I should like a ruling as to the time remaining for this motion. What is the position in regard to the division if the debate has not been concluded at 8.30?
Private Members' Business. - Housing Grants: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Faulkner on 10th February, 1976:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the decision of the Government to deprive a large section of the community of new house grants and demands their immediate restoration.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute the following:
"takes note of the Government's decision to provide from the Exchequer in 1976 a record amount of finance for housing."
—(Minister for Local Government.)
The debate will proceed until 8.30. and time left for the motion will go on to the next sitting day.
Last night I was making the point that Fianna Fáil deplore the Government's decision to deprive a large section of people of State housing grants. The Government's decision merely reflects their commitment to expenditure in the coming year and took no account of the present purchasing power of money. To illustrate this clearly, Fianna Fáil in 1972 built approximately 22,000 houses for a total of £46 million. The Government this year are committed to build 25,000 houses at an intended expenditure of £122 million. Fianna Fáil built 22,000 houses four years ago for £46 million and the Coalition are building 3,000 more houses for £122 million, a tragic example of the savage raging inflation that has taken place since the Coalition took office.
Deputies on this side made the point that the Minister's decision in respect of grants would mean that a large number of young couples who might buy their own homes out of savings will be transferred to the already overtaxed, overburdened local authority waiting lists. To clarify our position and to illustrate that that is not just a Fianna Fáil point of view, I have quoted the comments of various organisations and the assistant Whip of the Government with regard to his views on the decision of the Minister for Local Government to eliminate housing grants for those other than people eligible for supplementary grants. His Parliamentary Secretary came in last night and said that people earning more than £40 a week were wealthy, rich, which shows his incredible lack of sensitivity as a Government spokesman.
We are calling for reinstatement of the State grant to all applicants and we are committed, when we get back to office—despite the Minister's carve-up of the constituencies this election will be in the near future—to increase SDA loans considerably. We are committed to increasing the figures we are discussing at the moment to a house price of £6,000 and an income limit of £3,000 and to reinstating and increasing the State grant.
The most disturbing feature of the Minister's decision is the effect it is having on employment in the building industry. Already there are more than 22,000 people unemployed in the building sector and 8,000 are unemployed in the house building section as a result of the Minister's decision. I suggest to him it is his duty and responsibility, placed on him by the people in the last election, to look after the building industry in the way Fianna Fáil did before he came to office.
This situation and the appalling decision he made could be put in no better words than those in the editorial of The Irish Times for Saturday, 3rd January, 1976. Not even the Minister will say that The Irish Times is an organ of the Fianna Fáil Party. I quote:
Hitting the homeless
The decision of the Government to abolish, to all intents and purposes, the £325 grant for purchasers of privately-built houses has, quite rightly, been strongly criticised by the Construction Industry Federation, the National Association of Building Co-operatives, the Association of Combined Residents' Associations, and other organisations closely linked with the business of building and buying houses. The Government may say that the grant provided only "marginal assistance" to purchasers, but any person saving to get a deposit on a house—merely trying to get a roof over his head—will look on £325 as being a very large sum indeed. It takes a lot of saving nowadays to collect £325. This is the case of the last straw breaking the camel's back.
The Government announcement comes at a time when the building industry is complaining about being beset by major problems. The Government subsidy to the building societies has been withdrawn, and it is now some years since the SDA (Small Dwellings Act) loan has been increased for house loans from its figure of £4,500. In addition, the announcement came without warning. There was no consultation with the builders and no hint to the consumers (many small builders have been left in the situation whereby they have not applied for grants because of not having a staff to do paperwork; they can now take a cut in their profits or else pass on the burden to their clients).
Those two paragraphs go straight to the root of the problem and straight to the savage attack the Minister has made on prospective house buyers, on the building industry, on the local authorities whose overburdened housing waiting lists he has further added to, as well as adding to the unemployed. The Minister, following the genuine criticism from all sides of the House, including his own assistant Whip, should reconsider his decision, and immediately reinstate the grant and should also increase the SDA loans to the figure that was spoken about by Fianna Fáil of £6,000 and the income limit to £3,000.
He cannot be unaware of the rising tide of revolt felt throughout this country at his decision with regard to this grant, and in particular the timing of the grant which came when he was well aware that a 20 per cent increase in building materials had been granted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I will conclude by saying that it is ridiculous for the Minister to speak of increases in money terms without speaking of the inflation that has taken place and without speaking of the purchasing power of the money concerned. I would merely reiterate that Fianna Fáil built 22,000 houses for £46 million while the Government, because of raging and savage inflation, succeed in building 25,000 houses for £122 million. It is nothing to be proud of.
Deputy Fergus O'Brien. The Deputy is not offering? Deputy Seán Moore.
Are the Government not going to speak?
I will later on.
It is most unusual that it should go this way. Is the Minister not going to reply?
(Interruptions.)
Could you blame him when they are so embarrassed about it.
There was a good case made last night.
Why the hesitancy?
Because the Deputy may want to speak. He may have an opportunity to do so. The Chair will give me the opportunity to speak when I am ready.
I called Deputy Seán Moore.
Before Deputy Moore speaks——
(Interruptions.)
On a point of order, there are certain rules with regard to the timing of Private Members' motions and times for various parties to speak. Could the Ceann Comhairle clarify for the House the amount of time available to both sides and how this time is to be allocated between now and 8.30?
It depends on how much time Members utilise.
