Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 24 Mar 1971

Vol. 252 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 26: Local Government (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £348,400 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1971, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government, including grants to Local Authorities, grants and other expenses in connection with housing, and miscellaneous schemes and grants including a Grant-in-Aid.
—(Minister for Local Government.)

I was stating earlier that the area of grant houses has been reduced. I presume this comes about because of the OECD figures showing Ireland at the bottom of the international table for individual finished house units per thousand of the population. The Minister thinks the way to deal with this is to cut down on the area of houses. I do not agree with this because there are other factors involved. I would like the Minister to compel particularly big operators in the building line to indicate, when a house is for sale, the square foot area of the house along with the price.

Grants have not increased proportionately to the cost of the house. It is now approximately 10 per cent against 20 or 22½ per cent in 1948. There are many reasons for this. The cost of land has gone up. In the early sixties the Government did not service enough land in the city. As one moves out from the centre of the city land becomes that little bit cheaper and housing becomes more competitive. There are various costs a builder has to face. One of the greatest is due to the delays by Dublin local authorities in passing the plans. I do not blame the officials for this. They are under-staffed and badly paid in comparison with private industry. A delay of a couple of months puts up the cost to the builder. He is buying land at the rate of £8 to £10 per acre and he has to pay interest to the bank for that money.

The Minister says in his opening speech that a greater amount of money is being provided this year as compared with last year and previous years. How much money did he get back in turnover tax and, in certain cases, in wholesale tax? He is getting back a good portion of the money he is paying out. It is a matter of one Department taking it in and another Department paying it out. Taking turnover tax into account that alone reduces the value of the grant by 6 or 7 per cent compared to 1948.

People got used to an area of 1,200 square feet for a house. Then it was reduced to 1,000 feet, and then to 800 square feet. It is only when the person is living in the house that he finds it is not the area he thought it was. When a house is put up for sale it should be compulsory for the builder to indicate the square foot area of that house.

Another factor that has entered into the cost of housing since the 1963 Act is that when a person gets permission to build, another person near him who has a vested interest and does not want other people competing against him, will object to his plans. This objection will delay the plans anything up to 15 months or two years. That appeal has to go to the Department of Local Government. In the Department of Local Government most appeals take something in the region of 12 months and if there is an oral appeal it could be two years. I can give an instance to the Minister where it took two and a half years.

The Deputy has implied——

I said the majority of cases take a year and if there is an oral hearing it takes longer.

On appeal?

Yes. I remember a case taking over two years. Anyone in the building business will tell you that can happen. The builder has to pay interest on the money for that period. This puts up the cost of houses. I am sorry for the officials in the corporation and county councils where there is understaffing. This understaffing is due to the fact that the wages do not compare with those being paid by private enterprise.

The corporation are now inclined to buy blocks of completed houses. They agree with the builder on the building of 500 or 600 houses and when they are completed, the corporation take them over and pay a portion of the money towards the building costs. I know that Dublin Corporation have bought up a lot of land. They should give building contracts to the smaller builders who would build, say, six or 12 houses. Most of these small builders work manually on the job themselves and they would be in a position to build the houses at a lower rate than others by virtue of the fact that a lot of the outside labour is cut out.

Unless the Minister does something like this and prevents the big builders of Dublin who, I might add, are also engaged in building in many other counties as well, this grant will be insignificant. There are ten or 12 of those big builders who have bought land banks that will keep them going for ten years. The Minister will be back in a couple of years to double this amount and it will be still insufficient because these people have the whole market tied up.

Most people buying houses in this category under small dwellings (acquisition) loans will now find themselves in a situation whereby if they qualify for a local government loan, they will have to have either a bridging loan from the bank or else obtain an additional loan from some other source. The situation in this category of house building has reached the stage where houses have almost doubled in price during the past four years. The smallest type grant house which attracts the largest grant is now costing between £3,500 and £4,000. With the news of yesterday that interest rates have been increased, people now buying houses in this category are faced with weekly repayments of between £8 and £10. Such people would be confined to a certain income which would vary between £20 and £35 a week so that a weekly outlay of up to £10 on housing alone is a high percentage of their income. In particular it is the married couples who are faced with these problems. The local authorities for one reason or another have failed to build the necessary number of houses in almost every case and this is putting more and more people in the position of having to buy houses from the speculative builder. The local authority have failed, in particular in my own constituency, during the past few years to build houses. Inflation is rampant within the building industry and this has been reflected in the increasing costs of houses. In 1966, I bought my own house at an approximate cost of £3,000 but the same type of house today would cost about £7,000. This means that people like myself who were able to acquire a house in 1966 would have no hope of doing so today.

When the Minister introduced Housing in the Seventies and when he made changes in the housing grants, he was accepting that no longer can either the Government or the building agencies provide the type of house that could be built three or six years ago. The previous speaker mentioned the tendency to provide smaller houses and to give the larger grants for the 800 square feet house. That is a worth-while change but the Minister has accepted that housing costs have increased to such an extent that, if housing is to go to the most deserving people, pressure must be brought to bear on builders to build smaller houses and in that way to build them a little cheaper.

If large numbers of new houses are being built, it is because the law of supply and demand is in operation and the Government by their laissez faire attitude are allowing speculators to go into the market and to build houses because, obviously, the demand for houses of this type is unlimited at the moment. Failure of local authorities to supply houses is pushing more people into this category and if there is an expansion in house building it is because of the law of supply and demand.

