Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 25 Jun 1975

Vol. 282 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - Building Industry: Motion.

Debate resumed on the following motion:

"That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Local Government to increase substantially financial investment in the building industry, with special provision for the private housebuilding sector, in view of the serious decline in the numbers employed in the industry over the past twelve months and the urgent need to create jobs to cope with the high level of general unemployment in the country".

—(Deputy Faulkner.)

Mr. Moore

Last night I was speaking on the unemployment in the construction industry, and the official figures—and I emphasise official— given show that from April, 1974, to March of this year there has been an increase of 6,300 men unemployed. Even though the Minister may say that the housing part of that industry is 40 per cent only, nevertheless there are 6,300 men more unemployed now than there were in April, 1974, which must have a very serious effect on output in the industry. If one adds the rising number of unemployed, the tremendous rise in costs in every facet of housing, they all tend to put the purchase of a house beyond the reach of any person seeking an SDA loan with its ridiculously low limit of £4,500. Young couples especially are giving up in despair and are now seeking rented accommodation for which they have often to pay £10, £12 or more pounds per week because they cannot save sufficient money for the deposit on a house. I am told that the average house in the SDA bracket now would be around the £7,000 mark in the Dublin city area.

We look forward to tomorrow afternoon when the Minister for Finance introduces what he calls his Financial Resolution, in other words, a Budget. Our people are looking forward and, indeed, demanding that the Government should come to their senses, provide the necessary capital to revitalise the construction industry so that unemployed men and women may go back to work and help to produce those thousands of dwellings needed and give some hope to the many people seeking proper housing accommodation. I quoted the Minister's speech at Dungarvan, though the Minister thought I misquoted him. I quote from The Irish Press of the 6th June, 1975, the heading “Council Seek Too Much Aid: Tully's Housing Cut Back”. I hope the Minister will refute his statement at Dungarvan that there is a threatened cut-back, because any cut-back on the present housing situation will only bring forward the day of chaos. Therefore, we look forward to the Minister asserting his authority on the Government and demanding that adequate finances be made available for the building of houses or flats and the provision of SDA loans and grants. In general, we want a firebrigade action taken in the housing Department to save it from complete collapse because that is where it is heading.

If the number of unemployed increases for the coming year at the same rate as they have in the past year the construction industry will grind to a halt. The Government have a chance tomorrow to stop the rot in the industry by the provision of adequate finance. Therefore the Minister's speech in Dungarvan may have been merely to frighten us a bit. Tomorrow afternoon when the Minister delivers his Financial Resolution and we see the size of the injection of money into the construction industry we will know the Minister was not too serious at Dungarvan. If the Minister refutes that statement tonight I will be very glad indeed because the report of what he said was that some local authorities would not need the money because they may have over-estimated. That is not terribly serious, but what is serious is that local authorities be not deprived of any money they need to build the houses and flats. It is the Government only who can ensure that the money will be put at their disposal. We have all a duty to housing, to do whatever we possibly can to help in the provision of houses and all types of dwellings for people who need them. Those of us in this city have gone out, searched for suitable sites, come back with those sites and have given them over to the Corporation whose planners and officials have budgeted for the building of dwellings on these sites. We cannot do any more, but we cannot stand back and watch the Government allow a great industry to almost die. This is what is going to happen.

If the Minister thinks I am exaggerating, I will direct his attention to official figures from the Central Statistics Office on the growing rate of unemployment in the construction industry, which showed that from April, 1974 to March, 1975, the increase in unemployed men was 6,378.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Tully)

I listened to Fianna Fáil speakers here yesterday evening and Deputy Moore this evening talk about the building industry. Apart from the fact that they seem to have two things in mind, one, that they will try to make out that the building industry consists entirely of house-building—which of course, they must know is wrong—and, secondly, the fact that the house-building industry, as such, is doing fairly well in the country, they were trying to denigrate it.

What surprises me is that some people who should know much better do not seem to either take the trouble to check or, if they do take the trouble to do so, they use selective figures for the purpose of trying to knock down the Government's success in the house-building industry. When we took office we said that we would aim at building 25,000 houses per year. The facts are that, not alone have the 25,000 houses been achieved once and, if you remember, the first year we were in office the whining and the moaning of Deputy Molloy particularly over there about the fact that the building industry was falling flat, that the 21,500 houses which he claimed to have built the previous year could not be reached by any stretch of the imagination, lo and behold, we built 25,365 houses. He remained quiet for a short while. Then in the middle of last year the same moaning started: we will all be ruined, Deputy Molloy said; the house-building industry has gone; everybody is being made unemployed; everything has gone wrong and the Government are doing nothing about it. He was so impressive that even the Press took up the story. They started on the same thing, some of them doing the harmonising for him, again, people who should have known better. They proceeded to make predictions as to what was likely to happen. He did it once but it cannot be done a second time. This was the clarion cry from some of the Fourth Estate. What happened? Not alone did we do it a second time but the builders of this country increased the number from 25,365 to 26,639.

For a while afterwards there was silence again from the Fianna Fáil benches. We are coming on to a time now when the crescendo should rise and off it goes again and it will be away up again, "everything is ruined, the country will be ruined". If it is not the weather it is something else and we hear about the shocking thing and that the Government have made no money available. I mentioned that the Press have done it. We have now got the radio coming in on the act. They had a balanced programme today, I understand, when they had a member of the Federation of Building Industries and they had Deputy Faulkner who were both prepared to stand up and in a completely unbiased way, give both sides of the picture and talk about the state the building industry was in. This is the sort of balanced view which we are now getting from people who believe very much in giving the two sides of the story.

Mr. Faulkner

I do not think the Government have much to say about that aspect.

Mr. Tully

I am not complaining about anything because, thank God, I am well able to stand up on my own two feet and when it comes to something, of which I am very proud, that is the house-building industry, I am prepared to stand up and I will face anybody on any stage whatever and argue my point there.

