asked the Minister for Local Government the estimated cost to (a) the Exchequer and (b) local authorities of the low-rise mortgage scheme in 1977.
18.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Low Rise Mortgage Scheme.
17.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he will state where the local authorities will obtain money to subsidise the low-rise mortgage scheme.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 and 18 together. It is estimated that the scheme will cost the Exchequer about £2 million on capital and subsidy in 1977.
It is a matter for each local housing authority to decide whether or not to provide a supplementary subsidy under the scheme. If all housing authorities decide to pay the subsidy, the cost in 1977 will be between £50,000 and £75,000.
In view of the fact that the capital for the scheme will be drawn from the allocation for local authority housing, and noting the fact that hundreds fewer local authority houses were built in the first nine months of 1976 as compared with the corresponding period in 1975, would the Minister agree that there will be an even greater fall in the number of local authority houses built in future as a result of the scheme?
My object and the object of the Government is to house people who need rehousing. It is surprising to hear Deputy Faulkner asking that question. It is about 12 months since a comment was made from those benches that, in relation to the number of houses we were building, too many local authority houses were being built. It appears Deputy Faulkner would like to have it both ways.
I would assume that when local authority houses are built they are built for people to live in them. Will the Minister reply to Question No. 18 which he said he included in the reply but to which he has not replied, that is, if he will state where the local authorities will obtain money to subsidise the low-rise mortgage scheme?
I assume the local authorities will raise the money in the same way as they raise money for anything else. Deputy Faulkner should be aware of that. That is the reason we built so many houses; we built nearly 9,000 last year. Deputy Faulkner must be aware also that the best his party could do was slightly over 4,000. Therefore, I cannot for the life of me understand what he is beefing about.
It is a rather peculiar reply for the Minister to say that he would assume that local authorities would raise the money in some way or other. Seeing that the Minister has proposed that local authorities subsidise the low-rise mortgage rates, does he intend that local authorities would raise this money through the rates?
I said that local authorities will have the power to subsidise and, if they want to do so, then they would raise the money in whatever way they would be legally entitled. Perhaps Deputy Faulkner would tell me whether he is for or against the scheme.
I do not suppose it is my place to answer the Minister. But I would say that this scheme is no substitute for a proper SDA loans scheme we have advocated over the past two or three years.
Question No. 19.
Did I understand that the Minister did include Question No. 18 in his reply?
Yes.
It would appear that, not for the first time, the Minister has found himself somewhat at a disadvantage in that his reply did not contain the reply to the question put to him. In the circumstances would the Minister wish to have the question repeated so that he might give a considered reply?
No, I do not consider I am at a disadvantage; perhaps Deputy Colley is. I have given the information I considered necessary in reply to the two questions and that is as far as I can go.
It would appear that the Minister was at a disadvantage. I should like to register a protest at—I think it is fair to say—the repeated failure in the case of the Minister for Local Government to reply to questions specifically put to him.
Deputy Colley has a very short memory. If he would throw his mind back a few years he would realise the extreme difficulty experienced in getting replies, not alone here but elsewhere, from Deputy Colley when asked plain questions he, as Minister for Finance, should have known.
Would the Minister care to give even one example of what he is talking about?
Question No. 19, please.
The first one that comes to my mind is the famous television broadcast he gave a couple of nights before the election.
Question No. 19, please.
One was led to believe the Minister was referring to a situation in this House, because it would appear that this Minister and perhaps some of his colleagues are unaware of their specific obligation in this House to reply to questions put to them within the Rules of Order. It is no substitute for the Minister to try to engage in abuse if he fails, for perhaps more than the fourth occasion, to reply specifically to a question put to him. I would suggest the least the House could expect is an apology and not this kind of bluffing.
I have no objection if Deputy Colley wants to apologise to the House.
We have dwelt on these two questions for some considerable time. A final supplementary from Deputy Faulkner.
Both these questions are in my name. I did not get a reply to Question No. 18.
The Chair has no control over that.
I am entitled to ask some supplementaries in order to ascertain a reply to which I am entitled. I have already asked the Minister whether he proposes that local authorities should raise this money through the rates. I have not got a reply to that. Perhaps I might get one from the Minister now?
The reply I gave to Deputy Faulkner was that there are two elements involved, one for which the Department of Local Government is responsible and the other for which the local authorities are responsible. Therefore, if they wish to raise the money, it is a matter for them to decide what way they want to do so within the rules.
Question No. 19.
Is it not a fact that this scheme was simply a window-dressing one for the Labour Conference in Limerick?
I will take that up with Deputy Faulkner if both he and I are alive next year, when we will prove whether or not it was window-dressing. I am sick and tired listening to people like Deputy Faulkner talking about the number of houses that cannot be built. They have been built, year after year, since we took over. This petty attempt made every year coming up to Christmas—which is forgotten in the New Year when the figures are issued —shows how little they really know about housing.
Question No. 19, please.
The Minister cannot be proud of the most recent figures in relation to housing.
I shall count them when they are finished. We shall have 100,000 built in four years and that is approximately 30,000 more than the best Fianna Fáil could do in any four-year period.
On a point of order——
Is Deputy Colley pursuing a point of order?
On a point of order, the Chair has stated that he has no control over replies given by Ministers. May I ask if he has any control over a Minister's failure to give a reply of any kind? If he has not, what remedy is open to this House if its rights are being flouted in the way they have been by the Minister for Local Government today?
The Chair would be placed in an intolerable position in this House if he was made responsible for Minister's replies.
No, Sir, I am not suggesting you are responsible for the Minister's reply but there must be some remedy for a situation in which a Minister fails to reply to a question put to him within the Rules of Order.
Question No. 19.
Deputy Colley is not a member of a local authority. If he was he would know that there are certain ways local authorities are able to raise money. Within those methods, if they so desire, they are entitled to raise money for additional subsidies.
Next question, No. 19.
Are we to ignore this question——
I have called the next question, No. 19.
Are we to ignore this question of the abuse of the Rules of Order by a Minister? If that is the attitude I for one will feel just as free to ignore the rules of this House as is the Minister.