There are definite rules with regard to Private Members' time and allocation. Could you clarify it?
Half an hour for a Deputy.
Yes, but it varies from side to side. Clearly the Ceann Comhairle is the person who decides that the Deputy——
It is a matter of a Deputy offering to speak. Deputy Moore offered; I called him.
There is something strange here.
Is it normal procedure that the Ceann Comhairle calls a Deputy from either side?
It is if they offer.
If a Deputy offers from the other side?
Has Deputy Moore withdrawn?
He was asked to sit down.
That has nothing to do with the Chair.
If nobody gets up, what is the position?
The debate is closed. That is all there is to it.
Is it not a fact that what Deputy Moore wants is two bites of the cherry? He wants somebody to come for half an hour after me, and then he takes 20 minutes to conclude. I do not want to do that. I would rather hear what Deputy Moore has to say and Deputy Collins also.
We cannot set a precedent here.
But you do not have Standing Orders.
(Interruptions.)
A Deputy on the opposite side stood up to speak and was ordered to sit down by the Minister. Why should we facilitate the Minister?
A Deputy:
In that case——
It is the Opposition's motion.
A grand motion. I have been a very paragon of courtesy here tonight.
There are definite rules with regard to Private Members' time.
The Ceann Comhairle calls the speaker.
I think the Ceann Comhairle should make a ruling rather than the Minister.
(Interruptions.)
There is no way in which the Ceann Comhairle can compel a Member of this House to speak if he does not want to.
Then when I finish, can we put another man in these benches?
(Interruptions.)
I am a long time in the House, much longer than Deputy Moore, and I know what can be done.
Can we proceed with the debate?
That is very true. Therefore the Minister should set a good example.
I always set a good example.
I should like to call a quorum because we have not really enough Members present.
A quorum cannot be called in Private Members' time.
You cannot call a quorum.
A Deputy:
The Minister does not know the rules. It does not apply to Private Members' time.
Is the debate going to continue?
Have this side of the House the right to reply to the motion.
Of course they have.
Yes.
That is the reason why I suggested it would be equitable. The Opposition make a case for this resolution; I will comment on it and the Opposition will have the right to finish. I do not know what the row is about.
Deputy Faulkner has the right to reply.
Certainly.
I do not know what the row is all about.
There is a stated procedure.
There is not a stated procedure.
I am a considerable number of years here too. It was always followed in this House, as far as I am aware.
It was not.
Of course it was followed.
Order. The debate either continues now or I will call on Deputy Faulkner to reply to the debate.
We know the Minister has an exceptional case. If the Government are so bankrupt that they cannot reply to a debate, then God help this country.
Surely Deputy Moore can comment on whether we have a case or not when I am finished.
Please allow this debate to continue in an orderly fashion without any interruptions.
The very fact that this incident has happened here tonight speaks for itself. The Government are now so afraid of a motion on housing that they do not want to speak on it. The Government's counter motion reads:
takes note of the Government's decision to provide from the Exchequer in 1976 a record amount of finance for housing.
Of course, there is a record number of unemployed people and a record all-time high in the cost of living but the Government do not boast about that. If you compare the present figures with the figures of the previous Government you will see that there is a shortfall of about 5 per cent in the injection of capital into housing, despite the great boasting that goes on by the Government about building 25,000 houses each year. The Government have put forward this figure of 25,000 houses each year and we have disputed it. We do not accept as gospel any edict from the Government side. The Minister has now removed the State grants which could have acted as a guideline as to the number of houses built.
Apart from the hardships inflicted on young couples who are buying houses, we now have the further difficulty of trying to prove or disprove the number of dwellings built here in any one year. The Minister has been cavalier in his attitude to these grants and so have some other members of the Fine Gael Party. I heard one member of the Fine Gael Party describe the State grant of £325 as being the builders' pocket money. Let us not become too impersonal when speaking of housing applicants. It may be all right for the Minister and the bureaucracy to look at a housing sheet and merely see figures on it. Let us get down to the position of a young couple in any urban area who want to buy a house. If the Minister would read the letters I have received from young couples he might be able to introduce some little touch of humanity into the regulations of the Department of Local Government. One couple told me about the loss of the £325 grant. The builder is not worried, but they have got to find this extra £325. Another couple told me that they were thinking of getting in a heating system but that has gone by the board now. Even worse, another couple told me that they will not have floor covering because the builder wants his £325. The Government will save £750,000 on this operation. It should be the intention of any Government to encourage young people to buy their own homes because we know that the local authorities will not house a young couple on marriage, or a young couple with one child.
The point is that this impersonal machine has come down, not on top of the builder, but on top of the unfortunate young couples who must now raise this extra money. They will be put to the pin of their collars to try to make up the money, Remember, if their income is more than £46 per week they will not qualify for all the grants. The object of the State is to screw them as hard as possible, but it does not end there. We do know now that two months before the Minister removed the grant the Department of Industry and Commerce had received applications for an increase in the price of concrete goods. This increase was granted but it was kept very quiet. The granting of this increase meant that not alone had the young couples who are buying houses now to do without a State grant, but they had also to meet the increase in the price of houses which was also caused by the Government's policy.