We have had some sniping across the floor from people who talk about the fact that enough money has not been given for this and enough money has not been given for that. I shall take up a little time of the House—it is a limited debate and therefore I have to be sure that I will get as many of my points in as possible—to try to put some facts across. In fairness, I will say there are a number of Deputies here who may only read one side of the coin and therefore they do not know what is happening on the other side. As Deputy Faulkner said, there is no point in giving figures. I agree with him. There is no point in giving facts to some people because they do not want to hear them. It only confuses them. We have reached the stage here where, having listened so much to the other side and the Parliamentary Secretary having given a certain amount of unpalatable statistics yesterday to those on the other side I want to hit home into the records of this House some statistics which are a little nearer home than the rest because it appears that certain people want to talk particularly about Dublin, Dublin county, Dublin city or Dún Laoghaire Corporation. What has been happening? Let us get our facts right and those who have got their pencils or biros ready and their little bits of paper, let them take these down and see if they can knock them down: 1971-72 Dublin County Council got——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Tully

I wanted to make sure, because it astounds me. I wanted to make sure it was right. It is right. In 1971-72, Dublin County Council got £1,537,000; 1972-73: £3,348,000; 1973-74: £2,584,000, then nine months of 1974, £4,003,000 and for 1975, the period during which Deputy Burke was prepared to get headlines in the Evening Press, Evening Herald and Irish Independent, we gave £8,500,000 for local authority houses, for this year as against a measly £1,537,000 in 1971-72.

Mr. Moore

The inflation accounts for that.

Mr. Tully

Will the Deputies not cod themselves? Those are the facts and there is no question of inflation eating up from £1½ million to £8½ million. House purchase loan and supplementary grants, 1971-72, Dublin County Council, £1,150,000; 1972-73, £1,100,000; 1973-74, £4,750,000; 1974, the nine-month period, £7,950,000 and for this year £7,500,000. Dublin County Borough, local authority housing, 1971-72, £5,200,000; 1972-73, £6,500,000; 1973-74, £8,560,000; 1974, the nine-month period, £8,500,000 and this year £11,500,000. Deputy Burke gets headlines for saying that "you are starved of capital try to digest those and Dublin city". House purchase loans and supplementary grants, Dublin County Borough: 1971-72, £335,000; 1972-73, £880,000: 1973-74, £1,753,000; the 1974 nine-month period, £1,360,000, and 1975, £1,680,000. The total for Dublin County Borough has gone up from £5,535,000 to £13,180,000. Those people have the cheek to talk about money not being made available and about the building industry not getting the support in the Dublin area to which it is entitled. Dún Laoghaire Corporation, 1971-72, Local Authority Housing, £180,000; 1972-73, £397,000; 1973-74, £295,000; the 1974 nine-month period, £938,000 and 1975, £1,500,000. House Purchase Loans, supplementary grants, the same local authority, 1971-72, £115,000; 1972-73, £62,000; 1973-74, £50,000; 1974 nine-month period, £30,000 and this year, £30,000. The total has gone up from £295,000 to £1,530,000.

Sanitary services is not really in this debate but it was introduced by some people who wanted to talk about it. Dublin County Council sanitary services allocation was £1,034,220 in 1971-72 and £2,776,000 in 1975. Dublin Corporation allocation rose from £290,000 in 1971-72 to £950,000 in this year. The road fund similarly rose from £1,539,830 to £1,891,900 for Dublin Corporation and from £745,600, for Dublin County Council to £2,173,000.

Mr. Begley

That is progress.

Mr. Tully

Dún Laoghaire Corporation, £111,320 to £156,340. An additional £224,000 for sanitary services is earmarked for Dublin County Council for urgent schemes for housing. This will bring the total allocation for Dublin County Council for 1975 to £3,031,000. This brings the total allocation for the Dublin area for 1975 to £3,981,000. Will those who are squealing about the fact that Dublin is being starved of capital, try to digest those figures and then realise that Dublin has been getting a very handsome return? I am not apologising for giving it to Dublin because while we have local authorities throughout the country who, for the last two years, are making desperate efforts to try to catch up on the many years of money starvation— some of them have done a tremendous job—there are a few big areas, particularly this city area, where all the money that could be got from any source whatever could be spent on housing and we still would be only housing those in a pretty high housing category. It is a disgrace and a shame on those who went before us that this situation was allowed to build up. I am proud of what I have done and what the Government have done with regard to providing money but I am sorry that we are still not able to make the money available, which we should be able to make available, because of the type of money required to make up on a long backlog, where people just sat back and felt that anything at all was good enough for people living in bad conditions, after all most of them were only workers so it did not matter about them. I am sorry that we are not able to catch up on that.

The other thing is with regard to house standards. Before this debate finishes, I want to make it very clear that those who were responsible for setting up the house standards for local authority houses in this country have a sin to answer for and that sin will be round their necks for the next 20 years, which is about as long as the houses they built will last. They built a disgraceful type of house. The Fianna Fáil Government decided that it was wrong to continue building houses to last 100 years. They said that 20 to 25 years should be long enough.

Mr. Moore

They never said that.

Mr. Tully

I have it on record.

Mr. Moore

Let us see the record.

Mr. Tully

The decision was made between Deputy Colley and Deputy Molloy. They decided to build the low cost housing scheme which, they said, would be built cheaply—the dog boxes of the country.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Stupid.

Mr. Moore

The Minister is not being fair to himself.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Could I ask the Minister this? Will the Minister give me permission to quote what Pa O'Donnell said to Cork County Council one time?

Mr. Tully

Pa O'Donnell is dead many years. The people who were in charge of finance and housing are here now and please God will be alive for many years but every time they pass one of these dog boxes I hope they blush with shame because the houses which were built for working class people should never have been built. The proof of it is that they attempted to sell at a very high rate the houses which they built to last 20 to 25 years on a 35 year purchase scheme. The nerve of people who do a thing like that is beyond the beyonds.

Let nobody in Fianna Fáil tell me that they do not know of the houses I am talking about. First of all they decided that they would put central heating in them only. Then we had a very decent Deputy of this House who is doing his best, Deputy Tunney, today asking me what assistance I could give to paying bills of £200, £300 or £400 which some of these unfortunate people in Deputy Burke's constituency have to pay because of the fact that the Minister——

Mr. R.P. Burke

Deputy Burke's name is on the question.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Burke may have his name on the motion but Deputy Tunney made an effort to ensure that something might be done. The situation is that it is not my responsibility. The previous Minister was responsible for the erection of those houses, for the installation of the central heating and there is no way in which I can help these people except with what I have done. I have offered to make available grants and I suggested to local authorities that they can help out in many cases with loans to try to introduce the solid fuel type of heating and cooking which they are used to and which they can operate. However, I am not going to carry the cross which has been placed there by somebody else. With regard to the housing scheme in Cork we are now getting on top of the bad conditions there. Even with houses which were terribly cheap to erect they were not able to build more than 4,500 local authority houses per year—14,600 of an average. Deputy Faulkner does not like averages. We have averaged the two years we have been in office and it is approximately 26,000 in each year. The situation is that Fianna Fáil have a sin to answer for and they have a hard neck coming in here and telling us that we are responsible for destroying the building industry.

