Deputy Moore was in possession and has five minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Housing Policy: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government's mismanagement of all matters appertaining to housing.
—(Deputy Faulkner.)
I thought it was seven minutes.
My note says five, Deputy.
I thought it was only two. The last time we had a Private Members' Motion on this the Opposition spokesman got ten minutes extra. We have to be very careful this time.
We are wasting time.
That is precisely the point.
Last evening I was speaking about the Minister's circular, No. H4/76, and its effect on Dublin Corporation. At present they have rejected it but I understand they will be speaking to the Minister in this regard. The result of its adoption will be that 400 men must be dismissed from the corporation's housing maintenance branch. In his circular the Minister stated that some local authorities, in previous years, failed to carry out a proper system of maintenance and were now indulging in extravagant schemes. In 1972 Dublin Corporation employed 941 men on housing maintenance. In 1976 they employ 965 men, an increase of 24 men in four years. Of course, one must remember that such dwellings would be four years old by now and that there were a lot more dwellings built in that period. Dublin Corporation, with all their faults, did not neglect proper maintenance of their housing stock. Nor did they indulge in any orgy of maintenance when the Government changed the system of housing finance.
I put it to the Minister that if his circular has any application to local authorities in general, certainly it has no application to the Dublin city centre. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to consider its withdrawal in so far as it affects Dublin and in that respect, I am sure he would have the support of all members of the corporation irrespective of their political affiliations.
One item to be axed under the provisions of the Minister's circular is central heating. We all know—even if it is in an amateurish sort of way— that any system-built dwelling must have central heating, and we have many of such buildings in this city at present. To force Dublin Corporation to pay the total bill for central heating constitutes a great penalty on their tenants. One must consider also that Government policy, in the last budget, imposed an extra 2p a gallon on fuel oil—I do not know how much that would entail in the corporation's services—but it yields the Exchequer £20 million a year in tax. I do know also that industry is complaining in that respect.
This year it will cost Dublin Corporation £870,000 to deal with squatting and the question of caretaking. We may blame the squatting on whoever we like. We may say the Government did not act sufficiently quickly to stop squatting when we appealed to them to do so. That is the collective responsibility of the Government and not of the Minister's Department alone. We find that squatting will cost, in the coming year, £200,000 and caretaking £678,000, in respect of which I know some subsidy will be paid. But central heating will cost £603,000. Those three figures taken together amount to £1,480,000 approximately. Therefore, because of the Minister's directive, Dublin Corporation must try to save £1.2 million.
I must now call another speaker, Deputy.
I shall just finish. That means Dublin Corporation must sack 400 men. I would appeal to the Minister to have talks with Dublin Corporation on that whole point. By foregoing the sums I mentioned the jobs of 400 men could be saved. Apart from the loss of those men, we must remember also that the dwellings which should be maintained will deteriorate further which in turn will entail a lot more money. Perhaps the Minister would talk with Dublin Corporation in a common effort to save the jobs of those 400 men.
I am glad to have an opportunity of speaking on this motion. Gloom regarding the building industry has been emanating from the far side of the House since 1973. Despite that, we built in excess of the number of houses we said we would build. That was despite the prophets of gloom inside and outside the House, and particularly the prominent Member who represents the building construction industry. He seems to have taken upon himself the role of chief Opposition spokesman on all matters now.
Deputy Moore spoke about the circular letter issued by the Minister and maintenance costs. He was talking about all of the houses built since 1973 and their additional maintenance costs. In 1972 there were 941 men employed and, in 1976, 965—very little difference. Deputy Moore attends corporation meetings regularly and should know that, in that period, we built 4,230 dwellings and sold 8,872. Therefore, we have now 4,642 fewer dwellings to service. Yet there are more maintenance men employed. That explodes Deputy Moore's very weak argument in that respect.
We had to maintain the houses before we sold them.
Order. Let there be no interruptions. Deputies must remember this is a debate to which a time limit applies.
Deputy Moore comes out with that kind of nonsense in what I would regard as a very serious debate. Deputy Moore spoke also of the mismanagement of housing, the guaranteed order housing. Who was responsible for that monster? Who was responsible, not for the low cost but cheap houses, houses on which we are now having to spend large amounts of money in maintenance? When we assumed office we decided it was time we gave the people of this city and country decent homes, not something substandard, as had been emanating from the far side of the House. They cannot get away from that.
To prove our bona fides on the type of house and standard we want in Dublin city, we organised an architectural competition and we had 85 entries, the standard being very high. This was a result of progressive thinking on this side of the House. We are not interested in substandard or low-cost housing. We are interested in giving our people the best. That is why we have drawn on all sections of industry to ensure that we get the best.
Take Dublin city—I am chairman of the Corporation Housing Committee—where, when we came into office, we found literally the inner core in utter shambles. When was a house built in it? It was a long time ago. The people of The Liberties, who had been agitating for years for good housing development to accommodate their community, found that their pleas fell on deaf ears. It was not long before we came to grips with the situation there. Now one can walk through The Coombe and see the development taking place there.
The City Quay community have been crying in the wilderness for years. When a CPO was formulated in 1965-66 it was turned down. There were no problems; it just did not suit the vested interests of the day. That CPO has now been approved and passed. We are about to develop the City Quay, cattle market and Smithfield areas and the houses in Clogher Road. These are basically centre city sites. We are not interested in substandard or low-cost housing. We are building the best. We are blending in with the areas to ensure that we are restoring our communities—we are not imposing anything on them—so that the people will feel a continuity with the past.
