I have been in negotiation with the Whips and I have not yet got any time to move our amendment. Could we arrange to have five minutes from either the Government or the Opposition?
Private Members' Business. - Local Authority Rents: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy R. Burke on Tuesday, 4 November 1986:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for the Environment and the Government to rescind their directive giving City and County Managers the power to fix local authority rents and to restore to local authority tenants representatives, the National Association of Tenants Organisations, their right to negotiate a national uniform rents scheme on behalf of tenants.
Debate resumed on amendment No. a.1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann endorses the terms of the recent circular to local authorities devolving responsibility for rents of local authority houses and, in particular, the requirements that:
—the rent payable should be related to income and a smaller proportion of income should be required from low income households;
—allowances should be made for dependent children;
—a contribution towards rent should be required from subsidiary earners in the household; and
—provision should be included for the acceptance of a lower rent than that required under the terms of the scheme in exceptional cases where payment of the normal rent would give rise to hardship."
—(Minister for the Environment.)
That will be more appropriate in about 30 seconds.
By agreement and notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders——
Will the Minister agree that I can have five minutes?
Will the Deputy please give way to the Minister of State and he can say what he has to say then.
——Members will be called in Private Members' time as follows: Fianna Fáil speaker, 7 o'clock to 7.05 p.m.; 7.05 to 7.20 p.m., Fianna Fáil speaker; 7.20 p.m. to 7.25 p.m., Progressive Democrat speaker; 7.25 p.m. to 7.35 p.m., Government speaker; 7.35 p.m. to 7.50 p.m., Government speaker; 7.50 p.m. to 8.10 p.m., Fianna Fáil speaker; 8.10 p.m. to 8.15 p.m., Government speaker and 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m., Fianna Fáil speaker.
Is that agreed?
I have been in discussion with both Whips and I have not yet succeeded in getting time to move the amendment. It is a short amendment and five minutes would be adequate.
The Minister created a very bad precedent when he agreed last night to give five minutes to the Progressive Democrats who do not even have an amendment to this motion.
Only last week I announced that a Fianna Fáil speaker——
Our time is being wasted as happened last night by Deputy Molloy when we lost six minutes. In view of the fact that The Workers' Party have an amendment to the motion we would agree to give them five minutes of our time, from 8.05 p.m. to 8.10 p.m.
I have created no precedent whatsoever. This happens quite frequently. Only last week when I announced the list of speakers I discovered that an Independent speaker was given time. It is up to the Opposition to do what they like but that, in my view, created the precedent. Let us not talk about creating precedents. I indicated last night what I was doing and everybody was aware of what I was doing.
Let us hope that this is a democratic institution. People who have been democratically elected should be entitled to speak.
This is the first time Deputy Mac Giolla was in the House in a long time.
I appeal to Deputies not to waste any more time. Is the schedule read out by the Minister of State agreed subject to provision of time for The Workers' Party between 8.05 and 8.10 p.m.?
Agreed.
Deputy Wallace, your time is practically up. You have one minute.
I will come back to one or two points made by the Minister last night. He was unfair to Fianna Fáil in his contribution which was absolutely diabolical. He spoke about everything but the issue before the House. I asked him to clarify some of the points particularly when he referred to Fianna Fáil personnel or public representatives down the country advocating rent strikes and advising people irresponsibly to withhold their rents. I asked the Minister to substantiate that last night but he did not do so. I hope the Minister of State will do so in his contribution.
The Deputy has one minute.
I have five minutes.
You have one minute now, Deputy. Actually your time is up.
I was allocated five minutes but because of the nonsense going on here I am inhibited from speaking.
I am calling the next Fianna Fáil speaker.
It is easy for the Minister to laugh. He was not laughing last night. He got quite annoyed when he was told the truth by this side of the House.
I am calling the next Fianna Fáil speaker.
I appeal to the Minister at this late stage to accept our motion, to meet the tenants' associations so as to resolve this problem and avoid a further rent strike.
I am calling Deputy Calleary.
People like myself were very familiar with the situation in 1972. We do not want a repetition of it.
I would like to pick up the point that was being made by Deputy Wallace. Perhaps we might get some clarification on it. Too often charges are sent hither and thither across the House without any consideration as to what might happen as a result of them. If charges of the nature Deputy Wallace mentioned have been made, they should be substantiated. I do not think any public representative, certainly not any that I know, would embark on something that would cause a tremendous amount of difficulty, not to that public representative, but to the people to whom the advice had been given. It would be a very serious matter if a public representative did that. If the Minister has evidence of that he should give it to the House so that it can be dealt with.
In the very short period of time that has been allocated to me I would like, in the strongest possible terms, to support what I think is a very sensible Fianna Fáil motion, that is, that Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for the Environment and the Government to rescind their directive giving city and county managers the power to fix local authority rents and to restore to local authority tenants representatives, the National Association of Tenants' Organisations, their right to negotiate a national uniform rents scheme on behalf of tenants. It is stretching credibility to the ultimate to think that this change from central control will mean an improvement in the services to the tenants. Since this announcement was made various Government spokesmen lauded the change stating that it is a further indication of the commitment of this Government towards the devolution of more power to the local authorities. It is another pointer to the Government's desire and determination to make local authorities more relevant and to give them a greater say in their own decision-making.
I would like to pose the question as to what the Government are really doing here. They are involved in a cynical exercise of sleight of hand designed to create the illusion that they are genuine in their statement in relation to the devolution of more power to local authorities, in their declaration that they will give them real authority and relevance. This so-called devolution of powers was sold as an indicator of the Government's intent and commitment, but the reality which took some time to appear is completely different like so many other examples of action by this discredited Government. When the proposal was examined it became evident that, far from power being devolved to local authority representatives, as was first indicated, power was being made an executive function.
One would have thought this Government would have learned a lesson from the 1983 legislation which gave the city and county managers power to impose service charges. For two years we saw the battle that created all around the country. We saw the Government, prior to the 1985 local elections, suddenly having a change of heart and having the gall to try to indicate that by giving power to the local authority members to charge water rates and service charges they were doing those local authority members a great favour. In reality they were just remedying the deplorable decision that Fianna Fáil warned them at the time would cause tremendous problems, but in a flurry of publicity they sought to convince people of their goodness and their generosity in changing their own decision.
