The number of houses being built was raised on Second Stage and I said I would mention it again on this Stage. The position is that in February, 1976, the NESC carried out an independent assessment of housing needs and concluded that 21,000 to 25,000 houses a year would be required up to 1986 to meet accumulated needs and prospective needs arising principally from the fact that our population has been expanding in recent years at a rate which is about the fifth fastest amongst OECD countries. Nevertheless, no authoritative source has established that we need to build more than 25,000 houses a year. In fact, house completions last year, at 25,444, represented an increase of almost 900 relative to 1977. Completions in 1979 should exceed 25,500. Our White Paper of January 1979 indicated that 23,000 to 27,000 houses a year would be provided up to 1980. There is no point in building 30,000 houses this year and 20,000 houses next year. We must continue to avoid peaks and valleys in the housing sector and minimise problems caused by shortages of certain skills. We must also distinguish between fluctuations in long-term demand and medium-term housing needs. Last year, building societies, for example, advanced £148 million. If the societies continued to attract funds at the rate experienced during the period December 1978 to May 1979 total advances could have exceeded £250 million this year. My Department informed the societies in May last that such an increase in advance would be excessive and would have an inflationary effect on house prices. For their part, there are signs that the societies have moderated their rate of increase in loan approvals and payments since then.
As a general rule the broad aims of the building societies are compatible with the Government's national housing programme. In 1979 the need to reconcile the society's policies with the national housing programme was apparent. In the normal course this problem rarely arises. In any event, it should not normally be necessary to invoke section 20 for the purpose of ensuring a clearance to certain features of housing policy. We would much prefer to have policies determined and agreed along with following a full and frank exchange of views.
We were in the situation in 1978 where price increases were excessive and a limited number of societies were simply not prepared to operate certain controls, even on an experimental basis. It behoves the Government to take corrective legal action which is now embodied in sections 18 and 20 of the Bill. When it is considered that for every one per cent increase in new house prices there is a loss of £4 million which could be applied to the creation of jobs, the position is seen in its true perspective. Essentially, the Government cannot abdicate their responsibilities in this area now or in the future.
Before the debate on the Bill is brought to a close, I should like to make a brief general comment. The Bill was initiated on 1 May 1979. I hoped that the Dáil Second Reading of the Bill would be taken before the end of May but this was not possible due mainly to the prolonged debate on the Family Planning Bill and the Finance Bill. The Dáil Second Reading of the Housing Bill commenced on 27 June and concluded on 17 July. During that period the debate lasted some 30 hours. It is fair to say that Opposition Deputies generally accepted the fact that the Minister went a long way towards meeting proposals for amendments. Twenty-two amendments were made to the Bill on Committee Stage while 19 amendments were made on Report Stage.
Turning now to the Seanad, I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Senators for their support for the Bill. It seems that Senators should not belittle their contributions to the formulation of housing policy. In particular, the three-hour debate in the Seanad on 2 February on the Private Members' Motion on house prices established the view that there was widespread political support for some form of house price control. On 8 July I listened carefully to the Second Stage debate which lasted about six hours. While I was not convinced that there were grounds for amending the Bill as passed by Dáil Eireann, the debate was useful and interesting. The Dáil did not adjourn until that day. Despite the fact that the Bill has not been amended in the Seanad, the views expressed by Senators on Second Stage and Committee Stage will be taken into account in framing regulations under the Bill. We are also fortunate that the Cathaoirleach took a liberal view on Second Stage in allowing Senators to debate very important facets of housing policy, even aspects I would consider to be outside the scope of the Bill.
The principal features of the Government's housing policy have been set out in their election manifesto of May 1977, the White Papers of January 1978 and January 1977, the Green Paper of June 1978, the Minister's Estimate speech of 9 March 1978 and the Minister's contribution to specific aspects of policy raised during the course of the Dáil debates on the Bill. During these debates the Minister dealt very fully with the question of the views of the Irish Building Societies' Association and of the Construction Industry Federation on the Bill. This Bill will have far-reaching implications. It provides a modern, flexible, statutory framework for new house and house improvement grants, improvement loans, the local authority housing subsidy system, site subsidies and the low-rise mortgage system. These provisions can, for example, be applied to designated areas and varied in a simple manner without recourse to further legislation. The Bill also contains a framework for a form of house price control which may be applied, modified or dismantled as occasion demands. The Bill was urgent because there was no good reason why there should be any unreasonable legal impediment to the implementation of sound housing policies. We now have the opportunity of focusing increasing attention on the Government's basic aim in housing, which is to ensure that as far as resources of the economy permit every private household has a house of good standard located in an acceptable environment at a price or rent they can afford.