The very high interest rate of almost 10 per cent has had little deterring effect on the expansion of the demand for housing. This reflects the dire state in which people now find themselves in relation to housing. In my own constituency I have estimated that between 1,000 and 1,200 families are in need of immediate housing. Since the houses are not being provided, more people are having to avail of the type of buildings for which this grant is intended. In this way the ordinary speculative builder can build these grant type houses. It is being done in Wicklow. Surely it is a reflection in some way on the house planning of the Department that private builders can do the work much quicker than can the local authority people. For this reason I would appeal to the Minister to require these speculative builders to allocate a number of their houses to people on the housing lists of the local authorities. The delays in providing public housing are such that after a scheme starts four or five years may elapse before the houses are provided.

Another problem which is becoming an increasingly heavy burden on young people is the rateable valuation on the grant-type house. Some years ago the rateable valuation for a three-bed-roomed house——

The Deputy is enlarging the scope of the debate by moving on to rateable valuation.

I was trying to couple it with the problems of people buying grant-type houses. It was in that context only that I mentioned rateable valuation. I accept what the Chair says. Perhaps it is outside the scope of this debate.

The Deputy can take care of that on the main Estimate.

The £250,000 which the Minister requires to pay the additional grants over and above those for which he originally estimated is, naturally, welcome because it means that people are being housed. In the end, this is the most important thing. This also reflects the fact that local authorities are not building houses. If these grants continue to expand that will reflect the lack of houses provided by the local authorities.

In support of this Supplementary Estimate I should like to say that the details spelled out in it are that it is to defray the cost of the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government, including grants to local authorities, grants and other expenses in connection with housing, and miscellaneous schemes and grants, including a Grant-in-Aid. These are the things we stand for. If there have to be increase in taxation for this reason we stand over them. The Minister referred to the housing programme and said that a substantial portion of the increased expenditure is due to a continuous upward trend in new house grants. I am quite sure that nobody in this House objects to an upward trend in housing grants, although some people object to the fact that there have been increases——

That is the most misleading statement in the Minister's speech.

I will deal with Deputy L'Estrange, the Fine Gael spokesman, in a moment. The Minister said:

The output of private grant-aided new houses in the past two financial years achieved all-time records in each year and it is clear that output in 1970-71 will again be higher than in any previous year. As compared with the total of 8,129 new house grants paid in 1969-70, it is expected that, despite the cement strike, the total this year will be of the order of 8,700.

The Minister's speech is being remade.

I just want to comment upon it. I want to ensure that the Deputy has read it.

The Deputy will make sure to read it twice.

The Minister said:

New house grant allocations, which are an indication of the probable level of future activity, have also shown a consistent upward trend over the past three years.

The important point is:

In the 11 months ended 28th February, 1971, these allocations were about 4,000 higher than in the full financial year 1969-70, which in itself was a record year as regard the allocations.

I have no objection to the Minister looking for more money to ensure that the housing drive is continued. I would support any measures brought into this House to ensure that the housing drive is continued, to ensure that the personnel in the various Departments get the increased salaries they are justly entitled to, and to ensure that the section of the community requiring grants will get grants. I heard some groaning and moaning today from Deputy L'Estrange. He talked about taxation and about Fine Gael policy, but he had no suggestion to offset the cost or to provide the money in another way.

He said that Fianna Fáil taxation increases year by year. If it increases for this purpose or for other social service purposes I am behind it. When Deputy L'Estrange says that increases in taxation should not occur that suggests to me that he is not in favour of paying the increased grants and the increased salaries. It is rather sad to think that this is Fine Gael policy. Deputy L'Estrange spoke about a variety of matters relating to housing. He quoted the OECD Report on the conditions in Turkey and the conditions here. He did not spell out the fact that the units of accommodation we provide are far higher than those provided on the Continent. He did not spell out the fact that the family size here is far larger than it is in Britain or on the Continent, and that our family structure demands a bigger type house.

I thought the Government were making arrangements to change that too.

We provide as much accommodation as they do, taking into consideration the structures and the size of the accommodation and measuring them against theirs. Deputy L'Estrange said that the figure for Turkey was the lowest and ours was the second lowest. We are second lowest because of the fact that we produce a larger type of accommodation than is produced elsewhere. If the accommodation we produce were on a par with theirs, we might be very high up on that list.

Deputy L'Estrange made a number of other suggestions. Ridiculous as they were, I want to comment on one of them. He said that nobody seems to take any steps about traffic accidents and deaths on the road. Anybody who has heard the statements made by the Minister for Local Government and has seen the advertisements which were put before the public from time to time asking for greater care on all aspects of road use——

I think Deputy O'Connell was ruled out of order on that item.

This is a comment which was made by another Deputy. I want to clarify the situation.

I am just asking a question.

I can be ruled out of order after I make my suggestion. No one has done more to highlight this situation than the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Molloy. The message has not percolated to all sections yet, but people realise that there is much that needs studying in the messages that have been given by the Department. I want to compliment them on that and on their efforts to decrease the number of accidents.

The Deputy has refuted the suggestion and he should leave it at that. This matter has already been ruled out.

I have made the point. Deputy L'Estrange presented no idea that would stimulate the house-building programme. He did not present any new evidence that would enable the Department, or the builders in general, to produce houses at a lower cost.

We had some suggestions from Deputy Belton also. He said that the price of houses could be reduced by as much as £1,000 per house. There is no doubt whatever that if Deputy Belton were able to put into operation a scheme which would reduce the cost of building houses by £1,000 he would, within six months, be the richest man in the country because everyone would be going to him for cheap houses. Nobody knows better than Deputy Belton the cost of producing houses, the profit on houses and all the other factors related to house-building. I would ask Deputy Belton to produce proof to the Minister for Local Government and to house-builders so that all the houses built in future can be built £1,000 cheaper. I am quite sure that young couples looking for houses would support Deputy Belton forever for his suggestion. We all know that Deputy Belton made these remarks without any foundation and I am quite certain he cannot produce the evidence required. He spoke about houses costing £1,900, £1,250 and £1,300 back in the forties but he did not indicate what wages were at that time or what materials cost.

