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.)

Before we adjourned I was referring briefly to the Kenny Committee which has recently been set up to inquire into building land prices. I wish to refer to it in passing as an indication of the Government's concern about the increasing price being paid for building land and what we are trying to do about it. Pending any recommendations the committee might make, we are continuing to encourage local authorities to acquire as much land as possible and build up a land bank. This land could either be let out to builders or let out in private developed sites by the local authority. Acquiring land for the community in this way ensures that the increasing value will be passed on to the community instead of into the hands of speculators.

I have listed the various activities of the Department in the private housing field because this is what we are confined to discussing. We are continuing to implement that policy until some other avenue is opened up to us which will give us greater control over the prices of building land. Where local authorities acquire land and sell it off as private sites a special subsidy is paid by the Department. This State subsidy is equivalent to £150 for every developed site sold by a local authority for private housing to accommodate either local authority tenants or persons of limited resources. This has a double advantage for the purchaser as he has the benefit of low cost acquisition as well as the benefit of a site developed by the local authority plus the subsidy.

During the past few months we have increased the income limits for supplementary grants and this has extended the scope of persons who would qualify for supplementary grants from local authorities. The increase was from £1,050 to £1,250. This is a substantial increase and it has made this additional grant available to more persons. The local loans income limits were recently increased from £1,200 to £1,500. The limits of the loans themselves have also been increased: where £3,000 applied the figure has been increased to £3,300 and where £2,700 applied the figure has been increased to £3,000.

For some months we have been working on the low cost housing programme. Some Deputies have referred to this and I was surprised to hear Deputy Tully's remarks because I began to wonder whether he was aware of the work the Department are doing. I thought it had received a good deal of publicity. I have referred to it in the House and it has been adverted to in newspaper articles and trade magazines. I do not think any Deputy should, at this stage, be unaware of the vast amount of work which is being done in the Department in relation to low cost housing. I hope to be able to make an announcement on the outcome of our investigations in this field in a short time. We have made some progress on it and the community in general will welcome the results of the many hours of labour that have gone into this task. Benefits will accrue to the community in the provision of a good standard of house at much lower cost than they would otherwise have had to pay.

Deputy Clinton raised the question of how firms, which he had some indication were going to be successful in this project, would obtain the contracts. We placed an advertisement in the Press last August inviting builders, architects and any interested company or group of persons to submit proposals to the Department which would enable houses to be erected at a lower cost, but which would comply with certain specifications, which are made available to those interested. It was on a competitive basis, price being the main factor, that decisions were made and these will be announced in detail shortly, although some local authorities are already aware of some of the results.

The Housing Bill, which was passed last year, increased housing grants. From some of the comments made by Deputies one would think housing grants had not been increased for many years. The 1970 Act, which came into force in August, increased the standard grant from £275 to £325 and this was retrospective to houses which were commenced on or after 1st October, 1969. Apart from that increase one of the principal effects of the Bill is that the level of grants now relates to the total floor area of a house rather than the number of rooms in a house. There are different categories of floor areas and the maximum grant of £325 is payable for a house in the category of 800 to 1,050 square feet. The average local authority house is between 800 and 850 square feet, if any Deputy is trying to picture in his own mind what size of house that is.

Would that be a two- or three-bedroom local authority house?

A three-bedroomed local authority house. This is considered to be a medium-sized house. It is part of the policy of the 1970 Act to encourage the building of houses of a more modest size. It is already evident that builders are reorganising their building programmes to provide houses in this category.

The maximum floor area for grant type houses is now 1,249 square feet and, within that limit, a house containing four bedrooms and ample living-room space can, in fact, be provided. When the Bill was before the House, I gave the House, as an illustration, the fact that "the house of the year" the previous year was a house of 1,150 square feet and that was considered a good, comfortatble, medium-sized house which would meet the main demand from those who were building or purchasing their own houses. There is every justification for withdrawing grants to houses over 1,249 square feet. We should not continue a policy of paying grants irrespective of need and irrespective of the means of the applicant. Houses above 1,249 square feet can be regarded as being in semi-luxury class and a grant at that level does not have any great influence on the person who is building that house. In my opinion it was a great waste of State funds to give grants to these houses. This money can be put to better use in encouraging others of modest means to build houses for themselves. They will not be looking for a luxury-type house.