We have the platitudes from the Government side of the House and the publication on housing and yet we find that, in proven cases where young couples are at the point of despair in trying to raise money for housing, the Government abolishes this grant in order to save £750,000. Perhaps people would understand it if the Government told them it was absolutely necessary, but it is belittling. A Fine Gael member may well say that this is the builder's pocket money. If it is, it is being put into his pocket now by the young couples who are trying to buy houses. This is the great benevolent State. The Government laud their efforts to provide houses and yet they cannot or will not work diligently to try to preserve some hope for young couples, to show that the State believes in the justice of their cause and will make every possible effort to help them.
As prices increase people say: "Why make the effort any longer? Let us fall back on the local authority for housing". I can only speak about the one authority I know anything about and that is Dublin Corporation. They, of course, cannot house every applicant because there are over 5,000 families on the housing list. Even building at the fastest rate possible, and with no fresh applications, it would take years to clear the housing list. You cannot do this, as each day new applications are received and the young couples are pushed further back on the list. What do they do now? If they cannot afford the price of a house, if they will not be accepted by a local authority, they may try to find rented accommodation in this city or in any urban area in the country. Their last state is worse than the first because, while they will not have to put down a deposit to rent a flat, they will have to pay an exorbitant rent. In all the machinations of the State they are being sacrificed on the altar of incompetence of an incompetent Government.
The Government have been warned time and time by members of this party. We have pointed out what they could do. They could maintain the grant. They could increase the limit of the loans. They could increase the supplementary grant. We have asked for a bigger capital injection but this has been ignored. We can leave the Fianna Fáil benches out of it and take the Economic and Social Research Institute. They have called for greater capital investment in housing and have pointed out why this should be done. That has been to no avail. The Government, who are in real trouble everywhere, are panicking as they did in the budget and as they did when they removed the State grant from housing. They are panicking in relation to every issue so the advice of that State body, the Economic and Social Research Institute is ignored.
The Minister is a member of the Labour Party who claim close association with the trade union movement. The Congress of Trade Unions urged very strongly that the Government should put greater capital investment into the housing drive. There is an affinity between the SRI, the Congress of Trade Unions and the Fianna Fáil Party in that we recognise the plight of young couples who are trying to buy houses or get themselves housed anywhere. Those three bodies have impressed on the Government the need for capital investment in housing but their answer is shown in the cynicism of their action when they removed the State grant of £325 from dwellings. This forces young people to find extra money.
Young couples who came to me said they could not afford heating or floor covering. That is the way they met the new impost on them. Some probably would not have any floor covering even with the grant. They must cut back on something. The Government are so depressing the housing scene that young people will find they cannot meet the demands in relation to the price of new houses. The local authorities will probably not take them on their housing list and they will try to find flats in this city or in some urban area. It is almost impossible to find flats at a reasonable rent. This is the brave new world for young couples which the Government promised a few years ago when they came before the people with their 14-point plan. What a cynical betrayal of the hopes of the young people it is that in 1976 they find it almost impossible to purchase houses.
During 1974-75 we saw the downward trend in employment in the building trade. We now have over 22,000 building operatives idle. In the Dublin area alone we have roughly 8,000 idle. All the time we have people on the house waiting list. The Government will probably boast that they built a number of houses a year. They should look at how much the waiting list has shrunk in that time. How much has it gone down? It is practically static in this city.
In relation to the plight of old people any Member of this House or any member of a local authority knows the anguish of old people who come to them every day seeking a flat. We know the small number built every year. Those old people have to spend the winter of their lives either in some tenement room or live in overcrowded conditions with some of their relatives. The prime concern of any Government should be the housing of the people. We can see the awful mess the Government have made of it. They boast about building 25,000 dwellings and they boast about how much more money they are putting into housing than we did. At present-day prices they would need to put a lot more money into it even to keep pace with what we did when we were in Government.
I do not ask the Government to accept my word for this. They only need to go into this city or any urban area in Ireland and talk to the young people who will tell them of the obstacles which are in their way in relation to housing. They should talk to old people seeking a flat from Dublin Corporation, Cork Corporation, Galway Corporation or any other body and the story is the same. The young couples who walk the streets of this city seeking accommodation have their counterparts in every largely populated area in the country because the Government have failed to implement the plans of Fianna Fáil when in office. They have ignored the warning of the Social and Economic Research Institute. They have ignored the warning given from these benches and they have ignored the warning of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. They will not listen. Who will pay for the Government's ineptitude in regard to the housing of the people? It is the people who are on the house waiting list. The construction industry is grinding slowly to a halt. The Department of Labour through their employment bureau can tell us the number who are unemployed. The Central Statistics Office can tell us how many building workers are unemployed. The Minister has no trouble getting information from his own sources. If he took time off to talk to some of the people who have been looking for houses, whether they be purchase houses, rented houses or an old person's flat or maisonette, he would realise that there is something radically wrong with the construction industry as financed by the Government.
It gives me no pleasure to speak of the sufferings of the young and the old. The Minister has a duty to tackle in a proper way the problems of the construction industry and its 20,000 plus unemployed plus the thousands of people who are on the housing waiting list. There is a man-sized problem, and the Minister is the only one who has the resources to tackle this problem. We cannot command action. However, the Minister has been appealed to by three important bodies in the State, the Economic and Social Research Institute, the Congress of Trade Unions and, last but by no means least, the Fianna Fáil Party. If these three organisations are thinking alike on the gravity of the housing problem, the Minister and his Government will have to wake up to their responsibilities. If they do not wish to do that they have another option open to them, to vacate office and allow in a Government that will tackle the housing problem as was done in a traditional way. We could boast of the houses we built, but that is an empty exercise. I cannot boast of houses being built by any Government as long as I can see thousands of young people on the waiting list. The Minister may laugh cynically at the people who are on the housing waiting list.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputies opposite will have to take this.
