asked the Minister for the Environment if, in view of the failure of private enterprise to meet the housing needs of the middle income group, he will extend the financial resources available for local authority housing, and bring the eligibility rates up to a more realistic level in accordance with the recent rapid changes in the value of money.

As regards the financial resources available for local authority housing, I am satisfied that the public capital programme provision of £80.77 million in 1978 is more than adequate to maintain a satisfactory level of activity on the local authority housing construction programme, commensurate with current housing needs. Loan charges on this programme are met in full by the Exchequer.

The level of activity on the programme in 1979 will be determined in due course by the Government's decisions on the 1979 public capital programme allocations.

In so far as the local authority house purchase loans scheme is concerned, the Government, since they assumed office, have twice increased the amount of the maximum loan. The loan limit was increased from £4,500 to £7,000 and the yearly income limit from £2,350 to £3,500 with effect from 26 May 1977. The loan limit was again increased to £9,000 with effect from 1 September 1978. Provision of £40.7 million was made in the capital budget for 1978 to meet the increased expenditure on house purchase loans. This compares with an expenditure of approximately £17 million in 1977. The commitment to keep the income and loan limits under review has been and will continue to be met.

In so far as the overall house purchase position is concerned, I would draw the attention of the Deputy to the fact that the number of house purchase loans approved by the principal lending agencies in the first six months of 1978 increased by 25 per cent over the number approved in the same periods of 1977 and 1976. I do not consider that this can be regarded as a sign of failure.

Is it not a fact that according to the Green Paper there will be a cut in capital expenditure for housing, not an increase? Further, is it not true that inflation has driven a coach and four through all the grants which the Minister has pointed out have been increased? The £1,000 grant is not worth as much as when it was first granted by Fianna Fáil. In the circumstances, will the Minister not increase the eligibility limit in order to bring it into line with the inflation rate and also change the attitude towards the £1,000 grant which is a negligible figure in the cost of a house?

The position is that inflation has had a certain impact on the cost of houses and on the allocation of money for housing. We must bear in mind that the increase in the public capital programme for housing was substantial as compared with the 1977 level. We must not forget that were it not for the £1,000 grant the position would be far more serious.

The Minister mentioned a figure of £80 million. Is it not the position that the local authorities asked for £100 million and that in a circular dated 31 August 1978 the Minister declined to give that amount? In view of that publicised information, is the Minister happy with the capacity of the local authorities to meet their housing needs in the coming year?

As far as I am aware, the local authorities are reasonably satisfied with their capital allocation for 1978. It is a substantial increase over the figure for 1977.

I have two questions to ask the Minister. First, is not the most vital question here the total public capital expenditure on housing as a percentage of total public expenditure? In that context, is the Minister aware that the percentage of total capital expenditure on housing since 1976 has been in continuous decline from 11.89 per cent in 1976 to 10.89 in 1977 and to 10.55 per cent this year? Despite the inflated cash figures mentioned by the Minister, local authorities have less money now to spend as a percentage of total capital expenditure than previous years. Is that not the position?

I do not agree with what the Deputy has said. The question spoke of "the failure of private enterprise to meet the housing needs of the middle income group". The Government are meeting the needs of this group.

Does the Minister not accept the figures I gave? I can assure him they are accurate. The question spoke of bringing the eligibility rates to a more realistic level. Is the Minister aware of the growing concern of people who are endeavouring to get loans from local authorities? They are in an impossible situation because the income limits are so low that the amount of loan they get is almost irrelevant to the price of a house. The number of people who will benefit from such loans in decreasing. Will the Minister indicate what response he will make in that area?

I indicated in my reply that the loan limit was increased from £4,500 to £7,000 and the yearly income limit from £2,350 to £3,500 as from 26 May 1977. The loan limit was again increased to £9,000 with effect from 1 September 1978. The eligibility limit and the amount of loan are being kept under review.

The amount is irrelevant when compared with the cost of the house.

The Minister mentioned that a sum of £80 million was given to local authorities when they had asked for £100 million. He said that they were satisfied with the amount of money they got. Is he quoting from official replies from the local authorities? Have they written to thank him for the £20 million shortfall in the amount they asked?

I said they were reasonably satisfied.

Will the Minister state how this reasonable satisfaction was expressed?

It was expressed in terms of the number of houses built this year. I hope that by the end of this year, despite various difficulties in the building trade during the year, more than 26,000 houses will have been built.

Am I right in assuming that the Minister assumed that the local authorities were reasonably satisfied but that the local authorities themselves did not express reasonable satisfaction at the amount of money offered? Is that the correct assumption?

The Deputy will appreciate that no matter what allocation is made one will never satisfy everybody.

That is not the point.

Deputy Quinn is remaining on his feet all the time.

I am sorry; that is discourteous to the House. I felt I was misled by the Minister when he stated that local authorities were satisfied with the amount of money they had received when in fact his qualification now is that he considers that they are reasonbly satisfied.

Deputy Mitchell.

Might I ask one final supplementary arising on this specific point? If the Minister makes the assumption that they are reasonably satisfied because they are building a number of local authority houses could he explain why it is that the senior Minister in the Department of the Environment expressed grave disappointment at the number of local authority house completions this year? Further, can he say if there is any discrepancy between the point of view expressed by him and that expressed by the senior Minister, as recently publicised?

The Deputy is aware that there were and are numerous problems in relation to the construction industry such as the availability of materials and labour problems. As I indicated, the number of houses that will be completed this year will show a substantial increase over and above last year. Also I did not say the local authorities were satisfied; I said they were reasonably satisfied.

Is the Minister aware that the £9,000 SDA limit will now cost house purchasers something in the region of £130 per month to repay? Does the Minister consider it realistic that persons earning £67 per week should be asked to pay such high amounts? Is the Minister not aware that it is self-evident—in view of the way housing prices have got out of control—that the Government must, as a matter of urgency, increase the £3,500 income limit?

As I said, this matter is under review.

Question No. 10.

The Minister says the matter is under review. When are the hard-pressed house purchasers to know the position?

Deputy, please, we must make some progress.

When will there be a decision taken if it is under review? For instance, when are mortgages going to be subsidised?

Question No. 10.

Would the Minister ac-cept responsibility for the historically high level of mortgage interest rates?

Deputy, please. Question No. 10.

10.