I should like to ask Deputy Belton some questions in relation to the comments he made. Does the builder put the price of houses up for profit? Does the builder increase the price of houses to offset wages? Does the builder increase the price of houses to offset the increasing costs of materials? Does the builder increase the price of houses to offset the price of land? Does the builder increase the price of houses to offset the other services provided? If house prices are put up purely for profit that is wrong. A builder is entitled to put up the price of houses so that he will get a fair return for the services he renders.

Some of the houses built are way out of the reach of the ordinary working man but they were never intended to be within his reach. Certain houses will always be built which are out of the reach of the ordinary worker. The first real effort made on behalf of such people was that made by the Minister for Local Government when he increased the grants and made it easier for them to purchase their own homes. It is easy for a person living in a 19 or 20 room house to say that a house of 1,000 square feet is too small. It is too small for him but it is not too small for working people if they can afford to buy it.

Modest type houses are in demand and to say that no effort has been made to provide them is erroneous. The Department of Local Government have made £3 million available to Dublin Corporation to enable them to accumulate a land bank. This land has been handed over to small builders to develop. In Tallaght at the present time 300 sites are being developed. This land bank will provide much needed competition in the building trade and give us a variety of houses at different prices so that people will be able to buy the houses of their choice. This was a good idea and in time to come I am sure we shall hear Deputies from the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party claiming that this was their idea. When this matter was first mentioned the Opposition thought it was a good idea because it would bring the purchase of a house within the scope of the ordinary worker.

Deputy O'Connell spoke about the taking over of land. I disagree with that; I think the building up of land banks is much better.

Is that not taking over land?

No, it is not.

The Deputy cannot have it both ways.

This land was bought on the open market. I am against the confiscation of land and to suggest that land should be taken over——

The question of taking over land does not arise.

Has the Deputy ever read the democratic programme of the first Dáil?

I have read the democratic programme of the Labour Party and I did not think it was all that democratic.

Let us keep to the matter before the House.

Deputy Dr. O'Connell left the House without finishing his speech because he was a little upset at something that was said here. He did not put forward any suggestion which would reduce the cost of houses but he made the usual attack on corporation officials.

We are dealing with grants for private houses.

Corporation officials are implementing the Minister's programme for the building of houses of moderate size. To say they have done nothing is erroneous. The people who get these houses will be thankful that we had a Minister like Deputy Molloy who introduced the scheme and made that particular type of house available.

If any Member of the House has any suggestions as to how the price of houses can be reduced they would do a valuable service to themselves and to the community if they made the suggestions public. The only people who seem to be able to build houses without money and rent them at a reasonable price are the Fine Gael and Labour Parties.

The Deputy is admitting that Fianna Fáil rent them at unreasonable prices.

I would like to see the houses which can be built for so much less than that at which we can produce them.

9½ per cent for loans.

Will the Minister agree to meet these people at the Custom House with these wonderful ideas about how to build houses cheaper and try to extract these ideas from them?

(Interruptions.)

We are dealing with grants for private houses.

I am pleased to be associated with this Supplementary Estimate which will ensure that grants are made available for young people.

I was concerned to read a statement by the Royal Liver Insurance Company indicating that they were no longer making loans available for house purchase. There is a responsibility on all insurance companies and more especially on foreign insurance companies to pump money back for house building. These foreign insurance companies get large sums of money every week and yet they do not now intend to make any contribution to house building. The people who make weekly payments want to see some return either to themselves or their fellow countrymen. Insurance companies should be compelled to make some percentage of the money they collect available for house purchase.

We are concerned with producing more homes for our people and, whenever we are called upon to meet additional taxation to produce these homes, whether they be local authority homes or purchase type homes, we will gladly support the Minister. Our main concern is to ensure that we have homes for our people and any suggestion that this Supplementary Estimate is coming at an inopportune time cannot be sustained. Neither can these references to taxing people up to the hilt. This is for something of which we should all approve and I am quite sure Deputies opposite will not vote against this. Let us see how consistent they will be when the debate ends. No one will vote against this. Let us have an end to hypocrisy. I trust that, before the debate ends, they will see sense and make some of their ideas available so that we can have these cheap houses about which they have spoken at such length but when they were building houses, they were not by any means cheap.

As usual, Deputy Dowling has a great line of patter, but he is, of course, as usual quite confused. He is trying to give the impression that the Minister is asking an extra £250,000 when, in fact, the money is coming from another section of his Department which failed to spend this £250,000. That is just part of his confusion. He does not even know the name of the Minister who was responsible for confining grants to the more modest type of house; he cannot remember his name or, perhaps, it is a bit of an embarrassment to him to remember it. He is giving credit to the present Minister. One wonders whether in fact credit should be given to any Minister for what is allegedly an improvement in housing grants. I have serious doubts as to whether there is any improvement. When one considers the way other expenses have been piled on to the cost of house building one appreciates that the grant has been cancelled out completely.

To exclude a house that exceeds 1,250 square feet from grant is unjust because a very large family might require such a house even though that family is not in the upper income bracket. There is no provision whereby such people can get a grant because of their particular family circumstances and they will be compelled to live in a totally inadequate house simply because they are debarred by legislation from getting the consideration to which their exceptional circumstances would entitle them.

I do not think there has been any improvement. There has been a switch of emphasis, but no improvement. An enormous improvement is called for. I have been listening for years to talk about the Government's efforts to produce a low cost house and to reduce the price of houses for those who find it impossible to get a deposit in order to provide themselves with a home. Actually nothing has happened. We had a great sing-song about the land bank. I thought it was an excellent idea, but I am having doubts about it now, except for local authority requirements. First of all, an immense amount of money is required to buy a big land bank and, unless that land can be developed fairly rapidly and converted into houses, the cost of servicing the bank will be enormous. In fact, what might look like cheap site land today may turn out to be very expensive land in a few years time if services are not provided for ten or 15 years, which is quite a possibility. We know what site lands are costing us. Some of us have been shocked at the price Dublin Corporation have had to charge small builders. We hear a great deal of talk about this land being freely available. The fact is it is not.