It is only right that I should again put on record that in 1971-72, the Fianna Fáil Government provided £64.16 million in the public capital programme for building and construction. In 1972-73 the amount was £81.71 million, an increase of 28 per cent. Two years later, in 1975, the present Government are making £168.56 million available, more than double the amount in Fianna Fáil's last year of office. That cannot be denied.

Mr. Moore

Has not inflation helped that figure?

Mr. Tully

That is gabby talk. I do not wish to anticipate the proposal which the Minister for Finance will lay before the House tomorrow but on our past record the Dáil will know that if a need for an even greater level of investment this year is established, then additional money will be forthcoming. We made it available last year; we even made it available this year. Deputy Faulkner wanted to know what happened the extra £4 million for local authority housing. He did not notice the £3 million which we got. The £4 million is available now and is being used at the present time. Deputy Faulkner will find it in the next returns. The figure mentioned was £7 million and £7 million is being made available on top of £51 million which is by far the largest amount ever made available for this purpose. The decision, of course, will be made on the basis of the Government's continuous monitoring of the position affecting the industry and the economic importance of this form of investment.

Housing allocations which totalled £45 million in 1972-73 are more than £105 million this year. Sanitary and environmental services have risen from £10 million to £19.5 million. Schools and educational buildings from £16 million to £26 million and hospitals from £6.63 million to £10 million. The allocation for other general buildings and construction was £4 million in 1972-73 and is £9 million in 1975. I do not deny that inflation has resulted in a reduction but even the most blinkered Deputy opposite would hardly suggest that there has been 100 per cent inflation since 1973. A huge increase since the change of Government in State investment to the various sections of the construction industry has been due not to inflation though its influence could not be avoided but to the acceptance by the present Administration of the national social and economic importance of this form of investment.

The money has been put in and is being used. It is true that there are people unemployed in the building industry. It is true that a number of office blocks are not being built. That is so. The industry throughout Western Europe, and throughout most of the world, is suffering but this country has done a lot better than any other country, not alone in Europe, but in the world and that is not excluding Japan. We have come off remarkably well. The Government's planning has produced results. I would not worry if Fianna Fáil had been over here as to what they would do. I know they would do as they always did. They let the workers carry the brunt and then they would say: we will weather the storm, there is prosperity around the corner.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

There are no workers left now.

Mr. Tully

Fianna Fáil had 135,000 unemployed and do not forget that. They were shipping them out at the rate of 55,000 a year at the time. Do not forget that when I took over as Minister there were 14,500 unemployed in the building industry. When we talk about 18,000 or 19,000 unemployed now—

Mr. Moore

Over 20,000.

Mr. Tully

There are not over 20,000. There are something over 19,000 unemployed. When we talk about that we are talking about an extra 5,000 unemployed in the entire building industry only 40 per cent of which is the house building industry. I wonder whether or not the Fianna Fáil Party believe some of the things they have been saying. Do Fianna Fáil believe that if they were in office they would now be building 25,000 houses and over per year in view of what they had been doing over the years?

Mr. Faulkner

There is not the slightest doubt about that.

Mr. Tully

Do they believe that they would continue to be allowed to build the type of dog box which they built? Do they believe they would get away with that or what would they have done? The cost of the improvement in the standard of local authority housing has to be taken into consideration as well as the additional houses which are being built. Of course, we have had Fianna Fáil telling us that they would make an immense amount of money available. Would Fianna Fáil answer me one question? If the 25,000 houses we intend to average over the years is not enough, and if the tremendous amount of money which we have been pumping into the building industry is not sufficient, will Fianna Fáil say where they would get the extra money? Where would they find the hundreds of millions of pounds which they talk about in Opposition but which they were very quiet about when they were over here? It was easy enough talking to Fianna Fáil when they were on this side of the House because they knew better than anybody else that one just could not get it out of the air and proceed to spend it. It had to be found, it had to be earned, it had to be borrowed. While all of us might have a different point of view when we were in Opposition to what we have here it grieves me that ex-Ministers of this State are not well-enough aware of what the facts are to be able to state what the real situation is. In 1972-73 local authorities had a capital allocation of £25.38 million and they completed 5,784 houses and flats. A sum of £27 million was allocated for their work in 1973-74 and because of inflation — if that had not been invented by the National Coalition Government — this would have been sufficient to produce only 5,400 dwellings the following year. When we took over we increased the allocation to £32 million. We completed 6,539 houses and flats in 1973-74.

I heard on a number of occasions both the present spokesman for Local Government and his predecessor talking here about what they proposed to do and the number of houses they had planned and were in progress when Fianna Fáil went out of office. I want to state categorically that the number of houses would have been well down from the figure of 21,500 which they have been claiming because they made no provision for more than 19,000 to 20,000 houses. They cannot get away from that because the figures are there, even with the amount of money which would be available to spend and if inflation had not taken hold. Fianna Fáil must know this is true.

Mr. Faulkner

They do not know anything of the sort.

Mr. Tully

If it is not true why was it necessary for us to increase so substantially the amount of money which was made available to build local authority houses?

Mr. Moore

Because of rising costs.

Mr. Tully

The rising costs were not affecting the situation here. Fianna Fáil had no intention of building more than 4,500 local authority houses the year they left office. We are coming up quite close to the 8,000 local authority houses now. I know Fianna Fáil do not like that. I have heard their spokesmen and I noted some of the slanted questions which they asked here today and which as much as suggested: how much have the local authority houses cost by way of subsidy; sow it in the minds of the people that it is costing too much to house these workers. Do something else with them.

Mr. Moore

Come off it.

Mr. Tully

As far as we are concerned, we will continue to provide houses for the workers and will continue to subsidise their cost. Those houses will stand four square with any grant-aided houses in this country. I am proud of them and to be part of the Government who are responsible for having put them there, well-built, well-planned houses that will be there in 50, 60 or 100 years.