Why was this decision made? The answer is simply a lack of political will and political courage. This Government for the purpose of political expediency and electoral advantage refused to increase local authority rents during 1984 and 1985 because of the European and local elections. That is how this scheme was born. They are now trying to use this opportunity under the guise of devolving power to the local authorities. They are running away from the risk that might attach to the raising of local authority rents.
The Government amendment even this week gives an indication of the chaos that will arise from this directive. I know it has been read before but it is important that it be read again. The amendment states that:
the rent payable should be related to income
It does not say why:
and a smaller proportion of income should be required from low income householders;
It does not say what that proportion is; it leaves it to each individual city manager. The amendment continues:
allowances should be made for dependent children;
Will the allowances in Dublin be greater or less than those in Cork, Mayo or Donegal? The next provision is:
a contribution towards rent should be required from subsidiary earners in the household;
That is a new one. It was there first and it was changed, now it is back again and now the city manager can carry the blame for something the Government have not got the courage to do. Next:
provision should be included for the acceptance of a lower rent than that required under the terms of the scheme in exceptional cases where payment of the normal rent would give rise to hardship.
That amendment is a recipe for chaos, confusion and disaster. That amendment, like the circular, has sent shivers through city managers and it has driven them into conclave. They are in the process of trying to see how they themselves can come to some consensus because as that amendment is now drafted it would mean different rents for people of the same income almost in every county. I am a member of Ballina District Council and Mayo County Council. The town of Ballina is approximately two and a half miles from the Sligo border. Three local authorities are operational in that area, Ballina District Council, Mayo County Council and just over the border Sligo County Council. Under this new directive that has been given to the city managers you could have local authority tenants on the same income with the same size of family and the same commitments but paying three different rents. That is a recipe for confusion and chaos and there is no logic at all to the decision that this Government have made.
It makes little sense — as a matter of fact it makes no sense at all — that this Government should seek to depart from a scheme which has been a great success over the past 12 years or so, a system that has given stability and peace throughout the country, that has given confidence to thousands of local authority tenants and that has enabled them through their organisations to have a say in how their rents were fixed. Most of their organisations are affiliated to the National Association of Tenants' Organisations who were the body who carried out the negotiations with the various Ministers of the various Governments over the last approximately 12 years. Why then, one can ask legitimately, do the Government seek to depart from a system that has brought that stability? The only reason that this well-proven system has been abandoned is the Government's lack of courage, the Government's need to wash their hands Pontius Pilate like of the slightest chance of having to raise rents. Because of this Government's determination to preserve themselves from any appearance of causing a rise in the cost of living, because of their determination to preserve——
Deputy Calleary has three minutes.
——their image, they are prepared to place in jeopardy the years of constructive, valued and helpful co-operation between NATO and the local authorities. The great point is that the Government will lose nothing. It will be the local authorities who again will have to implement decisions which the Government have not the courage themselves to implement, who will have to take on the consequences of reduced rates, confrontation and possible court actions, all because of the Government's desire to keep their blue-white image.
Through you, a Cheann Comhairle, I appeal even at this late stage to the Minister of State, a sensible man, and to the Government to have the courage to acknowledge that what they have done is wrong, to accept that they have made a mistake, to accept the Fianna Fáil motion here tonight and return to the system that has proved itself a very valuable aid to tenants, local authorities and the Government over a number of years. Let them have the courage to accept this motion and go back to the system that has been in operation for 12 years and has served not only local authority tenants, not only local authorities, but the country well over the years.
Deputy Molloy, and he has five minutes.
The Progressive Democrats support the devolving of power from central to local authorities because we believe it strengthens democracy to have strong, multipurpose local authorities providing the infrastructure for development and administering the services people avail of in their daily lives. Local authorities should be freed from the ultra vires rule and enabled to operate as progressive development corporations for their areas.
The reform of local government is urgently required. Although recent Governments have paid lip service to the idea, little has been done by way of positive action. There has been the odd gesture and pretence at doing something. An attempt is being made now to give the impression that this change in regard to rents is a major step in strengthening local government. It is not. The real truth is that the Government had decided to increase local authority rates quite some time ago, but when it came to actually applying the rates they funked it.
As I understand it, the Cabinet carefully considered a proposal from a Labour Minister for the Environment to substantially increase local authority rents, and collectively decided that the rents should be increased by 20 per cent approximately. This Cabinet decision was never implemented. It certainly had not been implemented up to the time of the change from Minister Kavanagh to Minister John Boland. What we all know now is that the Minister, like a good rugby outhalf has passed the buck to the county councils, to the county managers.
This decision it seems is designed to get the Minister off the hook.
It is clear the Government do not have the political will to implement their own decision. Already we have seen the result of this decision with managers now proposing increases of up to 20 per cent approximately in some local authority rents. It is not good enough for Government Ministers to pretend that this decision was motivated by the sole desire to see greater powers given to local authorities. To seek to convey such an impression displays a grossly cynical attitude on the part of the Minister and his Government colleagues. Prior to the local government elections in 1985 the Government published a document which listed a wide range of services and functions which were to be devolved to local authorities. The list included new house grants, improvement grants and other things. Nowhere did it say that local authority rents were to be devolved. This decision has more to do with political expediency than anything else.
Leaving that aside, I must ask if the change has any merit at all. Having carefully considered it, I conclude that it has some merit. I would prefer to see local authority members with more to say in important decisions affecting their councils. I must agree that it is preferable to have the manager make some of these decisions rather than the Minister who is remote from the problems of the individual tenants. The new situation at least allows the manager to fix local authority rents, and in doing so he must adhere strictly to the criteria laid down by the Minister. One can of course see the shadow of the Minister over each manager who has now to do the Minister's bidding on something that the Minister had not the courage to do himself, which of course is another sign of a weak Minister and of the weak Government we suffer under.