The change from the number of rooms to the total floor area in the determination of the level of the grant makes for much greater flexibility in the layout of the house itself. This is something which must be welcomed. I know it meets the wishes of architects and house designers generally. For many years they have sought greater freedom in designing houses. Floor areas in the case of houses commenced from 1st January, 1971, are expressed in metric terms. This is to keep in line with Government policy in supporting the introduction of metrication in the building industry which, I may say, is now at a very advanced stage.

Great play was made about these new grants and relating them to the size of the house. The old argument, so easy to trot out and so hard to prove, that the new grants were encouraging small box-type houses was made again here today. Under the old grant system a three-bedroomed house qualified for a grant of £175, a four-bedroomed house qualified for a grant of £225 and the five-bedroomed house qualified for a grant of £275; these have now gone and the new measurements are a grant of £175 for 350 to 500 square feet, £250 for 500 to 800 square feet, and a maximum grant of £325 for 1,050 square feet. For the 1,050 to the 1,250 square feet the grant is £275. A person can now build a house tailored to meet his real needs. In that way it is possible to ensure that the resources available to the State are put to the best use. Young couples and retired persons do not now have to purchase houses larger than their requirements, with all the greater costs of maintenance, furnishing and so forth that these houses entail.

If Deputies who make comparisons with OECD countries believe they are honest with themselves and with this House in making these comparisons they must also admit, with equal honesty, that there is a vast difference in the size of houses built in these countries. Traditionally we have always built larger houses here. In the countries with which comparisons are made the rooms are generally smaller than our rooms are.

No. I do not want to interrupt the Minister but families are larger in Ireland.

If the Labour Party are successful in their present policy we will not have any large families in future.

The Minister should be realistic.

We have a very high standard.

The houses are too small for people's needs.

I do not think people appreciate the quality of our local authority houses and the quality of private houses. I have visited housing schemes in other countries and I have been amazed at the differences in standards. One obvious difference is the saving in the height of rooms. Density is another factor. Density in other countries is much higher than it is here and that results in a tremendous economy for them because the price of land is an important factor and, the greater the density, the cheaper the site acquisition costs per house. Again, a great deal of building in these countries consists of flats and apartments. They are described as dwelling units. There is no question of a front garden and a back garden, which is the general pattern in building here. Generally, our standards are much higher and a fair comparison cannot in fact be made.

I do not think the Minister has made a fair comparison. A two-bedroomed house is not sufficent for a family.

Order. The Deputy has already made his contribution.

I am talking about the demand for houses. Any Deputy who is in touch with his constituents knows that the majority of those seeking homes are young married couples. If the Deputy is suggesting that larger houses should be built for everybody then there will be far fewer houses and those built will be in excess of the needs of the tenants. They will also be committed to a bigger investment.

The three-bedroomed house is what I am thinking of.

The four-bedroomed house is the 1,250 square feet house. It is a good house with four bedrooms and ample living quarters. I do not think anyone could legitimately complain that these houses are too small.

Would you get a three-bedroomed house from the 1,050?

Yes, of course. Actually I gave that to the Deputy a few minutes ago. You can have a good three-bedroomed house between 800 and 1,050 with ample living room. I am sure the Deputy has visited many of them. We have not been used to relating houses to the square footage but we will be from now on.

The local authority still build two-bedroomed houses.

The local authorities build two-, three- and four-bedroomed houses and dwellings as well. The majority are three- to four-bedroomed homes.

The majority?

No, they do not. Not in Dublin.

The Deputy should allow the Minister to conclude.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy should study the figures and look at the matter again. In view of some of Deputy L'Estrange's remarks it might be appropriate to review briefly the Government's achievements in housing. At the start of the 1960s, we were building about 6,000 houses a year. This figure started to rise in 1962 as the demand began to recover from the recession of the late 1950s. In 1964, the Government published the White Paper, "Housing—Progress and Prospects" which set out proposals for modernising the administration of housing and set a target for housing output of 12,000 to 14,000 dwellings by 1970. Following the publication of this White Paper, output rose every year—apart from one year in which there was a small reduction. In fact, the number of houses which we built in the calendar year 1969 was just 17 short of our upper target of 14,000 dwellings set for 1970. So the targets set in the White Paper in 1964 were achieved by the Government. They tried to hit between 12,000 and 14,000 and achieved in fact the upper limit. These achievements do merit mention.

