I presume that the five minutes of our Private Members' time that has now been used will come out of the Opposition's time and not out of the Government's time?
Private Members' Business. - Housing Finance: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved on 8 December 1981 by Deputy Raphael Burke:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to restore (a) the house mortgage subsidy to single people and (b) the eligibility of single people for Local Authority home loans.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute:—
"takes note that because of the inadequate provision made for expenditure on housing by the Department of the Environment in 1981, the Government were compelled to confine, at this stage, house purchase loans and the morgage subsidy to those most in need — namely married people, those about to be married and special categories of borrowers."
—(Minister for the Environment).
We heard Government speakers on it too.
This is an important point. I want to explain it precisely. If this follows the normal run it would mean that the five minutes which the Opposition have deliberately used is Fine Gael time between 8.10 p.m. and 8.15 p.m.
Fine Gael time?
Government time.
I had eight minutes. Perhaps I might be allowed to continue.
Could I have the ruling of the Chair on that because it is quite important? Otherwise I would have to cut short my contribution and that is not fair.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Callanan.
Could I have a ruling on that?
Acting Chairman
We are starting now. We can dispose of it in this way: five minutes of Private Members' time could go on to next week.
What precisely does that mean? It means there will be no vote, and there is no Private Members' Business next week.
Acting Chairman
Enough valuable time has been wasted.
The Minister is splitting hairs.
If Deputy Moore assures me — and he is an honourable man, indeed they are all honourable men — that Fianna Fáil will be content to allow one of our speakers in at 8.15 for five minutes, that would be quite fair.
On a point of order, could I inform Deputy Barry that there are also honourable women on this side of the House?
There are probably more honourable women than there are honourable men.
I have only eight minutes and I will be as brief as I can. I am glad that the Minister is here tonight because I hope to be able to impress upon him that, as a decent man, he should change the decision made on 23 July. It is discrimination against single women and single men and it is discrimination against the young couple of Ireland who are looking for loans from the local authority. I pointed this out forcibly last night, and with the few minutes at my disposal I want to impress it on the Minister because I want an answer. The Minister of State spent all his time last night telling us he had no money. He mentioned that Deputy Burke brought in the £3,000 mortgage subsidy scheme in the middle of the financial year and it was not provided for in the Estimates. But the Government have provided money for higher education and that was done in the middle of the year with no vote; the county councils were told to pay out the money and they would get it back next year. So there is no point in talking about Deputy Burke introducing the £3,000 mortgage subsidy when he did. It is a useful subsidy and it is a shame to do away with it.
But the biggest discrimination of all has taken place in regard to local authority loans. I want clarification. But apparently the Minister is not going to listen to me; I am not important enough. I will have to stop until the Minister is ready to listen. I am looking at the Minister. He is sitting there and he is a decent man and I want him to hear what I have to say in the few minutes. He could not possibly hear what I have to say and be talking at the same time.
The position is that according to the decision of 23 July and the answers I have got to Parliamentary Questions the two names have to go on the application form. I want the Minister to clarify this. The matter was debated at length in Galway County Council and most of the councillors were opposed to this ruling. The Fine Gael members were unanimous that it was unworkable. It was discrimination. We always advise young people who are getting married to have at least half their houses built before they actually get married. Now the two names must appear on the application form and the two incomes are taken into account. The two names have to appear on the title. The Minister is not listening.
I am sorry.
It is an insult. I do not often talk in this House but I am talking commonsense now.
I would like to apologise. No offence is intended to a highly-respected Member. It does happen that members of the Government or of the Opposition front bench have on occasion to consult urgently, even in the Chamber, without intending any offence.
I thank the Minister. I consider myself worth listening to. The point is that two names must appear on the application form together with the two incomes. If they are earning anything at all they have to earn over £7,000. If one party is under 21 years then they cannot get a loan. I have known of refusals where the boy was 22 and the girl was 19. She was not entitled to get a loan. I may be told that that is the business of the Department of Justice but it is the Minister who made the regulations and he should have discussed them with the Department of Justice. This should be changed. If they have a right to vote at 18 they should have a right to get a loan at 18.