The only merit I see is that at least the manager has to sit down and deal with his local authority members at their regular meetings. He will be more likely to heed the pleadings of his members than a Minister might in a remote office in Dublin. Therefore, on balance, the Progressive Democrats feel that it is preferable to have the local authority involved, even though it is through the manager, rather than have total departmental control. There is too much central control in all our affairs. We do not support the Fianna Fáil motion which seeks to revert to that situation with no local involvement at all in rents. I see nothing wrong with the situation which allows the Galway Corporation to have lower local authority rents than, say, Dublin Corporation.
The Fianna Fáil motion is a regressive step and I am surprised that they have reversed their policy in this area. We recognise the right of the National Association of Tenants' Organisations to make representations to the Minister regarding matters affecting the level of rents, as we recognise the right of all legitimate representative groups to make their views known to Ministers, county managers and public representatives. We see no difficulty arising in this matter unless the Minister announces that NATO will not be allowed to make representations on rent matters in future. I do not think the Minister has made any such statement. We feel therefore that the second part of the Fianna Fáil motion is irrelevant.
All local authority tenants have the right to participate in the democratic election of members to represent them on their local council and in Dáil Éireann. It must always be the responsibilty of elected representatives to ensure that only fair and reasonable rents are levied, taking into account the condition of the dwelling, the income of the tenant and allowing for further reductions in hardship cases. The best representative of local authority tenants is a democratically elected local authority member.
The Minister's amendment introduces a new matter extraneous to the two principal proposals in the substantive motion put forward by Fianna Fáil. We do not support the Minister in his amendment and will oppose the motion proposed by Deputy Brady.
Before concluding I must put on record my dismay that some public servants in the Minister's office chose to make available to some members of this House a confidential Cabinet document outlining that Government decision to increase rents by 20 per cent approximately. Naturally an Opposition Member will always be ready to read such documents if they are placed before him but it must be said that officials who leak such documents are a threat to the democratic system and must be condemned for their actions.
This motion, tabled by the Opposition, is in keeping with many of their motions. It is designed to create confusion and even division among local authorities and local authority tenants and the National Association of Tenants' Organisations.
I believe in the devolution of power. I have campaigned at every opportunity for it. That is what every local authority in the country, through the agency of the General Council of County Councils, has been campaigning for. The greater level of local authority involvement in the delivery of services to its community automatically implies a new degree of responsibility in discharging its duties. Regrettably there is considerable evidence that such responsibility is not forthcoming from some councils controlled by the Opposition. This development does nothing to enhance the reputation of elected representatives in fulfilling the statutory obligations vested in them by reason of their democratic election to the local authority. Unless we face up to that challenge it behoves central Government to further examine the political sense of such a devolution policy.
Local authorities spend considerable sums of money, particularly in the area of local authority housing. It goes without saying that such expenditure demands a proper degree of accountability. The local authority member who is oblivious to the wasteful use of that resource, a nearly scarce resource, and indifferent to the securing of a reasonable return for money, must stand indicted by the electorate. As a democratically elected member I would resist any attempt to extract rents which were beyond a person's capacity to pay. This Ministerial directive sets out in clear, unequivocal language the direction that rents payable from here in should be related to income on the one hand, and that is extended further in giving a sense of discretion to the county managers to take in other factors which would prove very useful to the local authority member when making a case on behalf of a tenant.
Capital investment by central Government into local authority housing is quite substantial. One would venture to say that it has reached an all time record. The cost to the taxpayer in making up the difference between what is recouped in rents and the costs on the capital investment side is quite significant also. The management and maintenance of local authority rented housing is the function and responsibility of local authorities. Each year all local authorities pay out more money for maintenance on existing housing stock than is subscribed by tenants.
In fact, the Minister referred to this last night when he said that there were 114,000 tenants at the end of December 1985 contributing in total about £41.5 million in rent and the cost to the taxpayer of providing funds for total maintenance was about £65 million, leaving a considerable shortfall of about £25 million. There is a very wide gap between the cost of local authority housing and what is funded by the tenants. I am not suggesting that we should extract additional moneys from tenants. What I am saying is that we must take account of these cost factors in assessing what level of rents are to be paid by local authority tenants.
In my council area, and this applies to most council areas, the average cost of a local authority house is in the region of £25,000 to £30,000. Even allowing for an average mortgage of £25,000, and in accordance with the subsidised small dwellings acquisition loans, the cost to the Exchequer is still of the order of £50 to £60 per week. I know a number of people on small incomes who have committed themselves to mortgages and are finding it extremely difficult to meet these repayments.
People in local authority houses are paying low rents. The average rent in 1985 was about £7 a week and that can go up to £15 or £16, but the low rent was £3.50 per week. It has been said that in some cases it would be better for people to give up working and enjoy the benefits of a local authority home rather than work and provide a home out of their own resources. Unless we find a formula to diminish such discrepancies we will fast reach the stage where it will be financially more favourable to rely on local authority housing than to provide a house out of one's own resources. That would be a most unwelcome development.
Local authorities depend on rents to fund maintenance programmes. It is vitally important, therefore, that existing stock be maintained in good sound condition. In that context I want to draw attention to the low cost housing imposed on this society by a short-sighted Fianna Fáil administration in the sixties and seventies. Many of these houses were a disgrace and the fruits are still with us. These houses are causing endless problems for every local authority. We had the misfortune of trying to remedy the damage done. In Building on Reality significant commitments, financial and otherwise, were made to renew and refurbish that type of dwelling. The cost was borne almost totally by the State, and by the taxpayer, and by local authorities who got loans to the tune of up to 80 per cent from the central Exchequer.
The significance of that programme is that most of these unsightly housing schemes are fast disappearing and tenants can live in comfort and dignity. I have met tenants living in these housing schemes, and some outside my own constituency, and they have no hesitation in telling me they would be prepared to pay a higher rent if their houses were in a proper state of repair. I am glad to say that has now been put in train.
No Government since the foundation of the State have committed a greater share of their resources to the provision of housing both public and private than this Government. New house grants have doubled and a major innovation programme for existing private stock is in train. Grants as high as £8,500 have been approved under the new home improvement scheme. Never have I seen greater activity in house improvements than I see now and I hope that will continue for many years. Fianna Fáil do not have such a record. They saw fit to withdraw the house improvement grants when they were in office. The £5,000 grant for local authority tenants of three years standing enabled people to purchase their own homes and this was widely welcomed. The effect was two-fold: it benefited the tenant and the Exchequer.
