I move:

That it is expedient to authorise such payments out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas as are necessary to give effect to any Act of the present session to make further and better provision with respect to housing and, in particular, with respect to the provision of loans and grants by the State and by local authorities in relation to housing, for that purpose to amend, extend and repeal certain enactments, and to make provision with respect to other matters connected with the matters aforesaid.

I should like to correct a few figures the Minister gave on the last occasion, particularly for the benefit of Deputy Dolan from Cavan who allowed himself to be codded by the Minister on that occasion. In reply to the Second Stage debate, the Minister gave certain figures at column 2247 of the Official Report, of grants outstanding at the date when Fianna Fáil came into office on 10th March, 1957. He was wrong in that date because it was 22nd March, I think. However, that does not matter.

It was perfectly clear to anyone who knew the facts that the grants to which he was referring were those given in the ordinary way in relation to conduit pipes. I put down a question to the Minister asking him to give the figures for similar areas, similar dates and under similar headings, which he purported to give on 12th July. He told the House that he had not got the figures in question and that to extract them from the records would take an amount of time which he was not prepared to expend. I accept that it would take time to extract them under the various headings.

In the absence of that extraction, we have ready to our hands a very simple method of comparison: the table published every week in Irish Oifigiúil of issues from the Local Loans Fund. The issues from the Local Loans Fund would be the total issues, and as the Minister would not produce the information in reply to the question, I cannot give the individual breakdown. Let me put the facts on record in relation to the moneys spent or, shall I say, the moneys paid — because “spent” might mean expended in another way—out of the Local Loans Fund during the various years for the same period of each year as was announced by the Minister.

The House is aware, of course, that both in relation to private individual housing grants and Local Loans Fund issues, the local authority issues the best information that can be given in the absence of a reply to my question. I do not suggest that the Minister was wrong in saying it would take a long time. I know it would take a lot of time to get those figures.

I have taken the date as near as I can on each occasion to the date the Minister gave, 10th March, 1959. From 1st April, 1953, to 13th March, 1954, the amount paid by the Government out of the Local Loans Fund was £7,450,000. From 1st April, 1954, to 12th March, 1955, the amount paid by the Government was £6,400,000. From 1st April, 1955, to 10th March, 1956, the amount paid by the Government was £6,350,000. From 1st April, 1956, to 9th March, 1957, the amount paid, when certain Deputies alleged nothing was paid, was £8,550,000. That is the date chosen by the Minister himself.

When there was not a penny to pay for housing.

It is a fact that £8,550,000 was paid. In no year before or since did any Government ever pay an amount in excess of that.

There was not a penny for housing when the Deputy's Government went out of office with the largest majority any Government ever had.

I know the Deputy has swallowed what the Minister for Agriculture put down his throat when he was Minister for Local Government. The fact is that at the date chosen by the Minister for Local Government more money was paid to local authorities than at any time in the preceding four years and that figure has never been exceeded in any year since.

There were cheques made out in April and they could not be paid——

The Deputy must cease interrupting.

I do not know how the Deputy got into that bench.

Deputy Lynch will also cease. Deputies are all entitled to make their own speeches.

Are they not entitled to exchange compliments?

Compliments do not arise at this stage.

If, as the Minister says, the money was in the concrete pipes, at that date it would have shown in the following years. No amount of misunderstanding of the position by any Deputy can controvert the fact that these figures are all recorded in the weekly returns published in Irish Oifigiúil by the Minister for Finance over his signature. Every Deputy who wishes to take the trouble to verify the figures can do so. The amount paid in that year was never before exceeded or since. The Minister did not feel entitled to put his staff to the trouble of segregating the matter out in detail and I have, therefore, taken the figures from this authoritative source—the weekly returns published in Iris Oifigiúil under the Finance Acts.

The only thing I should like to deal with, very briefly, is the fact that the figures I gave here the other day have been in no way controverted by anything Deputy Sweetman has now said. I gave figures totalling about £3,000,000 rendered necessary by failure on the part of the then Government to meet commitments they had entered into and had encouraged local authorites to enter into under several heads, included in which were the financing of supplementary grants SDA loans, water and sewerage schemes and local authority building schemes. Money had been committed to all those but was not paid out until Fianna Fáil came back into office and no matter what Deputy Sweetman may now say, the figures on record since the previous day have not been controverted. They are, in fact, the correct figures of what was outstanding, to the tune of £3,000,000.

There are always figures passing through and if those figures were in excess of what was passing through, why did the Minister not pay more during the following years?

They were not passing through. They were stuck in the pipes and could not pass through. The Deputy knows that, with all the talk——

The Deputy knows perfectly well that there was more paid out in the year chosen by the Minister than in any year before or since.

The Deputy does not controvert the fact that £3,000,000 had to be paid out to pay for his commitments.

When the Minister reaches my figure, I shall certainly con- gratulate him. I would remind him, though, that he has a long way to travel yet. Last year he reached only £7,440,000, whereas I reached £8,550,000.

The paralysis of 1956 was still affecting me.