He is talking a lot of nonsense for the last 20 minutes. He has ten minutes to go.
When Deputy Moore talks about Fianna Fáil houses does he mean the Fianna Fáil houses with no fireplaces or no backdoors?
We did not interrupt the Deputy when he spoke last night.
I congratulate Deputy Flanagan on his conversion to the Coalition Party.
He was brought in from the cold.
He was brought in from the cold but he is not bringing in young couples who are on the streets of this city tonight——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Moore must be allowed his time.
I could take the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary around the streets of the city tonight and show them the housing problem, which you are aggravating. The Minister may smile at this.
I did not think the Chair was aggravating the housing problem.
If the Deputy would address the Chair there might not be so many interruptions.
It is very hard to keep calm here while the Minister sneers at the people, the young and the old, who are waiting for houses. This Coalition cynicism must end shortly, and the Minister and Deputy Flanagan will have to render an account of their stewardship to the people. There is only one answer they will get. This is the Minister's third time to meddle with the construction industry. In fairness to the Minister, let me say that Deputy Flanagan has more experience of this than he has. He was there twice before when the the Coalition Government wrecked the industry.
(Interruptions.)
I was only laughing at the Fianna Fáil houses with no backdoors and no fireplaces.
Under the Coalition, they have not got a house, never mind a backdoor. The housing situation is the responsibility of the Government. We have helped out with suggestions, and have joined with the Congress of Trade Unions in giving advice. We look forward to the next election because, despite gerrymandering and everything else, nothing will stop the wrath of the people who are without houses, and they will put this Government out of office, but they will put in a Government who will not make such serious blunders as to allow a thriving construction industry to grind slowly to a halt.
Fianna Fáil cut the fireplaces out.
This is a limited-time debate.
If you want evidence, it is there at the employment exchanges in the form of the 22,000 building workers who cannot get jobs or in the thousands of people who are on the housing waiting list. The Minister need not take my word for these things. The Minister has power to demand these figures from local authorities; I have not.
If the Minister has some political venom against us on this side of the House—and we do not worry about that—he does not have to accept our word, but he should listen to the pleas of the Congress of Trade Unions or the ESRI, but above all he should listen to the pleas of the old people who cannot get a dwelling or the young people who cannot afford a new house because the Minister put it outside their reach (a) by abolishing the State grant and (b) by allowing the price of houses to rise so much that daily they are going beyond the resources of young couples. If we can agree on one thing it should be that there is a housing problem, and the onus is on him to respond to our suggestions and produce a solution.
This debate started off yesterday evening with Deputy Faulkner appealing to me not to throw statistics at him. He was very anxious not to be baffled by facts, because facts are confusing to people who do not want to know what has actually happened. It is nice to be able to say: "We know the statistics. We have heard them so often, and we want something else." He proceeded to give his version of what the state of house building was in this country. He was followed later on by Deputy Raphael Burke who took the same line, and now Deputy Moore has spoken. Perhaps it was unfair that I did not stand up earlier, because Deputy Moore, not having prepared anything, had nothing to say.
This country, in common with most of the nations throughout the world, and more powerful nations, is passing through a period of economic crisis unparalleled in recent years. The Deputies opposite would lay all the blame for inflation on the shoulders of this Government. In practically every other country where inflation is causing trouble reasonable opposition parties are pulling together with the Government for the purpose of promoting the national interest, but here it is not so. Here Fianna Fáil, who thought they had a divine right to rule this country and suddenly found themselves out in the cold, can never forgive the National Coalition for putting them out there. The result is they have been using this stupid claptrap in this debate.
Does anybody in his sober senses think there was not a housing crisis in this country when the National Coalition Government took over? If they think there was no housing crisis, as was suggested by Deputy Moore a few minutes ago, they do not know what was happening.
From the time I started as Minister for Local Government I realised we had a crisis in housing on two fronts. We had a crisis because of the fact that not enough houses were being built. We had a crisis because the number of local authority houses being built, small as it was, were substandard houses. People should not be asked to live in substandard conditions. The Parliamentary Secretary was quite correct when he said the best Fianna Fáil could build were the houses with no fireplace, no back door and no back entrance. Reference was made to a few houses out in Finglas without back doors which were completed during my term of office. They were planned during Fianna Fáil's time. Unless I stopped the whole scheme I could not do anything about that. They were end houses. Perhaps now looking back I would have been wiser if I stopped the lot of them and had good houses built. The people living in them would be a lot happier.
I decided I would not have the substandard houses Fianna Fáil were building. I would not allow substandard local authority houses to be built. I would not ask anybody to go into a house such as I was asked to look at when they were completed. The blame does not rest with the designer, or the builder, or the people working on the scheme, or the local authority, or the NBA. It rests fairly and squarely with the Fianna Fáil Government. They said: "We have not a lot of money to spend on local authority housing. We will do the best we can with whatever small amount we have". In fact, it is on record that they decided it was wrong to build houses which would last more than 25 or 30 years. That is the length of time houses were supposed to last under the Fianna Fáil Government and then the unfortunate tenants were asked to buy them under the 35 year purchase scheme at a ridiculous price.