Never has there been less pressure on local authority for housing. The long queues of needy house applicants of the late sixties and seventies have been considerably diminished and in some areas have totally disappeared. That is the record of this Government in the field of private and public housing.
The thinking behind the ministerial directive is to further apply the devolution of power from the central to the local area, something I go along with. Local authorities build and maintain houses and administer the necessary services. It goes without saying that they must have the right to determine the rents. I never wish to see a time when tenants would be obliged to pay more than they can reasonably afford. This direction has a built in safeguard to allow county managers discretion in such circumstances. Very few county managers will take a decision without considerable consultation with the elected members, the tenants' associations and everybody who can make a valuable and useful input into the determination of a proper rent structure.
Under existing legislation local authorities have considerable flexibility in the provision and allocation of local authority houses, having regard to the financial constraints imposed by the central Exchequer. It is important in that context that similar flexibility be applied in rent fixing on a county by county basis. The present arrangement whereby local authorities are obliged to implement rents arrived at by ministerial discretion is a further negation of what local government is all about.
Another considerable argument in favour of this ministerial direction is that local factors can be more fully considered than under the present system in arriving at a fair rent and the overall rental income should reflect the management and maintenance costs of estates within each local authority's jurisdiction.
It is my view that this motion is designed to secure short-term electoral support but in endeavouring to achieve that objective, it will have the effect of creating division and dissention among tenants in housing estates and will impose financial hardship on them in the long term. I call on all responsible tenants to repudiate this expedient and insincere approach on behalf of the Opposition and to reject out of hand such political opportunism.
The Minister has until 7.50 p.m.
The decision to introduce the new tenant purchase scheme and to devolve responsibility for tenants of local authority dwellings does not represent a breach of commitments to NATO and should not lead to hardship for tenants. For me as a member of the Labour Party it is extremely important that we see this as not being a diminution of the role of NATO in negotiations representing local authority tenants throughout the country. It was a Labour Minister, Mr. Jim Tully, who first gave negotiation rights to NATO and it is the intention of the Labour Party, either in or out of Government, to ensure that that will continue to be the case.
The tenant purchase scheme was introduced in response to demands from tenants anxious to buy their own houses. The previous tenant purchase scheme expired on 30 June 1984 and tenants who did not have the opportunity to purchase for two years were justifiably becoming anxious. The new purchase scheme is similar to previous schemes with two important changes. First, local authorities will be able to renew the scheme annually by reference to the previous August value of money table and so avoid delay between the expiry date of one scheme and the introduction of another, which has occurred in recent years. This has been a cause of considerable concern to elderly tenants who were anxious to secure their own houses. The second is that the market value may be used to determine the gross sale price of the dwelling. This is more favourable to the tenants than using the existing formula for updating the all-in cost. This is a significant concession, particularly in the case of dwellings built in recent years, and was the only major change sought by NATO in their proposal for renewing the existing scheme.
I am at a loss as to why Fianna Fáil are critical of the Government for introducing this scheme. They say we are trying to by-pass NATO in our negotiations. This scheme came about as a result of NATO intervention. It is because of the proposal they put to the Government that the market value is now taken into account. This is a major breakthrough. Labour have been campaigning for this for a number of years and the Government have seen fit to incorporate this into the scheme.
The scheme will be generally welcomed by most people and will remove much of the uncertainty associated with delays. The principles underlying previous schemes and the one proposal for changes put forward by NATO in the discussions are incorporated in the new scheme. In relation to the decision to devolve responsibility for rents, I welcome the agreement in principle by Deputy Molloy but I question the reservations expressed by Deputy Calleary who is a member of two local authorities. I, as a member of Cork Corporation, had an input into the striking of a rent scheme for the tenants. Up to now local elected members did not have an opportunity nor did Members of the House have an opportunity to express views on rents. The schemes were usually conveyed from the Department to the local authorities. For the first time we now have an input at local level. I am satisfied this does not represent a breach of the commitment given nor does it give rise to hardships. My party have a great concern for the welfare of lower paid tenants and tenants on social welfare and I would not support any decision which would be to their detriment. The framework on which responsibility for rents has been devolved strikes a proper balance between giving local authorities greater discretion and making adequate provision for the needs of lower paid tenants. The safeguards built into these new arrangements ensuring that all new schemes are income-related and that genuine hardship cases are taken into account will ensure that rent is reasonable in relation to income.
Deputy Burke in his speech last night said that rent was a key element of the household budget. Everybody recognises that. The provision of shelter should be the primary call on income. It is, therefore, reasonable that the rent payable be commensurate with income. While the level of rent increases is a matter for each local authority having regard to local circumstances, it is worth noting that in this context welfare incomes have increased by between 32 per cent and 38 per cent since the last review, while income for those in employment has generally increased by no more than 24 per cent in the same period. Rents, with the exception of the relatively few cases where family circumstances changed in the interim, remained at their 1983 levels. Deputy Calleary interpreted this as being an act of cowardice on the part of the Government. We should remember that in 1984-1985, four meetings took place between NATO and the Minister of State, Deputy Fergus O'Brien, and agreement was not reached.
Much has been made about the increases in rent under the new arrangements. The Opposition have grossly exaggerated the level of rent increases and chosen selective examples of rents increasing and highlighted the percentage increase. They mentioned increases of 100 per cent and 200 per cent in Cork. I was a member of Cork Corporation when the increases were put before the council. The minimum rents in Cork are being increased from 50p to £1, a 100 per cent increase in percentage terms but in absolute terms it is only an increase of 50p per week. This must be taken in conjunction with the increase in incomes since the last review of rents. A single person on unemployment assistance would have been paying 50p in rent in 1983. Since then there has been an increase of £10.45 in welfare per week. In those circumstances the rent of £1 is not unrealistic. In addition to providing houses the local authority have the responsibility for keeping them in good structural repair. It is nonsense to talk about rent increases without relating them to income. Rents determined on the basis of the circular issued to local authorities for fixing rent schemes will be reasonable in relation to household incomes.
