asked the Minister for Local Government the total allocation for housing reconstruction grants in 1976 and in 1977.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Housing Grants.
25.
A sum of £1.5 million was allocated under subhead E.2 of my Department's Vote for 1976 to meet the cost of reconstruction grants. In fact, grants paid during the year totalled £2,487,958. The £4.95 million allocated to subhead E.2 for the current year includes a provision of £2.45 million for reconstruction grants.
Supplementary grants are paid by local authorities in appropriate cases in respect of reconstruction work which qualifies for a grant from my Department. A block allocation is made to local authorities in respect of all housing loans and supplementary grants and it is not practicable to identify the amounts applied by them towards the payment of reconstruction grants.
Would the Minister agree that the new conditions for reconstruction grants recently announced by him are simply a further cut-back on money for housing?
Deputy Faulkner will agree with me that reconstruction grants were allocated by his Government and the present Government for the purpose of helping people who need them to reconstruct or repair their houses, people of modest means. We find people in very wealthy circumstances applying for reconstruction grants. It is time to call a halt. Practically all those of modest means are included in the rates under which they can still apply for a reconstruction grant. A check on any of the local authorities will prove that this is correct.
Is the Minister aware that it is not possible by simply using valuations to be assured that the people who live in those houses are capable of reconstructing their own houses without help of a grant?
I think the Deputy will agree that one is far more likely to find a person of relatively modest means living in a modest house than to find such a person in a very substantial house or on a large farm of land.
Recently I asked the Taoiseach a question in relation to the figures laid down by the Minister, £20, £15 and £10 valuation, in an endeavour to find out the number of houses in the various areas which would now be entitled to these reconstruction grants. The reply I got was that the information was not available. In those circumstances how did the Minister devise a new scheme?
Because it is possible to check with local authorities and they can give a very good idea from their rate books what the valuations of houses are. In most local authority areas the housing valuation is very low. The only ones with large valuations are very large houses or modern houses which should not require reconstruction grants within the next two or three years.
I would like to make a point in reply to the Minister.
A question. Deputy.
The level of valuations he has referred to, as he is probably aware, has gone up in the last few years, and this is dismantling the reconstruction scheme brought in by the Fianna Fáil Government. It is quite obvious that very many people who make application for reconstruction grants to provide an extra room for a growing family or to house a relative——
I am anxious to facilitate the Deputy but he must proceed by way of question.
It is a retrograde step and I think the Minister should refuse——
I am afraid the Deputy may not make a speech. It is not in order to make a speech at Question Time.
He knows well——
I am anxious to assist the Deputy but speeches at Question Time are not in order and the Deputy knows that.
Would the Minister accept that ideally the scheme should be one that would accommodate a situation where a family having grown more rapidly than was anticipated or, indeed than the Minister might like, would be in need of additional accommodation, or where a family was prepared to give shelter to the father-inlaw or mother-in-law who normally might have to be provided for by the local authority? Would he accept that, even from an economic point of view apart from the social point of view, the scheme should be such that the local authorities could assess it and that if those were the reasons—that additional accommodation was required for a bigger family, sleeping accommodation or accommodation for an elderly person—the scheme might allow for that and that it could be adjudicated upon by the local authority?
It is a point, but it has not been included in the scheme at all. There are a number of things which will show up in, say, 12 months and which can allow it to be looked at again.
I would not want it for people providing flats.
There are a lot of anomalies. People who provide flats may be offering accommodation, but there are cases where everybody would say that the people would not be entitled to State aid, that such people would criticise those who were drawing unemployment benefit or assistance and would then put out their own hands for substantial amounts of money by way of State grants. I do not think they are entitled to them.
Is it not a fact that this scheme is simply a device to cut down on the money available for housing? Would the Minister not agree that in circumstances where there are 24,000 building workers unemployed this is going to add to that number? In those circumstances would he reconsider the decision made in relation to that?
The Deputy will find that the amount of money made available for housing and even for reconstruction will be much more than in previous years and this shows that there are people who will be prepared to avail of it. That answers the two prongs of Deputy Faulkner's question.
Further arising——
This must be the Deputy's final question. The Deputy never seems to be satisfied with regard to his questions.
——out of the Minister's reply, is it not a fact that if one takes inflation into account more money is not being made available for housing but less money is being made available for housing?
This is purely argument. Question No. 26.
More money will be made available and Deputy Faulkner cannot deny that unless he miscounts.
Not in real terms.
26.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he will reconsider his decision to limit grants for the repair and reconstruction of dwelling houses in view of the detrimental effect it will have on the stock of houses in the city.
I do not accept that the recent Government decision will have the effect suggested by the Deputy. Expenditure on reconstruction grants has increased dramatically in recent years and I am satisfied of the need for greater selectivity in the categories of dwellings to be assisted. The valuation limits applying to new applications which have been announced, will ensure that in future State aid is channelled to areas of greatest need, particularly to the conservation of the older stock of houses, generally having low valuations and requiring substantial repair and improvement work.
27.
asked the Minister for Local Government the steps he proposes to take to assist people buying or building a new house in view of the recent increase in the price of cement.
I understand that the recent increase in the price of cement will result in an average increase of between £110 and £120 in the building cost of a new house. This represents an increase of a little over one per cent in the average price of a new house. Since March, 1973, the measures taken by the Government have ensured that, despite price increases, the number of new houses which it is estimated will be completed during the four-year period ending in March next will be over 100,000 compared with 66,983 in the previous four years.
It would be foolish to believe that price increases can be totally avoided especially as so often the increases are in greater or lesser degree generated by international currency changes, oil price adjustments, and so on. What is important is that they be kept under control. The operation of control by my Department on the prices of granttype houses in schemes of four or more provided for sale continues to have a moderating effect on house price increases.
I might add that the low-rise mortgage scheme which I introduced recently is a further measure of assistance to people building houses and is evidence of the fact that the Government are keeping the needs of the housing programme under constant review.
Is the Minister aware that the best estimates I can get in relation to the increase is that it will be about £250 on a £10,000 house? Would he agree this is an enormous increase for house purchasers many of whom are already under considerable financial strain? In those circumstances does he not think he might come to their assistance?
I have given the figures my officials have worked out, having got the necessary information, as being an increase of between £110 and £120 per house. The price of cement has had to go up for the reasons I mentioned. The new low-rise mortgage scheme will help very considerably people of modest means. It is not always the person with modest means who builds a house. Usually it is the other way around.
Is the Minister aware that the terms of the low-rise mortgage scheme recently introduced are very vague? Does he propose to clarify the scheme for the local authorities? We discussed it at a recent meeting of Monaghan County Council and the officials did not seem to be familiar with the point we wanted clarified.
Any clarification needed will be provided. I was under the impression that all local authority officials would be aware of the terms of the scheme. As far as I know, most elected representatives on local authorities are aware of its terms. For one reason or another, some local authorities have not adopted the scheme. If they do not adopt it, they are not indicating that they are anxious to operate it.
Is the Minister aware that counties which adopted the scheme had to ask the Department to send on an official to clarify it?
I would be delighted to send on an official to any council or local authority who are not clear on some of its aspects. I can see no reason why they should be in doubt about it.