Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Nov 1961

Vol. 192 No. 6

Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Bill, 1961.

Minister for Finance (Dr. Ryan)

The purposes of this Bill are to raise the statutory limit for issues from the Local Loans Fund and to simplify the procedure for making issues.

The existing statutory limit on aggregate issues from the Fund was fixed at £135 million by the Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Act, 1957. The Bill proposes to raise the limit to £170 million.

Issues from the Fund from the 1st May, 1935, when it was established, up to the 31st March, 1961, amounted to £119,500,000. The great bulk of these issues related to housing, principally local authority housing. Slum clearance and other rehousing schemes of urban local authorities under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts accounted for £33 million, while the corresponding schemes of rural local authorities under the Labourers Acts accounted for £30,500,000. This gives a total of £63,500,000 for the provision of houses by urban and rural authorities. Some 60,000 dwellings have been provided by these authorities since 1947.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not wish to inconvenience the Minister but, if Ministers are to come here and read speeches prepared for them at a speed of that rate, at least we might be afforded the courtesy of being given a copy of the speech so that we could follow it. It is impossible to follow the Minister without a copy.

Dr. Ryan

I am very sorry.

Mr. Sweetman

If that is not done we shall have to revert to the procedure of objecting to people reading speeches, something which nobody wants to do.

Dr. Ryan

It was never objected to.

Mr. Sweetman

It was.

Dr. Ryan

I am in this House since 1927 and it was never objected to.

Mr. Norton

Is there any difficulty in making copies of the Minister's speech available?

Dr. Ryan

Not the slightest.

Mr. Sweetman

May we have it then?

Mr. Norton

I am sure that is the way to adjust the matter.

Dr. Ryan

Except that in this case I suppose I did not have it ready in time. It is not a very important Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister might speak so that we could hear him then.

Dr. Ryan

Loans under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts amounted to £27 million, these loans being issued to local authorities for relending to persons purchasing private houses. Loans to local authorities to enable them to make supplementary housing grants to persons of modest means acquiring new houses or improving existing houses absorbed £4,500,000. Advances under the Gaeltacht housing code for the purchase or improvement of private houses in Irish-speaking areas were relatively small, requiring rather less than £200,000.

Issues for the various housing services aggregated over £95 million. This represents a very considerable contribution of loan capital from public funds towards the cost of providing better housing for our people. It will be appreciated that Exchequer grants for new houses and for the improvement of existing houses are additional. In the period from 1935 to the 31st March last, these grants amounted to some £35 million. They are estimated to cost £2,500,000 this year, which gives a cumulative total of £37½ million to the 31st March, 1962.

Of the remaining issues from the fund, which totalled about £24 million, county homes, hospitals and dispensaries took almost £5,500,000. Sanitary and other health services absorbed £14,500,000, a large part of which went to water supply and sewerage schemes. The balance of £4 million or so was spent on vocational schools and miscellaneous services, vocational schools taking over £2 million.

In addition to the issues actually made, the Fund also has substantial outstanding commitments in respect of loans sanctioned for projects in progress or to be started. The loans may be partly drawn or drawing may not have commenced yet. Additional commitments of this nature brought the total liability of the Fund as at the 30th September last to £133 million, that is only £2 million less than the present statutory limit. It is expected that further commitments about to be incurred will bring the total up to the statutory limit in the near future.

The total demand for loans is currently running at an annual rate of around £8 million and there are indications that it may increase. As was expected, requirements for local authority building have declined from the very high level of some years ago following the completion or substantial completion of major re-housing programmes in many areas. Nevertheless, housing still accounts for by far the greater part of loan requirements.

Rising costs have added to requirements and the revival which has taken place in private building has created a continuing demand for loans under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. With the expansion of employment and incomes, more people are now in a position to undertake the responsibility of providing a home for themselves and their families and are availing of Small Dwellings loans for the purpose. Total requirements for housing are now at an annual level of some £6 million. Requirements for water supply and sewerage schemes, at present about £1,500,000 a year, have been growing, which reflects the drive to provide piped water supplies in rural areas.

It is proposed, therefore, to raise the statutory limit for issues from the Local Loans Fund by £35 million to £170 million and the Bill provides accordingly. This should cover commitments for the next three or four years.

Mr. Sweetman

What was the figure the Minister mentioned—before the £170,000,000?

Dr. Ryan

£35,000,000.

The Bill also contains provisions designed to simplify the procedure for making loans from the Fund. This matter has been under consideration for some time. Under the existing arrangements it is necessary to draw up and have executed a separate mortgage deed for each loan to a local authority to secure the repayment of the loan and payment of the interest. The procedure is rather slow and cumbersome and I feel that it could be shortened and simplified by statutory provisions as included in Section 3 of the Bill. The arrangements now proposed envisage what will in effect be a statutory mortgage securing loans on the rates or other appropriate revenues or funds of the local authorities and binding the authorities to repay the loans and to pay the interest in accordance with conditions which they have accepted beforehand. This will enable separate mortgage deeds to be dispensed with in most cases, thus saving time and expense for the local authorities and for the Office of Public Works by which the loans are issued on behalf of the Minister for Finance.

It is intended that the new system should apply to loans to health authorities and vocational education committees as well as to the major local authorities. No change of principle is involved as regards the charging of payments of loans. Both borrower and lender will continue to have the same rights and obligations as at present.

I wish to stress the fact that the proposal to simplify the procedure for the making of loans should not be taken as implying that we need not be so careful in future as regards the amount of the issues to be made from the Local Loans Fund. Care continues to be necessary as the Fund is a heavier claimant than anticipated on the available capital resources. I need hardly say how necessary it is not to jeopardise the objective of investing as high a proportion as possible of our capital resources in ways which will directly increase national production.

The Local Loans Fund and the Exchequer would be relieved if local authorities, particularly the larger ones, did more to raise capital on suitable terms from other sources and I hope that they will try to do so within the limits of their approved borrowing programmes.

I trust that the provisions of the Bill will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Sweetman

The first purpose of this Bill, as the Minister proclaimed with a great flourish of trumpets, is to increase the overall limit of advances from the Local Loans Fund from £135,000,000 to £170,000,000. The Minister gave an indication of the amount spent under various headings out of the Fund to date. I should have liked him to have given us the proportion of that figure issued to Dublin and Cork Corporations. I can remember very clearly the decision taken by us in Government to extend the facilities of the Local Loans Fund to Dublin and Cork Corporations, for the first time in the history of the State, and to extend it not merely by the provision of funds for the building of local authority houses by Dublin and Cork Corporations themselves, but also for the provision of advances under the Small Dwellings Act to those who wished to build their own houses. I can also remember very clearly that notwithstanding the fact that that decision was taken, and notwithstanding the fact that the Local Loans Fund was for the first time in our history thrown open to Dublin Corporation, certain members of Dublin Corporation, led by two Deputies, two Fianna Fáil Deputies supporting the Fianna Fáil Government, deliberately sabotaged the effort that was being made at that time by Dublin Corporation to provide houses for people in need of them.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Sweetman

It is only the fact that the Local Loans Fund was thrown open to these two Corporations that necessitates the Minister now coming along here with this measure. The decision taken at that time was a good decision and the fact that this Bill is now necessary further to extend the limit arises out of that good decision and we approve and commend, therefore, the necessity now for this further measure arising out of that good decision.