I will correct misleading statements by Opposition spokesmen. I am not aware that the local authorities in implementing rent schemes have assessed children's allowances for this purpose. The new system will not give rise to undue hardship in respect of the contribution of members of the household to the rent. The parameters laid down by the Government require that as with other income the contribution of a subsidiary earner towards rent must be based on a proportion of the income of a subsidiary earner. I must stress that it is a charge proportional to income and I would expect local authorities to be reasonable in applying this provision. This is not a new charge but it has been a feature of all recent schemes.
The Opposition are trying to suggest that the only equitable rent scheme is a national uniform scheme. This is simply not so. Rates, service charges and other local authority charges vary from one local authority to another. So do employment levels, income levels and concentrations of population. Housing types vary as does the standard of the housing stock. Some areas have a greater potential than others for increasing rents and have a correspondingly greater need because of the standard of their stock. A national uniform rent scheme does not cater to this situation. A high average increase under a national rent scheme, no matter how carefully a scheme is framed, may bear unnecessarily heavily on tenants in some areas, while a low average increase under such a scheme to cater for areas of high unemployment can prevent authorities from gaining a reasonable level of rental income where such potential exists and can prove a major obstacle to a proper maintenance programme. It is more appropriate, therefore, that local authorities should determine their own rent levels having regard to local factors and maintenance needs.
Rents of local authority dwellings relate directly to the functions of authorities as landlords and owners of their own houses and are quite different in their nature and impact from the imposition of other local charges. Housing rents are not a means of increasing the general revenue of local authorities but represent the means through which the authorities can alleviate some of the losses arising on their housing activities, provide some degree of funding to go towards the costs of essential repair and maintenance works not appropriate to the tenants and seek to ensure that the task of seeking new housing needs is not made totally unviable for them. Managers are responsible for the day to day running of local authority affairs. The running of their housing estates, including the charging of rents, is part and parcel of that responsibility.
I am satisfied that the new arrangement will facilitate more effective maintenance and management of local authority housing and will ensure that it is more responsive to the needs of tenants.
I was disappointed with some of Deputy Calleary's points. The Deputy suggested that the circular letter sent to various managers throughout the country sent shivers through the city managers. None of the managers could be accused of standing back from their responsibility and of not being prepared to make the necessary changes required in the scheme. Deputy Calleary also said that the scheme which operated until now gave stability and peace. One way of ensuring peace is to have no increases. However we cannot maintain our housing stock without rent increases. The Government have acted responsibly in trying to resolve the problems.
There was peace from 1972 until 1983.
That peace would be maintained if nothing were done.
It would be maintained if the Government had not moved in 1983 to bring in a rent increase and to increase rents each year since.
The Minister has two minutes left.
The Government took part in negotiations with NATO during 1984-85 and failed to reach agreement. That is unimportant. I do not accept that the Government are running away, as the Opposition have said, from their responsibility. The Government have a commitment to devolve power and this is the first step. Deputy Wallace is well aware of the soul-searching that went on in Cork Corporation when we tried to strike a rent earlier this year. He gave his casting vote in favour of a rate that was put before us.
I regret that, despite all that has been said, there is a reluctance on the part of local elected representatives to take important decisions. This could be another case in point although it is not true of all local authorities. There is ample reason for believing that some authorities will not increase their rents——
I am delighted to hear the Minister say that because we are asked to take unpopular decisions.
Any increase in rent is an unpopular decision.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion which reads:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for the Environment and the Government to rescind their directive giving City and County Managers the power to fix local authority rents and to restore to local authority tenants representatives, the National Association of Tenants Organisations, the right to negotiate a national uniform rents scheme on behalf of tenants.
It is very clear and nothing I heard so far tonight or last night changes my view that that is the proper course to follow. I agree with my party colleagues who said that the Government are running away from their responsibilities. It is interesting to hear the Minister of State say that local representatives — I presume he is referring to Fianna Fáil because we control so many local authorities — are afraid to take on responsibility. Proposals have been put to the Government of which we know they approved but the Minister said it was too hot for him to handle and passed it on to local city and county managers. It is the same in this case, the Government are afraid to handle the issue and are passing it on to the city and county managers.
I caution the Government to be careful because city and county managers over the last number of years have been carrying a very heavy workload and have been trying to maintain essential services in all local authority areas in spite of decreased funding. They have had to keep a very substantial house programme going and some semblance of repairs on our national and secondary roads. They have also tried to keep our sanitary services and fire brigades up to date. I congratulate county managers on doing this with very little help from the Government. The decision of the Minister to transfer the power of setting rents for local authority houses to managers is regrettable for the reasons I have outlined. The Minister is running away from his responsibilities and he is the person who should carry out changes in the format for setting rents. This will now be an executive function.
The Government refused to initiate a fair rents scheme for 1984-85 mainly because they had to face European and local elections. When they saw the outcome of those elections they did an about turn. They know that a general election is imminent and anything that reflects badly on Government candidates will not be handled. A rents strike is now taking place in many parts of the country and that is causing great problems to local authorities, especially in relation to their finances. As most Deputies know, funding for the maintenance of housing stocks in local authorities comes from the rents the tenants pay weekly. These rents are not now being paid in some areas and, unfortunately, the standard of houses will deteriorate. In some cases tenants may be able to move out of local authority estates and purchase private houses. Most tenants of local authority houses are young married couples who may not be in a position to get a mortgage to buy a new house. Sometimes, if their circumstances improve as a result of securing employment, they will try to better themselves and they should be congratulated on doing so. What happens if these young people buy private houses? Those left in the estates may be unemployed, whole families may be out of work and local authorities are unable to maintain the housing stock in the estates to a certain standard. They end up as ghettoes which is very undesirable. Those left behind will be living in squalor.
We have seen what has happened as a result of the failure of local authorities to collect service charges. It is interesting to note that last year there was a new ploy by the Government in plundering capital accounts of certain local authorities. This can only go so far. In my local authority area the Minister for the Environment said that £500,000 had to be taken out of the capital account of Carlow Urban Council in order to pay expenses on the revenue account. When local authorities are setting their estimates for the year, they take account of the money they will receive from public service charges. However, the reality is that service charges in many cases have not been collected. Local authorities budget for what they will receive from public services and water charges and they spend that money in the belief that they will recoup it. At the end of the year they find they have been unable to collect the money. We are living in a fool's paradise if we continue to ask local authorities to levy public service charges on people who are unable to pay them. In my county almost £400,000 is outstanding in relation to service charges but we have already spent that money. We take money from our capital account just to keep things going but that must stop immediately.