As we all know, the present Government took office almost three years ago in March, 1973. In the year ended 31st March, 1973, the previous Administration had provided from the Exchequer a total of £46 million capital for all housing purposes. We increased that by 50 per cent to £68 million in 1973-74, and this year the total will be £122 million —more than two-and-a-half times what Fianna Fáil were doing in 1972-73. Indeed, housing now accounts for about 30 per cent of the public capital programme. There seemed to be some kind of a ridiculous idea in the minds of at least two of the Fianna Fáil speakers last night and tonight that, in some peculiar way, because Fianna Fáil gave only that amount of money and because they built a number of houses—the figure given was 22,000; I will deal with that in a minute— with a ridiculously small sum, it was wrong for this Government to provide the necessary money to have 25,000 houses erected each year. In the next breath they wanted to know why we were not giving an immensely larger sum for houses. This is the sort of twisted thinking some Fianna Fáil speakers seem to find quite easy to put across to satisfy themselves. They do not satisfy me and I do not think they satisfy anybody else inside or outside the House. Ridiculous nonsense is the only description I can give of the arguments these people are putting up.
I have great pleasure in telling the House that the Government's annual target of 25,000 new dwellings was again handsomely exceeded in 1975 for the third year running. The preliminary figure for new house completions in 1975 is 25,900, bringing to 75,000 the number of new buildings completed in the three years ended 31st December, 1975, as compared with only 51,000 in the last three years of Fianna Fáil administration. Deputy Moore might remember that. There was the difference between 51,000 and 75,000 houses. There are 24,000 families who would not now be housed if Fianna Fáil were in office who are in good houses under the National Coalition Government. He should remember that when he meets those people on the street—all the young people he talked about. I doubt if it was down in Irishtown. I have good news for him if it was, because I have signed a CPO for the City Quay recently and negotiations are going on to acquire land. Nobody in Fianna Fáil had the guts to tackle the rack landlords of this city to make them hand over derelict buildings which should have been acquired years ago when houses could be built cheaply. They did not do anything about it. The result is that we will now have to pay a fairly hefty price for those old derelict dwellings. We will rebuild the City Quay and the centre of Dublin, not with the assistance of Fianna Fáil, but in spite of their obstruction over the years and at present in this House.
Deputy Ray Burke last night and for a while today was rather incoherent in his address on this motion. He gave a rather peculiar indication of his mathematical skills. According to him, Fianna Fáil spent £46 million of public capital in 1972-73 and produced 21,647 new houses. In 1976 this Government will spend £122 million and produce 25,000 houses. Therefore, according to the Deputy, housing costs have increased by 144 per cent in the past three years. Pocket calculators will go out of date if Deputy Burke keeps going at that rate. He is either trying to bamboozle the House or has succeeded in bamboozling himself.
As I pointed out to the Dáil on 20th November, 1973, as reported at column 37 of the Official Report, and on several occasions since, the number of houses completed in 1972-73 was not 21,647 but less than 20,000. The higher figure, as records in my Department clearly show, was distorted by the deferring until 1972-73 of the issue of about 2,000 grants for new houses due for payment in 1971-72 but for which the former Government had not provided enough funds in that year. Secondly, the houses being built under the present Administration are not the substandard, so-called "low-cost" dwellings, imposed on local authorities by Fianna Fáil. They are good, soundly built and spacious houses.
Thirdly, we do not commence and complete the programmed number of houses all within the one year. It is futile, as Deputy Burke did, to divide that number of houses into the capital provided and come up with a simple quotient. A housing programme is an on-going affair. Money has to be spent all the time not just in respect of houses being handed over, but also on the forward acquisition and development of land and the financing of construction work in progress. For instance, local authorities held nearly 42,000 sites for future housing development at the change of Government in 1973. The total is now 72,000 sites. This land bank had to be paid for. A lesser number of houses were not being built. In fact, more houses were built.
It is also fair to say that with regard to the question of the number of grants that were not paid in one year and were carried forward to the next year, I suppose because the money was there, this had to be done. We have not done that. In the first year in which I was in office, we completed 25,365 houses. If we wanted to do it, we could have carried forward the 365 to make a start for the next year. We did not. We announced the figure. The next year we built about 26,600 houses. Again we could have carried forward over 1,600 houses. We did not. They were built and announced, although our number for each year was mentioned as being 25,000. We build 25,000 houses. That is what we said we would do and that would have been quite satisfactory. We built over that and we gave the exact figures. In the third year, the figures was 25,900 houses.
The extraordinary thing about all this is that Fianna Fáil keep saying —and for quite some time some of the people and organisations associated with them kept saying—that we were fiddling the figures. There is no fiddling of the figures. It is not possible even if we wanted to. I explained the only way in which it could be done and Fianna Fáil used that in 1972-73. But, apart from that, there is no fiddling of figures and the position is that, in order to do what is suggested, not alone would the Minister have to be dishonest, but his officials, the county managers, the builders, the ESB and various organisations throughout the country associated with the building industry would all have to be dishonest in order to prove the point Fianna Fáil are making, namely, that what they thought was good enough for 12 years when they were in office is not good enough when they are out of office. That sort of argument will not carry weight any longer. We are doing the job in a decent way. We are giving the correct figures and I will not take it from Fianna Fáil if they try to put about the story that we are fiddling figures in order to make things look bigger. In one year, in two years, in three year we have exceeded the total and no one can get away from that.
While on the subject of local authority housing, the most striking feature of the housing programme in 1975 was the record output of local authority dwellings. Output exceeded 8,700 new dwellings, an all-time record. The previous highest figure for any year —7,787—was achieved by the first Coalition Government in 1950-51 and this was, of course, mainly due to the dedication and energy of the late T.J. Murphy, when Minister for Local Government, and it is fitting that the record which resulted from his efforts should be broken by another Coalition Government and by another Labour Minister.
The £65 million capital the Government is providing for the local authority housing programme in 1976 contrasts sharply with the £25.4 million made available in 1972-73 for that purpose. Not alone have the Government secured this huge increase in local authority housing output but they have provided a positive incentive to all local authorities to tackle energetically the housing problems in their areas. Before the change of Government in 1973 about half the annual nett cost of social housing fell on the rates and State subsidy amounted to £5.76 million. This year £29.4 million will be provided by my Department in housing subsidy and practically all the deficit on local authority housing is now being met by the Exchequer. Only £855,000 will have to be provided by ratepayers in 1976 and next year the State will carry the entire deficit.
On the private side it has been suggested, for some peculiar reason, that because I have insisted on those who are unable to house themselves being housed by the State as quickly as possible, I am trying to do down the private housing sector. I will agree there has been considerable pressure for big increases in the loan and income limits under local authorities for house purchase loans. Everyone knows that. I want to make two points. There is such a steady demand for the loans on the present basis that local authorities will advance £46 million this year under the schemes compared with less than £10 million in 1972-73. Equally important is the fact that if the loan limit were increased, as Deputy Burke demanded, to £6,000 and the income limit to £3,000, local authorities would be called on to advance not £46 million but nearly £100 million in 1976. Deputies who have been demanding revisions of the present limits should say whether they would welcome the necessary additional State borrowing or else they should indicate the services they would wish to have cut back in order to divert this huge amount of capital to local authorities' loans schemes. Should the money be raised by an increase in income tax or by way of a cut in social welfare, as some people in Fianna Fáil seem to think would be a good thing? I should like someone on the Opposition benches to comment on that.
Deputy Faulkner referred to the "colossal interest rate of 12½ per cent" on local authority loans. It is only right to put on record that this rate, which will remain fixed for the 30 years' duration of the loan, is being subsidised to the tune of 4 per cent by the Exchequer which has to pay more than 16 per cent on some of the capital raised for the local loans fund. It compares with an effective rate of up to 20 per cent charged by, and really paid to, hire purchase firms for consumer items which begin to depreciate in value from the date of purchase, unlike a house which continues to appreciate all the time.
From the contributions of Deputy Faulkner and Deputy Burke one would think that persons of modest means had to borrow house purchase loans from local authorities or else do without. The fact is this loan scheme is only one source of mortgage finance for the private housing market even for borrowers of limited incomes. The major source of finance is, of course, the building societies. The inflow of cash into the societies since early last year has been so high they were able to advance £60 million in house purchase loans during 1975. This is the highest amount they have ever paid in any year and represented an increase of 50 per cent on the £40 million lent in 1974. We expect it will be higher again in 1976. Loans are now more freely available from the societies than at any time in the past three years. House purchase loan schemes arranged by the Government with the banks are also going extremely well. Already the banks have approved loans totalling £13 million, leaving £27 million available in the banks for further approvals.
In so far as the overall position regarding house purchase loan finance for the year is concerned, I estimate that more than £150 million will be available during 1976 as compared with £61 million in 1972-1973. I am glad to say that the indications are that all of it will be taken up. How anyone could say the Government are not doing enough for housing when it cannot be denied that houses are being built at the rate of over 25,000 a year as compared with the miserly number of houses Fianna Fáil were erecting earlier I just do not know. Perhaps the key to this can be found in some of the statements made recently. The Leader of the Opposition on 17th December last at column 1785, repeated verbatim by him on 28th January, 1976, at columns 617 and 618 of the Official Report said:
We undertook in our housing programme, published in the late 'sixties and early 'seventies, that by 1972-73 we would have reached 25,000 houses output, which was reached.
The plain fact of the matter is that at no time did the Fianna Fáil housing programme approach a yearly output of 25,000 dwellings. The first mention of this target was in the 14-point plan published in February, 1973, by the National Coalition Parties. Two White Papers on housing were published by the former Government in the 'sixties and one in the early 'seventies. Apparently Deputy Lynch forgot—he did not tell a lie; he just forgot—that what he was saying was not correct. One of the White Papers was on "Housing Progress and Prospects" published in November, 1964, setting out of the housing programme for the period up to 1970. At page 25 it said: "The satisfaction of all needs would require an output of 12,000 to 13,000 houses a year but technical difficulties and the stress of demand on the building industry may prevent this level being attained immediately." In fact, the average annual output of new houses in the five years ended 31st March, 1970, was 12,188 so he was fairly close to the mark there but with less than half the number we are building now.
The Second Programme for Economic Expansion progress report for 1965 published in February, 1966, referred in paragraph 192 to an annual programme of 12,000 to 14,000 new houses by 1970. The White paper "Housing in the '70s" published in June, 1969, set out the then Government's housing programme up to 1975 as follows, on page 75: "If certain population and other projections materialise it is estimated that the number of houses required by the mid-1970s may be about 15,000 to 17,000 a year, Unofficial estimates put the likely levels after that in the mid-1980s at about 21,500 a year." Deputy Molloy, who was then Minister for Local Government, referred to this programme here in the Dáil on 27th December, 1971, and said in column 414 of the Official Report:
We have set up our targets for housing for the mid-'70s, targets that are based on a realistic appraisal of our needs. It is a matter of top priority with me that, subject only to the resources that we can generate for the purpose, these targets will be achieved.
The target for the mid-'70s was to achieve a house-building rate of between 15,000 and 17,000 per year.
This was borne out by the fact that the annual average output of 16,221 houses was achieved in the four years ended on 31st March, 1973. I am charitable enough to think the Deputy was misled by his expert advisers rather than that he set out deliberately to mislead the House. Deputy Lynch said there was no necessity whatever for a crash programme, as the Minister for Local Government announced.
The facts belie this assertion. The present Government have been building an average of 6,000 houses a year more than the best annual average of the previous Administration. All the houses have been occupied so obviously they were needed. The big increase in output was also necessary. At the change of Government more than 30,000 families were awaiting rehousing by local authorities. During the three years ended 31st March, 1973, an average of only 4,992 local authority houses had been completed. On that basis some families would have had to wait more than six years in unfit and overcrowded conditions before being rehoused. If Deputy Moore went around the streets that time he would find many, many more people who had not a hope in the world of being rehoused.
There are two matters which I should mention here. The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy O.J. Flanagan, referred to the fact that since I took office I have insisted on maisonettes, old folks' accommodation, being included in every public housing scheme. A sizeable number have been already built. We asked for 10 per cent and in most cases got it. It was remarkable that Deputy Moore should refer to old people who talk to him about not being able to get houses. I do not know why they talk to him because when he was on this side of the House he did not do anything for them. He could not get one house built for them. Why they should go to him now when he is in opposition beats me.
The Minister is not telling the truth.
I always tell the truth, as Deputy Moore knows. I would now like to refer to the number of houses being built. Deputy J. Lynch came in here on budget day and made a big thing of making a personal explanation to the effect that he did not say there were too many local authority houses built, but that there were too many local authority houses being built in relation to the number of private houses being built. Somebody ought to take time off to point out the difference in that statement. If there were too many local authority houses being built, I would like to know where. I would like to see how he analyses and proves that what he said was that he did not agree with the rate at which local authority houses were being built. Perhaps some of the people on his side of the House who are very good at this type of thing might be able to give an explanation some time; they might even issue a White Paper on it. Maybe they will explain it at the ard-fheis. That would be a good place to talk to the people who come up from the country who, they say, are representative of the working classes, and tell them whether Fianna Fáil are in favour of building more local authority houses, or are too many being built, even in relation to the number of houses being built by the private sector.
I think a slight slur was cast, I would not accuse Deputy J. Lynch of meaning it, when he said that in relation to those being built by people who want to own their own houses. I am glad to be able to say that those who now go in as tenants of local authority houses can buy them at a reasonable rate. They also own their own houses and are every bit as good——
There is nothing new about that.
If Deputy Faulkner is replying, perhaps he would explain how it is that people, for whom the figures were fixed when purchasing houses in his time, should come to me now wanting me to change the rate at which they bought their houses because, they say, they were robbed by Fianna Fáil? Fianna Fáil Deputies stand up and try to tell me that I am being unfair to those people, even though they know they backed to the hilt the regulation which was brought in by a Fianna Fáil Government, to use their own words, to rob them of their hard earned money when purchasing their houses.
The Minister will not let them sell their houses.
During the period when Fianna Fáil were in power the number of houses being bought were relatively small.
On a point of order, are we dealing with grants?
No, we are dealing with a motion and an amendment. If the Deputy had been in the House he would have been aware of what is happening. Unfortunately, he did not know.
I know what is happening.
The Deputy should take a lesson——
You change the Dáil Debates.
——on how these things are done and then he will know. You thought before your ard-fheis that you would bring in something which would do something for the fellows who had not opened their mouths for 12 months. You have got it now, so make the best of it.
Thirty thousand people applied to buy their houses last year. Those people would never have been able to buy their houses if a Fianna Fáil Government had been in office. Yet, some of your people had the hard neck to suggest that because of what we were doing, people could not own their own houses.
Our international rating, in terms of dwellings completed per thousand of the population between 1959 and 1973 was deplorable. Ours was the lowest of the 23 OECD countries. Our annual average of four houses per thousand was pathetically low, even compared with what are regarded as less progressive countries, such as Greece with 11.1, Iceland with 8.1, and Spain with 7.4. The Opposition Deputies had the audacity to suggest that their housing programme, if it can be called that, was something anybody could be proud of. Those are the facts. We were the laughing stock of Europe. Now that we are building a decent number of houses they have the nerve to complain.
I would like to conclude by giving a few figures which might help Deputy J. O'Leary who, I think, is about to speak. In 1972-73 the local authority dwellings completed in Kerry were 175, in Louth 54. In 1975, 466 were built in Kerry and in Louth 387. This is something which Deputies will be surprised to hear. In Dublin county 878 houses were built in 1972-73 as against 1,036 in 1975, and in Dublin city 1,394 in 1972-73 as against 1,529 in 1975. No matter what way one looks at it, the position has improved immensely in spite of inflation, opposition and every effort being made by people who should know better, who tried to prove that the housing industry was doing better than it actually was. Representatives of the building industry came to see me a few days ago. They wanted to talk about grants. While they did not like the fact that I was taking the grant away, they were satisfied I was making a fair effort to meet them. For Deputy Burke's edification, I also had the representatives of the housing co-op he talked about so much the other night, in with me an hour before Deputy Burke spoke. They never even mentioned grants. Incidentally, he misquoted Deputy B. Desmond because that Deputy did not say what Deputy Burke alleged. In fact, he voted against the motion and defeated a motion which Deputy Burke supported that night.