I am sorry that it should be necessary for me to refer again to one of the effects of the Fianna Fáil policy in denying services and providing an inadequate amount of capital. I brought the matter to the attention of the House on a number of occasions but evidently the message has not registered. Last night Deputy Faulkner mentioned that in 1972-73 a total of 21,647 new houses were completed, representing an increase of 36 per cent over the 15,931 houses recorded as being completed the previous year. The facts of the situation are that the money provided by the previous Administration in 1971-72 to finance private housing grants was much lower than was necessary to pay the grants promptly when they fell due. In consequence, a liability totalling £626,000 had to be carried forward into 1972-73. In other words, more than 2,000 new house grants, which should have been paid in 1971-72 because the houses had been fully completed before 31st March, 1972, were not paid until the following year, 1972-73.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Where were those recorded?

Mr. Tully

They were recorded in the last year in which Fianna Fáil were in office. I only went in on 14th March and from that to 31st March 21,500 houses were produced, but 2,000 of those had been built for over 12 months. When I hear some of the pundits talking about carrying houses from one year to the other for the purpose of boosting them up, there is a typical example of how it is done. We have not done it since because we said we would build 25,000, and we built 25,365. Does somebody suggest that we carried forward a couple of thousand houses so that we could have 26,639 the next year, or that we are carrying forward a couple of thousand more so that we can go over the 25,000 mark again next year?

Mr. Faulkner

The Minister knows that is nonsense.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Faulkner came up with a lot of nonsense last night and he is now getting his reply and he does not like it. The trouble with most of the people on the Fianna Fáil benches is that they are good at dishing it out and they have not been getting it back so hard. They are going to get a dose of their own medicine tonight, because I am sick and tired of people who have such a bad record on housing as Fianna Fáil have, having the hard neck to come in here and talk about their housing record or the record of the Government in which they participated and indeed in which some of them were Ministers.

Deputy Faulkner was somewhat critical of the slight increase in completions in the year ending 31st March, 1975, as compared with the preceding 12 months. Might I remind the Deputy and the Dáil that the commitment at the moment is not to accomplish an increase in the housing programme but to accomplish a steady output of approximately 25,000 new houses. This means that in four years we will have completed 100,000 new dwellings, or more than the total completions in the last seven years of the Fianna Fáil Administration.

I want to refer particularly to what I was supposed to have said in Dungarvan. I was speaking in Dungarvan at the opening of a very beautiful and well-built housing scheme. I feel it is necessary in this context to put the record straight in relation to that speech which I made in Dungarvan. Some of my remarks on that occasion in connection with the allocation of capital for local authority house schemes have been misconstrued. Deputy Faulkner's reference to the matter last night gives an indication of this. I would like to explain as follows. A record £51 million was provided under the public capital programme in February for local authority houses. Within weeks of the budget the Government announced that steps were being taken to make a further £7 million available, because an examination of claims submitted by housing authorities showed that more money would be needed to maintain the programme at its current high level. It is necessary in this regard to differentiate between the amount of money claimed by housing authorities acting individually who naturally want to start and build as many houses as possible and the total amount that was allocated under the budget.

Housing authorities usually seek in the aggregate far more capital than any Government could provide, bearing in mind the current economic situation and the amount of finance which can reasonably be raised by taxation or State borrowing and the many essential services competing with local authority housing for a share of that finance. What I said was that I would proceed to give the money to the local authorities but the local authorities who asked for a lot more money than they could hope to spend this year would not get that extra money.

Mr. Moore

The Minister, by his words, is accepting the motion.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The Minister said he was sick and tired of listening to criticism. I see the Minister leaving the House. I have some figures here that the Minister might be sick listening to as well. If there is any sense of decency left in the Coalition Government, a figure of 20,000 unemployed in the building industry would make any Labour Minister with responsibility for Local Government and the building industry sick. We heard much chat about houses and dog boxes but we did not hear much about the 20,000 people unemployed in the building trade who were not unemployed when Fianna Fáil were in office.

For well over a year, we on this side of the House have been consistently advising the Government, and in particular the Minister for Local Government, that unless they took some remedial measures the building industry and those employed in it were in for a very difficult time. On all occasions, and again tonight, we were told by the Minister that we were being mischievous and scaremongering. We in the Fianna Fáil Party were approaching this question as a very serious subject affecting the whole economy in this country. We went so far, in February last, as to place a Motion before this House outlining specific steps which we thought would help in the crisis that we saw at that time developing.

In speaking on the Motion on the 5th February, the Minister gave the clear impression that everything in the building industry was fine. When I speak of that motion it might do no harm at this stage if I quoted it. It was proposed by Deputy Faulkner, and many of us on this side of the House had the honour of signing the motion which proposed:

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that in view of the crisis in the private sector of the house building industry, provision should now be made for (a) an increase in the local authority maximum new house loan limit to £6,000 and in the income limit to £3,000; (b) a 50 per cent increase in new house grants; (c) the abolition of liability for income tax on interest paid by building societies on deposits up to £5,000; (d) the granting of trustee status to building societies and (e) the charging of fixed interest rates on building society mortgages.

I, for one, am quite satisfied that if the Government had accepted the Fianna Fáil motion rather than voting against it on that Wednesday night on the 5th February we would not be in the mess that we are in now — and "mess" is the only word that can be used to describe a situation where in mid-March, 1975, there were 19,887 building workers unemployed.

The Minister, a couple of minutes ago, denied that there were 20,000 unemployed. The figure was 19,887 if he wants to quibble about it being brought up to 20,000 — fair enough. There were 19,887 building workers unemployed in 1975 in an industry which the Minister had the gall, a couple of minutes ago, to tell us was doing well. The total unemployment figure at that stage in the country was 102,924. There were 73,800 people employed in the building industry at that time. The level of unemployment of building workers was, therefore, over 20 per cent of the building workers who were unemployed at March, 1975, in an industry which the Minister tells us is doing well and could not be doing better. This figure is approximately twice the general unemployment level. These figures relate to people who are directly employed. Of course, another 30,000 people are employed by people who manufacture and distribute building materials. Many of these workers have been laid off or are on short time because of a fall in demand for building material.