We have called for a return to the national uniform rent scheme which was first introduced by a Labour Minister, Jim Tully, in 1973. Prior to that, the Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government at the time, Kevin Boland, gave recognition to the central council of corporation tenants to negotiate on behalf of the tenants. That was a good scheme while it lasted and I see no reason for changing now.
Comments were made in regard to the enlightened schemes which the Government introduced in the form of house improvement grants. I agree that those were imaginative schemes. They have helped many householders improve their dwellings. However, the current scheme whereby applicants for house improvement grants have to await anything up to 12 weeks for an inspection is a national disgrace. The Government, in introducing the scheme, made colourful remarks about the benefit of the scheme to householders and the building industry. God knows the building industry needs a boost but that scheme has not provided it as only 40 per cent of their workers are employed in the construction industry. It was the biggest trick of recent years and the Government have succeeded in ensuring that householders whose dwellings are in urgent need of repair have had to carry out makeshift, running repairs while waiting an inspection from the Department of the Environment. Tens of thousands of pounds have had to be spent by these unfortunate tenants. After the first inspection people have to wait a further 12 or 14 weeks for a final inspection and perhaps it will be another six or eight weeks before the grant is paid. When Government Deputies talk about fine, imaginative legislation——
We are not debating house improvement grants although we will respond to that.
Deputies on the Government side brought up the subject and I could not let them away with it.
It is on low cost housing.
I suggest that many Deputies on the other side of the House are not familiar with what the Government are proposing to do. I get the impression that they believe the power to set local authority rents is to be given to the members of local authorities. That is not so. It is an executive function and the county and city managers will carry out that function.
The average cost of building a house in some rural local authority areas is in the region of £30,000 to £40,000. The average weekly rent in some of these rural local authority areas is between £7 and £15. No one on this side of the House is arguing against these rents being updated and reviewed on a yearly basis but what we are arguing against is the manner in which the Government are proposing to have these carried out. Within two miles of the centre of Carlow town there are four local authorities. The managers in those four areas set different criteria for deciding local authority rents. There is great confusion between the peoples of those areas. In some cases, you can have members of families in four different local authority areas. How can anyone suggest there will not be confusion if four people in similar circumstances are paying different rents? There will be total chaos.
In conclusion, I ask Members to reconsider their position when voting on this motion. Our proposal is fair and it is only right that the Government should grasp the nettle which we have been told they are prepared to do, and sit down with members of the tenant organisations to renegotiate a national rent scheme.
The Worker's Party support the Fianna Fáil motion in regard to recognition being given to the National Association of Tenants' Organisations. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, seemed to say that right is still there. Can he clarify that point? At present it seems to the National Association of Tenants' Organisations and to everyone else that they have no rights whatsoever, that they will not be consulted in any way. The Government have no intention of consulting with them with regard to rents. The rents are already being implemented by the local authorities all over the country. Therefore, we support the Fianna Fáil motion that their right to negotiate on behalf of their tentants be restored. Every Minister, previous to this Minister, will be aware that the National Association of Tenants' Organisations have been highly responsible and in previous negotiations have correctly fought for the rights of their tenants but have also recognised the rights of local authorities. Every Minister will agree that they negotiated in a very responsible manner and once they negotiated an agreement they insisted that their tenants adhere to it.
The record of the National Association of Tenants' Organisations is very good. Furthermore, most local authorities, the Dublin city manager, the Dublin city Council and the Dublin local authorities recognise the importance of tenant organisations in the estates in which they are organised. They do an excellent job and have excellent relations with the local authority. They also help in the management of the estate. I am sure the Dublin city manager will agree that without tenants' organisations, particularly in some of the large flat schemes, it would be impossible for him or the council to manage those schemes. They have co-operated in every way with the local authority where the local authority were prepared to co-operate with them. It would be very remiss of the Minister to miss the opportunity to re-establish relations with the National Association of Tenants' Organisations.
It is not only in the matter of rents — although from the point of view of the tenant the rent is the most important factor — that the tenants' organisation help tenants. They work day and night to help local tenants to establish themselves. They move in and help them with any problems they may have. They also get in touch with the local authorities in regard to these problems. They serve a tremendous purpose which the Minister will destroy if he takes a confrontational position with the tenants' organisations from the beginning. He is an abrasive Minister and immediately he wants to show who is boss. He will put in his rents whether the tenants like it or not. It would be a grave mistake for any Minister to adopt such a position in a modern democratic society where people have rights and will insist on them being implemented. Tenants have rights despite what some members of Fine Gael seem to think. They seem to think tenants have no rights whatsoever to be in a house paying a reasonable rent. The implication seems to be from the comments we have heard tonight that they should pay £60 a week like other people.
As Fianna Fáil speakers mentioned, it is very important to have a uniform rents system where there will not be different levels of rent for similar types of houses in adjoining estates. Our amendment adds "that no rent increases be applied pending negotiation with NATO". This is very important because we believe a grave injustice is being done at present. These rents are being implemented. I can only speak for the Dublin area where there has been an increase in rent of £3 in every case. When I say in every case I mean that a £9 maximum rent goes up to £12. That is a 33? per cent increase. A £20 or £24 rent also goes up by £3. There is no basis or reason for this increase. The city manager does not negotiate with local councillors or tell them what he is going to do. He simply implements the increases. We hear it from the tenants. We go to the city manager to see what it is all about. That is how it operates.
Yesterday, I heard of two other cases and at present I am endeavouring to understand how they occurred. The first case involves a family of nine children receiving £129.65 a week in long term unemployment assistance. Their rent was £7.45 and it went up on Monday last, 3 November, to £13.70. The second case involves a tenant from the same area who has eight children and an income of £123.40. His rent was £7.10 but this has been increased to £13.40, almost a 50 per cent increase. I do not know how to explain this and I am endeavouring to find out. Grave injustices such as those are being done and no negotiations take place with anybody.