Only the other day a builder told me he had to leave County Dublin in order to keep his small staff working; he is building in the adjoining counties because he could not get site land in Dublin. He applied for land in Tallaght last November and he still has not got it. We have just heard Deputy Dowling telling us small builders now have no trouble. The fact is all the land has been grabbed from under their feet. It is not available to them. This is something the Minister should examine into as a matter of urgency.

The backlog in County Dublin is enormous. The same situation obtains in the city. The city is expanding out into the county. That is how the city is solving its problem. No building is being done in the city. That does not matter so long as the problem is solved. It is, however, a shocking thing to drive small builders out of the county because they cannot get site lands within the county. To my knowledge that is definitely happening.

There is another thing happening which the Minister should look into. It is something I condemn. We hear about speculators and developers going wrong. There is no doubt they are not in business for the fun of it and probably some of them make excess profits; nevertheless they are doing one thing and that is producing houses quickly. It is deplorable that a local authority should come along and put a compulsory purchase order on site land a builder has bought when that land is not required for the council's own purposes there and then; if it were left to the private developer there would be houses on it in half the time it takes local authorities to provide them. That is not the fault of the local authority. There are various reasons why local authorities cannot work as rapidly as the private builder, but the main one is the fact that the necessary finance will not be made available by the Department of Local Government. The private developer can get his hands on the necessary money and go ahead. One may deplore the fact that the private developer may make what looks like too much profit, but he is at least producing houses and these houses are being bought, even if it is not with local loans fund money.

I have drawn the Minister's attention to the fact that the number of applicants for local loans fund money has dropped significantly mainly because the maximum loan is so far short of what is required. They are just not able to find the deposit. No serious effort has been made by the Minister to look into the situation and see what can be done.

It is misleading for the Minister to say that a substantial portion of the increased expenditure is due to a continuous upward trend in new house grants. That sort of language is used to give the impression that there has been an enormous improvement in the State subvention for the building of private houses. The net position is far worse today than five or ten years ago and the Minister must accept this.

Deputy Dowling asks, if the price of houses has increased, who is responsible? He exonerates the Government from any responsibility for the increase. Their policy did not matter. It had no effect; their taxation policy had no effect. He blinds himself to the fact that the Government have an immense responsibility for allowing house prices to increase as they have, due to increases in the cost of living and the consequent demands for increases in incomes from people in the industry, and due to direct taxation, wholesale tax and so on, on various materials used in the industry.

We on this side of the House would welcome increased demands by the Minister for more money for houses if this would lead to an improvement and if the backlog were wiped out but there is little sign of that happening certainly in this part of the country into which people are pouring and the demand and the frustration are increasing. Deputy Dowling said that there was an enormous demand for this smaller type house. Of course there is because it is the only type of house they can afford. Anything is better than a shed or 20 people living in a cottage, or living in deplorable caravans which have no sanitation and let in the rain. Recently the Minister went to England to look at the "No Fines" country type house and I also went across with members of the county council to see if houses could be produced cheaper in this way. I should like to tell the Minister if he has not seen it that there was a "No Fines" concrete house of 930 square feet, and a 30 square feet garage, the rent of which was £4.05 including rates. The Minister should look into this and see how this is possible. It was a first-class house and I got the impression that there is considerable scope for rapid building and for reducing the price of houses. Having seen the way these houses are built I feel that there must be an enormous profit in them for the builder.

I know that the Minister has decided to go ahead with some schemes of this sort and that the NBA have been in on this, and that certain contractors have been selected. Is there any competitive tendering in these cases or how are these people picked for this work? It is important that this should be known because there is a rumour a broad that they are selected for reasons which are not very desirable. This may be wronging the people concerned but at least people must be seen to get a fair chance to tender for this type of work.

I should like to commend the Minister for going to the trouble of investigating this way of producing lower cost houses while at the same time keeping quality reasonably high. I would exhort him not to reduce his standards too low in regard to the house area itself. There is nothing more deplorable than to see families overcrowded to the point where it is injurious to their health. I would prefer to see a more spacious house with a finish which was less good than a well finished, small house. There is a good deal to be said in that regard. I believe that we are making many of our houses much too small.

Portion of this Supplementary Estimate which is not being secured as a result of savings in other Departments is the money for An Foras Forbartha. An Foras Forbartha cover a fairly wide field and recently we got a summary of the work they do. I saw a reference recently to the fact that they were so starved for necessary capital that they are unable to meet their responsibilities or attend to work which they could properly do. I do not know sufficient about the position to be constructively critical about them. One thing which they do is to reclassify roads and I am very critical of this aspect of their work. Roads are not classified on the basis of the volume of traffic which they carry. If one is to judge by the grants being made available for road improvements then if you have a black top road that is the end of the matter because that is the yardstick and you will get no grant. They saw fit in County Dublin to classify 51 miles of road. In County Dublin we are carrying the traffic of Ireland.

The Deputy is going into the question of the roads programme which is a matter for the Estimate.

I submit that this is completely relevant to the Supplementary Estimate. It is part of the work of An Foras Forbartha.

Actually it is not; it is the Minister who classifies the roads.

(Interruptions.)

An Foras Forbartha may give certain advice but the matter of roads in County Dublin is a matter for the county council. This is a matter which can be dealt with on the Estimate.

I do not think we should be confined in our discussions. We believe that the money here for An Foras Forbartha is for salaries and salaries cover their entire work.

(Interruptions.)

