asked the Minister for Local Government the amount paid to each building society in lieu of interest subsidy between 12th October, 1973, and 1st April, 1974.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Building Societies.
17.
As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to have it circulated with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
INTEREST Subsidy paid to Building Societies.
|
Name of Society |
Amount paid |
|
£ |
|
|
Irish Permanent |
394,053.00 |
|
Educational |
251,804.00 |
|
First National |
170,077.00 |
|
Irish Civil Service |
34,818.92 |
|
Provident |
28,865.00 |
|
Irish Industrial |
25,627.00 |
|
Midland and Western |
4,389.00 |
|
Allied Irish |
4,271.00 |
|
Postal Service Permanent |
4,260.70 |
|
The Family |
4,112.00 |
|
Guinness Permanent |
3,759.33 |
|
Grafton Savings |
1,162.00 |
|
Irish Savings |
70.59 |
NOTE: The amounts shown relate to the period from the date on which the subsidy was introduced (23rd May, 1973) to the 30th November, 1974 in the case of the Irish Civil Service Building Society and to the 31st December, 1974 in the case of the other societies. Subsidy for the period from the 1st January, 1974 to the 31st March, 1974 will be included in due course with payments for the six months ending on the 30th June next.
Is the Minister satisfied that there was a real need for such a subsidy to building societies and is the Minister aware of the ACRA claim that three of the largest building societies made a profit out of this subsidy to the extent of £694,591?
I understand the Minister has been made aware of the ACRA claim in this matter through a document which they gave him a month ago.
The Deputy is embarking on a speech.
Can the Minister state whether he agrees or disagrees with the claim made by ACRA in this regard?
ACRA have made numerous claims and most of them I have found to be without foundation. I have no evidence to prove that the statement which has been made by Deputy Molloy on their behalf is any more correct than some of the previous ones they made.
18.
asked the Minister for Local Government the total value of building society loan applications on hands in the periods January to March in 1973 and 1974.
Loan applications on hands of building societies at the 31st March in 1973 and 1974 totalled £39,889,000 and £25,972,000 respectively.
Is the Minister concerned at this drop of approximately £14 million in the value of loan applications held by building societies which is an obvious reflection of the refusal——
A question, please, Deputy.
Would the Minister agree that this is an obvious reflection of the unpreparedness of building societies to accept applications from persons seeking mortgages at the moment and would the Minister agree that this will have serious consequences for the financing of private house building in this coming year?
All the squealing and squalling which Deputy Molloy carried out last year over the question of building houses has been proved to be incorrect. The main reason why building societies have fewer applications before them now is that the number and value of loans which were dealt with under SDA for 1972-73 was 5,722 loans, total value £16,458,000 and for 1973-74 11,522 loans, totalling £43,081,000. There is where the difference comes in. I thought Deputy Molloy might be aware of that.
Question No. 19.
Is the Minister not prepared to express some concern for and sympathy with those persons who are unable to get a loan from a building society to construct a house?
That is a separate matter.
Is he aware that there is a complete shut-down on the acceptance of applications for housing loans by building societies? Is the Minister not prepared to face the fact that we are in a serious, critical financial situation as far as the whole housing programme is concerned?
The Deputy is broadening the subject matter of this question out of all proportion.
Arising out of the inference in the Minister's reply where he made some reference to statements by me, all last year and in the Estimate debate I stated that the construction——
We cannot allow statements at Question Time. The Deputy will have to find another opportunity.
——of 25,000 houses obviously was on the cards because of the preparatory work done by the previous Government. The Minister must stand on his own feet in the coming year. He cannot live on the back of the previous Administration——
Can the Deputy not raise a supplementary question without becoming involved with the Chair and creating disorder?
——who left a very solid business in relation to the construction industry.
Deputy Molloy is as usual trying to cloud things. The facts are that the Government of which Deputy Molloy was a member——
According to the figures the Minister has given the House there is a drop of £14 million this year.
——did not make provision for building anything like 25,000 houses last year and, in fact, did not even make provision for building as many houses as they built, or claimed to have built, the year before.
There were 32,000 starts in that year and only 24,000——
Deputy Molloy. I would ask the Deputy to restrain himself and to ask a supplementary question. The Chair will facilitate him within reason but he must not create disorder.
I appreciate that but in view of the obvious lack of concern on the Minister's part——
Please, Deputy Molloy.
