one child, and one-parent families, who have been for at least one year on approved waiting lists for rehousing.

The corresponding maximum loan in respect of a house located on certain islands is £19,000. In the case of a person allocated a new local authority house a mortgage up to the full cost of providing the house for the applicant, exclusive of any grants, may continue to be made available in respect of the purchase of that house.

Before moving from the subject of house purchase loans I must mention the impending establishment of the Houseing Finance Agency, the Bill in relation to which has now been circulated. I do not wish to anticipate the debate on that measure, but I can say that it is the Government's intention that the agency will be empowered to advance loans to approved applicants irrespective of whether they are married or single, or without any intention of getting married in the near future.

I may say too that the special categories of persons I have referred to above who qualify for 98 per cent to 100 per cent loans from local authorities are eligible also for the special mortgage subsidy. In so far as that subsidy is concerned, the position which we found when we took office was bad. The scheme had been introduced without any provision being made to fund it in 1981 and it was clear that this cost would escalate dramatically next year and even more so in later years. The Government could not foresee being able to finance the scheme without recourse to further foreign borrowing. They were of opinion that dependence upon this source of finance was already too great and had no alternative but to reduce the scope of the scheme by restricting eligibility to applicants who were married or about to marry and whose needs for this assistance from public funds were regarded as greater than those of single persons.

The amendment which I am recommending to the Dáil criticises the inadequate provision made by the previous Government for expenditure on housing by the Department in 1981, a situation which had a direct bearing on the restriction, which the present administration felt unavoidable, of house purchase loans and mortgage subsidy to persons — not in the special categories I mentioned — who are married or about to marry. I have referred to their increases in loan and income limits under the SDA scheme which generated an expanding demand for the loans. I have mentioned their introduction of a mortgage subsidy last May. In both cases no action was taken by the outgoing Government to have the necessary additional funds authorised to finance the schemes. But the extent of their financial irresponsibility in relation to housing was very much wider and in other regards completely inexcusable.

Deputies opposite may argue that it is not without precedent to introduce a new scheme or expand an existing one during the course of the financial year and come before this House subsequently with a Supplementary Estimate. In the case of a voted service, such as the mortgage subsidy, no payment can validly be made until that Estimate has been passed. No such excuse can be put forward, however, in relation to the completely inadequate provision made in the Public Capital Programme in respect of local authority housing in 1981 or the deliberate reduction in the amount required to meet housing loan charges incurred by local authorities during the year. The capital allocated to local authorities was so inadequate that within days of their taking office the present Government had to make a further £30 million available to meet commitments already due or likely to occur in the immediate future and to allow a limited programme of new housing starts to be undertaken. But for that additional provision up to 3,000 men working on housing schemes would have had to be disemployed before the end of 1981.

Their attitude in relation to housing subsidy was no less reprehensible. It is possible to compute the probable liability of the Department in respect of subsidies very accurately before the Estimates for any year are finalised. The present Government had to authorise a further £16.5 million in local authority housing subsidy to meet the shortfall in the 1981 provision for the purpose.

It has not been easy for the Government to have taken the action they have taken in relation to house purchase loans and the mortgage subsidy, but in view of the dramatic nature of the financial crisis which faced us last July we felt that we must act in the best interests of the entire community and that where cuts had to be imposed they were applied to the less vulnerable sectors of the public. Given time it is our firm resolve to get rid of the legacy of debt heaped upon more debt left to us by the previous Government whose only concern was to remain on the Government benches, whatever irresponsible spending that might involve. They did not achieve that aim even by their financial chicanery.

I want to put on the record that, as Minister of State responsible for housing, I appreciate the importance of the housing programme. Deputy Raphael Burke made the case that there was discrimination against single people by this Government. As a member of a local authority, I also want to put on record that before this Government came into office single people were also discriminated against and the list of applicants for SDA loans at local authority level was getting longer as the days went by.