During the ten years to the 31st March, 1970 we built 98,000 houses with the aid of grants and loans, and reconstructed a further 93,000 with the aid of grants at a total cost of £377 million, together with an additional £92 million in subsidies which were met from taxation. The 191,000 houses which were built or reconstructed represent more than a quarter of all the houses in the country now.

Further, in 1969-70, we were building at the rate of five houses for every two built in the opening years of the decade. We were spending approximately £64 million on providing and reconstructing houses and a further £13½ million approximately in subsidies from taxation.

There was such a thing as inflation.

Well the numbers inflated, they did increase. In 1970-71, just fewer than 14,000 will probably be completed if weather and other circumstances permit and remember we did have a cement strike. If this figure is reached it will mean surpassing the target set in 1969 and the completion of about 41,000 houses in the last three years, or a greater number in such a period than ever before in our history as a State.

Did the Minister say built or reconstructed?

Completed. New houses. My Department carried out a general review of housing needs and prospects in 1969. The results were published in the White Paper Housing in the Seventies. This was the second White Paper on Housing. The paper estimated that the number of houses likely to be built in the mid-seventies would be about 15,000 to 17,000, so we were lifting our targets substantially, and it also detailed the steps to be taken to help ensure that these houses would be built. It indicated that these projections would not be regarded as limiting the level of building and that in so far as the economy could afford it any higher level of output found necessary would be aimed at.

The pattern of increasing output is reflected in increasing expenditure. Of the £377 million from all sources spent on house building and reconstruction during the sixties £184 million was provided from private sources and £193 million through the public capital programme. At the end of the decade the total expenditure on providing and reconstructing houses was running at an annual rate almost four times that at the beginning of the decade. Expenditure on subsidies from taxation was more than twice the corresponding level for the early sixties.

I would not like Deputies to think that in quoting these figures I am complacent about the housing situation. All I am simply trying to show is that we have had growth in housing output and capital expenditure and that this growth has been faster than that achieved in most other sectors of the economy.

I am disturbed, and I know that many Deputies are also, about the continuing increase in the price of houses. Although the price of land has been mentioned frequently it must be remembered that this is only one factor contributing to increased prices for the finished house. I have already referred to the Kenny Committee. I am anxious to try to bring about the situation in which builders and persons seeking building land will go to the local authority for sites. I am very anxious to call a halt to land speculation which has been going on in recent years. I feel that builders do not want to be involved at this level in the buying of land if they could be assured of sufficient land for which they could plan a good programme of house construction for a number of years ahead. This would also enable them to keep their construction team together.

It has been a feature of the past few years that larger builders with greater capital resources have been buying large quantities of land and smaller builders without the same resources have been trying to compete with them and some panicked and paid exorbitant prices where this need not have happened. I should like to see a situation in which land would be freely available from the local authority and builders would not need to be entering into the market and putting up the prices on each other and adding in that way to the price of the finished product.

There are other factors besides land. The cost of materials and of labour has been increasing and this is a reflection of the rate of inflation which has been so evident in recent years in our economy. It is a factor for which we must pay in increased costs to the finished product including the house.

There are other aspects which do not often get publicity and to which I should like to draw attention. I am not giving these factors in any order of priority and I just want to mention them for consideration. Building societies have been mentioned and I may come back to say a few words about them later on. We had a debate on building societies during Private Members' time not so long ago and I tried then to put all the available facts on record so that they would be available to Deputies and to the public.

However, there is one aspect of the operations of building societies to which I should like again to draw attention and that is in regard to a person who goes to a society to seek a loan. In my experience the most important requirement as far as building societies are concerned seems to be the level of income of the potential borrower. If a man comes into a building society and says: "I want to borrow £10,000 to buy a house," in my view the first question he should be asked by the building society is: "What is the value of the house? Who valued it?," and they should send out their own valuer to ensure that they get a realistic valuation. But no—and I can be proved wrong by the building societies if they so wish—what they are saying to the man is: "What is your income?" If the income is good and he is a good prospect to repay a loan of £10,000 he gets it without any great bother. Because that man has the money made freely available to him he pays the £10,000 for a house on the market. If the building societies were more rigid in the valuations which they put on houses for which they are lending money, there would be a very strong brake applied to rising house prices. They have a very important part to play in this and they have not been playing it to the full.