It is difficult to know what scheme is being implemented. We are told it is the 1983 scheme. Yet, the 1983 scheme specifically excludes, under family income, disabled person's maintenance allowance. However, disabled person's maintenance allowances are included by the Dublin City Manager in assessing the current rent increases in Dublin. Will the Minister tell me if the city manager is entitled to do that? Why has that change been made?
I appeal to the Minister to suspend the rent increases because they are totally unjust. No reason has been given for imposing them and the many anomalies that exist are not taken into consideration. We agree with the Fianna Fáil motion but in our amendment we are asking that no rent increases be applied pending negotiations with NATO, which are essential and I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan, accepts that. In his comments he seemed to indicate that he recognised the rights of NATO but he cannot say that organisation have any rights at present.
I must point out to the Deputy that four meetings took place between 1984 and 1985.
For the past four years there has been continuous criticism from the Opposition of the Government's failure, as they saw it, to give local authorities more authority in the provision of services. To some extent I shared that view and I was in sympathy with the call to devolve more powers to local councils and corporations. I felt miserable about the fact that those powers were not devolved speedily. In 1978 when I was a member of Limerick County Council I had to stay silent as the county manager announced a rate for the county struck by the Minister in Dublin. We were a redundant group. There was a danger then, because of the policies pursued by the Government at that time, that local democracy would die. It is not hard to imagine the frustration of councillors at that time. All local representatives look forward to negotiating with the county manager on the striking of a rate but that right was taken from us in 1978.
That is downright baloney and the Deputy knows it. Local authorities always struck the rate and that has never changed. The Deputy does not know what happens in his county council.
Deputy Gallagher is not aware that an 11 per cent increase was decided on by the Minister in 1978 and not by the local representatives or the county manager. I am pleased to note the Government are making a move in regard to devolving power to local councils. I was delighted to hear that a number of administrative and grant schemes will be operated by local authorities. We will now have some say in the administration of grant schemes.
I should like to assure the Minister that corporations and county councils appreciate his move. It is good to know that the Minister is handing back the authority to where it belongs, with local representatives. It is sad to hear Deputies opposite express no confidence in the housing committees of local councils or in county managers. Local representatives, assisted by county managers, have been doing a fine job. They live among the people who pay rates and rents and have contact with them. Tenants appreciate being in a position to conduct business with the county manager or housing officials in council offices rather than having to communicate with the Department in Dublin. I understand that the rent of 20,791 tenants will rise from £3 to £6.99 — that the rent of 21,000 tenants will rise from £7 to £10.99 — that 16,723 tenants will face an increase from £11 to £14.99 — that 5,210 tenants will face a rise from £15 to £15.99 and that the rent of 1,222 people will rise from £20 to £24.99. It is unfortunate I do not have time to develop this subject but I am sure that if the Deputy opposite checks my figures he will apologise for the remarks he has just made.
Fáiltím roimh an dtairiscint curtha os comhair na Dála ag urlabhraí Fhianna Fáil, an Teachta Burke.
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for the Environment and the Government to rescind their directive giving City and County Managers the power to fix local authority rents and to restore to local authority tenants representatives, the National Association of Tenants Organisations, their right to negotiate a national uniform rents scheme on behalf of tenants.
Before I deal with the fact that many fundamental matters of principle have been cast aside very cynically, I should like to refer to the remarks of the last speaker and the Minister of State, Deputy O'Sullivan. I was confused by the contribution of Deputy O'Brien who commenced by referring to the need for the devolution of power to local authorities. It is interesting to note that a policy statement issued by the Government on the devolution of power from central Government to local authorities stated that the traditional role of local government had been too restricted for local democracy to achieve its full potential and that much of the vitality had gone out of this system over the last number of years. That famous, and for the Government best forgotten, national plan of the Government described local authorities as an intricate part of the system of representative government. The plan stated that through their work programmes and the services and employment they provided they played a major part in the social and economic life of the State. The Government in that plan said they were determined that local reforms to which they were committed would ensure that local authorities were enabled to fulfil the role to the best effect.
Deputy O'Brien having started his contribution on one topic got lost in a sea of confusion as time went on, like Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. We did not get from him a treatise on how the Minister's action reflected a devolution of power but a shifting of ground on the argument. This does not represent a devolution of power, it is a transfer of the Executive function of a Government Department to a paid official. It is cynical and cowardly and amounts to throwing local democracy out the window. It represents a total disregard for local councillors and a system that has worked so well, has been fair and uniform and has meant peace in the area of rent payment in the past 12 or 13 years.
The Minister's decision to transfer the power of determining rents of tenants and in the process dismantling a national system of negotiating a uniform rent was wrong. Uniformity has been one of the hallmarks of the whole system. Later I will refer to the part the Labour Party played in bringing about uniformity in the system. This system was negotiated between the Minister's Department and NATO, the tenants' representatives. It is most regrettable that a decision has been taken at this time to transfer the executive function from the Department and to dismantle the process of negotiations. I am very confused at a reference made earlier to the right of these tenant organisations to continue negotiations at a level and within the terms established ten or 12 years ago.
This action must be condemned as a blatant act of cop-out where the Government, finding themselves in the most unpopular set of circumstances of any Government in recent times, decided to shirk their responsibilities. They have responsibilities to the tenants, to their representatives and to the country. They decided to shirk their responsibilities in the area of the fixing of rents and to foist them on city and county managers. The insensitivity with which this has been done at a time when household budgets have been so depleted is reminiscent of those bleak times in the 18th and 19th centuries when landlordism was such a dirty word to almost 90 per cent of Irish people.
What has been called for, and what to a great extent has been achieved over the past 12 years, has been a reasonably fair and uniform rent scheme throughout the country. Every tenant, whether he be an income earner or dependent on social welfare, is only too well aware of the burden of rent payments and the gap it leaves in his household budget. I accept that this has been acknowledged across the floor tonight. It is fair and reasonable to say that the overwhelming majority of tenants in recent years have lived up to their responsibilities and have kept their rent payments up-to-date, even at times when they found it extremely difficult to do so. They were willing to do so because they understood the system to be reasonably fair and nationally uniform. They were secure in the knowledge that their representatives, the National Association of Tenants' Organisations, would have a significant input into any negotiated review of the rate at which they would pay.
They were happy to co-operate with the system known as the differential rents scheme because they were satisfied it was calculated in relation to their income and each tenant realised and accepted that he was paying the same rate as his counterpart in exactly equivalent circumstances, no matter in what local authority area that person resided. That gave a great sense of fairness and uniformity. It created goodwill and co-operation.
Given the extent of peace that has reigned in this area for the last 13 years, it is absolutely inconceivable why the Minister has now chosen to throw the scheme into chaos, since that is what his decision of 14 August last means. He has now decided that he, his Department and his Government are not prepared to negotiate nationally with the tenants' representatives a fair and equitable review of the differential rents scheme. The easiest course is to cop out and to direct paid officials, the city and county managers, to do the dirty work for them. When this is seen against the background of depleted household budgets due to crucifying taxation and the gradual dismantling of the social welfare system, it makes it all the more incomprehensible and cynical.
One has to ask if the Government have seriously thought through the implications and consequences of their actions in this area. If we look back to the period prior to 1973 and the chaos that reigned throughout 1972 in the national rent strike, the Minister in some sense must be wishing this on us again. It is fair and reasonable to say that the system that obtained up to 1973 had many built-in inequities and had lost the confidence of the tenants. When tenants lose confidence in a system which is supposed to bring equity there will be a lashback. The records show how wounds were created and how difficult it was to heal them. However, it must be acknowledged that the Coalition Government that followed brought in a system of rent assessment and they implemented a system of negotiations with the National Association of Tenants' Organisations, recognising that body as the body representing the tenants' interests in relation to the assessment of rents. The differential rents system which has been in operation since then has promoted peace in this area. Any system that works without undue disruption, as this system did over the past 12 or 13 years, must, despite whatever warts are inherent in it, be regarded in general as a good system. It was a scheme that provided for co-operation, goodwill and harmony.
The irony is that the party which over the years could justifiably have taken much credit for the implementation of that system — I refer to the Labour Party, whose Minister, Deputy Jim Tully, introduced the scheme — are now prepared to co-operate and conspire with the Minister in what can best be described as a cloak and dagger operation.
As everybody knows, we are in the early stages of a national rents strike, a situation that cannot be condoned, although it might be understandable given the Government's irresponsibility and refusal to negotiate with the tenants' representatives. I will refer later to the limited and short-term negotiations which did take place, only in response to queries from this side of the House. One cannot condone rent strikes since they are wrong in themselves but I am extremely concerned, as are Members on this side of the House and, I hope, Members on the other side, as to the consequences of a national rent strike for many of the tenants. Tenants with good intentions will save money which has not been paid in rent, but that money will be quickly eaten into in the event of family pressures and expenses. When the strike is over there is a huge problem for people in receipt of social welfare payments and those on low incomes in trying to pay off arrears. It is a frightening and daunting prospect and it is built into this system being created by the Minister in passing the buck.
There are a number of aspects of this whole scenario which need to be teased out and placed firmly on the record. An impression has been given that local authority tenants have not been paying increased rents in recent years. We all know that nothing could be further from the truth. A system of differential rents is directly income-related and as tenants' incomes increased their rent payments increased proportionately.
A point that needs to be made firmly is that Fianna Fáil are not opposed to rent reviews. Nobody on this side of the House stated at any time yesterday or today that we are opposed to such reviews. If rent reviews have to go ahead, let them be carried out in a manner that is perceived to be fair and uniform so as to achieve agreement and peace. That is our stand. There is little point in paying lip service to democracy if you refuse to operate it. That is precisely what this Government are attempting to do in this instance.
We are all aware that in 1984 the Government made a decision to revise the rents scheme and there is a very strong suspicion they intended bringing in many elements to the assesment procedures. I recall Deputy Burke attempting on a number of occasions to elicit information as to what the Government had in mind but despite his best efforts he was not very successful. As a result of the pressure exerted from this side of the House, an attempt was made by the Minister of State, Deputy Fergus O'Brien, to negotiate. There was only one meaningful attempt to negotiate with NATO to devise an agreed system and when the proposals he presented were rejected he abandoned the negotiations. If that is national negotiating by a Minister with responsibility and authority, then I am a Dutchman.
The Government chose during the summer to issue a press statement entitled "Devolution of Powers to Local Authorities". It is a most regrettable and unsavoury development that when unpopular decisions have to be taken this Government have decided the best format is to issue a press statement. If possible, it should be done when the House is not sitting so that the Government cannot be "got at" and the matter cannot be clarified. We cannot have the matter clarified, we cannot have the information teased out as to the fairness or otherwise of the method the Government are adopting. This is a most unfortunate and regrettable form of administration by the Government.
The mechanism decided upon on 14 August last is a very cowardly and dishonest way for any Government to do their business. They are using the city and county managers as buffers behind which to hide. The increase can be imposed by executive function and local councillors have absolutely no say. I am sure we are all perfectly clear on that. People responsible to the community at local level are totally disregarded, as they have been on a number of occasions in the past year by the Government, including the case of the water charges. We have seen that system fall into disrepute and we shall see this system fall into disrepute very quickly also. It is not based on the principles of fairness, equity and uniformity.
Acting Chairman
I remind the Deputy that his time has expired.
There are many other points I should like to make in this regard. It is important for us to recognise that the Minister has brought us to the brink of chaos in relation to the rents system. He can do something about that tonight. I believe he has opted out of his responsibilities. He has cynically dismantled a good system that has served successive Governments well over the past 12 years. By his actions he has deliberately brought inequities into a very sensitive rents scheme and in so doing has thrown out any shred of fairness and confidence in the system and co-operation with it.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy to conclude.
He should rescind that decision now and restore sanity to this area, restore to the nation the right to negotiate at national level and have no jigging about. He should take on the responsibility for which he was elected and which his predecessors have been capable of shouldering.
Sin a bhfuil.
Maith and fear.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 71.
Tá
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett,Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Carey, Donal.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Francis.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gregory-Independent, Tony.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question declared carried.
Motion as amended, put and agreed to.