asked the Minister for the Environment if he will consider changing the regulations made by him which disqualify single persons from getting local authority loans.

19.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he will allow local authorities to pay the new house loan and loan subsidy to single people.

20.

asked the Minister for the Environment if he is aware of the difficulties of local authorities in sanctioning and paying new house loans due to his decision to restrict these loans to married persons only; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 18, 19 and 20 together. While keeping the position under review, I have no immediate proposals to reverse the decision to restrict ordinary local authority house purchase loans and mortgage subsidy to persons who are married or about to marry which arose out of the inadequate provision made for these schemes in 1981 and the necessity to give priority to those in greatest need.

Am I correct in thinking that it is not the Minister's intention to change the regulations? If that is so I should like to know if the Minister realises the implications involved. A single person who applied for a loan before the regulations came into force could get a loan—I am talking about a person who is about to get married—and get the title of the house in his or her own name, but under the new regulations the two names are required, that of the two people getting married. That means that the two incomes are taken into account. If they are earning any money at all they are certainly over £7,000 per year and that means that hundreds are disqualified from getting a local authority loan. The second point is that the title of the site must be in the name of the two people. If they do not get married—this is the most ridiculous thing of all—if Johnny Callanan and Mary White break off their engagement, which they are entitled to do within 12 months, what happens to the site? In my view this represents complete discrimination against single people. It is something that will not work and I do not know how a bank would sanction bridging finance under such circumstances. Will the Minister reconsider his decision in relation to this? Many applications for loans to Galway County Council are held up in the hope that the Minister will revise this scheme.

With regard to the site I believe it is prudent that we should look for both names.

If they are unmarried people?

It is prudent that two names should be obtained for the site if they are not married because both may have made a contribution. If one name goes on and, as Deputy Callanan has indicated, the engagement is broken off, one party might be discriminated against and lose money. That is important. This is a sensible approach.

Does the Minister believe that any finance agency such as a bank would give a bridging loan to a person, or persons, building a new house in such circumstances? In my view such an institution would be stupid and mad to give bridging finance in such a case because there is no contract; it is just Mary White and Joe Keogh, but there may not be any agreement at all.

Something like the Coalition, one does not know where one stands.

Exactly, and one could collapse or fall to one side. Everybody would say that if that happened it was a Gaiety Theatre mix-up.

There would have to be some type of house before a bank would even consider giving bridging finance.

Is the Minister aware that in rural areas applicants frequently get a site from relatives but there is little chance of an applicant for a loan getting a site from his family if he has to put up his name and that of his partner for the title, together with their income. Are those regulations constitutional in view of the way they discriminate against single people? Is the Minister aware that Galway County Council are unable to operate a loan scheme because of the regulations brought in by the Minister?

The situation in relation to the site is a good idea. I will certainly examine the situation in relation to the income of both people being considered to see if something can be done.

Will the Minister tell the House the action he proposes to take to tackle the problems outlined by Deputy Connolly in relation to people seeking bridging finance to build a house? Such people used get bridging finance from the banks or financial institutions but they are now being refused. Has the Minister any proposal to make finance available to such people in view of the fact that he, and the Department, were the cause of such people being disqualified? When does the Minister intend to make funds available to local authorities so that they can pay out SDA loans? Some local authorities have been told that it will be at least February or March next before any payment will be made and those people are on bridging finance.

I am pleased Deputy Ellis raised the matter of the underfinancing of local authorities because since I took office I have been pointing out that the Department was completely under-financed. The housing package that Fianna Fáil put forward as a magnificent scheme was under-financed and local public housing was also under-financed. We had to inject £30 million straight away and that may not be sufficient. The fact that we had to do that is a clear indication of the last Government's attitude to housing. So I am glad to have afforded Deputy Ellis the opportunity to make that point.

Is the Minister aware that certain of the restrictions which are applied to single people by local authorities are and were applied as a result of instructions given by the previous Government? Is he aware that certain of these instructions were being carried out before this Government took office?

No way.

Many local authorities certainly did operate in this way.

Not by instruction.

And not by order or by letter.

They operated a bar against single people.

Having cast doubt upon the intelligibility of the reply to Question No. 16, I want to say on further reflection that the answer is quite intelligible and any lack of precision is due to my questioning and not the Minister's answering.

It is intelligible but unacceptable.

I answered Questions Nos. 18, 19 and 20.