I was surprised at Deputy Moore's attitude to the Dublin housing programme. He picked on a very weak argument. He used a loss of jobs in a most despicable way. There is no question of 400 jobs being at stake and he knows that as well as I do. At the moment we must spend wisely on construction. Last year we spent £11.5 million on housing construction in Dublin city. Even in present hard times, this year we spent £23.7 million. Yet Fianna Fáil have the gall to stand up and complain of housing mismanagement and housing cut-backs. They are not codding anybody, not even themselves, when they complain of mismanagement. We know of mismanagement. We know the problems we inherited. We promised to build 25,000 houses and we kept that promise. We are not building just any kind of house. We are not building monuments we will regret. We do not have to look too far from this House to see the monument I am talking about which was built by Fianna Fáil. That monument was supposed to solve our housing problems. It was to save us. Let us face reality and talk about this problem.
We have a housing problem in Dublin city and the Minister recognises this. That is why this year he selected Dublin as an area that required special attention and provided a large sum of money. Deputy Moore says the Minister was playing politics and that was why he gave the money. Now he says there are cut backs in Dublin housing. This is ludicrous. It is not balanced thinking. It is treating this very serious matter as a joke. It is regrettable that the Deputy is playing petty politics.
As I said before and say again, Fianna Fáil put down these motions unwisely. When one hears the answers from this side one will realise that we are serious about this. If we have to cut back we will do so prudently. We will not cut back on good type house building. We do not want to have to go back to try to shore up low cost housing. Fianna Fáil are welcome to low cost housing; the people of Dublin want good housing. They did not get it from Fianna Fáil but they are getting it from us.
The motion as it appears on today's Order Paper reads:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government's mismanagement of all matters appertatining to housing.
So far this debate has centred on problems of prospective house purchasers, the problems of the construction industry with its massive unemployment, and the problems being faced by building companies. Before dealing with that side of the debate, I would like to refer to the problems of existing house owners who are also affected by the Government's mismanagement, in particular the plight of the unfortunate ratepayers who are being asked to pay ever spiralling rates in return for a deteriorating service, at a time when many of their families are being forced into the dole queues.
We all remember only too well that at the 1973 general election the country was assured by the Coalition that by transferring health and housing subsidies to a national charge this would result in a reduction in rates throughout the country. What are the facts? We have seen ever-increasing rates burdens being imposed on our people. Dublin County Council, the council on which I have the honour to be a member, illustrates the point clearly. In February, 1973, the rate was £5.80 in the pound. In February, 1976, the rate is £9.95, nearly double. This despite the fact that the people were assured at the time of the general election that the Coalition, by making health and housing subsidies a national charge, would reduce the rates. This has been shown up for the sham it is. The people can no longer face this annual ever-increasing massive rates burden. Fianna Fáil have committed themselves to removing rates from private houses and from that residential portion of commercial properties. This is the only solution to the ever-spiralling rates burden. The sooner the Minister and his Government realise this the better for the people.
The question can also be asked: what has happened to the health and housing subsidies that were supposedly given? There is a simple answer. In health this year there is a cut back of approximately £30 million which sees our health services falling apart and services which had been there for a number of years are being withdrawn. In housing we have the spectacle—
Is that in order?
The Deputy should speak to the motion. Health services are not related to the motion.
The motion is to do with housing and all matters appertaining to housing—
Not with health.
This is to do with housing.
Health matters are separate.
In housing we have the spectacle of the Minister sending a circular to local authorities. This referred to maintenance by local authorities and the supposed abuse by certain local authorities of the relief given. If this circular is put into effect our housing stock will deteriorate and this will result in unemployment in most of our local authorities. You can see the result in Dublin Corporation where a report was presented to the members on 6th May, signed by the city manager. In the section that referred to the employment of men involved in maintenance jobs it said: "Since only seven months remain in the account for the current year the necessary reduction in the housing maintenance labour force would be in the region of 400 men". This is not mere Fianna Fáil propaganda as was suggested by Deputy O'Brien. I do not think even the Deputy would accuse a city manager of being a Fianna Fáil Party hack.
The Deputy said that.
We have the situation where the housing maintenance labour force in Dublin Corporation will be reduced by 400 men. That is a fact.
It is not a fact.
What has happened in the Dublin Corporation area applies equally to other areas throughout the country. I wish to refer to the problems of existing householders and to the mismanagement by the Government of the ground rents situation. On 9th and 10th December, 1975, we had a debate in this House on a motion put down by Deputy Collins and others. That motion read as follows: "That Dáil Éireann deplores the Government's inaction in relation to ground rents". The Government then put down an amendment on the following lines: "That Dáil Éireann approves the Government's decision to prevent the creation of further ground rents". We might well ask, what decision?
In the course of his contribution to that debate at column 1142 of the Official Report dated 9th December, 1975, Deputy Andrews quoted a letter dated 3rd February, 1975, that was written to Deputy Browne arising out of representations to him from the residents in Enniscorthy, New Ross and Wexford town where there was a serious ground rent problem. The letter stated:
Dear Deputy,
I am directed by the Minister for Justice, Mr. P. Cooney, TD, to refer to your letter of 25th January concerning legislation on ground rents, particularly in relation to the position of——
At this stage the name of the individual on whose behalf Deputy Browne was making representations was mentioned.
——whose lease has eight years to run.
The Government intend to introduce legislation which will prohibit the creation of future ground rents on dwelling houses and the Minister hopes to be in a position to arrange for the circulation of the necessary Bill shortly after Easter.
The Easter in question was not Easter, 1976; it was Easter, 1975, but we have not yet seen the legislation that was to abolish the creation of the future ground rents. While the Minister dithers, ground rents are being created every day. Since that debate on 9th and 10th December last— working on the Minister's figure of 25,000 houses built each year and assuming that about three-quarters of the houses are privately built houses —about 7,000 new ground rents have been created. The Government voted against the Fianna Fáil motion and approved their own decision which was supposed to abolish ground rents, but where is the promised Government action? On the basis of the Minister's figures, at least 20,000 to 21,000 new ground rents must have been created since the letter I have quoted was sent to Deputy Browne. All that was needed was a simple Bill in this House. Fianna Fáil promised that we would give such a Bill a careful and speedy passage in order to ban the creation of the future ground rents.