I must say I am always confused about discussions on Supplementary Estimates. I never know how far I can go in discussing items for which money is being provided and when I must stop and I think many other Deputies suffer from the same confusion.

A general Supplementary Estimate or token Estimate allows several aspects of the Department to be dealt with. If a Supplementary Estimate specifically indicates certain subheads, then the debate is confined to those.

We will not get another opportunity.

The Chair has no control over this matter.

We have here an additional grant of £11,400 to meet the administration and general expenses of An Foras Forbartha. What am I limited to in this? Does it confine me to comment on the salaries of the people?

I am sure the Deputy will appreciate the Chair is being reasonable in suggesting that if all the activities of An Foras Forbartha and all the advice they might tender to the Minister on all aspects of local government were to be discussed there would be a complete discussion in duplicate on Local Government.

I cannot see what the Chair is worried about. I cannot possibly discuss An Foras Forbartha without talking about what they do and what they are responsible for. If I am to be prevented from discussing that I will have to sit down. The grant is about administration and salaries and expenses and I am beaten if I must confine my remarks as the Chair suggests.

I do not intend to enter into the argument as to what can or what cannot be discussed on this Estimate. Let me say that I am not a bit surprised that the Minister is rather reluctant to allow a debate on An Foras Forbartha at the present time.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

The Chair keeps order in the House, not the Minister.

I would like to have this clarified. At no time did I indicate any reluctance on my part to allow debate on the subject of An Foras Forbartha or any of its dealings. This was purely a decision of the Chair.

The Chair would like to read this paragraph for the information of Deputies in regard to An Foras Forbartha. It is an extract from The Third Programme: Economic and Social Development, 1969-72:

Physical planning will be aided by the work of An Foras Forbartha (The National Institute for Physical Planning and Construction Research) which has been established by the Minister for Local Government, with United Nations assistance, to provide research and advisory services in environmental studies, including local and regional planning, amenity conservation and development, road construction, road safety and traffic, and water resources conservation.

The Chair is merely trying to interpret that. If the Chair were to allow a discussion on all the matters on which An Foras Forbartha could advise it could bring in the Buchanan Report.

With all due respect, may I also read something which comes from the Minister's speech:

The provision of an extra £108,000 under subhead A of the Vote is necessary to meet the increased staff costs arising from the twelfth round increases and the additional £11,400 Grant-in-Aid of An Foras Forbartha is intended to meet similar extra costs in respect of that body.

The Chair is entitled to make a ruling that we cannot mention An Foras Forbartha but it is mentioned in the Minister's brief. There is a substantial amount of money allocated to it and if the Minister is not objecting to having it discussed he was making rather strange noises when Deputy Clinton was attempting to discuss it. One further point in relation to this extra money. It is supposed to defray extra expenses, but there is a question of a reduction of staff when they had to sack their secretary because they had not the money to keep him on. Where does that come in? Surely the Minister should have referred to that when he was looking for extra money for staff for An Foras Forbartha. The Minister can shake his head.

That is not true. I will reply to that.

I would be glad if you would because the national news-papers reported that Dr. Craig was dismissed because——

Dr. who?

The secretary of An Foras Forbartha.

Who is the person the Deputy said?

The secretary of An Foras Forbartha.

What is his name?

The Minister would know that if he knows anything about it.

No such person was sacked. I do not know what the Deputy is talking about.

If the Minister does not know about it how would the Minister reply to it?

The Deputy may be mixing it up with An Taisce. It has nothing to do with An Foras Forbartha.

I am not. The Minister, of course, was very anxious this would not be discussed at all and I would like if he would make a comment when he is replying. We discussed here the question of the reduced size of houses which would qualify for grant and what Deputy Clinton says is quite true. Despite Deputy Dowling's comments here, this was introduced by the former Deputy Boland when he was Minister, not by the present Minister, and at the time——

(Cavan): He is supposed to be forgotten about.

I know they like to forget a lot of things here. In fact, the figure was 1,249 square feet and no grant or rates remission would be allowed over that. Deputy Dowling seemed to suggest that a house of that size was something enormous. He talked about 11-roomed houses. I do not know whether he was talking about former Ministers. They are the only people I know who happen to have houses of that size and who are connected with this House. The position is that people with a large family would not find anything extraordinary in building a house which is over 1,249 square feet; in fact, anything under that would mean that they would have to be adding on to it as so many of them have done. The Department have been sitting tight for years on the question of the amount of housing grant to be given. The Minister ignores the fact that it now costs as much to buy a site as it did to build a house some years ago. I am one of those people who have a family growing up, getting married and building their own houses, and I know exactly to the last nail what the costings are on those houses. Anybody who goes to the trouble will soon find out that when site costs are taken into consideration and when the extra taxes which were put on deliberately by the Government are added to the material and also the increases in wages which were brought about because of the huge increases in the cost of living, they will understand why the price of houses has gone up so much.

The question of the money which is available to people who want to build houses is the main thing that is dealt with here. I do not know whether the Minister knows this or not, but there is the extraordinary situation in regard to people who want to build a house that, as soon as they reach the stage at which they feel they would have money to repay the loan—and we were told on the radio this morning that local authority loans will be going up from 8½ per cent to 9 per cent on 1st April—they are told they are ineligible for a loan. They are then thrown back on building societies and various other organisations who will make their own terms before they agree to lend money.

In addition to that we have the situation where people who are borrowing money in order to build houses are, in many cases, people who would normally qualify for local authority houses. After these people have made all the necessary arrangements many are frightened by the cost. Would it be unreasonable to suggest to the Minister that people who would normally qualify for local authority houses but who build their own houses should be added to the categories who are qualifying for the higher grant for such houses? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that somebody who becomes tired of waiting for the local authority to build a house for him and who makes the effort to build his own house might be given an extra grant or a subsidy on the loan charges? This would encourage people to build their own houses. As the Minister must be aware, most of the people in this category would be living either in condemned accommodation or in overcrowded conditions. I know of many people in the lower income groups who are attempting to build their own houses.