There would be nothing to prevent the Minister tomorrow morning from including single persons as applicants for SDA loans. If he did that people in dire need, married people with children living in very bad houses, would be put on the housing list which would get longer and longer. I am glad Deputy Lyons, a member of Cork County Council, is present because he is aware that prior to this Government coming into office a single person who made an application for an SDA loan to Cork County Council was refused a loan and those people who were granted the loans had to wait for a very long time.

I was listening to Deputy Raphael Burke's speech. He shed crocodile tears about the exclusion of single applicants. It would be wonderful if our resources permitted the inclusion of these people and we could tell them they qualified for SDA loans. This would encourage the building of more houses. The building industry is a very important factor in the creation of much needed jobs. This Deputy Raphael Burke, who shed such tears for those people and who decried this Government's attitude to the housing programme, is the same man who when Minister discontinued the reconstruction grants. It was very necessary to provide people living in poor houses with an incentive to improve them, yet in February 1980, Deputy Burke, then Minister, discontinued those reconstruction grants.

The Minister for the Environment and the Government are determined to get the housing programme on its feet and to restore confidence. Since this Government came into office in July last, £30 million were provided for local authority housing — that is no mean feat — and £15 million for housing subsidies to local authorities. There was approximately, directly and indirectly, almost £50 million provided for the building industry.

Deputy Raphael Burke posed some questions, and I do not want to prejudge what will eventually emanate from the debate on the Housing Finance Agency Bill. It is the intention of the Government, once the scheme is in operation, to include single people. While it is true to say that single people are excluded from the SDA loan scheme at present, any person, or couple, contemplating marriage if they make a joint application will qualify for an SDA loan. That is as far as the Minister can go at this stage having regard to our financial situation. I can give the House an assurance that the clause referred to will not be in operation one day longer than is necessary because the Government realise the importance of the building industry and the contribution that industry can make to the creation of new jobs. While I have no objection to a debate on this motion, I must point out that the House spent a considerable amount of time debating a Supplementary Estimate for more than £30 million. Of that figure £25 million, which was foreseeable in the January budget, was not provided. That is one of the reasons why the Government have had to exclude single applicants.

I am sure the House will agree that the housing record of the last Coalition Government is something they can be proud of and I can assure the House that the record of the Government at the end of Coalition of 1973-1977. Members who are also on local authorities will accept that local authorities are always under great pressure to provide council houses and sites for people who are anxious to build their own homes. We should encourage as many people as possible to build their own homes. We must provide the incentive for them to do so through grants and loans. It is also essential that in conjunction with that we should provide as attractive a grant scheme as possible for reconstruction work so that people can make their homes habitable and comfortable. Such a scheme is essential for those who may need to repair their homes and are not in a position to buy a new house. It must be remembered that Deputy Burke, who moaned so loudly about single people being discriminated against, removed reconstruction grants. I am glad that the Government brought back reconstruction grants, even though it was in a restricted form. It is also worth mentioning that many of the chimneyless houses built by Fianna Fáil will qualify for a grant to erect chimneys and install solid fuel appliances. Many local authorities are availing of that grant to install chimneys and fire places in houses built under Fianna Fáil. Such grants are necessary because the tenants of those houses are not a in a position to pay the huge cost of heating those houses by oil. I am glad the Government decided to introduce those grants. I recommend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Callanan