One group of workers, together with their employers, a firm that employs many men from the Minister's own constituency as well as from mine, felt so strongly about the danger to their livelihood that they took a full page advertisement in The Sunday Press of the 9th February, 1975, and I should like to quote from it. It reads:

Ireland's building industry has only two options — drawing bricks or drawing the dole. There is no doubt about the country's desperate need for more housing. Let us get building going again. — Issued jointly by Wavin Pipes Limited and Wavin Pipes Works Council.

The workers' council in the factory were so concerned about their jobs that they went together with their employers and asked the Government, for God's sake, for help.

How can the situation be as bad as it is at the moment or how could such a crisis have come about if the picture were as rosy as that painted by the Minister? It is only when one examines the output of the building industry in toto that the true picture begins to emerge. I should like to quote, at this stage, from a press release of the Building Material Federation on the 19th June. The Building Material Federation is a division of the Confederation of Irish Industry and the release is headed: “The Building Industry; Problems And Solutions,” and I quote:

The Department of Local Government has now issued its "Review of Outturn for 1974-75 and Outlook for 1975." This document is useful in that it gives us a picture of what the present state of the building industry is and also indicates what changes are planned for the current year. The following is a condensed picture of the information contained in tables I and II of the document: Output of Building Industry.

Mr. Begley

On a point of order, that is not a published document. That is a confidential document.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I got this document from the Library in the Dáil this afternoon, and surely I am entitled to quote any figures from a document I get from the Library of the Dáil. If the Parliamentary Secretary has any objection he is depriving the Dáil of the view of the Confederation of Irish Industries.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has given the appropriate reference?

Mr. R.P. Burke

I have given the reference. I can understand why the Parliamentary Secretary might be sensitive about the figures because I know that he will not like to hear them. The document gives the output of the building industry as follows: In the private sector, factory building and workshops in 1973-74 were £43.60 million; Housing, £153.10 million and the rest of the sector £104.59 million. The total in the private sector was £301.29 million and the public sector was £77.15 million, a total of £378.44 million. In 1975 the same figure, the official estimate of the Department of Local Government, is £537.99 million which, on the face of it, is quite impressive. But when you take it at constant 1968-69 prices the relevant figures are for 1973-74 £208.25 million and the official estimate of the Department for 1975, £195.14 million. These official estimates show that the output of the building industry is expected to decline for the second year in succession, i.e., down from £208.25 million in 1973-74 to £205.18 million in 1974-75 to £195.14 million in the current year (1968-69 prices).

We have the Minister coming in here and telling us about the marvellous sums of money he is spending. Here are a few figures which might just soften his cough.

A closer examination of the figures suggests that the decline in output of the building industry is greater than the £28 million (current prices) estimated by the Department of Local Government.

Once again, to quote the figures, there is in real money terms (1968-69) a decrease in 1973-74 to £208.25 million, 1974-75, £205.18 million, and the estimate for 1975 is £195.14 million.

I can appreciate the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary might not like those figures. If I were a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for the building industry I would not like the figures. These figures clearly indicate the magnitude of the problem facing the industry, the problem brought on by the lack of investment and lack of remedial action when difficulties were seen on the horizon by this Government. It is not that they were not warned of the problems by Members of this side of the House. Of course, every time we warned of problems we were told we were scaremongering and that we were being mischievous.

Another barometer is cement sales. They have always been, by their very nature, seen as a fair barometer of the health of the building industry. The Department of Local Government recognised that fact in its Review and outlook document which states:

...cement sales generally maintain a fixed relationship with building and construction work carried out by contractors...

Cement sales were down by 12 per cent for the first five months of 1975 compared to 1974. It seems fair enough, therefore, to assume that the real downturn for 1975 would prove to be 12 per cent rather than 5 per cent estimated by the Department. But we still had the Minister in here, half an hour ago, telling us that everything was fine; the building industry was booming and everything was going well. We had the Parliamentary Secretary last night telling us the same thing. Fair enough, the man has a job to do, to defend his corner. If I was in the same situation I would probably be doing the same thing. But I would not be in that corner.

The Department's estimate for housing output for 1975 is 25,000 houses. This figure includes 16,100 grant-aided houses. The Estimates for Public Services from 1st January, 1975 to 31st December show that only £5 million has been allocated to the Department of Local Government for grants for new houses. This £5 million will be sufficient to pay only 13,300 grants, compared to the 16,100 houses piously hoped for by the Government. On 31st March, 1975 the amount of SDA loans on hand amounted to £58 million. In contrast only £37.5 million has been provided for SDA loans. I could go on and on quoting figures which would further prove the problems facing the building industry and those employed in it. The fact that there is a major problem is self-evident. It is evident to everybody other than the Minister and that side of the House. The unfortunate state of the economy is such that all sectors are facing the same tale of woe. We in Fianna Fáil, recognising the problem, are attempting to force the hand of a static and destructive Government into taking some action.

Our motion, if accepted, will have the effect of tackling the three main problems facing the Irish economy in 1975 — unemployment, inflation and the balance of payments deficit. Of course, there is the fourth problem facing the Irish economy, and that is the presence of the present regime, because if they were to leave and hand over to a Government that could once again instill confidence in the community generally we might get out of this mess before it is too late. But, unfortunately, it is unlikely that they will take the honourable course and get out and let the country be ruled by a one-party Government again, rather than a house divided against itself.

We have unemployment running at 10 per cent, inflation running at between 25 and 30 per cent and a balance of payments deficit of around £200 million. It is no harm to mention the motion tabled by Fianna Fáil because we had a speech for half an hour from the Minister for Local Government and not once did he refer to the motion. He did give a list of figures. The terms of the Motion are:

That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Local Government to increase substantially financial investment in the building industry, with special provision for the private house-building sector, in view of the serious decline in the numbers employed in the industry over the past twelve months and the urgent need to create jobs to cope with the high level of general unemployment in the country.

If the Government take the action suggested by us in that motion they will be helping the economy generally because the building industry is a labour intensive industry for those employed directly and there is the spin-off effect for those in subsidiary industries. The building industry requires very little imports and most of the materials used in the industry are home-produced. This, in turn, will help our balance of payments.

We had appeals from Government Ministers recently, from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, for patriotism on the part of the workers and the people of this country. I would appeal to the elected Government to be patriotic, to forget cheap political manoeuvring and to look at the country and the state of its economy and the social effects of there being over 100,000 people unemployed and to take the decisions which are necessary. The necessary decisions are referred to in the motion. Tonight the Minister and the Government will have the opportunity of voting with us on this side of the House. Forget the narrow political view. Let the Government admit failure and give the building industry in particular and the economy of the country in general, the injection of cash it so badly needs.

Where are they going to put this cash and how can it be to the greatest benefit? It can have the greatest effect if the Government take the advice we gave them in the Private Members' Motion in February last, if they increase the SDA loans from the present limit of £4,500 to £6,000 and the income limit from £2,350 to £3,000. We had an argument against this last night put up by the Parliamentary Secretary who said that if this action was taken it would result in builders increasing their prices. Deputy Molloy, when he was Minister for Local Government, brought in a regulation which controlled and restricted the price of houses under a reasonable value certificates order. Every house must go to the Department of Local Government for a reasonable value certificate. This automatically contradicts the argument put up by the Parliamentary Secretary that if you increase the SDA loan it will automatically increase the price of the house. This does not hold water.

On the figures admitted by the Department of Local Government, the cost of a new house is roughly £7,500. The maximum SDA loan is £4,500, a difference of £3,000. To qualify for the £4,500 an applicant must be earning less than £2,350. If he is earning less than £2,350 he is expected to find, in the mind of the Government, the balance between £4,500 and £7,500 — £3,000 of a difference, plus solicitor's fees and there are a fair few too. How is any young man, trying to make a home for himself, expected to save £3,000, if he is earning less than £2,350? I emphasise that is only on a deposit on the house. He also has the other expenses such as furniture and so on.

The Minister, in speaking on our motion on the 5th February last, said that he, in his time, had increased the figures on SDA loans by 18 per cent. I would remind the Minister that since May, 1973 — and nobody has to be told about the inflation rate since May, 1973 — not one halfpenny extra has the Minister given on SDA loans or on income limits. All you get is pious speeches handed out at openings of housing estates most of which were initiated under Fianna Fáil, the planning of them and so on. One way that the Government could help is by increasing the SDA loan from £4,500 to £6,000.

The other part of the suggestion made in February, which still holds good and which I hope the Minister for Finance will bring forward tomorrow in what we hope will be an injection of capital into the building industry, and there and then the lie will be nailed, is that if money is put into the building industry tomorrow, despite what the Parliamentary Secretary said last night and despite what the Minister said tonight, it proves the point that we have been making all along that there has been a problem, there is a problem and it is getting worse.

Mr. B. Desmond

How is it getting worse? Building societies have plenty of money.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The Deputy will have his opportunity to speak. I am slightly taken aback by the interruption of Deputy Desmond as a Labour Member——

Mr. B. Desmond

No problem.

Mr. R.P. Burke

I will quote Deputy Desmond a rather large figure and he attempts to come in here and tell us that he represents the workers of this country. We have more unemployed than workers the way it is going. You have nearly 20,000 unemployed in the building industry as at March, 1975——

Mr. B. Desmond

You have not got your figures right.

Mr. R.P. Burke

——19,887 as at March, 1975. Deputy Desmond, as a Labour Member, does not like to hear these figures. I would be embarrassed if I was a Labour Member in this House supporting a Government that would have such figures.

Mr. B. Desmond

Would the Deputy give the source of his figures?

Mr. R.P. Burke

They should have taken the line that we suggested as far back as last February when we were told by the Government that there was no problem in the building industry, when we suggested a 50 per cent increase in new house grants and supplementary grants. This would give young couples anxious to buy homes an opportunity to buy them and would generate interest in the building industry and development within the building sector rather than recession.

If Deputy Desmond wants to talk about recession in the building industry all he has to do is look at a review of 1974 and the outlook for 1975. We also suggested the granting of trustee status to building societies and we were told on 5th of February by the Minister that trustee status was coming. The Minister for Finance announced it and so it was going to happen. When is it going to happen? Is it just another Press announcement, another promise or another commission? As one Labour member mentioned, they are a great Government for commissions, reports and promises but they are slow on the action. We have not got this trustee status which would be helping the present situation. The abolition of liability for income tax and interest paid on building society deposits up to £5,000 would have helped also.

Mr. B. Desmond

We doubled our output in Dublin County Council.

Mr. R.P. Burke

This could and would have helped the situation but we have had one continuous record of failure. Building accounts for roughly one eighth of the nation's gross national product. Hence, what happens to building is very important to the economy. We want more money devoted now to building. I have spelled out the various areas in which the money could be spent but there are other areas.

I should like to mention one of them that the Minister emphasised when he opened his remarks. I must have been hitting a sensitive chord in the Minister for some considerable time because he spent about the first five minutes attacking the speeches I have made at the Dublin County Council. I will give the Minister a figure from the Dublin County Council. The estimates for sewerage and water works to be carried out by the Dublin County Council, prepared by the Dublin County Council's engineers as being necessary works in the year ahead, amount to £6 million. We got a report back from the Department saying that they would sanction £3 million. To build houses you need an infrastructure. You need proper sewerage and water. You need proper roads. Without these you cannot have development or build housing schemes. We got exactly half of what we were looking for, which means that our whole programme of development within County Dublin, which would allow further increases in local authority houses, in the private houses and also in the industrial sphere, is to be cut by half. In fact the work will be stopped because most of the work that the £3 million will cover is already in hand.

Mr. B. Desmond

We doubled our output in Dublin County Council.

Mr. R.P. Burke

We have the situation that we have a Government divided against themselves and within themselves — against themselves from various parties and within themselves from various individuals. We have the Minister for Local Government in the very embarrassing situation that for 18 months he has been telling us that everything in the garden is rosy with regard to the building industry. We will see that lie nailed to the mast tomorrow. If we do not and if the Government are afraid to take the action which is necessary by injecting capital into the building industry all we will see is a continuation of the ever-increasing number of unemployed in that sector.

What I want and hope to see is that this Private Members' Motion, which is all embracing, will be accepted. It would help in the immediate way the building industry but in the long term will also help the general economy. We all know that in Irish economic life the building industry is a great barometer of how the rest of the economy is doing. If we check that barometer we are going backwards instead of forwards. We are not even standing still. Let the Minister and the Government accept this motion. Do not put it to a division. Let the Minister for Finance come in tomorrow and give this necessary injection of money to the building industry. This money should have been pumped into the building industry 12 months ago. We want that money pumped in tomorrow. When it is, I assume that the Parliamentary Secretary will eat the words he spoke last night and that the Minister will do likewise with the words he spoke tonight.

I have no doubt that if this country is to prosper or come out of the depths of the depression it is in and go again on the path of steady progress we saw under successive Fianna Fáil administrations, the one way is for this Government to take this advice even if it is coming from this side of the House. Be big about it. Be national about it. The Coalition Government are good at calling for patriotism from the workers. How about a bit of patriotism from the Government elected by the people? Do this and there might be some slight hope of a recovery within the economy, that is assuming that the Government drop all of the other mischievous legislation on such things as wealth tax and capital gains tax.

Mr. O'Brien

First of all, we have heard from the Opposition for the last two years since we took office saying that we would not attain our target of 25,000 houses. We have attained that and this year we have built 26,380. That to me is a clear indication that there is no crisis in the building industry. I am not saying there are not problems with regard to office development. There have been cut-backs in that as there have been in most other aspects of our economic life but that situation is not peculiar to this country alone. To talk about house-building programmes and to compare them with the performance of the Opposition while in Government is of no significance. As chairman of the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation I am aware that there was no programme of house-building when we took office but the then new Minister for Local Government appointed a housing co-ordinator so as to try to put some semblance of order into what was a shambles. As a result, this year, we have increased our output from an average of 1,064 houses annually to 1,500 and, next year, as a result of this planning, we hope to reach 2,300 or 2,400. This is a significant increase. The chief housing architect in Dublin Corporation told me he did not think he would have the staff or the building contractors to cope with the type of programme he is undertaking.

Mr. Desmond

We have 24,000 sites.

Mr. O'Brien

Deputy Moore who is on the Housing Committee knows that quite well.

Mr. Moore

I am not accepting the Deputy's figures.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. Deputy O'Brien must be allowed utilise the few minutes remaining to him.

Mr. O'Brien

In April and May of last year there was an injection into the building societies of £2.6 million. In April and May of 1975 the amount was £11.2 million.

Mr. Desmond

No problem to the building societies.

Mr. Moore

Try to get a loan.

Mr. O'Brien

This is a clear indication of the confidence the people have in this Government.

Mr. Desmond

Last month they got £5.4 million in inflow alone.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must be allowed to continue without interruption.

Mr. O'Brien

I am just informing the House of the facts. Deputies opposite have been bleating for the past 12 months about our not attaining our housing target but we have not only achieved it but surpassed it. The clear indications are, from the investment in the building societies, that the future of the house-building industry is healthy. The man who has been trying to malign us during the last two years, the CIF chief, says that the industry, in view of the inflation, had not done badly.

An Ceann Comhairle

Persons outside the House ought not be referred to in such a manner as to be identifiable.

Mr. Desmond

He is a well-known Jeremiah.

Mr. Moore

The people opposite are ruthless.

Mr. O'Brien

This gentleman has been operating this for some considerable time.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am asking that no reference be made to gentlemen outside the House.

Mr. O'Brien

I am quoting from a magazine. I might say that there was used in this House today a document that should not have been used. It was not only a discussion document but a misleading one. It was supposed to have been obtained from the Library, but was not presented or laid before the Library.

Mr. Moore

More censorship.

Mr. O'Brien

There is no censorship on this side of the House. All I am saying is that from the time the Coalition took office, there has been organised propaganda from the other side of the House in relation to the building industry. For the first time, the local authority housing situation is being tackled. It was not alone neglected but the houses that were built were, as the Minister said, ones that you would not put dogs into. They were substandard.

Mr. Meaney

No tenders accepted in north Cork for some time past.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. O'Brien

They will be a monument to the party opposite for as long as they stand but I believe they will not stand for too long. We are building the type of house which we believe people should have but Fianna Fáil sneer because they do not have to live in the substandard houses. When we look at the overall figure we find that we have averaged in our two years 26,000 houses. If we take that for the four-year period we will have built more than 100,000 houses at the time of going before the electorate again. Fianna Fáil are confused. Every time they put down a motion they indicate how confused they are and they come out badly because they have not done their homework and have not considered the type of money that is going into the building construction industry.

An Ceann Comhairle

Unless the mover of the motion wishes to give time to another Deputy, I must call on him to reply.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The disappointing feature in this motion is that the Government, judging by the speakers they have put before us both last night and tonight, have not yet realised that there are serious problems in the building industry. This was the purpose behind this motion and no amount of statistics — whether they be confused statistics such as those meted out by the Parliamentary Secretary or any other — or whether it is the vulgar abuse that we got from the Minister for Local Government tonight, would hide the plight of the building industry, an industry that ranks next to our agricultural industry and which accounts for one-eighth of our GNP. It is an industry that has been the barometer of the health of our economy for long but two members of the Government spent much time talking during this debate although they had nothing concrete to say. I shall not even refer to the last contribution in which there was absolutely no content whatsoever. No reference was made to the loan situation and to the desirability that is well-known even among the backbenchers of the Government, for an increase in the SDA loan limit, nor indeed for the increase in the qualifying income limit. No reference was made to the necessary increase in grants nor indeed to relieving the tax burden on the mortgage payments from the building societies. These were the positive points put forward last night by Deputy Faulkner when he asked that even at this late stage the Government realise that there is a serious problem in the building industry and that the badly-needed injection be provided for in tomorrow's budget.

Deputy Burke emphasised in adequate detail that the amount of money available this year is lower than it was last year, if we consider the constant price factor. There is one very relevant point I should like to make, that is the employment and the pattern of employment. It is time that our Ministers in Government and indeed the Government parties generally forgot about blaming other sources for the situation, forgot about referring to what might have been the cause of this or that but began to realise that a problem exists, that there is massive unemployment.

The figure of 20,000 unemployed in the building industry has been mentioned here many times already this evening. The pattern which emerged from April, 1974 to March, 1975 should have been a warning to the Government that the situation was worsening rapidly. If one looks at the figures: in April, 1974 it increased by 188; in May, by 403: June, 472, July, 665. It began to jump in August to 1,342; September, 1,988; October to 2,343; November to 3,009; December to 3,280; January to 4,661; February to 5,841 and March to 6,378. The reason I emphasise that is to point to the warning signs being given there and to illustrate that no positive action was being taken particularly if one considers that the building industry and allied trades are probably those that react to stimulants more quickly than any others. Imported raw material used is less than 25 per cent in that industry. Consequently, we have the material products for the most part here at home. Any injection, even at this late stage, of this late appeal to the Government tomorrow, would be a welcome one. But we must be critical and are entitled to be critical of the performance and the way it has been handled to date.

I have given the figures of the downturn in employment. If we look at the various factors—and there is no point in anybody trying to confuse an issue with too many statistics, because members of the Government are just as aware of the situation as am I; if they go through their own constituencies, they will see that, in the builders' providers' premises, the staff is lower, the volume of business is lower, and sales are down. If they go to the sand-and-gravel people and observe their products, they will find the same thing. If they go to the cement suppliers, they will find the same thing. For example, from February, 1974 to February, 1975 cement sales on the home market were down by 12 per cent. From March, 1974 to March, 1975 cement sales were down by 36 per cent. These are accurate figures. They tell one immediately that there is something wrong somewhere, that the amount of material is not going into the building industry, the same number of people are not working and no detailing of statistics will change that situation.

Let me say also as there were a lot of figures bandied around here this evening, and a lot of false and foolish claims made in a most aggressive way, the most significant increase in the building of housing here occurred in the two years when the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Molloy, was Minister for Local Government. In that period the number of houses built went up from approximately 15,000 to 21,500, a massive increase in two years of 6,500. This was the launching pad and there is no point in the Minister saying otherwise. This was the launching pad that gave him the opportunity of building his 25,000 houses in the first year of the Coalition's term of office. Let me add this figure to what has been said. Then perhaps we could show the people opposite the concern that should exist, that the bubble has burst already, and that no Government Information Bureau—no matter how well manipulated—can now belie the fact that this is troubling the ordinary working people dependent on that industry. The percentage increase in the last year of Fianna Fáil's Government was 36 per cent, a 36 per cent increase in the number of houses built. In the first year of Coalition Government the increase was 17 per cent; in the second the increase was 5 per cent and the third year of Coalition Government has yet to come, if it finishes. Indeed from the present difficulties that we know exist within both parties and between the parties forming the Government, it may not finish its third year. But, if it does, even the Minister knows and is satisfied that there will not be a percentage increase but, unfortunately for all of us, a percentage decrease. That is the factual situation.

The Minister referred to picking up "back grants" for record purposes. I want to draw the Minister's attention to an occurrence—and I can produce factual evidence—in a town here, during 1975, when the final instalment of a grant was paid on a house that had been defective, with no application by the individual, with merely a completely unexpected visit from the housing inspector. The interesting point about it is that that house was built approximately 15 years; 15 years after that grant was paid and not applied for.

Mr. Begley

Deputy Fitzgerald should put that on the record.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

How many more of those grants are there in making up the number of houses presently before us?

Mr. Cunningham

Wholesale Ministerial directives.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Let me say, therefore, that in the town of Enniscorthy, when the urban council are——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy give way to a point of order? The Minister on a point of order.

Mr. Tully

If Deputy Fitzgerald has particulars of an incident which is a direct charge against a civil servant, I should be glad if he would either place it on the record of the House or give it to me so that I may have it investigated.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am not charging any civil servant.

Mr. Tully

Oh yes, the Deputy is.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am blaming the Ministerial directive responsible——

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. Deputy G. Fitzgerald without interruption——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

In the town of Enniscorthy I ask him has he yet certified the payment of the £52,000 on the certificate of approval for money to the contractor who has been waiting since the 17th June? This is the kind of thing that is currently happening.

Mr. Tully

I was in Enniscorthy a couple of weeks ago and there were no complaints there.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

We had no reference by the Minister or by his Parliamentary Secretary to the loan situation that he and everybody else knows badly needs to be augmented. We had no reference to the other points raised by Deputy Faulkner. We had a glossing-over of a situation we all know exists. I can claim to have a considerable knowledge of the building industry, at ground level more than anything else, for many years. From 1959 until I came into this House I was closely associated with that industry. In fact we know that the building industry was the industry neglected by Fine Gael and Labour in their last days of Coalition—I am hurting the Minister; I am standing on his toe. In the years in between it was built up under solid, sound Government——

Mr. Tully

It disappeared shortly after that.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

People on the other side of the House believed that some of these people, because they gave employment, because they built office blocks, because they built factories, because they built bridges and roadways for us, were speculators. They looked upon them as enemies of society. Many of them were their supporters. They came into office determined to wreck the building industry, determined to run it down. They have done so, to the detriment of the Irish worker. But remember 20,000 jobs, 6,000 extra, plus the people going off in the allied industries all the time, in my constituency and in every other. I say to the Government that we have steel works of which we as a nation can be proud. Minister, preserve the jobs there before it is too late by injecting enough into the building industry to create a demand for steel. I do not want us to be approaching the Minister and his colleagues in the very near future saying: "Look, here are more jobs gone because of your incompetence." This is the position.

The building industry could also be regarded as the one which contributed most to reducing unemployment and to bringing home our people from abroad. We are talking about numbers of houses. I have given the percentage increases and the decrease for this year. The Minister and the Government have forgotten the constant price factor which means that less money is being given now than was given last year. There is no increase in that.

In reply to a question today by Deputy Faulkner about the cost of a local authority house we heard that in 1972/73 the cost of that house was £3,963. It has increased to £6,208, an increase of 66 per cent. There is also the problem of a growing number of young people and a greater demand for houses. This is something which the Minister and the Government are taking no cognisance of. The building industry has been let down. The Government have not appreciated what we said here tonight. They will obviously oppose the motion.

I hope if the Minister has not already approached his colleague, the Minister for Finance, that he will go to him and say: "Give me money. Give me £50 million, not £2.6 million". The £2.6 million will not save the building industry. It is not significant. If the Minister for Finance offers £75 million, the Minister should not refuse it. If we were there it is £100 million we would talk about. The bubble has burst for the Minister.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The people of Ireland know that the Minister for Local Government has failed the building industry like his predecessors in previous Coalition Governments.

(Interruptions.)

Question put.

The Dáil divided : Tá, 55; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Barrett, Sylvester.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Browne, Seán.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Gerard.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Patrick.
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kelly, John.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McDonald, Charles B.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Browne; Níl, Deputies kelly and B. Desmond.

Question declared lost.