I was surprised to hear Deputy Clinton say that when he went to England recently on an inspection, he found that a certain type of house could be built for which the repayments would be only £4 or £5 per week. A repayment of £4 per week out of an income of, say, £20 would be quite substantial and after income tax and other outgoings had been paid, there would be very little left for a family to live on. It is people like these whom the Minister must help because rents, as well as interest on loans, are most unreasonable.

In the case of local authority houses, the position is the same and the people who get those houses must pay rates from the day they enter the houses and when we take into consideration the further increase in the rates— again, because of muddling on the part of the Government—these people will be put to the pin of their collar.

Finally, I ask the Minister if any effort has been made by his Department to find some way of getting low cost houses on the market. When the last Housing Bill was going through, the then Minister, Mr. Boland, included a suggestion that an additional grant would be paid to anybody who could devise a unique type of house. We are not looking for houses of a unique type. We are looking for low cost houses, for houses that the people can afford. Somebody said recently that the houses being built now will not last as long as did those that were built 100 years ago but it will satisfy most of us if they last for less than half that time. No matter what Deputy Dowling or any other Deputy may say, the fact remains that the number of people seeking housing in this city and in this country as a whole, is a national scandal. Despite all this nobody seems to be very worried about trying to break new ground in relation to house planning. Surely it should be possible for somebody to devise a low cost house?

I know that, a few years ago, the Department went on a rampage in relation to local authority housing. They inspected these houses and sent back plans to the effect that ceilings should be lowered by six inches, windows narrowed by two inches and other such nonsense so as to cut down costs. The Minister, as a young man, should make every effort to ensure that houses will be built of such a type that people will be able to pay for them.

There is also the question of sites. The only way in which sites can be had at a reasonable cost is if the State would decide that building land should be purchased, where necessary, only by local authorities or by the State. I object strongly to the term "confiscation" used by Deputy Dowling. It was all right during the last general election campaign when he went around the country talking about the confiscation of farmers' property. What I am talking about is not confiscation. It is something to which the people of this country are entitled. It is a national scandal, too, that where local authorities spend a lot of money in the development of a site, some speculator, be he a landowner or a builder, is allowed to buy that land at a low price and eventually charge exorbitant prices for the houses he builds thereon. If the Minister is not prepared to tackle the problems now, I do not know of anybody else in the Department who would be interested in tackling them.

(Cavan): I have no wish to take up the time of the House for more than a few minutes but I would not like to let this Supplementary Estimate go through without paying tribute to a section of the community that I believe are doing a very good job and who deserve the greatest credit. I refer to those people of modest means who, during the years, have been building their own houses. Of course, a lot of these people are forced into building their own houses because sufficient housing is not being provided by the local authority.

Bad as the situation is here in relation to housing, if these people had not made the effort to provide their own houses, we would be a disgrace before the world. I might say also that in many towns there are small builders who are constructing houses to order and who are doing a reasonably good job. If it were not for them and those people who build their own houses, we would be much worse off.

In this respect, I would like to say that it is becoming increasingly difficult for people of modest means to build their own houses because the gap between the State grant and the cost of housing is widening and I do not believe that the normal State grant is in line in any way with the increase in the cost of housing. As Deputy Tully has said, the rate of interest has now been increased. This means that the cost of servicing a county council loan will be in the region of £250 a year. It means that to service a county council loan will cost about £250 a year on a £2,500 loan.

The rates have gone up very considerably. The size of the house has been reduced, as Deputy Tully also said, from 1,500 square feet to 1,249 square feet. It is very doubtful whether that was a wise move. A house of 1,500 square feet is not palatial and anybody with a reasonably large family would certainly want a house of that size. The interest rate has put up the price of housing. The turnover tax has increased the price of housing very considerably. The wholesale tax which applies to certain items has also increased considerably the price of housing.

I believe that the section of the community about which I spoke, that is the people who just qualify for the grants, should get further assistance. I believe it is a wise investment of public money to invest it in private housing. This relieves the local authority of the necessity to provide houses and in that way money is saved. Furthermore, if they are privately owned, the houses will be kept in a proper state of repair. Over the years it has not been possible for local authorities to keep their houses in a proper state of repair because, when they are striking the rate, repairs are the one item they are inclined to save on, the one area where they have discretion.

Throughout the country local authority houses, by and large, are in a poor state of repair for the simple reason that when the rate is being struck this is where economies are made. Therefore, the Minister should continue to keep housing grants in line with the increased costs of house construction. I do not know whether "private housing grants" includes reconstruction grants. This has not been dealt with in the Supplementary Estimate. I am sure that the finance provided for reconstruction falls under this heading.

I believe that in this field reconstruction grants have not been touched for many years. They have fallen behind and they are still one-third of the cost that has to be met by the applicant. The maximum is £140. It has remained at that figure for many years. In this way houses which would be repaired if the grants were more adequate and could be saved, are allowed to fall into disrepair and are scrapped. Therefore, I would strongly recommend to the Minister that he should increase the reconstruction grants.

I rose mainly to pay a tribute which is not paid often enough to the people who are providing their own houses and the small builders who carry out these schemes. They should get more encouragement and any encouragement which the Minister can give them I am sure will have the support of the House.

Before a person can qualify for a housing grant or loan he must raise the necessary money. As we are all aware, building societies have closed down as regards granting money for additional building. Unless you had an application in prior to a fortnight ago, and it was sanctioned, you cannot get any money. Everybody in the country knows this. Banks are not granting bridging loans to people who had a building society loan before the closure, or even to people who get a county council loan. The Minister will have to look into this matter. Otherwise the loans will be only a matter of form. It is almost impossible for people to provide their own houses. Families must have homes.

I do not know if the Minister can exert any influence over the building societies but I would hope he would ask them to relax their restrictions on credit. I believe they would listen to him and endeavour to facilitate him. When the Minister is replying I should like him to say if he agrees with what I am saying. I should like him to say if he believes this to be true. I should like him to say if he believes that the building societies are not granting loans and that if a person makes an application it will be refused. I believe it is true that the building societies have dried up their money and are not giving any further loans.

I mentioned the banks. In cases where the local managers were prepared to grant bridging loans I believe they have been turned down by head office in Dublin. All this is imposing grave hardship on the people who were expecting a bridging loan. They also have to wait for possession for a further period until the title documents and other matters are cleared up. The Minister should investigate this matter and try to rectify it.

I want to deal with the position in regard to private housing grants. Let us take a private housing grant for a farmer with a valuation of over £60. Such a farmer does not qualify for a loan from a county council. Unless a farmer with a £60 valuation is able to obtain a loan from the county council he will find it impossible to build a house because building societies are not prepared to facilitate farmers. The only recourse a farmer has for a loan is to the county council. He will be able to obtain a loan of approximately £500 from the Land Commission, but that is a very small sum compared with the cost of building a new house. I would urge the Minister to raise the poor law valuation limit from £60 to at least £75 and if possible £80. Due allowance should also be taken of the number of children attending school. I have come across a few cases where people with a valuation of over £60 were not granted a loan by the county council. Banks are not prepared to grant loans over a 25 year period and the Land Commission cannot grant sums of that size.

The income limit for ordinary people who qualify for a loan from the county council is in the region of £1,500. This limit should be increased to £2,000. Such an increase would be justified with the fall in the value of money and more people could be helped to purchase their own homes. The maximum grant for a valuation under £20 would be £900, £450 from Local Government and £450 from the county council.

Under £25.

I should like to know when the present rate for these grants was set. It would be in the best interests of people to raise the grants and it would stimulate more building and encourage people to provide their own homes.

House loans are to go up by 1 per cent according to this evening's Evening Press, which states:

Thousands of would-be home buyers face the prospect of much higher repayments on their local authority house loans because of a decision by the Government to raise the interest rate by 1 per cent to an all-time high of 10 per cent, it was learned today.

Officials of Dublin Corporation have calculated that the higher interest will cost a man with the new maximum loan of £3,300 an extra £2 10s a month in repayments.

That amounts to approximately £30 a year. An interest rate of 10 per cent on a loan is very high and many people faced with increases in the rates —at the present time the rate is 93s in the £ in Offaly—will find this increased interest rate a grave imposition. It is all very well to say it is only £2 10s a month but people having to meet the rising costs of living will find this a heavy burden. It is unfair, to say the least of it, that people should be asked to pay this extra money at this particular time when costs are spiralling.

With regard to the White Paper on Local Government, there is one item at the moment which is causing grave concern. I refer to the rating system.

(Cavan)): The Deputy will appreciate that a detailed discussion on rates would not be in order on this Supplementary Estimate. A reference to rates as they affect housing would be in order.

I shall not say any more other than that I believe there is a report with the Department. There will have to be some investigation into the rating system and I trust that in due course the Government will produce the long promised White Paper.

We have had a fairly wide ranging discussion on this somewhat small Supplementary Estimate and I suppose it is difficult for Deputies, even, perhaps, for the Chair at times, to know where to draw the line. The money required is for two purposes, the first being additional finance to pay the increased number of private house grants and, secondly, more finance for the 12th round salary increases. It would, of course, be quite impossible for the Minister and his advisers to estimate around the end of March, 1970, what wage increases would come in course of payment during the year and we could not, therefore, provide accurately for these.

With regard to the sum required for private house grants, this is a very interesting development. It shows a most encouraging trend. One must record one's admiration for these young people who are purchasing their own homes. In most cases purchasing a house is the biggest investment they will ever make and I am heartened at the number of young people who are entering into this commitment now. If the booklet we produced—A House of Your Own—were more widely read I believe there would be an even greater increase in the numbers of people seeking to purchase their own homes. The demand for the booklet has been fairly substantial, but it could be much greater. I recommend the booklet and I suggest Deputies should advise their constituents to procure it. It is available through the Government Sales Office.

Steps have been taken to encourage the building of houses for private purchase. We have been encouraging local authorities to purchase as much land as they can, to service it and sell it to small builders, or to sell off serviced sites. There is a special subsidy for this. A number of Deputies referred to land acquisition. The three housing authorities in the Dublin area have acquired or are in process of acquiring sufficient land for about 24,700 houses. At the end of 1965 Dublin local authorities had acquired or were acquiring 9,000 sites; at the end of 1970 the figure is 24,700. For all local authorities, at the end of 1965 there were 25,000 sites acquired or in process of acquisition; at the end of 1970 that figure had increased to 62,000. That is a substantial figure and those who try to ridicule the Government are quite wrong in their attitude because the facts abundantly prove the point that the policy of encouraging local authorities to buy land was a wise one and was willingly accepted by local authorities and implemented by them. Vast tracts of land have actually been acquired.

Deputy Belton made a rather extraordinary statement. He said the Government had not serviced any land since 1960 onwards. He was, I think, referring to the Dublin area. It is no harm to refer to the part the Government have played in the sanitary services programme. About £15¼ million worth of water and sewerage schemes have been released in the past three years, never mind going back to 1960, and a great deal of the work has already been completed. Practically all the work is in progress. Deputy Belton's statement was most uninformed. The Dodder Valley sewer necessitated the laying of four main sections; two of these have already been completed, the third is in progress and tenders for the final section will probably be invited later this year. The cost of that scheme is £2.5 million. It will open up 6,300 acres of new land for housing in the Dublin region. It will also help from the point of view of industrial development.