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. I have given him some latitude but ground rents are not strictly related to this motion.
The motion condemns the Government's mismanagement in all matters appertaining to housing. Ground rents are involved in housing.
Ground rents involve separate legislation under a different Minister.
It is an integral part of housing.
I have given the Deputy some latitude but he may not continue further on that subject.
On a point of order, if the Chair reads the motion it will be seen that it is condemning the Government. If the Minister for Justice wishes to come in and sit beside the Minister for Local Government we will be quite happy.
I am willing to take on all the Opposition on my own and I will prove that in a few minutes.
Because of the Government's inaction and mismanagement existing house owners have had imposed on them the burden of crippling rates. The Government's lack of action, despite their many promises, with regard to ground rents has left house dwellers in an appalling situation.
I wish to refer again to the circular letter sent by the Minister. It included not only comments about repairs to local authority houses but it also referred to the forward purchase of land. The Minister was imposing strict regulations on local authorities with regard to the forward purchase of land for housing purposes. Surely it is sensible for local authorities to buy land in advance when it is available and when it can be purchased at a low price in the expectation that they will be able to build houses in some years time. However, according to the regulations set out in the Minister's circular letter it will be very difficult for local authorities to do this because they will have to carry many of the charges themselves.
The Minister has imposed regulations with regard to central heating in local authority houses. In the Ballymun flats complex which I have the honour to represent, according to the circular issued by the assistant city manager this will mean an increase of 31p to 86p per week for central heating charges. The maintenance of lifts is an item that comes under the circular sent by the Minister. Surely we all want to see lifts properly maintained.
As well as planning for future housing by the forward purchase of land it is essential to provide proper sewerage, water and road systems. In this connection I should like to quote from a circular presented by the assistant city and county manager on 8th March to Dublin County Council:
In letters of 13th February, 1976, the council was informed that the capital allocation for 1976 for major water and sewerage schemes is £4 million and for small schemes is £25,000. It was reported to the council at its meeting of 12th January, 1976, that its total estimated requirements of the council for 1976 was £9,809,828.
The requirement to meet expenditure already incurred and to carry on existing schemes and contracts in 1976 is £7,457,128. The allocation, therefore, falls short of the minimum requirement by approximately £3½ million. No reference has been made by the Department in their letters notifying the allocations as to how this shortfall should be financed. The matter has been taken up with the Department.
One of the major construction areas is within the boundaries of County Dublin because so many of the people on the corporation housing list are being rehoused in major corporation schemes such as Darndale, Poppintree, Tallaght and into Blanchardstown but the county council are prevented this year from providing the extra infrastructure because of the massive reduction in the amount of money they requested from the Minister. It was wrong for the Minister to provide only £4 million out of a projected £9 million. The Minister will say that he gave us £3 million last year and that he is giving us an extra £1 million but that is not the point. The point at issue was clearly outlined in the report I quoted. The requirements to meet expenditure already incurred, bills that are owed by the county council, to carry on existing schemes and contracts, such as the Grand Canal scheme, amount to £7½ million. That money would not have enabled them to start any new schemes but merely to carry on with the schemes in hand and to pay the money owed to contractors. The Minister gave the council £4 million and no indication as to where the other £3½ million is to come from.
How can a housing programme be planned if there is no forward purchase of land and there is a cut back in sanitary services? It is not possible to design a programme on that basis. Obviously, the Minister is aware that the day of reckoning is fast approaching and he is prepared to push everything available in his Department so that he can carry on with his artificial figure in relation to construction with no thought of future planning. When we take over from the Minister in the near future we will find ourselves without any land for advance planning. Most of the houses he is building at present are being erected on land purchased by the Fianna Fáil Administration. There is no forward planning for sanitary services because the Minister is not providing the money for this.
What I have said in relation to the sewerage and water programmes also applies to the road programme. In County Dublin last year we got £2,173,000 while this year we are getting £1,970,000, and that does not take into account the massive inflation or the cost of cement and other materials. To do the same amount of work this year as last year we would have needed an extra 25 to 30 per cent. This is all part of the mismanagement of the Government.
What is the situation with regard to the unfortunate young couples who are trying to buy houses at present? In the course of many motions discussed here we appealed to the Minister to increase the maximum amount of the SDA loan from £4,500 to £6,000 and to increase the maximum income limit from £2,350 to £3,000. It is three years since the Minister increased the maximum amount of loan available. At present private houses sell for something in the region of £8,500, but the Department's maximum loan is £4,500. To become eligible for such a loan the applicant must be earning less than £2,350. How could anybody expect young couples earning less than that amount to save £4,000 so that they could buy their own house? The Minister has put a further barrier in the way of those couples by deciding to pay the grant only to those who are eligible for the supplementary grants. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister described those who are debarred from obtaining these grants as "very wealthy people". Would the Minister consider that a person who earns £1,950, plus £100 for each dependant up to a maximum of three and a wife very wealthy? A little more than £40 per week seems to qualify those who earn that figure for the description, "very wealthy people".
The average wage for a skilled worker in the building industry is £55.93 per week and such a worker is debarred from getting a grant. An unskilled worker earns £47.95 per week and he is also debarred from obtaining that grant. They are included in the category of "very wealthy people" by the Parliamentary Secretary. Bearing in mind the financial constraints the Minister has spoken of it should be possible for him to alter his decision with regard to grants and SDA loans. He should leave the position as it was prior to January of this year.