I should like to congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment and wish him well. I support the motion and in doing so I should like to comment on some of the statements by the Minister of State tonight in connection with the Estimates in the middle of the year and the changes which had to be made in them. I should like to remind the Minister that since the Government came to office they did a good thing as far as some young people are concerned by increasing the income limit for higher education grants. However, there was no money in the Estimate for this and the Government told local authorities to pay for the scheme. Local authorities had to pay immediately and will have to pay again in January, but they will not get a refund from the Department until next year. If local authorities were supposed to be as broke as the Minister said — this is what he is building his case on — and if the kitty was as empty as the Minister said, I wonder why the Government asked local authorities to fund that grant scheme. Was it not irresponsible of the Government to ask local authorities to pay for something they introduced in the middle of the year knowing that money was not provided in the Estimate for it? The Minister also mentioned reconstruction grants. I welcome the decision to introduce limited reconstruction grants, but that is not in accordance with the promise made by Fine Gael in the election compaign. In my area Fine Gael campaigned strongly on the basis of introducing a £1,000 reconstruction grant. It may be that some houses were built without chimneys, but in my area I could drive for almost 30 miles without finding one house without a chimney. Reconstruction grants do not apply to houses that have a chimney or an existing bathroom. They do not apply to applicants who have water installed in their homes and do not require an extra room. Consequently, if one has a house with the roof falling down and the windows in need of replacement but does not require a bathroom or an extra bathroom, one does not qualify. I am not criticising the grants that are available but I am anxious to put it on record that the scheme is not in accordance with the promise made during the election campaign.

It surprises me that two Galway Deputies who are members of Galway County Council are not present for this debate because when the Department's circular was discussed at a meeting of the council the strongest opponents of the terms of it were members of the Minister's party. The debate at the council meeting went on for almost three hours and the Minister's colleagues pointed out that the terms of the circular were ridiculous and that the decision was unworkable. I am aware that tomorrow night they will have to do as they are told, like I will have to do, but it is strange that they agreed that a resolution be sent to the Minister asking him to change the terms of the circular.

In my view it is unworkable and amounts to discrimination against single people and an interference with marriage. It is compulsory marriage. I hope the Minister for the Environment, when he is replying, will make an attempt to clarify the uncertainties in the circular. What is meant, for instance, by temporary employment? To get an SDA loan the two incomes must be lumped together and if a couple are in receipt of any kind of an income they will be earning more than £7,000 per annum. Up to this I used advise young people who intended getting married to get their loan before they got married and have the House well started because only his income would count. A young man who is, as they say in the country, courting a girl may approach his father for a site on the basis of his intention to get married. He will have to inform his father that he is doing a line with Mary Black down the road but his father may say that he will not allow Mary Black's name on the title of the site. It must be remembered that the two names must appear on the title. I was given that information in reply to a parliamentary question by the Minister. That is the most ridiculous thing about this. How could one expect a young man's father to permit a girl's name to go on the title if they are not married? The Minister, in reply to my question said the two incomes must be included and the two names had to be entered on the title.

I should like now to refer to an area where there is further discrimination. Anyone under 21 will not be considered for a loan. Representations were made to me recently in a couple of cases in which the boys concerned were about 23 years of age but were marrying girls who were under 20. The girls' names could not be included because of their age. Surely that is discrimination. If people can vote at 18 I see no reason for their not being considered for loans for houses. Though I am one of the oldest Deputies here, I am concerned that young people be given their rights. If the Minister insists on the names of both the boy and the girl being included he should at least reduce the age to 18. In addition there is the discrimination against single persons generally, some of whom may be middle-aged and wishing to provide themselves with homes. Deputy Burke dealt with the discrimination involved in the £3,000 mortgage grant. If we take, say, Johnny Callanan and Mary Black who, though not even married wish to get a loan for a house, they must go first to the bank for a bridging loan.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy would tolerate a moment of flippancy, he seems to be very keen on Mary Black.

Mr. Callanan

Then we shall call her Mary X.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair was only joking.

Mr. Callanan

I am wondering what the bank manager would say to us. Would he seriously consider giving us a bridging loan? If we fall out after a month or so, what would happen in regard to the house? What would be the position regarding the title? Who would have to pay the bank? Perhaps I would get the house but the whole thing is completely unworkable. Those people on Galway County Council who talked most about how ridiculous the situation is were the Fine Gael members. There were no politics involved and we decided to ask the Minister to reconsider the matter in the light of the discrimination against single people. By acting in this way the Minister is compelling people to marry because if it transpired that relations between a couple deteriorated they would consider themselves compelled to go through what I would regard as a cod of a marriage in order to get the house. In such circumstances it would be far better that they would discontinue the relationship than go through the sacrament of matrimony in the interest of the ownership of a house. In these circumstances the Minister should give serious consideration to what he is doing. There is no point in the Minister saying that there is not enough money to rectify the situation concerning mortgages.

In order to qualify for a local authority loan a couple jointly must be earning less than £7,000. The Minister must know that if they are earning at all they are being paid more than that. If the Minister were sincere in what he is doing he would raise this figure to £10,000. We hear a lot about what Fianna Fáil did or did not do but during the term of office of the last Coalition the situation in regard to local authority loans was ridiculous. First, the loans were much too small to be of any use and, secondly, the income limit was less than £4,000. We increased that to £5,000 and, subsequently, to £7,000 while increasing the loan limit to £14,000. Even that was not enough to build a house. It would have been adequate only if the young people concerned had some money of their own.

What I fear is that there is a phasing out of the authority of county councils. I have not read the new Bill very carefully yet, but so far as I know the arrangement for the repayment of loans is to be based on a percentage of one's earnings at any given time. I am sure that if one were to calculate the repayments on a loan under the scheme, he would find that a couple would pay back in a 20 to 30 year period many thousands of pounds more than what they should have to pay. This is nothing more than a con job.

I appeal to the Minister to give serious consideration to the motion tabled by us this evening. We are not saying anything more in this motion than Fine Gael have been saying. I cannot understand how they can go to their local councils and condemn the scheme while supporting the Minister here.

Mr. Killilea

And they included Deputy Connaughton.

Mr. Callanan

That is so but I do not think that Deputy Donnellan said very much.

Mr. Creed

He is a quiet fellow.

Mr. Callanan

He is a very friendly fellow. On the last occasion on which this matter was raised at a county council meeting there was complete confusion as to who might qualify for a loan. Some members of the council said that those in temporary employment would not be considered but we might well ask for a definition of temporary employment since it is difficult today to know what is temporary or what is permanent in terms of employment. One might have a good job in a firm but that firm could collapse tomorrow. So far as I can see the only employment that can be considered permanent is employment within the public service.

It has been said that some counties were not adhering to the terms of the circular of 23 July. We in Galway have a habit of keeping the rules and, consequently, we have been turning down applications for loans in accordance with the decision of 23 July. We are insisting on the two-income provision and we are excluding people who are employed, say, as clerk typists during the summer months only but we are not refusing people who are in employment that can be classed in any way as permanent and whose joint incomes are in accordance with the directive. People under 21 are not considered either. I was very keen to have this whole matter debated here. I have tried on various occasions to have the situation clarified but on each of those occasions other Deputies came in on my supplementaries. When I tried to raise the issue on the adjournment I was told that the matter concerned involved the expenditure of moneys. Therefore, this motion was the only means of having the situation debated here.

I appeal to the Minister to spell out who can and who cannot be considered for loans. According to our interpretation the names of both parties must be on the title, while if either partner is under 21 or if the joint income of both exceeds £7,000 they are not eligible for consideration. If they are earning over £7,000 they are out. I would like the Minister to clarify the position. We had a lot of those cases in County Galway and eventually they had to be turned down. If there are other counties interpreting the decision of 23 July in a different way from County Galway we are entitled to know so that we can give loans. I was told in the House who could get loans and who could not and I would like the Minister to clarify the position.

Young people cannot get loans from building societies if they have not got a few thousand pounds invested in those societies. The only hope they have is for the Minister to bring in the new arrangement. Young people will have to pay back a percentage of their salaries in interest. This would be a lovely arrangement if people's incomes went down but nobody believes that will happen. As the income of young people goes up their payment goes up every year.

The Minister of State said we were asking for something new in our motion. We are only asking the Government to continue the situation as it prevailed before the Coalition took office. I will not accept all the talk about being short of money. The Government increased the income for getting a higher education grant but they made no provision for that payment to be made this year. The county councils have got to pay this money. The Coalition talk about the previous Minister changing the income and the size of the loan in the middle of the year. They have been saying that this was very wrong. It is just as wrong in the middle of the year to put up the income for getting a higher education grant, send this down to the local authorities and tell them to pay it although they will have to wait 12 months to get the money from the Government. The Minister should give serious consideration to our motion. I will watch very carefully tomorrow night to see who will walk through the lobbies in support of the Government. This is not a political matter at local level. Nobody has stood up to defend the Minister.

Mr. Killilea

Not even Deputy Donnellan.

Mr. Callanan

He did not stand up to defend what has been done by the Government. Fianna Fáil put down this motion to get the matter clarified. If the Government want to have economies why should they pick on the young people who want to buy a house?

Mr. Killilea

Where is Jim Kemmy now?

Mr. Callanan

I cannot understand where he is. If I was asked who the new poor today are I would say it is the young people who have got married after obtaining a loan and are trying to pay this back. They can pay the money back until they have a couple of children and they have to live on one income.

Mr. Leyden

They are not allowed to have children now. That is the new rule.

Mr. Callanan

We will discuss that another day. The Government have caused great hardship to young people and also to single people. There are a lot of single people aged 30 and 40 years who have given a good deal to the State. They should not be discriminated against in relation to the £3,000 mortgage subsidy. This is one of the worst decisions the Government have made as far as political repercussions in the next election are concerned. The Government were supposed to have the young people on their side and we were supposed to be the old fellows. What are the Government doing for the young people?

Mr. Leyden

Deputy Joe Sherlock will vote for them.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Callanan

All the young people who cannot build their own houses have to go back on to the local authority housing lists. The Government will increase the number of people looking for local authority houses. The last time we had a Coalition Government I appealed to a decent man, Deputy Tully, who was then Minister for Local Government, to raise the income for getting those loans to give people a chance to build their own houses in order to take them off the local authority housing lists. The Minister of State has no right to talk about houses without chimneys. I can travel for 25 miles around my area and I will not find a house without a chimney.

Mr. Creed

There is one area in Athlone with 150 houses without chimneys which were built by the previous Government.

Mr. Killilea

When the Minister for Defence, Deputy Tully, was Minister for Local Government he opened that scheme.

Mr. Creed

Who built them?

Mr. Callanan

When the Minister of State talks about houses without chimneys he is talking about a limited number. How many hundred houses have been built in Athlone? There is only a limited number without chimneys. I know the town of Athlone, as I pass through it frequently, and I know the number of houses without chimneys. The Government have been telling the people they will give them £1,000 reconstruction grants. They are only giving those grants for a definite purpose. If the house has a chimney and a bathroom and does not need an extra room the person applying for the grant does not get it even if the roof has fallen in and the windows are broken.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Callanan

The grants should be made retrospective to the election. I would like the Minister to clarify who will get a loan. There is no use in one county getting loans and another not getting them.

Mr. Leyden

Have you to be a member of the local Fine Gael club to get a grant?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Leyden is interrupting Deputy Callanan who has just two minutes left.

Mr. Callanan

Is that all I have left?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have the remainder tomorrow night. We must finish at 8.30 p.m. tonight.

Mr. Callanan

The Government have done many things but this is one of the most serious things they have done. The people in the west know a great deal about some of the decisions that have been made. We are being told the Government have no money but they can have money for certain things and make us pay for them. At one time a Government were elected to govern but now they are elected to select experts to govern for them. I am not here very long but I have been associated with politicians over the years. They always say to themselves: "We are the Government". The present Administration are a Government in name only. We are paying too many economists to govern the country. It is not possible to run a country in the same way as a business. A business is run for profit but a country is run for the people. I make an appeal to the Minister to change the decision.

Debate adjourned.