The second part of the Bill, as the Minister said, is designed to simplify the method to be used. I want to be quite clear in one respect. Is it clear beyond all question, because I do not think it is under the terms of the Bill, and will it be made clear beyond all question, that the existing obligations in relation to borrowing by local authorities will be maintained within the bailiwick of the local authorities themselves? At present the application for a loan and the completion of the charge by the local authority is a reserved matter for the elected members. I agree that the procedure adopted up to this, by which a charge was created, and so forth, can well cause unnecessary and cumbersome delay, but there must be no departure from the principle that it is the elected members of the local authority who have the right to say whether a loan will be applied for and the manner in which it will be repaid. That is a matter for the elected members alone and not for any official, be he county or city manager, or otherwise, to determine; it is the elected members who determine whether a loan shall be applied for and whether the terms under which that loan may be made available by the Minister for Finance are such as should be accepted. That principle must be protected absolutely. It is protected at the moment because the deed of charge for its sealing requires a formal resolution of the council. There is no provision in Section 3 of this Bill requiring such formal resolution. That omission in the section may be covered elsewhere, but the position must be made quite clear to the House before the Bill can be accepted.

The Minister, concluding his speech, referred in a slighting way to certain objectives of the Local Loans Fund. I know that in certain respects expenditure from the Fund does not result in direct production, but there is no use having directly productive schemes unless there are, at the same time, houses in which those who are engaged in production can live in reasonable comfort. If they are not, then they are not going to stay here no matter what employment may be available for them. It was in that spirit and with that approach—it was essential to ensure they would be kept here—that the housing drive was started in 1948 by the inter-Party Government to make up for the position which arose during the war when supplies were not available. We know it is fashionable in certain places to discount that effort. I want to say categorically that such discounting has no basis in fact. It shows that the people concerned have not got a realisation of the human values involved and it is essential, where we have such a fluid method of travel available to our people, that they are kept here, not merely by employment alone, but by proper homes in which they can live. Subject to these comments, we accept the Bill.

Mr. Norton

I should like to ask the Minister some questions in relation to the Bill. Like Deputy Sweetman, I hope that in the effort to rationalise the present methods by which the local authority will honour their financial obligations to the Local Loans Fund, the Minister will not devise a method which will make that a purely routine task and that the right of the local authority to commit itself to that expenditure is still a function reserved to the elected members of the local authority.

Local authorities have the right to feel that, if they are the body which raises the rates, they ought to have a substantial voice in determining its expenditure but if the matter of honouring mortgages is reduced to a routine operation between the county manager on the one hand and those who manage the Local Loans Fund on the other, we have to make sure that the local authority, that is, the members of the local authority elected by the local ratepayers, will have the last word in deciding to what extent their credit will be pledged and that they will be committed to expenditure in respect of particular schemes of work —in other words, that the powers which the elected members have now will not in any way be impaired or whittled down as a result of whatever new more rationalised method of executing the mortgage is devised by the Minister. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister on that point.

I should also like to ascertain from the Minister whether at this stage he can give us any information as to the further sum of moneys which it will be necessary to expend in order to complete our housing programme and if he could say how much of that expenditure will be in respect of rural housing, and how much in respect of urban housing, including metropolitan housing.

The local authorities are now embarking upon schemes to supply water and sanitation services throughout the country. There again the local authority will indent upon the Local Loans Fund for the moneys to finance these schemes. Can the Minister give any idea as to what the overall expenditure will be in respect of water and sanitation schemes? Can he say what the rate of expenditure will be per year over, say, the next ten years?

I should also like to ascertain from the Minister whether the Government contemplate the continuance of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act on the present basis or whether it is intended to widen the scope of the Act to make loans available over a wider area than they are available today— in other words, whether the Act can be used for the purchase of a dearer class house than it can be availed of to purchase today in view of the fact that house property has increased in price and many of the houses which could be bought in other years at prices within the level covered by the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act cannot now be purchased within the scope of that Act as at present administered because of the increased cost of these houses.

Mr. Dillon

On this Bill, I want to record the figures and record again and protest, in the light of what the Minister has said, against one of the most iniquitous occurrences I ever remember. That was the conspiracy between Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Noel Lemass to frustrate the purpose of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act in this city at a time when it was urgently necessary to give it effect. I shall welcome another opportunity to discuss that disgusting conspiracy.

I now want to refer to another aspect which is relevant to the Minister's introductory speech. I refer to the Statistical Abstract for 1960, Table 269, Page 279, Local Authorities: Loans Sanctioned in years ended 31st March. In 1954, it was £3.5 millions. In 1955, £2.7 millions; in 1956, £3.7 millions and in 1957 £2.9 millions. That was at the time when Deputy Noel Lemass and Deputy Briscoe were proclaiming in this city that there was no money to enable anyone to purchase their houses under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act.

Some poor "goms" in this House swallowed that falsehood hook, line and sinker. Some of them were "goms" who ought to have had more sense but then Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Noel Lemass came into power in a Fianna Fáil Government. Now read the record. The sum of £3.789 millions was supplied in 1956; £2.927 millions was supplied in the year ending 31st March, 1957; £1.6 million was supplied in the year ending 31st March, 1958 and £1.7 million in the year ending 31st March, 1959. I have not got the later figures. They are not here but they are of the same order. The very Deputies, who proclaimed there was no money available for Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act purchases, provided just one half of what the inter-Party Government were providing each year when some "goms" believed Deputy Noel Lemass and Deputy Briscoe when they alleged that the inter-Party Government were not making money available.

Then I look at the Labourers Acts under which money was made available for the building of houses. In 1954, the sum was £3.2 million; in 1955, it was £2.2 million; in 1956, it was £2.1 million and in 1957, it was £2.3 million. And then arrived the two Lochinvars from out of the West who were going to provide money for everybody. The sum of £1.8 million was provided in 1958 and £757,000 in 1959. That is their record. Bear in mind that Deputy Sweetman recalled that our Government, owing to the financial stringency in countries abroad, was able to make available to Dublin Corporation and Cork Corporation access to the Local Loans Fund in order to raise money. Why? The Dublin Corporation could not borrow sixpence.

Mr. Carter

Exactly.

Mr. Dillon

They could not borrow it and we borrowed it for them and gave them all they wanted. Dublin Corporation could not borrow on the public market and we borrowed it and we lent them the money. Deputy Carter had better keep quiet for a minute because I am going to read the figures. He is a tough old customer. It is a long time since I saw him blush in Dáil or Seanad and he has been in both in his day, but if he does not blush now, he must be suffering from malignant anaemia.

Under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, we provided £1.9 million in 1954; £1.28 million in 1955; £2.1 million in 1956 and £6.4 million in 1957. Then Deputy Carter arrived to shed his light upon us, flanked by Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Noel Lemass, and, in 1958, they provided £3.8 million and that fell to £2.4 million in 1959 and has gone down more since. I am glad to see the Deputy is not suffering from malignant anaemia. He still has the capacity to blush and that is a consolation to us all, for we would not like to lose him.