There is no point in anybody coming here and trying to say that this Government are not doing a great job for housing. We have a fine record. We are proud of our record, of what we are doing in Government. The proudest record which will go down in the history of this country is the number of houses which were built during the period of this the third Coalition Government.
I heard two people talking about the possibility of what Fianna Fáil would do when they got back into office. I do not know what will happen in the year 2076, or if there will be an interest in housing grants then, but if Fianna Fáil do not pull up their socks and do better in opposition than they are doing, even 2076 will see them out of office. I do not know who will be in office, but anyone who would be inclined to support Fianna Fáil would need to have his head examined.
In replying to this debate I would first like to say to the Minister that if he thinks by shouting and roaring across the House he will do some good for building more houses and providing grants, he is making a big mistake. It is regrettable the Minister did not give any reason why he withdrew the grant, which was the subject of this motion. He concentrated on the record of the Coalition Government. It must be remembered that the really significant breakthrough in housing was made during the last few years of the Fianna Fáil Government when the number of houses being built increased from 15,500 to 22,000.
Fianna Fáil never built 22,000 houses.
It must also be remembered that when the present Government took office, the foundations were laid for increasing that number rapidly, because the Government took over surplus building lands made available by Fianna Fáil and paid for by the Fianna Fáil Administration, as against the present position with circulars being sent to local authorities from the Department of Local Government asking them not to buy any more land for housing and not to be building up land banks around villages in rural Ireland. This is a disgraceful state of affairs.
It is not true, of course.
It is true and I can produce the circulars from the Minister. The Minister must bear in mind the fact that 50 per cent of our population are under the age of 25 years which means that more and more people will be looking for houses in the near future. The Minister tries to confuse the issue by quoting statistics and referring to the fact that £46 million was spent by Fianna Fáil in 1973 as against £122 million in the recent budget, a figure which, in real terms, is less than the amount provided last year. The real reason for the substantial increase from £46 million to £122 million was not the fact that more houses were built but that this Government failed to control prices. They disregarded price increases, particularly the price of building materials.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government last night asked us to tell him where we would get money from for this industry. The fact is that the Government have their priorities wrong; they should have housing high on their list of priorities.
What would the Deputy put down?
The Government's priorities are wrong and for the sake of £750,000 they decided to eliminate house grants for almost 95 per cent of those building their own houses. The grant has been withdrawn at a time when the building industry requires an injection of capital and at a time when 8,000 more are unemployed in the building trade than at the same time last year. It was suggested that the grants were scrapped because speculators and builders were pocketing the grants but that was a peculiar reason to cease the payment of them. If that was happening the Minister could have paid the grant to the first occupier of the house, as the local authorities do.
The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that the payment of the grants was stopped in order to provide assistance for the less well-off but if he believes that a single man with an income of £40 per week is well off and can afford to build a house without the aid of a grant he is out of touch with reality, like the members of the Cabinet. If the Government believe that a married man, with three or more children and an income of more than £45 per week, can build a house without the aid of a grant they are also out of touch with reality. They should bear in mind that the average income of those employed in industry was said to be in the region of £53 per week, a fact which was disclosed recently.
The loan limit of £4,500 is unrealistic when one bears in mind that the average cost of building a private house was quoted as £8,000. The loan limit represents 56 per cent of the cost and without the Government grant people will have to find the other 44 per cent, a difficult task. To add insult to injury the Minister increased twice within a period of two months the interest rates on local authority loans from 10½ per cent to 12½ per cent. The fact that these two increases came within months meant that there was, and still is, a substantial delay on the part of local authorities in paying loans to people. It is well-known that all the documents went back to solicitors to have fresh mortgage documents prepared. We must also remember that building materials increased in price by from 10 per cent to 25 per cent from 1st January, the day the Minister decided to do away with the new house grants.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the consent of the Minister for Local Government, did not publish those substantial increases in the newspapers and builders' providers were surprised that they were not notified after the increases had been sanctioned. That decision proved a massive blow to the building industry. It led to more unemployment in the building trade and allied industries. Some firms have since put their staff on a three-day week while others have laid staff off. It has also meant a substantial increase in the local authority housing list imposing a further burden on local authorities who are in serious financial difficulties with their housing accounts. For example, Kerry County Council owed £1,002,000 in January.
The Deputy is joking.
I am not. They owed that money to banks, builders and suppliers. The Government are out of touch. I should like to remind the Minister that the Labour Party conference in 1974 passed a resolution seeking to have housing loans and grants increased. Fianna Fáil are concerned about housing because the ordinary working man is anxious to build his own house. We are determined to restore the grants and increase them to a realistic figure. We are also determined to increase the amount of the SDA loan to a realistic figure.
It is important that the House is given the true facts. There was no debit balance on the Kerry County Council housing account in the current year.
There was and it amounted to £1,002,000.
The Deputy is mixed up.
I am not.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- 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.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Healy.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- 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.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles B.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Spring, Dan.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Lalor and Healy.
Question declared carried.