The Deputy has two minutes.
No one seems to know how these regulations are being implemented in the different countries. What is meant by temporary employment? As far as I know, apart from professional people and those in the Government service, everyone else is in temporary employment. Every other week this factory and that factory is closing down. How is one to define temporary employment? I think the Minister said temporary employment was not taken into account. I ask the Minister to define temporary employment now. If the total income is over £7,000 the applicants are out. I pointed out last night that a father may give a site to his son who is marrying a girl down the road. The son may change his mind but, if he wants to get the site, he must marry the girl. This is discrimination and I would ask the Minister as a decent, honourable man, to change this. If he will not change it will be please define temporary employment and will he have the same system in every county? There are not too many here in the House to hear me.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Leyden.
I wish to speak in favour of the Opposition motion.
I offered——
The Deputy did not offer.
I asked if I could speak next and you said the next speaker will be a Fine Gael speaker and you will call the Minister.
Acting Chairman
No. I said it was up to Fine Gael to decide.
The Deputy did not offer.
I have offered.
The motion says:
"That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to restore—
On a point of order.
It has never happened that there was not a rotation of speakers in Private Members' Business.
Acting Chairman
That is true, but Deputy Mitchell did not offer.
Deputy Mitchell thought Deputy Leyden was raising a point of order.
I thought Deputy Leyden was raising a point of order.
I do not agree. The Chair looked to see if anybody was offering from the Fine Gael benches. Nobody offered and he called Deputy Leyden. That is the position.
Mr. Mitchell
The Chair told me the next speaker would be from the Government side.
Deputy Mitchell will have to move more quickly.
Is it not the rule of the House that when a speaker on this side sits down a speaker on the other side offers and, if no speaker offers on the other side, a speaker on this side is called?
On a point of order, had the Chair an indication from Deputy Mitchell earlier, while Deputy Callanan was speaking, that he wanted to speak next.
Acting Chairman
Yes. He came to me and told me there was an arrangement last night with the Ceann Comhairle that he would speak tonight. I consulted with the Ceann Comhairle and he told me the next speaker would be a Fine Gael speaker. I called Deputy Mitchell and told him this and said it was up to himself and Fine Gael to arrange who the next speaker would be. When Deputy Callanan finished I looked at the Government side of the House and nobody offered.
Because Deputy Callanan was still on his feet. Deputy Mitchell got up——
You gave him no chance at all. Immediately Deputy Callanan sat down Deputy Leyden stood up and Deputy Mitchell waited to see had he a point of order. This is a most unfair ruling.
I recommend to the House that Deputy Mitchell be given some time during the debate. There is another hour to go.
The Chair informed me there would be a Fine Gael speaker next. It was agreed I would be called as soon as Deputy Callanan finished.
Acting Chairman
I do not want to be unfair to anybody. As a Deputy I like to get consideration when I offer but I have explained the position as it happened. No one offered.
That is the situation.
It is a fact that Deputy Mitchell indicated to you earlier that he was speaking next and just because Deputy Leyden was on his feet immediately——
He was standing before Deputy Callanan sat down.
I beg your pardon. The Minister is getting a bit rattled now. Let us get the situation right. The Chair looked at the Government benches to see if anyone was offering and no one was. He paused and then he looked at the Opposition benches and Deputy Leyden was up on behalf of the Opposition.
I had only returned two minutes earlier.
Deputy Mitchell is only filibustering.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Leyden rose and I presumed Fine Gael had opted not to speak.
Deputy Mitchell did not rise and we can all understand why — the motion was so embarrassing for the Government benches.
I did rise.
Acting Chairman
Can we have some order? The position is that a Deputy has to stand and offer to speak. Nobody offered from the Government side when Deputy Callanan had finished. Deputy Leyden rose and at this stage I had no option but to ask Deputy Leyden to proceed.
This is most unfair.
I protest most strongly. I was next after Deputy Callanan. This is without precedent. It is outrageous.
Sit down, you are only a small boy.
I am making my protest. The Chair refused to call me.