Another great scheme is the Grand Canal scheme. This is being designed as a matter of great urgency. It is expected the scheme will be completed by the end of 1976. The cost will be £6.5 million. When it is completed it will open up about 11,000 acres for housing and industrial development.

The treatment works for Dublin sewers will cost about £3.5 million. If one lumps them all together the total figure comes to roughly £12.5 million. In Cork, major drainage schemes are being prepared, as well as water supply schemes. Major works are going ahead in Galway. I have personal knowledge of the work being done there. The investment will be substantial, roughly £1.5 million, and more than half the work has been completed.

There are big schemes in Limerick and Drogheda. In practically every county water supply and sewerage schemes, financed by the Exchequer, are under way. This is a policy decision on the part of the Government and Deputy Belton should never have made the sweeping statement he did.

I appreciate the part building co-operatives can play in the provision of more houses in the private sector and I have set up a special section in the Department to give expert advice and assistance to any group which forms a building co-operative anywhere in the country. I have circularised every local authority instructing them to give them every possible assistance, to give them whatever advice they need and where possible provide them with serviced sites. I have given a clear indication that where serviced sites are being allocated by local authorities a minimum of 20 per cent should be made available to building co-operatives. I would like to see much more of course because I am making a very strong commitment now to the co-operative movement and want to encourage it as much as possible. There will be no delay in regard to applications or requests for information and I have instructed that where grants are due for payment they be paid quickly to enable these groups to go ahead without any unnecessary delay.

We also encourage local authorities to pay supplementary grants in addition to the local government housing grant. It is a matter of regret to me that there are still some local authorities who are not paying supplementary grants in full. I would urge them to play their full part in the housing programme by initiating a full 100 per cent supplementary grant scheme in each area. I regret that Galway Corporation, of which I was a member up to a short time ago, have not yet initiated such a scheme. They have only a very limited scheme of supplementary grants available in that city in which there is great growth and a great demand for houses.

We have also encouraged local authorities to participate in the guaranteeing of loans to building societies. One of the first efforts was made in this field during 1969 and early 1970 when the Dublin city and county manager negotiated a scheme, which applied under section 42 (1) of the Housing Act, 1966, with building societies and with certain life assurance companies. The scheme was to enable the corporation to guarantee advances made by the commercial agencies in respect of package deal houses in Dublin city and county. Deputy O'Connell expressed some criticism of building societies and assurance companies and it is only fair that I should refer to part of the work in which they have been participating in relation to enabling people to have sufficient funds to build houses, and the way in which we have encouraged local authorities to participate in this as well. A similar scheme in respect of package deal houses was started by Dublin County Council and a similar scheme has been approved for houses in the Dún Laoghaire borough. All in all, about £1½ million was made available in 1970-71 under this particular scheme which is additional finance made available for houses for people who need them.

As the scheme is drawn up it indemnifies societies against almost any imaginable loss on their part arising from the making of a loan for house purchase. The guarantees are confined to new houses and may be given in relation to loans not exceeding £3,300, or the maximum of a loan which may be made by the housing authority from time to time. The limit on loans should ensure that there will be no question of recoupment of any losses incurred because the local authority are confident that they will always be able to realise at least the full amount of the outstanding loan by the sale of any house for which a guarantee is given. Alternatively they will use their statutory powers to appropriate the house in question for their own purposes.

The approved scheme enables many applicants whose incomes would normally be too low to obtain building society or assurance company mortgages. It also helped the Dublin Corporation and the county council to find capital for package deal houses which could not be made available from the normal capital allocation for local authority house purchase loans.

The building societies will normally advance twice the borrower's income to about 80 per cent of the valuation which they put on the house but under the above scheme, irrespective of income, they will lend up to 90 per cent of the valuation of the house, or the £3,300 limit, whichever is the lower. This is another valuable form of assistance to enable people to provide their own houses. It should also be borne in mind that when the Department increased their grants the local authorities who were paying the supplementary 100 per cent grant also increased theirs in line with the Department's grant, which does give an increase in the overall grant to persons who qualify. As the House knows, I increased the income limits for supplementary grants last year.

We also encourage local authorities to sell their houses and to draw up purchase schemes and this has been working very successfully. Many thousands of houses have now been bought by the tenants and the money thus made available goes back into the house building programme to provide further capital for house building. The question of the price of building land was raised. The part that this is playing in increasing the price of houses has been of great concern to anybody connected with house purchase or house building. The Government established the Kenny Committee a short time ago to go into this whole question. There are highly qualified people on this committee and I await with interest the outcome of their deliberations. It would be wrong for Deputies to ignore the difficulties which the Government are faced with in dealing with this matter of land prices. There are very serious constitutional obstacles and it is not honest for any Deputy to speak here and not to admit that these difficulties exist.

Does it not depend on which lawyer you go to?

I want to explain what happened. I explained this before. All investigations carried out by the Department showed that these constitutional difficulties existed and no firm proposals could be brought forward. However, we are humble people and we decided that if that was the best which the brains in the Department could come up with that we would consult others and we set up a committee of the best qualified people we could get and have asked them to go into this matter in greater detail and greater depth, if that is possible. We have also invited comments from others in the community on how to overcome the difficulties. We are completely open to suggestions and I invite them from any quarter. As Deputies know we have also provided a large sum of money to local authorities especially in Dublin, of £1 million a year for three years, to purchase land. Until some other solution presents itself or until I get the findings of this committee I intend continuing with the land acquisition policy. If the committee make positive, constructive proposals which are practicable, which can be implemented and if they are acceptable to the Government, this further action will be taken.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn