asked the Minister for Local Government the total number of private dwellings completed in the first nine months of (a) 1975 and (b) 1976; and the percentage change.
25.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Housing Statistics.
24.
asked the Minister for Local Government the total number of local authority dwellings completed in the first nine months of (a) 1975 and (b) 1976; and the percentage change.
26.
asked the Minister for Local Government the total number of dwellings completed in the first nine months of (a) 1975 and (b) 1976; and the percentage change.
27.
asked the Minister for Local Government the total number of dwellings authorised or begun in the first nine months of (a) 1975 and (b) 1976; and the percentage change.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 24 to 27, inclusive, together. As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose, also with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to have it circulated with the Official Report. Following is the statement:
The total numbers of dwellings recorded as completed in the first nine months of 1975 and 1976, respectively, and the percentage changes were as follows:
|
Local authority dwellings |
Non-local authority dwellings |
Total dwellings |
|
|
1975 January to September |
5,907 |
14,055 |
19,962 |
|
1976 January to September |
4,874 |
11,696 |
16,570 |
|
Percentage change |
-17.5% |
-16.8% |
-17.0% |
Indicators of housing starts recorded for the same periods are as follows:
|
Local authority dwellings |
Private dwellings for which grants were allocated by Department of Local Government |
Private dwellings for which certificates of reasonable value were issued |
Private dwellings for which Certificates of exemption were issued |
Other State- aided dwellings |
Other dwellings (estimated) |
|
|
1975 January to September |
5,145 |
12,236 |
7,240 |
nil |
237 |
1,410 |
|
1976 |
||||||
|
January |
||||||
|
to |
||||||
|
September |
4,486 |
5,420 |
7,498 |
422 |
225 |
1,200 to |
|
1,500 |
The total number of dwellings recorded as completed and the indicators of housing starts for 1975 and 1976, respectively, are not directly comparable because of the change in the new house grant scheme with effect from 1st January, 1976. The Department of Local Government had occasion recently to draw attention to the fact that there appears to be a significant number of cases where applications are not being received promptly for certificates of exemption and certificates of satisfactory completion of houses. The need for the prompt submission of these applications was stressed.
Arising from the change in the new house grant scheme, it is not possible to indicate the total number of dwellings authorised or begun during the period January to September, 1976. Consequently, it is not possible to give the percentage change compared with the corresponding period in 1975. Notwithstanding these reservations, it is expected that, over the four-year period ending 31st March next, the total number of dwellings completed will be of the order of 100,000 or 25,000 dwellings a year on average.
I am asking a supplementary on Question No. 24. Is the Minister aware that on more than one occasion when he referred to an expected fall in the number of local authority houses to be built he expressed the belief that the private housing sector would make up the difference in the total number of houses built? Does he accept now that this is not so and that his policy in relation to the private sector of the building industry has been a disaster?
I wish Deputy Faulkner would read the reply to the question. Regarding the specific question which Deputy Faulkner's supplementary refers to, he may or may not be aware that the number of houses which have been built over the past four years has exceeded the 25,000 target. This year even if the figure falls short it will still represent 100,000 houses in four years which is 30,000 odd more than his Government ever could do at the best even in the Swinging Sixties.
Is the Minister aware that in the first two or three years of the present Administration the plans were prepared and some of the houses were being built during that time, but as the Coalition have had to take responsibility for their own business in relation to house building, the number of houses is now beginning to fall?
Thankfully, the plans were not prepared for local authority houses after the first six months. The houses that were then being built were so bad that I would not consider it right to ask any human being to live in them and I changed them. The house plans had to be changed after approximately six months and since then all the plans and schemes are those on which this Government worked.
Deputy Faulkner also seems not to understand that when his Government were leaving office the amount of money which they were making available for housing in the year 1973 particularly for local authority houses, would not have allowed them to exceed this over slightly 4,000 houses which they built the previous year.
I can fully appreciate why the Minister does not want to reply to any question or supplementary question that I put down. Is the Minister aware that because of his policy in relation to SDA loans there are more families now on the waiting list for local authority houses at a time when there are less local authority houses being built? Does he not accept that the fall in the number of local authority houses built is a calamity in these circumstances, very particularly in a situation where a quarter of the building and construction workers are unemployed?
Deputy Faulkner has asked a number of questions and none of them bears any relation to the others. I assume that his effort is to try to make the matter more confused.
With regard to the question of local authority houses I repeat that the best Fianna Fáil could do with regard to them was slightly over 4,000 houses in any one year. This year, even at a reduced number, we will have over 6,500 local authority houses built. Last year we had 8,794 local authority houses built, so I do not know how Deputy Faulkner can talk about the reduced number of local authority houses. I would also point out that the reason why there are more people looking for local authority houses is that quite a number of people had given up any hope of ever getting a local authority house. As the leader of his party admitted here just 12 months ago, it was sometimes as long as seven years from the time a person went on the housing list until he could be rehoused by a local authority. That has now been done away with. Regarding SDA loans, the people who require money to build their own houses will now get that money under the new scheme which was announced recently.
Would the Minister answer the question instead of giving the same type of reply as he has been giving over the past few months? Would the Minister agree that the prospects for the future are poor and would he at this late stage show some concern for the building and construction industry, one of the most important industries we have and one which is presently leading the unemployment league table?
Again, Deputy Faulkner has been almost complaining about the fact that I do not give him the answer he wants. Perhaps he does not ask the question which would get that answer. Anyway, I have given him the correct answer to what he has been asking. With regard to the building industry, perhaps Deputy Faulkner would do a little bit of checking. As far as house-building is concerned it represents only about 40 per cent of the building industry, so again he is wide of the mark.
Arising further out of the Minister's reply, that does not get away from the fact that there are 30,000 building and construction workers unemployed at present. Would the Minister agree that the fact very many young people who would wish to build or buy their own houses through proper SDA loans are unable to do so, that this is the real reason why the numbers on the waiting list for the local authority houses have increased and that this is a disgraceful situation?
In view of the fact that every year more local authority houses were built than ever before, Deputy Faulkner is saying something to amuse himself. He must know he is not telling the truth.
In view of the Minister's failure to reply to any of the questions put to him by Deputy Faulkner, could I ask him whether that failure is due to inability or unwillingness?
I refer to Deputy Colley's effort on one occasion. Would that be due to inability or unwillingness? I have given an answer to every question I have been asked. The reason is that I know the answers. Perhaps the reason why Deputy Colley did not give the answer was that he did not know the answer.
Question No. 28.
Perhaps the Minister is losing touch with reality. Does he realise that what he is projecting here is the image of a man who is either unable or unwilling to answer any questions put to him?
I do not know who is responsible for suggesting that local authority houses were being built to last too long. Deputy Colley is the last person who should come in here to talk about local authority houses. He is one of the authors of the low-cost housing schemes which resulted in so many hundreds of people being stuck in the type of house they have now which is causing so much misery.
It will not be lost on people that the Minister is again bluffing and making a mystery of the fact that he has still refused to answer any single question put to him. He is either unable or unwilling to do so.
Deputy Colley last week tried to get us to sit down and not to be going in on what he was attempting to do. One asked a question and one obviously did not know what he was doing. I suggest he was very wise.
The question is on the inability or unwillingness to answer a question.
Question No. 28, please.
28.
asked the Minister for Local Government the number of SDA loans approved in the third quarter of (a) 1973 and (b) 1976; and the percentage change.
The numbers were 3,119 and 1,060 respectively. The percentage change was 66 per cent. The Deputy will, of course, appreciate that in the same periods the total numbers of loans approved from all sources were 5,324 and 5,176 respectively.
Would the Minister agree that his refusal to increase the maximum level of the SDA loans and the qualifying limits has wrecked the loan scheme and that this scheme was the backbone of the private sector of the building and construction industry?
I do not think that Deputy Faulkner understands that to do what he and some of his partners are suggesting when they are in Opposition—they were not too anxious to do it when they were on this side —would result in the necessity to provide an extra £50 to £60 million. Since that money was being provided by another source, the building societies, there was no necessity and the money is being very carefully used to deal with sanitary services, as Deputy Faulkner is aware.
When we were on that side of the House there was no need to do it——
A question, please.
——because the local loan levels were within easy reach of the price of houses at that time. Would the Minister agree that the local authorities, the building and construction industry, the trade unions and even the Labour Party have demanded that this increase be made and that the Minister still refuses to do so? This is basically what is destroying the private sector of the building industry and what is creating the crisis in the building industry at the present time. This is part of the reason why so many people are unemployed in the building industry.
The crisis in the building industry is a fiction of Deputy Faulkner's imagination if he is talking about the house building industry. With regard to the question of what Fianna Fáil would do if they were here, in November/December, 1972, a paper was issued by that party which said it was expected that over 20,000 new houses would be required by the 1980s. At that time they were only building 14,000 to 15,000 annually over a four-year period. That, compared with the 25,000 plus now being built, shows the codology Deputy Faulkner carries on with here.
The Minister, of course, will be aware that we built approximately 22,000 houses in our last year, that the plans were made for the building of very many more houses in the following year.
A question, please.
Surely the Minister cannot expect satisfaction with a situation where the number of SDA loans approved has dropped by 66 per cent since 1973 particularly in circumstances, as I already pointed out, where there are so many people unemployed in the industry which is capable of providing that employment if it were properly financed?
May I repeat that Fianna Fáil were only able to build an average of about 14,000 to 15,000 houses over any four-year period compared with our 25,000? May I also point out that, although it is true that 22,500 houses were listed as having been completed in the last year Fianna Fáil were in office, 1,500 of those were built the previous year, but there was not money to pay so they were not included until the next year. It should be, instead of 19,000 one year and 22,000 the next, 22,500 the previous year. Deputy Faulkner is aware that his party have been calling for a reduction in the amount of public expenditure and his leader stated in the House that in relation to the number of houses being built there were too many local authority houses being built. He does not deny that. In view of that is it not a lot of cod to listen to Deputy Faulkner here today? The Deputy cannot deny that.
I deny that.
The Deputy's leader said it was the truth.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
The Minister should withdraw what he said.
I do not withdraw anything I said. If I have to withdraw something I withdraw it immediately and I have not to be dragged into the court to do it.
Deputy Callanan for a final supplementary.
Does the Minister agree with the Central Bank report?
Somebody who is an elder statesman like Deputy Wilson would know more about the Central Bank report than I would.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister did not answer my question.
I have called Deputy John Callanan.
When the Minister cools down, one of the things he surely will agree with is that three years ago the loan plus the grant, totalling £4,500, was adequate to build a house. At the moment the reason people cannot build their own houses is that they cannot get loans. If those people have to look for a loan from the building societies they have to have investments in them. This is the reason people who were able to build their own houses three or four years ago are not able to do it now. That is the reason for the long list.
A question please.
I have great respect for Deputy Callanan. I would like to point out to him that the farming community and those engaged in agriculture can still get loans without any difficulty. They are doing so and are building their houses. I am sure Deputy Callanan will admit to me that there were more houses built in the last three years in Galway and Mayo than were built in the previous 20 years.
I am talking about the private sector.
Arising out of all the Minister's supplementary replies and his reply to my questions, can we now take it that he is quite satisfied to have one-fourth of the building and construction industry workers unemployed?
I am sorry Deputy Faulkner did not understand what I said.
I understood quite well.
May I point out to Deputy Faulkner that housing represents 40 per cent of the building and construction industry and to ask a question like that does not make sense.
Question No. 32.
May I ask the Minister——
Order. I have allowed a long series of questions. I propose to go on to the next question after——
The Chair did not allow mine.
I allowed a series. I am allowing the Deputy now a brief question.
Does the Minister agree with the Central Bank report, page 13, paragraph 2, where it says there was to be an increase of 24.4 per cent in public capital expenditure this year, that at the end of September it was 1.2 per cent and that this was mainly due to the fact that local government funds were not available?
Does Deputy Wilson not understand that his party have been condemning excessive public expenditure? The Deputy does not like the answer he is getting but that does not make it untrue.
Is the Minister aware that the building and construction industry is the biggest single sector of unemployment?
The Deputy is talking about two different things.