I have heard these pious affirmations in the speeches of a great many Ministers for Finance. It is always put in as a kind of colophon to the Minister's statement that, of course, we must be careful, when we are providing money to house the people, to remember our obligation to use our credit primarily for productive purposes. Theoretically, that is a lovely doctrine but I ask myself this question, whether we are better off bearing the burdens we have to bear now but in the knowledge that we have substantially housed the people, or to find ourselves in the position that the city of London is in at the present time where they are herding people into large hospitals for there is no place for them to go.

I want to say quite deliberately that when we provided £6 million for the housing of the working classes to the Dublin Corporation and the Cork Corporation, we did it with our eyes wide open. We are glad we did it and we would do it again and if anyone does not like that, he can lump it, including the persons who wrote the colophon to the Minister's speech.

I want to point out this: it is all very well to be talking about productive uses but how do we reconcile at the present time the spending of public money for the erection of huge blocks of office buildings in the city, when I can meet a woman from Ballsbridge who tells me she reared ten children in her own house on a very slender wage and she has now living in the house with her, her son, his wife and their baby and there is no room for them and he is quite prepared to pay rent, if there was a house available for them?

Mr. Barron

And he cannot get it.

Mr. Dillon

He cannot get it. Yet, I see sites cleared, office buildings rising, land purchased at something like £20,000 an acre to build more office buildings in the city. I would not mind if the building industry were greatly depressed and we wanted to stimulate employment in it by building office buildings or anything else. Why is it that we find it right or possible or desirable to use our building resources for that kind of structure which, doubtless, is more convenient for the administrative staff of some department of the Corporation or some Government Department but which I cannot see adds anything to our production, when there are people who would have nowhere to lay their heads if they did not have relatives happily to give them a room? I do not understand that. When we are talking about marshalling our resources for productive purposes, we ought to ask ourselves very carefully whether we are justified in building of that character, so long as there are young married people without a home.

Some of us may ask ourselves: why are there not enough resources to do both? One of the reasons is that the skilled craftsmen of the building industry were driven out of this country. In the good old days before the Labour Party thought it was inimical to the country to associate themselves with anybody else, I remember when Deputy Norton was Tánaiste and Deputy Costello was Taoiseach of this country, we called upon the building operatives in England to come home and help in the job and they came home and that is how we were able to get that building done and that is how we were able to use £6 million on housing of the working classes in 1957. The results of reducing that appropriation to £3.8 million and £2.4 million in the subsequent years were that the skilled craftsmen went to England and now they will not come back and there is a very considerable amount of unemployment in the city of Dublin today because the building contractors cannot get the skilled men to carry on the building and, because the skilled men are not there, they cannot employ the unskilled labourers.

I deliberately referred to the revolting dishonesty and fraud of Deputy Noel Lemass and Deputy Briscoe in that disgusting conspiracy to sabotage the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts in 1956 and in 1957 and their other activities to obstruct housing for their base and contemptible political ends, because, not only did that operate to deprive people of houses, but it also operated to drive out of this country skilled operatives for the want of whom today we are unable to give employment to many unskilled operatives who are now following into the hod-carrying jobs in Britain when they would be much better employed at home under the conditions which obtain here than under the crude conditions which obtain for unskilled labourers in Great Britain and the big industrial centres of the world.

I want to reaffirm the belief that while as a theory marshalling of capital for productive purposes and the expansion of the national economy is theoretically sound and defensible, this House is not run by economists; we have other interests to bear in mind. Economists may advise this House, but if this country were run by economists, it would be a sandy desert. Providentially, it never has been and, please God, it never will be. It will be run by politicians who understand the needs of the people and whose solemn duty is to protect their interests, both against the "dafties" on the left and the theoreticians on the right, and to see that our resources are wisely used for the maximum benefit of all, with due regard to the human needs of those who want to marry and, if they are to get a chance of making a happy home, should be afforded the opportunity of starting their married life in decent conditions.

Mr. Corish

This is a simple Bill.

Mr. Dillon

It is not a simple Bill.

Mr. Corish

This was described as a simple Bill.

Mr. Dillon

I know, but it is not a simple Bill. It is a Bill that goes to the whole root of the philosophy that ought to guide this country and ought to provide the opportunity for those of us who remain sane to keep the country on an even keel between the "dafties" who think with their hearts rather than with their heads and the other "dafties" who think human affairs are best controlled by a calculating machine.

Dr. Browne

You would let them swim for themselves.

Mr. Dillon

I thought I would draw a little fire by looking up at that part of the House, but now Deputies will understand what I mean by an even keel.

Mr. Carter

He rocked the boat, too, when it suited him.

Mr. Dillon

When he fell overboard, you were very glad to take him on ship, but the difference was that you then pushed him overboard. I think he will agree that, so far as we were concerned, he fell overboard.

Dr. Browne

He jumped overboard because of the plan of navigation that you were going on.

Mr. Carter

He jumped off the burning deck.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us get back to the Local Loans Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

I am glad Deputy Carter realises that there are such things as burning decks.

Mr. Dillon

I want to speak about a subject to which the Minister for Finance has referred, that is, the provision which it is his duty to make under this Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Bill for piped water supplies. I want to put it to the House that the piped water supply, as a general scheme for the whole country, is quite daft and arises from a complete misunderstanding of the rural situation. There are certain areas in rural Ireland—I could name them; there is one place in northwest Cork, one place in Westmeath, probably certain areas in Clare—where the superstructure geographically makes the occurrence of wells highly unlikely. In these areas, it may be necessary to carry water by piped water supply along the side of the county road in order to make water accessible to houses situated where wells are not readily available. But in over 90 per cent. of the rural areas there is an abundant water supply available either at individual wells for individual homes, or at wells adequate to cater for a group of homes, in what we in the West of Ireland would call a village of houses.

There are in existence two schemes, one under the Department of Agriculture and one under the Department of Local Government, to enable anybody who wants to get running water supplies in his own home in the country, to get it on the basis of a 50 per cent. grant of the total cost. In addition to that, there are facilities for borrowing the remainder of the cost, if the person has not got the money to put down. These are quite enough and abundantly effective to bring water supplies to anybody who wants them. They are of such a construction that their maintenance costs virtually nothing because there is no concealed, buried water main. Once they are installed, the people who have installed them enjoy a free water supply for the rest of their lives.

We are now proposing to substitute for that the installation of miles and miles of buried water main, the capital cost of which is great, and we are faced with the fact that they cannot come near the homes of a very large section of the rural community. The cost of connecting a house 100 or 250 yards away from the main road where the water main lies is extremely heavy and the person who is getting the water has to pay a water rate as a permanent annual charge. As far as I can find out, no regard is being paid, from the point of view of the local authority finances, to the probable annual cost of maintaining the water main, which can be very heavy.

You have two schemes, one of which can be financed by the individual farmer or group of neighbours and which produces a free water supply in perpetuity and with virtually no maintenance charge. The second is a scheme for carrying a water main for miles, which involves a heavy charge on the person who makes the connection and an annual water rate in perpetuity. I want to ask the House have we gone daft to borrow millions to finance a scheme like that? We are all conscious of the fact that there may be areas in the country with a peculiar geographical structure where such special arrangements must be made, but to suggest it should be of universal application is something which involves lunacy. The danger is that unless somebody is prepared to raise this issue and stick out his neck and describe it for what it is, you will get irresponsible local authorities—whose momentary desire is to provide employment in their district—embarking on these vast schemes, when with one-quarter of the loan, much better schemes could be operated in the area, providing people with much better water supplies which they would enjoy in perpetuity for no charge at all.