——I must express some concern for those people who are in a difficult situation and who see a position where the Minister ignores the facts——
If the Deputy persists in ignoring the Chair or refusing to obey its rulings he knows the outcome.
May I not ask a question about this serious matter?
You may, but please behave yourself. Question No. 19 please.
The Chair tells me I must behave myself. In other words, I may not ask the Minister questions on this serious matter.
The Deputy understands fully that he has been out of order for the past ten minutes.
By asking questions?
No, by being disorderly and consistently refusing to obey the Chair.
Will the Minister not even show concern——
I have asked the Deputy to restrain himself. I ask him again.
Deputy Molloy is doing what he always does. He tries to abuse the Chair when he has not got a good case.
We will see the case unfold.
Question No. 19.
May I answer the supplementary on No. 18? Deputy Molloy's Government made no provision for the building of even 20,000 houses——
There were 32,000 starts last year.
——before they left office. Therefore, they could not possibly have hoped to build 25,000. He and the people associated with him codded a reputable Press representative into saying last November that the building of 25,000 houses was now a sick joke with the building industry and when the 25,000 houses were built he echoed Deputy Molloy's statement and said——
Is it in order to have a speech from the Minister? Is there to be one-sided democracy in this House?
The Deputy knows, as an ex-Minister, that the Minister has the right to reply to supplementary questions.
He echoed Deputy Molloy's comments that of course he knew all along that 25,000 houses would be built. Twenty-five thousand houses would never be built by Fianna Fáil, never were and never will be.
We had the foundations down.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Dowling, please resume your seat. Question No. 19.
Surely I am entitled to ask a question?
Deputy Dowling, I asked you to resume your seat. I called Question No. 19.
Am I not entitled to ask a question?
No. I have called the next question. Resume your seat.
You are protecting the Minister all the time.
That is an unfair allegation.
You are protecting all the Ministers. Let them stand on their own feet for a while.
Question No. 19.
We are well fit to stand on our own feet. We were able to deal with you people in opposition and we will deal with you in Government. Have no doubt about that.
Jackboot tactics.
This is fascism.
Let the Deputy not talk about fascism.
The Minister will not shout us down.
19.
asked the Minister for Local Government the net increase in building society shares and deposits in the periods January-March in 1973 and 1974.
The net increases were £6,885,000, and £5,492,000 respectively.
Is the Minister concerned that there has been a drop of £1.4 million in these important figures?
Yes, of course, I am concerned but I can tell Deputy Molloy that he and his party are responsible. They have been attempting consistently to try to weaken the building industry for their own political means.
That is a desperate attempt to survive.
They have been denigrating the building industry and the building societies for the purpose of trying to do harm. There will be 25,000 houses built this year in spite of Deputy Molloy.
They will not be built without money.
Question No. 20.
The money will be there.
They are empty.
What is empty?
Can we please get on with questions in an orderly fashion? I have called Question No. 20.
20.
asked the Minister for Local Government the average gross price of new houses for which loans were approved by building societies in the periods January to March, 1973 and 1974.
The average gross prices were £7,031 and £9,010 respectively.
Is the Minister concerned that there has been an increase of approximately £2,000 in this period? What action does he propose to take to deal with this matter?
Deputy Molloy is as well aware as I am that building costs generally throughout Europe have increased substantially and have not increased any more in this country than anywhere else. Let us be manly enough to face up to the facts. Deputy Molloy does not want to do that. He is getting the facts now.
Question No. 21.
21.
asked the Minister for Local Government the total value of building society loans approved in the periods January to March in 1973 and 1974.
The total values were £13,518,000 and £12,089,000 respectively.
Is the Minister concerned that there has been a drop of £1½ million in the number of building society loans approved in these two periods?
May I point out, as a result of the action taken by me, by increasing the amount of SDA loans available and increasing the amount which a person could earn and still qualify for an SDA loan, the amount of money made available under SDA loans went up from £16,458,000 in 1972-73 to £43,081,000 in 1973-74.
The Minister has not answered my question.
When the Deputy asks a supplementary he ought to be gracious enough to listen to the reply. Question No. 22.
22.
asked the Minister for Local Government the total value of building society loans paid in the periods January to March in 1973 and 1974.
The total values were £11,862,000 and £9,435,000 respectively.
Is the Minister concerned that there has been a drop of £2.4 million?
Let me say again that the SDA loans have increased by millions. The fact that the houses are actually there to be seen and are being lived in is the proof.