On the question of SDA loans I should like to refer to the ludicrous situation which exists whereby the interest rates charged by building societies on mortgages are lower than those charged for local authority house loans. The local authority house loans are provided for those who are unable to get loans from building societies because they do not earn enough money. They get these SDA loans because of their low income; they have to be earning less than £2,350. The Minister then, through the Minister for Finance, charges a hefty 12½ per cent interest rate on local authority loans, far in excess of what the current rate is on the building society market. My colleague, Deputy Faulkner, had a question down to the Minister for Finance on this topic, and I quote the reply from column 24, Volume 290, of the Official Report of Tuesday, 27th April, 1976:
I would refer the Deputy to my reply to his question on this subject on 24th February, 1976.
Unlike building societies and banks lending rates the Exchequer lending rate, on which the rate for the local authority house loans is based, is a long-term fixed interest rate and is not subject to variation during the life of the loan. The market cost of such long-term funds is at present over 14½ per cent which means that the present rate of 12½ per cent charged on local authority house loans already involves a significant subsidy which has to be met from taxation. It would not be appropriate to reduce the rate at the present time.
Of course, it would be appropriate to reduce it. There is no matter of principle involved. The only principle involved is the principle that those who can least afford to pay are being asked to pay the most. I would ask the Minister to give some assistance to those unfortunate couples who are being charged this savage 12½ per cent by the local authorities.
The whole problem of the Government in regard to the question of housing is that one side of the Government benches have one view of where housing should be going and what areas should be getting the greatest help—that is on the side of the Minister and some of his colleagues—and the other side have the mentality displayed in that speech of Deputy Kelly, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, both completely contradictory. The Minister will probably tell us that the Parliamentary Secretary was expressing his personal view and there was no such thing as collective responsibility. Where did the principle of collective responsibility go, because each individual in this Government appears to be able to make his own statements on any subject; whether they are completely contradictory to those of other individuals is immaterial.
The most scandalous aspect of the present predicament of the building industry is in relation to unemployment. Last week the Taoiseach was asked the total number of building, contracting and works of construction workers registered at employment offices at 16th January, 1976, and I quote the reply from column 481, Volume 290, of the Official Report of the 4th May, 1976:
The total number of persons in the building, contracting and works of construction industry on the live register at 16th January, 1976, was 24,699.
If everything is as good in the construction industry as the Minister and his party try to tell us, how could we have 25,000 men unemployed in the building industry? The only way you can have such a number unemployed is that the situation is as bad as we have been saying it is for the last 18 months, and it is getting worse every day. We are not seeing the rise in employment we should see at this time of the year. The sin of it is that the construction industry generally is the one industry which is able to take rapid growth. With proper management by this Government, with proper investment in the building industry, with proper incentives given to workers and employers alike, you could see a dramatic increase in employment, practically over-night, in the building industry, because it is the one great industry that can rapidly expand and take up this great number of unemployed. This has always been the barometer of the health of an economy and particularly the Irish economy. In the previous two Coalitions it was the rock on which they foundered, and this time again it is the rock on which this regime will founder. For any Government to have in one sector of the economy alone nearly 25,000 people unemployed is an appalling indictment of their record, and I have no hesitation in recommending the Fianna Fáil motion to the House.
When I was a young lad there were a couple of football teams down in my part of the country and one of them, to put it mildly, was very bad. Nevertheless, they insisted on playing matches and competing in the championship each year, and they challenged the champions who were also in the area about four times a year, and in every case they were slaughtered. As a young boy, I asked the trainer of the beaten team: "What is wrong with your team? Why should they persist in going out and being hammered every time?" He said: "The only answer I can give you is that they are gluttons for punishment."
I have come to the conclusion, after listening, for the third time within 12 months, to the Fianna Fáil Party attempting to put across an attack on the housing programme, that they, too, must be gluttons for punishment. If we got a worse record than that displayed by Fianna Fáil from any Government in Europe, I would like to be shown it. The weakness of their arguments was displayed, first of all, by Deputy Faulkner—he is a decent man and I do not want to say anything hurtful about him—who made not the slightest effort to mount the attack that Deputy Burke has just been talking about. He spoke for 40 minutes but he did not say anything. There is very little to reply to in what he said.
He was followed by Deputy Moore who struck on something which I think it might have been as well if he kept away from, that is, the alleged 400 dismissals by Dublin Corporation. There is no question of 400 people being dismissed. He has got a document from an official of Dublin Corporation which says certain things may happen. He is also aware, as is Deputy Burke, that Dublin Corporation have asked to see me to discuss the matter. If Dublin Corporation have deputed Deputy Moore and Deputy Burke to raise the matter here in the House and to end it there, that is all right with me, but I believe the proper thing would have been to leave it until we discussed it to see if, in fact, there is any validity in the arguments being put across. My information does not tally with what Deputy Moore has been saying here.
It is here.
I have listened to the Deputy and I have read the document and, perhaps, I know as much about the matter as Deputy Moore or maybe a little bit more. I would suggest it would have been as well to leave the matter until we discussed it, or do Dublin Corporation not want to come in to discuss the matter? If they do not, then, perhaps, they can have their scare headlines and shout off the rooftops. It should be remembered that Dublin Corporation are responsible to the elected representatives and in the final analysis they are responsible to the Department of Local Government, and we can have the matter thrashed out at another level. They can have it either way, but I do not accept that 400 people are going to be dismissed, and scare headlines like this, which are the hallmark of Fianna Fáil.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Oliver Flanagan, last night talked about gloom and doom. On a previous occasion in this House I pointed out that when Fianna Fáil discovered they were not coming back to office in a matter of months, every time one of them got on his feet he always tried to do whatever harm he could to everybody in the country, even if it happened to damage the country or annoved unfortunate people. I know as much about working men as any Deputy on the far side of the House. If, for political purposes, they can damage them in any way, OK, that is great while it lasts but it does not last very long.
Before replying to the debate I will take up a couple of points. Deputy Burke was talking about Dublin County Council. In 1973-74 Dublin County Council had 604 houses built; in 1974 in a nine-month period, 878, and in 1975, 1,036 or a total of 2,518 for three years of National Coalition Government. In 1972-73 they had 878; in 1971-72 425, in 1970-71 278—a total of 1,581 for three years of Fianna Fáil Government. For a final figure the total housing allocation for 1972-73 for County Dublin was £4.96 million and for 1975 it is £20.60 million. Deputy Faulkner will have to teach some people how to count and how to add two and two, because obviously they are finding it difficult to do it over there.
Deputy Moore referred to central heating. Without taking a rigid stand on its cost or whether the cost should rank for subsidy, I should like to remind Deputy Moore that the schemes on which the problem arises were foisted on the Dublin Corporation by the Fianna Fáil Administration. The biggest problem arises in Ballymun where a totally alien system of habitation was foisted on the corporation by the Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government. As long as I am Minister such a scheme will not be built again. I do not think any member of Dublin Corporation would ever again see a Ballymun built in this city. The same type of system exists in Swan's Nest, Cromcastle and Keogh Square. Again under the low cost project hundreds of corporation houses were built without fireplaces or chimneys. It is typical of Fianna Fáil Deputies to expect the National Coalition Government to carry the financial can for the disastrous policies which they carried out.
The notice of motion deals with housing. Let me point out that there appears to be great difficulty on the part of Fianna Fáil to differentiate between the building industry and the house building industry, because the house building industry is about 43 per cent of the entire building industry. While I know there is unemployment in the building industry, the house building industry is now producing more houses than ever before, very many more than under Fianna Fáil.
I will give the figures in case Fianna Fáil have forgotten them. Deputy Faulkner referred to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, Deputy Kelly, that the State should not build houses for people but should assist people to build houses and change the new house plan scheme. Does Deputy Faulkner believe it is wrong to say that people should be encouraged to build their houses? The Parliamentary Secretary offered an opinion and there was a good deal of validity in that opinion. I would like to see and hope to encourage people building their own houses, but I did not go as far as Deputy Jack Lynch here in this House. He on more than one occasion, the last that I am aware of being the 28th January, 1976, as reported in the Official Report, Vol. 287, columns 617 and 618, said:
There are too many local authority houses being built as against houses owned by the people.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not say that. Deputy J. Lynch said it. I am quoting from the debate if anybody wants to challenge it——
A Deputy
The Minister is quoting out of context.
I am quoting exactly what Deputy J. Lynch said.
It is quoting out of context.
I am giving the full sentence, which is:
There are too many local authority houses being built as against houses owned by the people.
What Deputy Lynch said he subsequently did not deny. He raised it here on budget day and I quoted it to him then again. What he said was that in relation to the 25,982 houses which were built last year 8,730 odd local authority houses were too many.
Deputy Faulkner talked about the money that local authorities may spend on the maintenance and management of their houses in 1976. He said it is less in real terms than the amount spent in 1973-74 or 1972-73. Deputy Faulkner should check the facts. There is limit on this expenditure. Circular H4/76 of 20th February, 1976, will allow an expenditure of £15.945 million on management and maintenance in 1976 representing an increase of 83 per cent on the expenditure in 1973-74, which is very reasonable; allowing of the increase of 58 per cent in the consumer price index between May, 1973 and February, 1976 and an increase of 76 per cent in the building costs between April, 1973 and January, 1976. Deputy Faulkner was mixed up in that last night. He referred to the fact that 71 per cent was greater than 75 per cent. I know it was a slip of the tongue, but if he looks at the record he will see that he did say that.
That is a really silly suggestion on the part of the Minister.
I did not say the Deputy thought that but he did say it. He did not mean to say it. The Deputy's charge becomes even less sustainable when the position is compared with that in 1972-73. The limits imposed in 1976 represent an increase of 124 per cent on the expenditure of 1972-73 compared with an increase of 99 per cent in building costs between 1st April, 1972 and 1st January, 1976.
Deputy Moore spoke at length on the problems of housing construction in the case of Dublin Corporation and in particular about the danger that some of the corporation's maintenance staff might become unemployed. Dublin Corporation are coming in to see me, I understand, and we will discuss the matter then. I do not believe 400 men are going to be unemployed. It is unfair and unjust that anybody, either an official or a member of Dublin Corporation, should make a statement which will cause fear among a number of people without first checking the facts.
There is the document.
I do not believe in everything I see written in a document any more than I believe everything that is in the newspapers. If Deputy Moore wants to believe it because somebody has written it he is entitled to do so.
A number of Dublin Deputies pressed the point made in the subsidy circular of 20th February last that some local authorities have been undertaking ambitious schemes of structural improvements in recent years. Fortunately the number of cases in which local authorities have acted unreasonably is not large. However, I mention one instance in which a local authority prepared a scheme of improvements to some of their older houses. It was estimated at £2.5 million most of which would come from the Exchequer. The average provision for maintenance and repair of the entire housing estate of the same local authority would average £190,000 in each of the three years ended 31st March, 1973. I intend to issue a circular letter to local authorities about improvement work on dwellings when I receive information sought from local authorities last February.
A reference was made here, whether in order or not I do not know, to rates. I make two points about rates. First, Fianna Fáil three days before the last election announced that they proposed to take rates off housing. They did not say whether they were doing it off houses plus, they merely said housing. They did not know themselves whether they meant farm houses or city houses, and therefore I would not know. That was in February, 1973. In November, 1972 they had issued a very elaborate document in which they referred to the fact that their comment on rates was that an inquiry should be made into alternative methods of paying rates. Nothing else. In the following general election they made no reference whatever in their election manifesto to the matter of taking rates from houses. There is a Deputy in this House who had, it was alleged, 200,000 copies of a document ridiculing the suggestion of the Coalition that they would be able to take health and housing off rates, and he was very mad indeed, and rightly so, when the Fianna Fáil Party advised him to burn the whole lot. I hope he had not to pay for them.
It is a little bit much to hear Fianna Fáil talking now about what they propose to do. I would like to add further that but for the fact that there was a change of Government and that health and housing were taken from rates, rates would have been on average £4 in the £ more in every area in this country. Fianna Fáil could not have operated the system they were talking about. The Government's decision to restrict new house grants to persons who were eligible for reconstruction grants from local authorities came in for ill-informed criticisms in the course of the debate, and that decision has been described as a severe blow to persons in the lower income brackets buying modest homes. The criticism comes badly from the party which previously alleged that the grants were insignificant and were merely builder's pocket money. Indeed, on 28th October last, Deputy Callanan asserted that the grant would not be sufficient even to buy the nails needed to build a new house. Admittedly, after that when it was stopped the Fianna Fáil Party said they would do away with the building industry although according to one member of their party it would not buy the nails needed. Incidentally, spokesmen of Fianna Fáil who are going around the country telling people that the reconstruction grants have been done away with should be advised that they are wasting their time. Reconstruction grants for houses in this country have not been changed and there is no intention of changing them. One third of all the certificates of value issued by the Department last month for grant type houses have approved prices in excess of £12,000 a house. Prices between £15,000 and £19,000 for grant type houses in schemes in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Mayo and elsewhere throughout the country have been approved since March, 1976. Can any Deputy honestly claim that the withholding of a £275 or even a £375 grant for such houses is going to inflict hardship on the purchasers?
In so far as persons with limited incomes buying more reasonably priced houses are concerned, I want to emphasise that new house grants will continue to be allocated and paid to persons eligible on income or valuation basis for reconstruction grants from local authorities. This is not an unreasonably restrictive condition as the number of reconstruction grants paid in 1975 represented more than 60 per cent of the number of State grants paid in that year. I am satisfied that the substantial incentive of rates remission and exemption from stamp duty which will continue to apply to grant-type houses will be sufficient to maintain the level of output of such houses. Unlike the fixed grant, the amount of exemption is constantly rising and now amounts to about £1,100 on an average house. In addition, house purchasers benefit from the remission of income tax on the interest element on repayments of a mortgage loan and on insurance premiums on a house purchase policy.
The maximum grant of £275 was introduced in 1948 and was intended to stimulate private housing at a time when, under Fianna Fáil, the annual output was less than 1,000 houses per year. Last year the corresponding figure was nearly 16,000. In these times of pressure on the public purse the continued payment of new house grants on a free for all basis irrespective of income could not in my opinion be justified. Predictably also Deputy Faulkner repeated once again his criticism of the Government on the grounds that the loan and income limits for SDA loans have not been increased and the already highly subsidised interest payable by borrowers has not been cut to an even more uneconomic level.
There has been a steady demand for loans on the present basis and local authorities will advance about £40 million under schemes this year compared with less than £11 million in 1972-1973. Equally important is the fact that if the loan limit was increased to £6,000 and the income limit to £3,000 local authorities would be called on to advance not £40 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 taxation to meet this extra cost or else they should specify the public services which they wish to cut back in order to divert this huge amount of capital to local authorities loans schemes.
Deputy Faulkner talked about cutting back on schemes which were not more important. Perhaps when Deputy Faulkner is replying, we could have a suggestion as to what schemes he thinks should be cut back. Would he tell us who he wants sacked and where he thinks the money should not be paid? Does he have an idea as to how these huge sums of money could be saved? One mouth of Fianna Fáil will say: "We must cut back on public expenditure" and another mouth will say: "Spend more". They were not anxious to spend when the budget votes were being taken. I notice that on each occasion they walked into the "no" lobby. They made no effort to try to produce the money which they consider even now not to be enough to deal with the problem. They should put the money where their mouth is for a change and let us know whether or not they are prepared to vote for increased taxation in order to produce this money or tell us where they think the money can be found. Deputy Faulkner criticised the interest rate of 12½ per cent charged on local authority loans. I want 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 of 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 readily 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.
Deputies opposite strive to give the impression that persons of modest means have to borrow house purchase loans from local authorities or else do without, and take their place on the local authorities waiting list. In fact, this loan scheme is only one source of mortgage finance for the private housing market even for borrowers of limited incomes. This scheme took on a special importance in 1973 and 1974 because of the temporary scarcity at the time of adequate mortgage finance from other sources. To cope with that situation, the Government increased the capital provision for SDA loans from less than £10 million in 1972-73 to £21.74 million in 1973-74 and to £27.32 million in the nine months to the 31st December, 1974. Last year £45 million was provided. At the same time, to stimulate investment with and lending by building societies the Government introduced the special temporary interest subsidy for the societies and arranged special back-up loans for them to a total of £20 million from the commercial banks. The position in regard to mortgage finance for private housing has now changed so radically that further special support for either the SDA schemes or for building societies is not needed.
The inflow of cash into the building societies since early last year has been so high that they were able to advance £65 million in house purchase loans during 1975. This is the highest amount that they have ever paid in any year and represents an increase of over 50 per cent on the £40 million lent in 1974. Loans are now more freely available from the societies than at any time in the past three years even though the societies have been approving more than double the number of loans in recent months than in 1974. It is gratifying that the demand for loans continues to be as strong as ever. I confidently expect that the societies will advance substantially more than £80 million in the current year and we are told that there is a shortage of money for private housing. The house purchase loans scheme arranged by the Government with the banks is also going extremely well. Already the banks have approved loans totalling £13 million leaving £27 million available for further approvals. Building society finance is much more freely available and when the bank scheme is properly in operation I am hopeful that will diminish the tremendous financial burden the Government and the local authorities have had to shoulder in order to ensure that in so far as it was feasible the local authorities could cover the gaps created during the time when mortgage finance from other agencies was scarce. 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 1972-73. I am glad to say that the indications are that all of it will be taken up.
Deputy Faulkner wanted to know since I was taking credit for the upsurge in building society credit in 1976, would I take responsibility for what happened in 1974. That was the year in which there was a continuous cry of mortgage famine from the Opposition. At every opportunity they said that the building societies had no money to lend. In that year the societies paid out a total of £39.6 million. This was due in the main to the unprecedented measure taken by the Government in 1973 in making available to the societies a special subsidy. I have no hesitation in accepting responsibility for the fact that the societies were able at, perhaps, the most difficult time in their history to make a very substantial contribution to the housing programme in that year with the aid of that subsidy.
Deputy Faulkner also said a rather peculiar thing for somebody who apparently believes so much in private enterprise. He said that the Minister has not the right to throw over responsibility for the private sector to building societies and the banks. In other words, on the one hand he is saying: "There is too much money being made available" and on the other: "Why should the banks and the building societies be asked to provide some of this money?" Deputy Faulkner has a very short memory because, quite obviously, he has forgotten that Fianna Fáil provided less than £11 million for SDA loans in 1972-73. This year £42 million is being provided. The initiative taken by the Government last year in getting the two major associated banks to make house purchase loans was welcomed by representatives of the building industry and the general public. Since Fianna Fáil left office the Government have demonstrated very clearly that they are prepared to make good any short-fall in funds from private lending institutions in order to ensure that our housing target is reached.
A number of things seem to have been missed out completely by the Fianna Fáil Party in this motion. I could not understand why they should have decided to introduce it. They must have known that they were on a very sticky wicket, the Dublin Corporation representatives in particular. The people who three years ago were given only about £6 million for local authority housing last year got £12 million and this year got £23.7 million for the purpose of building houses.
Is Deputy Moore not told anything at corporation meetings? Is he not aware that this is the situation so far as Dublin Corporation are concerned? He came in and said to me that he wanted to know would extra money be made available. I should like to tell Deputy Moore that £11 million extra was made available this year. Did no one tell him about it? We have built more local authority houses than ever before—8,700 odd last year. Despite that, the land bank is growing. Dublin Corporation officials have told me that they are perfectly satisfied that they now have three years advance land for building. I have also told local authorities that if they are not able to carry on, if they require land for a three year programme, they are entitled to make arrangements to purchase the land.
In spite of that, we have this codology carried on by the Opposition in an attempt to give the impression that they are the people who built houses. They built a very small number of very bad local authority houses. The low cost schemes which they built in the last few years of their term of office are a disgrace to any Government. They nearly ruined very many respectable builders, people who have come to me and said that it was not their fault that the houses were bad. Deputy Moore talked about the pre-cast schemes, that these could not have anything but central heating. He should go and see where we have provided chimneys and fireplaces in some of these schemes that were built under Fianna Fáil and which were a disgrace.
I should like to refer to purchase schemes. With the permission of the Government, I changed the renting scheme and the purchase scheme for local authority houses in 1973 and people are now purchasing their own houses. As against about 600 houses being bought a few years ago over 30,000 houses were being bought in the last 12 months. Deputy Moore does not seem to understand that. The Deputies on Dublin Corporation do not seem to know that this is the situation.
The question of the claw-back is a big thing with some of them. They say you have no right to have a claw-back. I want to say quite plainly that a deputation came to me from the Dublin City Commissioners. I had reinstated the Dublin City Commissioners. Deputy Moore was one of those present. He said nothing. As one of the items on its agenda that deputation asked me to include a claw-back for a five year period, as did the Tenants Association when negotiating with me for the new rental scheme.
As far as the purchase scheme is concerned, people are buying houses they can afford. People are trying to saddle me with what Fianna Fáil did with the purchase scheme. I am not having that. If I can make some arrangement I will do so to try to take some of the burden off people's backs but not now. I am happy that those who are at present tenants of a corporation or a county council can buy their houses at a reasonable price.
To put down a motion such as this and waste the time of the House is a gimmick which Fianna Fáil must be as sick of as I am.
I am not particularly interested in the football stories of the Minister. I learned as a young boy of someone who went around puffing and blowing about what he was going to do and who never had the courage to do it. While I do not feel in the least deflated by the Minister's speech I do feel frightened, not by the content of the speech but by the fact that the Minister has once again come out with the same old reply. There is no recognition of the crisis in which the building industry is involved, no recognition of the unemployment situation in the industry, of the very large number of building workers who are now out of employment or of the fact that there is a continuing increase in the number on the live register related to the building industry.
The Minister has shown no recognition of the fact that the building industry is the one industry which could provide jobs quickly if properly directed and properly financed. We are all interested in getting new industry into the country and are pleased to see it but a new industry starts with a relatively low number of employees and takes a considerable time to reach its full potential. The building industry could provide jobs quickly. Under this Government there is a continuous fall in the number employed in the industry.
It frightens me that the Minister refuses to face up to the facts and that the Government refuse to face up to the facts. These facts are not being publicised by this party alone. They are referred to in statements made by the Congress of Trade Unions, by the Federated Union of Employers and by many and varied responsible bodies and by quite a number of the Minister's colleagues on local authorities.
Let me refer to the accusation made by the Minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, Deputy Flanagan and by Deputy O'Brien that we are attempting to spread gloom and doom throughout the country. We could not do that, for the very simple reason that there is gloom and doom throughout the country, basically because of mismanagement by this Coalition Government. There is gloom and doom among young people who will be leaving school very shortly and for whom there is no prospect of jobs. There is gloom and doom among the parents of these children, gloom and doom among those who have lost employment, particularly among those who have lost employment in the building industry. That gloom will not be lightened for those building workers who were hopeful that at last the Minister would face up to the very serious situation and would endeavour to do something about it so that they could get their jobs back. Instead, the Minister gave the same old litany we have heard on many occasions in this House and building workers are no closer to regaining their employment.
There is gloom and doom amongst industrialists who are frightened while this Government are in office to invest money in industry and thus provide jobs.
We on this side of the House had hoped that the Minister would at this stage face up to the situation and endeavour to convince the Government that it is necessary to provide more finance for this vital industry. Having listened to the Minister, I am afraid we have undertaken an impossible task, at least while this Government are in office. If only the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary would recognise that there is a problem which must be tackled at least some of our anxiety would be allayed. If we could be assured of the Minister's concern we would assume that he could endeavour to overcome the problem. At present all we are getting is a litany from him and this is of no help to those in need of employment.
I repeat that there is less money being made available for housing in real terms this year than there was last year. Last evening the Parliamentary Secretary quoted from a brief but he must have had considerable difficulty in choosing the most suitable figures from that brief. He told us that in 1975 £112 million was made available for housing while the figure for this year is £122 million. He asked whether we agreed that this was a worthwhile increase. If we were to take an inflation rate of 16 per cent and this is very much lower than what the figure is likely to be now, it would be necessary this year to make available £130 million if we were to equal the amount made available last year. But if we were to take the more realistic figure of a 20 per cent inflation rate, it would be necessary, to achieve the same equality, to provide this year £134.5 million. Therefore, it will be seen that the money provided this year falls far short of what is needed. I have said both here and outside on a number of occasions that to refer to amounts of money in these inflationary times in terms of comparison with moneys spent previously is a useless exercise. There is no way in which we can judge accurately what is the situation unless we have a guideline in relation to inflation.
Is it a useless exercise to refer to comparisons in house numbers?
Equally, I could ask the Minister whether it is futile to refer to numbers of unemployed. We find from the document issued by Dublin Corporation in relation to housing estate maintenance that in 1972-73 there were 941 men employed on this work which cost £2,456,044, that in 1973-74 the figures were 957 and £2,782,000 respectively, that in the nine-month period from the 1st April to 31st December, 1974, the figures were 901 and £2,484,000 respectively, that in 1975 the figures were 934 and £4,662,000 respectively while in 1976 the figures were 965 and £6,831,000 respectively. The point I wish to make is that the numbers employed on these services and schemes remained practically constant but that the cost increased from £2,500,000 to almost £7 million. If the Minister were to say to the people of Dublin that he is giving £7 million for this work compared with £2,500,000 in 1971-72, they would think they were doing well but we must remember that the employment aspect remains at the same level. There is no point in referring to millions of pounds if one does not have regard to inflation rates.
When he was referring a few moments ago to a speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach, the Minister said that the Parliamentary Secretary was concerned with the question of having people build their own houses. The Minister said that he, too, was very anxious to encourage people to build their own houses but is there any such encouragement for those people when the Minister has removed the grant of £325 which was available to people whose level of income is more than the level applicable to supplementary grants and when is he increasing the interest rate on SDA loans to a fantastic 12½ per cent? Also, he has refused to increase the maximum loan from £4,500, a figure set in May, 1973. He has refused, too, to increase the qualifying income limit for SDA loans from £2,350, a figure set also in May, 1973. Indeed, he has done everything possible to ensure that those who wish to build their own houses will not be able to do so. Consequently, either those people must go on the long list for local authority houses or approach the building societies which means that they will have to borrow more money than if they got the SDA loan since, as I said last night, houses built by means of SDA loans cost on average £8,000 while the comparative figure in so far as the building societies are concerned is £11,500.
This is a lot of nonsense.
Those people who apply for SDA loans because they can only afford that type of loan but who are not successful are being pushed on to the building societies. This will mean that in the future they will go from crisis to crisis in an effort to keep up payments. The State has a responsibility to look after those people but by his actions the Minister is ensuring that fewer people will either seek or qualify for SDA loans and in that way he is saving money to the Exchequer. Unfortunately, this will be done at the expense of those who will have the greatest difficulty in repaying building society loans. For those who cannot get a loan from either source, there is the prospect of waiting until Tibb's Eve for a council house.
The Minister was sarcastic in his remarks about our policy in regard to the removal of rates from dwelling houses. I assure the Minister that our policy in this regard remains and that when we are returned to office we will remove rates from dwelling houses.
We are back to Tibb's Eve again.
It will not be so long and that is why the Minister is so perturbed about this motion. Had we been returned to office in 1973 we could have removed those rates and charged the loss to buoyancy but there is very little buoyancy left in the Exchequer today. Rates are an intolerable burden on the people. I reiterate on behalf of this party that they will be removed from private dwellings when we return to office.
At what price?
In referring to loans and grants the Minister stated that there was no point in increasing the SDA loans from the £4,500 level and said that there was a wonderful demand for them. Yesterday I pointed out the facts in relation to Dublin County Council where last year there were applications from 1,262 people for SDA loans, whereas this year the number is only 539. In Drogheda there were loan applications in the first three months last year, January to March, from 29 people. This year seven such applications were received in the same period. If that is the way in which the Minister thinks he will rehouse people who have the courage and initiative to look for loans to build houses, it is a poor look out for them.
I will come back briefly to housing maintenance. We pointed out in the course of questions in the Dáil and on other occasions, including this debate, that the money made available for maintenance is not sufficient. We see the result of it in Dublin where the corporation have not got enough money for maintenance and there is a strong likelihood that 400 people will consequently lose employment. At a time when the unemployment lists are higher than ever, when the country is in such a serious state, particularly the building industry in which more and more workers are losing their jobs daily, it is a disgrace that 400 more people in Dublin will have to line up outside the labour exchanges. I recommend the motion very strongly and I am sure I will get support from several Deputies in the Government benches.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá 56; Níl 63.
Tá
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Browne, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- 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.
- 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.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, John T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- 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.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Browne; Níl, Deputies Kelly and Mrs. Desmond.
Question declared lost.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 13th May, 1976.