Hear, hear.

There is another matter on which I hope I will get another "hear, hear" from Deputy O'Connell. It is the question of lumpers. In this field the trade unions can play a very important part. I know that in principle the trade unions do not support lumping but in practice they do not seem to be doing a great deal about it. We all know the type of money the lumpers are demanding for their services. I have every admiration for a man who will do a decent day's work, especially a man who will work for five-and-a-half or six days a week, because I never believed we should have had the five-day week in this country until our economy was stronger and until we had reached a much more advanced stage in our development. I think we have gone a bit soft in this regard. Any TD has to work seven days a week, so we can stand up and say this.

The union will have to do something about lumping. It is adding to the price of houses. If a person wants to buy a house, and it is going to be erected by way of direct labour or if a large or small building contractor wishes to build a housing scheme the lumper plays a very important part and is making a substantial contribution towards increasing the cost of the finished product. If sums of £70, £80 and up to £90 per week have been known to be paid to such persons building houses, one does not have to wonder why the cost of houses has been going up at such a fast rate. I am just throwing out this point. I would strongly urge the trade union movement and the unions catering for men in the construction industry to take a much firmer stand. I know their own members will support them in it but they have been very tardy in this field.

The lumper does not affect it. An all-round price is given. The only problem is the question of income tax being paid by the lumper.

The Deputy has put his finger on another aspect of it. This is certainly one of the biggest complaints of all, the fact that this money is just passed in cash from one to the other, that there are no records and consequently no tax paid on it.

This is being rectified by the Revenue Commissioners.

I hope these efforts will be successful. An attempt is being made but the unions could play a much bigger part in it. There is also the question of the shortage of skilled workers. This applies only to certain areas around the country and usually in the areas where there is the biggest demand for housing. I have some experience of the type of closed shop technique which some of the building unions operate and I would like to ask them whether they honestly think they can justify operating such very stringent entry conditions for membership of unions. If you are not a member of the union you cannot be taken on because your potential employer cannot employ workers who are not members of the majority union on his site. I believe that in this way we are being denied many skilled workers in the building field and it certainly deserves a close look and a rethink on the part of the unions involved. There is more involved than the individuals who are members of the union. They, as well as I and the other Members of this House, have a responsibility to the community in which we live and any action of theirs which would in any way restrict the opportunities for young persons looking for homes would be a very serious matter.

There is another practice, a malpractice, in my view, which in some instances is contributing to the increased cost of houses. The normal practice with large builders who build "spec" houses is that they will advertise, say, 100 houses for sale and there are often queues of people outside their offices to sign up for one of these houses. These are houses for which planning permission has just been received; the site is developed and building will be proceeded with in a very short period of time. However, because of the demand which exists today these builders can advertise before even the foundations are put down. They can be very selective because the demand for these houses is greater than the supply. I have reason to believe that there are certain members of the community going in and buying more than one house, buying, say, half a dozen houses, persons who themselves are not in need of a house but who are going in because they feel this is a good field for speculation, a good field in which to make a fast buck.

What happens is that these people put down deposits on the six houses. The builder is quite pleased; he has got rid of six of his houses and he is assured that he will be paid for them. He begins to construct the whole scheme and when the houses are completed the man who has bought the six houses will advertise them for sale in the public press and get a price which is often from £1,000 to £1,500 higher than the actual cost of the houses to him, and remember that house was never occupied. This is a most despicable practice which should never be tolerated. I am having a look at it to see if there is anything I can do. This is one of the worst features of the housing market at present. It is contributing towards inflation in house prices because it is creating an artificial demand when persons who are not in need of houses at all can come into possession of them because of their own financial ability to do so and then take advantage of those persons who are without homes and charge them a price far in excess of the builder's prices. Those houses have never been occupied and already a second price is being paid for them. This is a very serious matter. The practice is not very extensive but it certainly merits some mention by me and I am having a look at it to see what I can do.

There were certain points raised by a number of Deputies and I shall not have time to reply to all of these. However, I shall refer briefly to some of them. When this debate opened I was amazed that Deputy L'Estrange launched immediately into an attack on the Government and on me for bringing the Supplementary Estimate before the House. He said additional taxation was something that could not be tolerated by the Opposition. In other words, he could not see any need for this Supplementary Estimate. I do not know what it is that Deputy L'Estrange expects the Government to do. I explained to him that the £¼ million that I am seeking in this Supplementary Estimate is in fact being provided by way of savings which I have effected within my own capital allocation. That took some doing. There is no additional taxation involved in that one way or another. On the other hand, the Deputy appears to be saying that we should not raise the additional money to pay the 12th round wage increase to the members of my staff and to the staff of An Foras Forbartha.

The Minister is misrepresenting me completely. I said it was contrary to Fianna Fáil policy——

I heard what the Minister was saying and came in to contradict him. He is misrepresenting me.

I am not.

I said this was contrary to Fianna Fáil policy and to what Seán Lemass said in the past. He said that he would not allow taxation to increase to an extent that it would be too heavy a burden on the people.

Who is in possession? Is it the Minister or Deputy L'Estrange?

Might I be protected, a Cheann Comhairle, from this gross ignorance?

I will not let the Minister away with that.

I interrupted Deputy L'Estrange to point out to him that £250,000 of the amount sought is being provided from savings within my Department. He complimented me at the time so I do not know what he is talking about now.

The Minister must be the only member of the Government who has done this.

The Deputy cannot ride two horses.

Fianna Fáil have ridden quite a few of them. Some of their members have even fallen from them as a result of which a certain member was not in a position to introduce the Budget last year.

Deputy L'Estrange is being very unfair in continuing to interrupt. The Tánaiste is anxious to get in after I have concluded. The Deputy then went on to suggest that the house grants which were being made available by the Government were completely inadequate and should be increased. I do not know how we can do that without increasing taxation substantially.

Why did the Government not act responsibly——

This has nothing to do with the Supplementary Estimate before the House.

We will act responsibly in all of these matters and we will make responsible decisions.

You did not act responsibly in the Mansion House a few weeks ago.

We will ensure that the economy of this country is kept on an even keel. In that way we will guarantee the livelihood of our people.

A Cheann Comhairle, can you not stop this abominable interruption which is totally unjustified?

I wonder if the Minister might be allowed to conclude?

I sat through two hours of this debate during which time the work of the Department was misrepresented by several speakers. Some of the work that I have been doing myself was misrepresented but, instead of interrupting, I bided my time until I had an opportunity of replying to the debate. I did not continue to ignorantly interrupt the speakers.

The Minister was ignorant in misrepresenting me.

The House is fairly familiar with the tactics of Deputy L'Estrange. These tactics have not got him very far.

On a point of information, is it the Minister or Deputy L'Estrange who is making the speech?

Why is Deputy L'Estrange not asked to withdraw from the House? His behaviour is totally unjustified. It is continuous interruption.

Your own behaviour was not so good in the past.

It is rather late in the day to be becoming excited.

The Ceann Comhairle is very restrained tonight.

The Minister will not misrepresent me.

Nobody could misrepresent Deputy L'Estrange even if he tried.

I should like to refer to a point that was raised by Deputy Clinton when he was referring to land that had been purchased by Dublin Corporation. The Deputy said that this land was not being made available to small builders, one of the categories for whom it was intended it should be made available. I can inform the Deputy that, in all, almost 1,200 sites have been given so far by Dublin Corporation to small builders and the corporation hope to allocate a further 1,400 sites before the end of this year. Most of these sites have been given out in small blocks of from four to 20. Therefore, it should be obvious that a large number of small builders are being facilitated. It will be seen, then, that the point raised by Deputy Clinton was not valid.

The corporation are helping builders who have been building traditionally in the Dublin area and this I think is only fair. They have no wish to try to attract contractors to the Dublin area from other places. Some such builders who have applied unsuccessfully were, naturally, somewhat disgruntled and I can only assume that the builders to whom Deputy Clinton referred are in that category, that is, that they have not been operating traditionally in the Dublin area. I shall conclude on that note and I thank the House generally for accepting the Supplementary Estimate.

Hear, hear.

I hope that I can retain the goodwill of Deputies on all sides of the House in my efforts to continue the progress we have been making in providing both private and local authority houses. All Deputies must know that it is my wish as much as it is theirs that that rate of progress will be accelerated as much as possible. We are restricted in the resources that are available to us within the State but every possible effort will be made to provide as many houses as possible for as many people as possible and in the shortest time possible.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn