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.