I wish to raise what seems to me, as it must to other Members of this House, to be the retrograde decision by the Government to raise from 9 per cent to 10 per cent the interest charges on SDA loans. On 22nd March the Minister issued a circular to local authorities stating that the new interest rate would be 9½ per cent loan charge and ½ per cent administration costs, making a total of 10 per cent.
I regard this as a unique decision on the part of the Government and I am sure I am not alone in that view. This will mean a still further escalation in housing costs particularly for those in the lower and middle income groups. For those in the lower income groups who might wish to avail of this type of financing for the purpose of providing themselves and their families with homes it represents what I regard as a wholly unnecessary extra imposition. An applicant for a maximum loan of £3,300 will have to meet a substantial increase in repayments in the region of an extra £2.15 per month. Repayments at the moment range from £6 to £7 or £8 per week. In the case of loans in the region of £3,000 it will mean an increase of 1s per £100 borrowed per month or 30s per month increase in repayments.
This added impost should seriously concern this House. No account is taken of the chronic escalation in rates. It is reprehensible of the Minister to take this decision at this particular juncture in view of the fact that building societies in the private sector have decided not to make a comparable increase in their interest rates. They have stated that publicly. It would appear there is a double standard in operation. Instead of the State adopting a policy of incentives to ensure cheap loans for houses it is doing the exact opposite.
The Government are behaving deplorably. The result of this short-sighted policy will be to put houses outside the reach of those most in need of them. On the basis of the old interest rates a borrower would pay back £8,000, or thereabouts; under the new rate he will pay back £9,000, a substantial increase from the point of view of interest and capital repayments. Admittedly, it is possible to avail of a rebate in income tax throughout the loan period, but this is not an argument of substance because the benefit to those concerned is nil. There was considerable scope for the Minister to exercise the collective imagination of his Department in suggesting amending legislation in respect of income tax relief and perhaps in redefining the loan period of 30 or 35 years. There are a number of things he could have done, as have been suggested to him down through the years by a number of organisations like the NIEC and the Commission on Income Taxation. Had their advice been heeded it is reasonable to say that capital would have been conserved for house loan purposes much more effectively than is now proposed by the Government. Rather than introducing a blanket penal rate of 10 per cent, irrespective of income, irrespective of family size and irrespective of the social needs of the applicant, there could have been a much more sophisticated sliding scale system related to people's needs. This could have been done by the Government but they seemed to be much more preoccupied elsewhere.
The Government must stand condemned for giving a unique and unexpected incentive to the dear house loan. The Minister will have noted that the various housing co-operative organisations have reacted strongly against the Minister's decision. The Minister will certainly note that the South County Dublin Housing Co-operative Society, a responsible voluntary organisation, and also the National Housing Co-operative Trust and other voluntary housing co-operatives in that area, where housing is almost completely beyond the reach of the lower or middle income group family, even with the £3,300 loan, have condemned in the strongest possible terms the raising of interest rates on loans to local authorities by the Government. These organisations have pointed out that the Government's decision has increased the cost of buying their own homes for many couples who were already bearing an enormous financial burden related to their income prior to the latest increase. Unless the Minister reverses his decision many couples will be prevented from providing homes for themselves for a considerable time to come.
In Dublin city there are 5,000 families—and one should multiply that by the average number of persons involved in each family, which means 15,000 persons—in need of housing. These people will have no option now but to avail of local authority housing with no alternative of local authority loans open to them. Likewise in the County Dublin area there are at least 1,500 families who again will have to rely solely on local authority housing. One might say the incentive to them to opt for tenant purchase is very small at this stage. It would be very difficult to suggest to a housing applicant, say, in the Ballybrack area of South County Dublin that he should pay £6 10s a week for a three-bedroomed local authority house, plus rates; admittedly there is remission there, but he may well have to pay up to £7 or £7 10s which is an extremely high amount to pay out of an income of £18 to £22 a week. Therefore I would urge the Minister to reconsider this matter so that further distress and anxiety will not be caused to the families concerned.