I would ask the Minister for Finance to review the whole character of this scheme to which he has referred of carrying water through rural areas by piped water main and to urge on his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, to re-cast the whole plan and confine it to those areas where adequate supplies of well water are not available. I think this House in adopting this Bill should not do so without a full realisation that it involves burdens on the taxpayer and the ratepayer because borrowed money must be paid for sooner or later. We commend it to the House in that full knowledge because we believe that, relatively poor as this country is, we still have a right appreciation of the proper hierarchy of the public weal and that one of the most vital matters of any civilised society is that where a Christian family is founded, there should be a home wherein it can live in dignity and security. I am proud of the fact that the Governments with which we were associated made great progress towards the realisation of that ideal. I am conscious of the fact that much remains to be done and it is because I am conscious of that fact that we in this Party quite resolutely recommend this Bill to the Dáil in order that finances to complete the job may be made available.

There is one last word I want to say and which I recognise is a matter to which the Minister himself may not be in a position to give an immediate, categorical answer. It is one which I would ask him to discuss with his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, because if we are to maintain a wise policy in regard to local loans, we must carry the active assent of the people with us. I would value the opinion of men like Deputy Barron and Deputy Sherwin on this. There is one problem for which I have never heard any ready solution. I am told that at present Dublin Corporation have a large number of vacant houses on their hands.

Mr. Barron

No, Sir.

Mr. Dillon

Another person will tell you that if you go out to any of the housing estates—I see Deputy Sherwin is smiling a Delphic smile—

Mr. Sherwin

We have not got a rathole.

Mr. Dillon

There you are. I am told that if you go out to Crumlin, Finglas or any of the large housing estates, you will see houses with their windows boarded up.

Mr. O'Keeffe

That is true.

Mr. Dillon

The tenants are gone and for some reason that nobody can fully understand——

Mr. Sherwin

I understand it.

Mr. Dillon

——those tenancies cannot be promptly regranted. I heard Deputy Sherwin say in this House, not six months ago, that you could not get out to these houses fast enough to put up timber to their windows, because the word went around among the neighbours like a flash when the tenants left and the windows were all smashed within three or four days by children pegging stones at them.

Mr. Sherwin

That is right.

Mr. Dillon

How can it be that there are vacant houses in these estates belonging to Dublin Corporation and yet I can meet a respectable woman in the street who stops me to say: "My son and daughter-in-law and their child are in the house with me; I have only one room for them and it is not suitable; he is in good employment, eager and willing to pay rent, but he cannot get a house to go into"? I cannot answer.

Mr. Barron

In fairness to Dublin Corporation it must be said that members of the Corporation know the exact position. When a tenant gives up the key of a house, that key is sent to the Maintenance Department and an advance offer is made from the list of people who want houses. It may be that that advance offer is accepted. If it is not accepted, a second offer is made to someone else.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think that this arises.

Mr. Dillon

I am much obliged to the Deputy. It does help me.

Mr. Barron

On a point of explanation in regard to what happened, even though there are boards up to the windows it does not necessarily mean that the houses are not let. They are waiting for the Maintenance Department so that they may be clean for the tenants coming in. That is the position.

Mr. Dillon

I put it to the Minister for Finance that he might with advantage discuss this specific proposal with the Minister for Local Government. It seems to me that it does create confusion in the public mind for the ordinary citizen, who does not understand the complications of the administration of housing, that there should be two or three hundred houses in the Dublin Corporation housing estates empty and yet people walking the streets unable to get a place to lay their heads. Deputy Barron offers a very understandable explanation in which he says a routine has to be gone through. The tenant goes out. There are depredations. You cannot reset the house in the condition in which the tenant left it. It has to be referred to that Department of the Corporation which, in due course, will go ahead with the rehabilitation of the house, putting in windows and so on. When that is done it is offered in rotation to a prearranged list of applicants who have been approved.

That may be so. But I suggest to the Deputy that the Dublin Corporation is allowing itself to get tied up in red tape. I think it ought to be more prompt in its operations to reassure those of us here and elsewhere, who are appropriating money to go on building, that the houses are still urgently wanted. I think they are wanted and I want to convince everybody else that they are wanted. But then somebody comes to me and says:

You are appropriating money to build more houses; I will bring you out to Finglas and show you dozens of houses with nobody in them and all the people say you are being improvident in providing more money for the Local Loans Fund, because, if they used the money they had providently, it might not be necessary to spend any more."

I am putting it to the Minister for Finance that we cannot reasonably ask the taxpayers and the ratepayers to provide the money if we cannot convince them that it is being providently used and is urgently wanted. I think it is. But we have got to do more than know that ourselves. We have got to explain to the public that there is still housing waiting to be done. I have never been without a house in my life. The plain truth is that there are few of us in this House who ever knew what it meant to be without a house, to be without a home into which to bring a wife and family. I often admire the patience of people who find themselves in that plight. I commend it, but if I were in that position in my own native city and saw hundreds of thousands of pounds being spent on a huge block of offices, with chromium, electric light, elevators and every facility obtainable, I would find it very difficult to be patient.

We ought to bear that in mind. I often used to say to a friend of mine that, if I were Minister for the social services, I could not rest in bed if there were a destitute person in Dublin, the reason for whose destitution I did not understand. I do not think we ought to rest in this House if there is a homeless person, a person without a home through no fault of his own, while we sanction the continued expenditure especially of public money—I do not exclude the expenditure of private insurance funds and funds of bodies of that kind: there ought to be a hierarchy for their utilisation, too—especially if we continue to sanction the expenditure of public money on the building of relatively unnecessary office amenities that could well wait upon the more urgent need of housing.

I concede to the Minister for Finance that if there were a proposal to build a factory to give employment to four or five hundred people, I would say to the homeless person who had not a house: "Look, if you can wait on with your mother-in-law for another six or 12 months, here is a chance to build a factory which will employ 500 people who would otherwise have to emigrate. I am prepared to ask you to wait a little longer if the choice is between building a new housing estate or letting this factory go up to give employment." I would do that, but I could not go to him and say: "There are lots of public servants, lots of local authority servants and lots of insurance company employees working in great discomfort. If we could get all of them into one magnificent office building with all modern amenities, they would all be much happier, so we are going to build that before we build a cottage for you." I do not think it is right to say that. These are things this House ought to consider, and I think this is the occasion on which they ought to be considered.

Whatever decision we may come to on these things I hope we have seen the last for my time in Dáil Éireann of the shameless, unscrupulous and heartless fraud perpetrated by Deputy Noel Lemass and Deputy Briscoe in the Dublin Corporation when they refused the people of this city the money to build their homes, not because there was any scarcity but because they wanted to purchase votes by falsehood from a deceived and frustrated electorate, who put the blame on the Government when it really belonged to the Corporators, who had the means, but not the will, to serve the people whose servants they were elected to be.

Mr. Sherwin

I am interested in this, because it is something with which I am familiar, particularly the building of houses for the working classes in Dublin. I am sorry Deputy Dillon has to go——

Mr. Dillon

I have not to go.

Mr. Sherwin

——because I want to say it is not true that money was not available from the Fianna Fáil Government in certain years. The truth is that Dublin Corporation did not require the money.

Mr. Dillon

When?

Mr. Sherwin

In 1958 and 1959.

Mr. Dillon

I am talking about 1956 and 1957.

Mr. Sherwin

I am a member of the Housing Committee. If I missed half a dozen meetings in six years, it is as much as I have missed, even though we meet nearly every fortnight. I think I know the whole history. In 1957 we could not raise money on the open market and had to get it from the Local Loans Fund. But, following that, there was a decline in the demand for dwellings in Dublin. We reached the stage where it was true to say there were hundreds of houses idle and no one wanted them. Anybody who did require a dwelling was choosey and decided he would only take a place in town and would not go to Ballyfermot or Finglas. It is true there were dwellings idle for as long as six weeks at that time, but that is not true today.

As I said a moment ago, there is not a rathole in Dublin today. There is a man with six children living out in the open in Finglas today. He was ejected for owing rent. It is the usual practice to offer a man shelter, but they have not even shelter. He is living out there and coming backwards and forwards every morning. There is not a non-subsidised room in Dublin available from the Corporation.

It is not true to say that any place is idle today. Places that are apparently idle are not idle in the sense conveyed. As stated by Deputy Barron, the allocation officer actually lets them the next day. If he is told on a Monday that such and such a place is vacant, he immediately writes out the next day saying: "Madam, we are now prepared to offer you this dwelling. We give you two days to come in and sign for it. If not, it will be offered to someone else."

As has been said, some of them are left in a deplorable condition. The people to whom they are offered will not take them. Therefore, the maintenance department has to do up the house. As has been explained to us, if the carpenters go in, they cannot be in the way of the painters: if the painters go in, they cannot be in the way of the plasterers. Each team goes in separately. No matter how you look at it, it will take a month or five weeks before the new tenant arrives. When the maintenance department is finished, the new tenant is told she may call at any time and collect her key. Perhaps she will take her time and come in after two weeks. She might have a lot of big furniture to get rid of. It may take five or six weeks, but the dwelling is let the next day. Not a dwelling can be had in Dublin city to-day. So much for that.

I come now to this statement that one Government provided £6 million and the other Government did not provide more than £1½ million. The truth is that two or three years ago we had as many as 2,000 vacancies per year. The people were leaving and going to England in droves because the economic conditions were good in England. We could not let dwellings outside the city. The Corporation said: "All right. Why build houses outside the city if we cannot let them? It would be a waste of money and we might have dwellings on our hands. We will never get our money back. We will leave off building outside the city and we will concentrate on town." But in town you cannot get sites, because there is such a thing as acquisition and all the delay in acquiring sites. You cannot do things in a hurry when there is only a limited number of sites.

For practically two years we were faced with the position that people would not go outside town and we had idle houses out of town. Suddenly, about 18 months ago, the situation changed again and the people stopped going away, because there was a loss of overtime and because economic conditions changed in Britain. At the moment, we have 200 large families back from Britain waiting to be housed. Either they are coming back or not going, or, if they are going, instead of the whole family going only the young people are going, while the parents remain. This has meant that in the past 18 months Dublin Corporation has been faced with the position that there are relatively few vacancies this year. The vacancy rate is now about 400 as against 2,250 two or three years ago.

We, the Dublin Corporation, decided we would not build, because we had houses on our hands. It was not a question that this Government gave so much and that Government gave only so much. We were the people. We decided we would not ask for the money but now we are asking for it. Now that the situation has hardened again and that these people are coming back from England, we will have to gear up again. I want to inform the Minister we will require twice as much money next year and as much again the following year.

We are building about 800 houses in the next 12 months, but we hope to build 2,000 in the following two years. We now need 5,000 or 6,000 dwellings urgently. When you cease doing a thing and start to gear up again, you cannot get into your full stride straight away. You have to work your way up. We built only a few hundred houses last year, because when planning the previous year we thought we would not need them. Last year we built approximately 800. This year we hope to plan for 1,500 or 2,000 in 18 months' or two years' time. That is the position. I welcome the Bill and point out to the Minister that Dublin Corporation now requires the money.

Mr. Gallagher

I welcome this measure to provide additional funds for local authorities. The provision of additional moneys not alone in Dublin city but throughout the country is a vital necessity. I am particularly interested in Small Dwellings Act loans. I see that £27 million has been advanced to private people to buy their own homes. I should like the Minister to consider whether the present rate of interest is conducive to people borrowing. I should like him to consider whether it would be possible to revise the rate, whether local authorities themselves could help to reduce that rate and whether central funds could not make money available at a somewhat cheaper rate.

I listened very carefully to the attack made by the Leader of the Opposition on Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Noel Lemass. I am sorry they are not here to make their own case. Whatever the Leader of the Opposition may say, I know from personal experience of the years 1955, 1956 and 1957 that Dublin Corporation did not have the wherewithal to meet their obligations. They did not have the wherewithal even to honour the loans they approved and granted and I can say from my own personal experience of dealing with Deputy O'Donnell, the then Minister for Local Government, that the money was not there. You may read and quote figures, but they are the figures from practical experience and, if there was a loss of confidence by private people in building in Dublin under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, it was directly attributable to the Government of 1954-57.

The economic collapse of those years brought in its train vast emigration and I am in debt to Deputy Sherwin for the facts he has presented to the House this evening in regard to thousands of Dublin Corporation houses being empty. They did not have the tenants then to occupy them. However, now we are in a position to authorise further building and I am pleased to hear Deputy Sherwin say that Dublin Corporation have taken active steps. I hope this measure will enable private builders in Dublin to proceed with greater confidence in getting building under way again.

One other facility I should like to see extended throughout the country rapidly, despite the careful remarks made by Deputy Dillon, is water supplies where they can be economically installed. It is real drudgery for a farmer and a farmer's wife when they have to go to a well and haul water. I think it is one of the reasons why there is so much emigration. We should make a real effort to see that water supplies are extended to as many homes as possible.

Mr. Mullen

I do not wish to enter into this controversy as to who is right, who is wrong and who is to blame for the housing situation today. However, I feel it would be wrong of me not to support what has been said by my colleague of the Dublin Corporation, Deputy Sherwin, in connection with housing in Dublin. It is perfectly true to say that the situation is absolutely chaotic. We have a situation existing in the Dublin Corporation in which two very hard pressed officers are trying to allocate houses. On the one hand there is an officer trying to house people from condemned houses. Every other day he has to say he has nowhere to put people. On the other hand, there is an officer dealing with ordinary applications and he is confronted with a similar situation. There is serious overcrowding in most of the corporation dwellings in Dublin and you will find families sleeping on the floor. I was glad to hear the opportunity arises now to obtain some money to ease that situation. It is rather unfortunate that we have to buy money to do something that the people in this city and the country need very badly.

Listening to some Deputies, I was reminded of the fact that some years ago an organisation of which I happen to be an official set about extending to the Government of the day a £50,000 loan free of interest with a view to inducing other people who had money to follow the line, all with a view to furthering the housing problem but we did not get support in that regard. There is a tremendous lack of public spirit on the part of a goodly number of the big employers in the city who are getting a lot of money out of this country but are not prepared to put it back in providing for the needs of the people out of whom they are living. Until such time as these people are made to realise that it would be a reasonable gesture on their part to give loans free of interest or at a reasonable rate of interest to build houses we will have this problem with us because we cannot afford to buy money at the price that is being asked.

Mr. Donegan

I should like to refer to the rural cottage subsidy. Up to very recently the higher rate of subsidy, namely, 66? was available for all rural cottages. That is now being changed and the rate is not based on income but on where the tenant comes from. Whether they come from over-crowded conditions, from condemned houses, from a house in which there is T.B., on the one hand, or whether they are a young married couple living in one room having no children, on the other hand, determines whether they get the 66? or the 33? subsidy. This means that an unfortunate farm labourer earning £5 15s., £5 19s. or something like £6 odd if he is in Dublin, is being asked to pay a rent of 25/- a week for a rural unserviced cottage. While it is true you can have a differential renting system in places like Ballyfermot, Drogheda, Dundalk, and in the cities of Limerick, Waterford, Galway and Cork it is impossible to work any sort of differential renting system in dealing with the farm worker.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that would be a matter for the Minister for Local Government. It does not arise on the Local Loans Fund.

Mr. Donegan

With respect, I say it is as much in order as what has gone before and when I think one can talk about everything but the unfortunate farm labourer, I would have the strongest views about your ruling but it is not for me to have views on that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not arise on the Local Loans Fund. It is a matter for another Minister.

Mr. Donegan

If I could have views on that I would have the strongest views on it. Piped water has been discussed and I presume it is still in order to discuss it. As the Leader of the Opposition asked, why should there be piped water along country roads when there is an abundance of wells? Why should a group of people not be able to band together to form a group scheme to provide water for themselves—not as the Government Deputy stated, buckets of water drawn from a well but water piped into their houses—rather than that the taxpayer's money should be spent on running a piped water supply along country roads where perhaps there is not a house for half a mile? I can give an instance of one of these schemes where there are doubts as to whether or not the water has gone stale or is unusable. We deprecate the fact that when there is an issue of money from this Local Loans Fund the Minister who gets the money from the Local Loans Fund issues it in such a way that an unfortunate farm labourer is asked to pay 25/- a week rent.

With regard to the argument about Dublin Corporation, nothing amuses me more, as a member of two local authorities, than to see this lovely situation whereby a tap can be turned off and a tap can be turned on and whereby at one time Dublin Corporation needs a vast amount of money for housing and another time we are told all the people have gone to England and that we do not require any more money for housing. Who is running Dublin Corporation? Is it all the people on one political side? Is it the City Manager, his officials, or who?

Mr. McQuillan

Deputy Sherwin.

Mr. Donegan

You do not turn on this need like a tap and you do not turn it off like a tap. I am quite certain that if the situation suggested by Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Noel Lemass obtained in the year in regard to which they made their allegations, or if even one small part of it obtained, the position would be that you would not have that lessening of demand to such an extent that you would require only half the money in the succeeding years.

As a member of a local authority, I am fully aware of all the thimble-rigging that goes on with regard to the making of money available from the Local Loans Fund. I am fully aware that sanction is issued when the money is there and sanction is delayed by the return of plans, and so on, when the money is not in the Local Loans Fund. I am fully aware of what happens. I am quite certain that the position in Dublin Corporation is the same as that in every local authority and that you cannot suddenly turn a demand off and on just like turning a tap off and on. For that reason, Deputy Sherwin's statement cannot carry weight.

Mr. Sherwin

Deputy Donegan knows nothing about it. Deputy Larkin is Chairman of the Housing Committee. He will support what I said because it is the truth. There is no thimble-rigging at all.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Donegan must be allowed to speak without interruption. Deputy Sherwin has spoken already.

Mr. Donegan

I hope a detailed examination will be made of the whole position in relation to the Local Loans Fund, which is relevant as the Department of Local Government issues the money.

Mr. N. Lemass

While I was out of the Chamber, I understand the Leader of the Opposition made reference to the opening of the Local Loans Fund to Dublin Corporation. Apparently he took the opportunity to pass remarks about Deputy Briscoe and myself, to the extent, I understand, that we were guilty of fraud in our statements on the situation that existed at that time. I have not the reference with me now, but I am quite sure Deputy Dillon will remember that not so long ago in this House I read copies of the letters that passed between the then Government and the City Manager. What the letters prove conclusively is that the then Government had to make funds available to Dublin Corporation from the Local Loans Fund because the Bank of Ireland refused to accept their guarantee as sound collateral. That is the situation that existed in 1956-57.

Mr. Dillon

Nonsense.

Mr. N. Lemass

In November, 1956, I contested a by-election. The main issue in that election was the housing programme and the then Government's handling of the housing situation. The electorate in Dublin South-West, a working-class constituency, by more than six to four condemned the then Government's handling of the situation. Subsequently, on a motion in this House, the Chairman of the Housing Committee, Councillor Larkin, made quite clear that Fianna Fáil, Deputy Briscoe or myself were not trying to make political capital out of the situation. What we were trying to do was to prevent house-building in Dublin from coming to a standstill. The situation actually reached the stage when it was possible that some of the workers might not receive their wages on the following Friday. That was the situation with which we were faced. If Deputy Dillon or any member of Fine Gael wants to discuss this item in this House or anywhere else at any time, I am prepared to meet them on it because every time they raised it, they made a show of themselves.

Mr. O'Sullivan

If it is the earnest intention of the Minister to proceed more expeditiously with the building of houses for those entitled to benefit from the money it is intended to vote today, then I would say that the Minister should impress on his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, the necessity to sanction more readily proposals that come to him from the local authorities. This week, the Southern Committee of Cork County Council, of which I am a member, felt obliged to hold a meeting to deal with the backlog in relation to submissions from Cork County Council to the Custom House and with the serious housing situation that exists in that area at the moment. If the action of the House today will have any effect in easing the situation that exists in our area, then we look to the future with some little more hope. For some years past, we have been frustrated by the manner in which proposals have been shuffled to and fro between the local authorities and the Department.

Let me give an example of our intention in relation to combating all the difficulties that may arise for people in special circumstances, people such as Deputy Sherwin mentioned to us. We have given great consideration, and our architect has advised us on the matter, to a means of overcoming some of these difficulties. We have decided to erect an experimental pre-fabricated house, capable of meeting specialised needs, not as an alternative to the better and more permanent type of house but to meet special requirements. I hope immediate sanction will be given to us to proceed with the erection and testing of this building so that we may employ it for the purposes for which we intend to use it. The outcome of this experiment will be a matter of considerable interest to the local authorities throughout the country, but we are satisfied that for some special purposes, it could be quite useful.

Reference has been made by Deputy Gallagher, on the other side, and by Deputies on this side, to the recent publicising of, and the emphasis thrown on, the necessity for vast piped water supplies throughout the country. I am in complete agreement with Deputy Dillon's statement that there are parts of the country where individual water supplies cannot be secured, due to the geology of the terrain. In that connection, I have in mind an extensive area in the present constituency of South-East Cork where there is no alternative to a piped water supply. We are entitled to ask that proper value be given for any outlay of money from the Central Fund and collected from ratepayers for these water supplies.

Very many estimates of cost and recoupment of cost are based on a general connection by the people in the areas to these piped water supplies. There was an immediate enthusiasm for the project but it abated somewhat when people who had hoped to be connected realised what the cost would mean to them per annum. The grants first introduced by Deputy Dillon have been availed of by many thousands of people throughout the country. Those people who have embarked upon individual water supplies which, generally, are working very effectively, have no intention of abandoning these supplies in order to connect to a scheme which will mean a very considerable outlay per annum for them. There are many instances where there is no alternative to these schemes, but, generally speaking, the grants available from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Local Government are being used quite effectively at the moment. We must be careful not to imply that under this scheme, which the Minister for Local Government has spoken so much about, it will be possible for the local authority to bring supplies to the doors of people who intend to avail of it. Far from it: we know that in very many instances the nearest point to a pipeline which will be available will be some distance away so that considerable expense will have to be undertaken by the persons hoping to benefit before they do obtain a water supply and afterwards in the operation of it. We all know that the maintenance of the present local authority schemes of water supplies can be pretty expensive and we know there are also administrative and technical difficulties and, as we know, with the extension of supplies to rural parts, technical difficulties are bound to mount considerably. It will be more difficult to exercise proper control over rural supplies, to check wastage and other factors that affect supplies as they extend into more and more parts of the country.

For that reason, I think that anything done in applying these moneys should not be done in any way to the detriment of existing schemes. Before people are encouraged to connect with those schemes, they should be made aware of the full cost, not alone the capital cost or the cost of the initial stages but also the annual charge for the supply of water and the maintenance of the system in those areas.

Mr. Corish

I merely want to go on record as favouring the establishment of these water supplies which seem to be, in the main, the subject of discussion this evening. I am not a member of a local authority but I am as conversant, I think, with conditions in rural areas as the average Deputy and I think there was a crying need for the provision of such supplies down the years. Up to recent times the usual method of supplying water to people in the country was the sinking of pumps and local authorities were not very generous in that regard. I know that in my own constituency, the local authority, composed of the three main Parties, had the practice of supplying four pumps per year. In a county the size of Wexford, that meant that in many areas people would not have even a modest water supply for decades of years yet.

If this were a scheme that was being imposed on the local authorities, perhaps we might be more critical, but, as I see it, this is the situation. The Department of Local Government, I suppose, through the Minister for Finance will give 50 per cent. of the cost. They do not say the local authorities must establish water supplies. There is no obligation on members of a local authority to engage in the provision of water by this method. So far as I know, local authority members, in the main, very jealously guard the ratepayers' interest and I should say the majority of public representatives on local authorities are far too conservative when it comes to public expenditure on facilities that people really need. They are offered 50 per cent. of the cost and they are fools if they do not understand the full implication of the provision of water supplies. They have their engineers and advisers from the Department of Local Government or from the Board of Works, and if they do not know what this will entail in capital cost, I think it could be said that they are not doing their job properly.

I am inclined to believe, having heard the speeches so far, that the opposition to these schemes comes mainly from people in rural parts who could afford to avail of the grants given either by the Department of Local Government or by the Department of Agriculture, but so far as the people I know are concerned, in my constituency, the people to whom I talk, my supporters, they would never be able to avail of the scheme that may appear to be generous that is running now either under the Department of Local Government or the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Dillon

Why not?

Mr. Corish

They would not be able to get the initial money. Being agricultural labourers getting roughly £3 per week all found, they could never provide themselves with a water supply or participate in a group scheme——

Mr. Dillon

You mean people in labourers' cottages? The county council ought to provide that.

Mr. Corish

But the county councils are going to provide it.

Mr. Dillon

Not at all.

Mr. Corish

Yes, they are. They will bring water to within easy reach of them.

Mr. Dillon

Not at all.

Mr. Corish

Under the other scheme, if they wanted to provide themselves with a water supply, they would have to sink their own wells or get it from some other source, and they would have to engage in schemes which would mean having to go down scores and scores of feet before coming across water and which would be very expensive for them.

As far as I can see, the opposition by various organisations in the country is opposition by individuals who have water themselves and who do not want to appear to have to pay twice, either in rates or taxes, to provide water supplies for people who cannot afford it themselves. I merely want to say—and I think I speak for my colleagues—we are fully behind these schemes for the provision of what are termed regional water supplies.

Mr. Dolan

I should like to welcome this measure and to say at the outset that anything that will further housing or help to provide more houses for our people—a number of them are still living in badly dilapidated dwellings— is to be commended. People well housed are a contented people and money devoted to housing will eventually pay dividends as it will reduce the money required for new hospitals or the hospitalisation of the people. It is a very welcome measure and we, on this side of the house, commend it highly. Despite what some members of the Opposition said, it was from this side of the House that the Act came and down through the years, we have put all our energies into the provision of decent homes for the people so that they can live in decent, frugal comfort.

Mr. T. Lynch

"Frugal" is right.

Mr. Dolan

Having almost completed that task, we are now, as this measure shows, devoting ourselves in earnest to it and we shall not rest until adequate housing has been provided for every family in the country.

Water supplies in rural areas are very essential and as we approach nearer to the Common Market it will be more necessary than ever for farmers' and labourers' houses, and all houses, if at all possible, to be provided with running water. The means of providing it can be worked out at local authority level or otherwise—by group scheme, if it is cheaper—but in the main, it is essential that the schemes now being outlined at various county councils and the surveys being made should be examined and if group schemes could be initiated in areas where it would be impossible to bring a pipe line, so much the better and so much more the saving. The principle of providing piped water supplies in rural areas is one to be commended.

Mr. T. Lynch

I might as well say here and now, if I am to reflect the opinion of my supporters, that my supporters are not in favour of these grandiose piped water schemes. I know portions of my constituency in which there will have to be piped water schemes because the rock is not the kind that holds the spring, but they are only portions. In the main, the people in my constituency do not want these piped water schemes because they will be too expensive. They prefer to look to themselves in group schemes. As far as labourers' cottages are concerned, these have always been built in County Waterford near a source of supply.

I heard Deputy N. Lemass mention the desperate state housing was in in 1957. He said he was prepared to discuss that with anybody. As far as housing is concerned, in 1957 the credit of the country was being run down by both Deputy Lemass and Deputy Briscoe, and others of that ilk. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We had 270 men employed building houses in the city of Waterford in 1957 and we have not 10 employed today. That is the answer.

Those who proclaim that nobody builds houses but Fianna Fáil should have a look at the years and the figures. In the short period during which Fianna Fáil were out of office, better and cheaper houses were made available for the people; they were made available for the people in general and not just for Party hacks. I heard a "Heh" from the ex-Parliamentary Secretary. If he wants proof, I shall give it to him.

It is a good thing that we should provide money for houses. It is a good thing that more money should be voted for that purpose. Last week I asked the Minister for Local Government was he considering raising the grant to enable private persons to build houses. I got the usual brush off. I suggest to the Minister that this is the kind of thing to which he should bend his energies from the point of view of providing money. There has been a considerable rise in building costs over the last eight or ten years. There has been no increase in grants.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

There was, of course, an increase in the grants last year.

Mr. T. Lynch

How much? They are £275 and they were £275 three years ago.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

They are £300 now.

Mr. T. Lynch

An increase of £25 will not help.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

It is something, anyway.

Mr. T. Lynch

It is nothing in the building of a house remembering the way costs have increased. We have the usual protests from Fianna Fáil Deputies. They do not want to give the money. That is what is in their hearts. I am always accused of being obstreperous in this House but, every time I get on my feet, I am interrupted by even ex-Parliamentary Secretaries who ought to know better.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Corrected— not interrupted.

Mr. T. Lynch

The grants are insufficient in the light of increased costs in both materials and labour. In 1957, when the Fianna Fáil clap-trap machine was working here, far more houses were built than are being built anywhere today. We have almost 400 applications for houses in the city of Waterford. We are not building houses because the terms are so difficult and the costs are so high. It would not be a good proposition for people who have to live frugally, as a previous Fianna Fáil speaker pointed out. I was told recently by a contractor that houses built during the period of office of a Government other than Fianna Fáil and let at £1 2s. 6d. per week would cost today £2 per week. I appeal to the Minister to take cognisance of that fact. It cannot be denied. Costs have increased. The grant remains the same.

Mr. P. Hogan (South Tipperary)

I wish to advert to the question of piped water. In my constituency of South Tipperary we have been pioneers in the provision of water supply schemes. When we first started there was no rural electrification. The only source of power was gravitation. That was the system we adopted. We have a number of regional schemes drawn up at the moment. We did hear about group schemes but they seemed to be scrappy. We thought they might mean a high maintenance charge and that the quality of the water might not be too good in different places. In general, the supervision of them, if they were non-gravitational, might be more difficult.

At our last special water meeting we had, however, a deputation from the National Farmers' Association. They produced a great deal of information based on a considerable amount of work which they had undertaken and now we are not quite sure whether or not we are proceeding on the right lines. They produced figures and they mentioned that, even on a flat terrain, group schemes based on borings might be more economical and the maintenance cost would not be as high as we thought it would be. We have asked our engineering staff to investigate the question of group schemes which will necessarily in our area be largely borings. I mention these points because we seem to be proceeding to supply water so far as we can in the rural areas and I think this question of investigation, costings, and general geological survey should be undertaken by a central Government Department and not left to local bodies. When money is being provided for this work that aspect should be taken into consideration.

Dr. Ryan

I was asked by Deputy Sweetman what amount of money was given out of the Local Loans Fund to the cities of Dublin and Cork. The amount given to Dublin so far was about £14,000,000 and the amount given to Cork about £3,500,000. If the amount spent by the Local Loans Fund generally were taken over the last ten or twelve years and the amounts given to these two cities were deducted one gets a different graph from that quoted by Deputy Dillon and others here to-day. In other words, it was the fact that Dublin and Cork were brought into this scheme that created some rather striking figures over the last seven or eight years.

This Bill, of course, makes no difference whatever to the authority of the elected members of a local body vis-à-vis the manager. Whatever power they had before with regard to the management of housing, borrowing or any other matter remains as it was.

While I should like to deal with some points raised, I should like to say at the same time that I am not in a position to deal in detail with housing and water supplies. These matters would be better raised on the Local Government Estimate or on some other occasion with the Minister for Local Government who would be in a position to give more precise information than I could give.

I was also asked what was the estimate of the amount that would be needed by the Local Loans Fund. It is about £8 million a year. That is what we estimate it——

Mr. Dillon

When the Minister says £8 million, does that include or is it in excess of money that comes into the Local Loans Fund by repayments?

Dr. Ryan

No; the repayments are not counted. It is the issues out of it that we are dealing with all the time. When I started off by saying £135 million had been spent, that does not take account of the money repaid.

There was a very great difference of opinion with regard to Dublin housing. I myself find it very difficult to understand the needs of Dublin because over the years—the last ten or 12 years—every time I see an estimate, it appears to be different from the previous estimate.

Deputy Sherwin went some part of the way to explain why that was the case. Evidently, as he explained, there was a drift out of these houses for a while. Many houses were vacant. The Dublin Corporation came to the conclusion, perhaps, that they should not go too fast on building more. Now the drift is reversed. There are no houses vacant and Dublin Corporation are proceeding to build very much more rapidly than they have been building for some years past. As Deputy Sherwin said, they will require twice as much money next year and twice as much again the year after. As far as I am concerned, the money will be available. I have never even asked the Minister for Local Government to go easy on giving out money and the Minister for Local Government has never, indeed, had occasion to ask me to give him more money. Whatever members of the Opposition may say about there being a sort of hold-up on housing proposals by local authorities, I do not think there is any foundation whatever for the suggestion.

Deputy Gallagher raised the question of interest charges. The interest charges are subsidised to a great extent out of local funds. We lend money to the local authorities. Apart from that, some of the Deputies may not be aware that grants are given for subsidies in order to pay the interest on these loans. The subsidy this year amounts to £2,846,000. On the housing of the working classes—as I said in the beginning, I am not too familiar with all the details—to a great extent the subsidy is two-thirds of the interest payable. It goes down to one-third in some cases. On the water schemes, it is 50 per cent. These subsidies then absorb that amount of almost £3 million per year.

There was a great deal of discussion on the piped water scheme. Deputy Corish said that some local authorities had asked for this scheme. The Minister for Local Government, after considering the scheme very carefully, indeed, put it up to me and the Government that he should subsidise them to the extent of half the expenditure. The local authority itself can then finance the other half, either by putting a charge on the people who will benefit or by putting part of it on the rates or all of it on the rates, as the case may be. As Deputy Corish pointed out, it is for the county council to decide whether to do it or not. I do not think it was ever visualised, as Deputy Lynch seems to think, that the Minister for Local Government should supply every house in the country. Deputy Lynch said his supporters in Waterford were against it, except in certain areas where they wanted a supply. That is the same everywhere: in certain areas, they want it, and in other areas, they do not.

Deputy Corish mentioned Wexford County Council on which the three political Parties are represented. I have never known Wexford County Council to have been too generous or too foolish in their spending of money. They have done a very big scheme in Wexford which was recently opened. It will cost a large amount of money. I have heard it discussed several times over the past ten or 12 years because this scheme has been going on for the past ten years.

It appeared that there was no other way of getting water into the villages or into the labourers' cottages. They decided in the end that if they did the villages and labourers' cottages, they should give water to the farmers, if they wanted to take it. That is the scheme as it stands. I believe that those who take the water are being charged for it. There will be a certain loss on the scheme—not a very big one—which the ratepayers will have to pay for.

They are a sensible county council. They are by no means an extravagant county council. They carried out the scheme after great deliberation and I am told that the three political Parties represented on the county council were unanimously in favour of it. I am very much more impressed by their actions and the need they felt to have that done than I am with the criticism of this scheme by Deputies Dillon, Donegan, Lynch or any other Fine Gael speaker. They all condemned this water supply scheme.

My observations are not confined to County Wexford alone. Limerick is another county in which I see one of these water supply schemes going on, too. Where you have these county councils composed of sensible men, men who do not want to spend money foolishly, if they are taking up these schemes, we should see that everything needed is made available to them. We do not compel them to take up these schemes. If they want to do so, let them do so and let them be given the subsidy.

I feel that details in regard to housing and so on could be more profitably raised on another occasion because the Minister for Local Government could better answer the criticisms than I.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Would the Minister agree that the existing water supply schemes are working well, that the existing water supply grants are doing very good work?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, where they are appropriate.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Yes, they are. Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Dillon

This is a particular type of Bill in which the issues are decided on the Second Stage. The subsequent stages are not of significance. For that reason, we consent to taking all the stages to-day.

Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.