The withdrawal of the house subsidy from single people——
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
I will not go over the ground again. I asked the Deputy to come down to me and I explained to him what the position would be when Deputy Callanan had finished. I signalled to him to come down here and I explained what would happen. I said that the next speaker would be a Fine Gael speaker and that it was up to Fine Gael to decide who the speaker would be.
Did Deputy Mitchell indicate that he wished to speak?
Acting Chairman
He did. He indicated that he arranged with the Ceann Comhairle last night. I consulted with the Clerk who informed me that the next speaker would be a Fine Gael speaker. For that reason I called down Deputy Mitchell to explain that the next speaker would be from Fine Gael. I did not know at that stage who the Fine Gael speaker would be. When Deputy Mitchell did not offer and when Deputy Leyden offered I had no choice but to call Deputy Leyden. Deputy Leyden to proceed.
I support this motion. Unfortunately, the Government are trying to frustrate this side of the House——
This is outrageous behaviour——
Acting Chairman
If the Deputy does not allow the business to proceed I will have to call the Ceann Comhairle to deal with the matter.
You called on a Fianna Fáil speaker before Deputy Callanan had resumed his seat.
That is not so. Deputy Mitchell did not get up.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Leyden to proceed.
There was a mix-up in their jerseys.
I protest strongly at this behaviour. The Chair told me the next speaker would be from Fine Gael.
Acting Chairman
If the Deputy persists I will have to call the Ceann Comhairle or adjourn the House.
I am leaving the Chamber in protest. Any impartial Chair would have called on me.
Deputy G. Mitchell withdrew from the Chamber.
I have never seen worse.
It is very difficult to proceed, with Deputy Mitchell on his feet protesting. I regret Deputy Mitchell's behaviour. I do not blame him for leaving the Chamber in protest because Deputy Mitchell and other Fine Gael Deputies are totally embarrassed about this embargo on single people. When discrimination of this kind has been perpetrated surely Deputies like Deputy Mitchell cannot justify it. They are not prepared to justify it.
I ask how could Deputy Peter Barry, who has been a TD for years, stand over this form of discrimination? I was not surprised at the furore caused by Deputy Gay Mitchell because I am sure if he had stayed he could not in conscience vote for the Government amendment. Perhaps some of the other Fine Gael Deputies who have been speaking out about this deprivation of single person's rights will come in here and vote for the amendment. Unfortunately Deputy Sherlock was suspended this morning. On RTE news at 6.30 tonight he sided categorically with the Opposition against the Government on this issue. I am not alleging anything sinister, but I suggest that if he had not been suspended he would have voted here tonight for our motion.
Never before in the history of the State have a Government practised such discrimination against single people. During the general election campaign the people would not believe that a Government would discriminate in such a way. They thought that the incoming Government would support and help young people, but one of the first acts of the Government was to stop young people from getting these loans. I will refer to the Circular, B.C. 6/81, dated 29 July 1981 and headed "Mortgage Subsidy and Ordinary S.D.A. Loans". It was from the office of the Minister for the Environment and it stated:
It will be noted that eligibility for the mortgage subsidy and ordinary local authority house purchase loans is being restricted to married persons and persons about to marry. Where a couple propose to marry within twelve months, they may obtain approval to the payment of a loan and mortgage subsidy, provided that the application for the loan and subsidy is in their joint names. At the approval stage, a statement of intention to marry will suffice. Payments will not normally be made until evidence of marriage (e.g. marriage certificate) is available. Payments of the loan and subsidy may, however, be made before the marriage if the local authority and the Department, respectively, are satisfied that the couple have made arrangements to marry within twelve months of the payment and the mortgage is executed in the joint names of the prospective husband and wife.
A further regulation was circulated without a debate in the Dáil and was implemented by county councils as per instructions. In due course a letter was circulated to people who had applied for loans in the following form by Roscommon County Council:
Referring to your application to this Council for a loan of £14,000 for the purpose of providing a dwellinghouse it is noted that you are single. In the case of single persons loans are now confined to those who intend to marry within twelve months. In order that your application can be considered, please submit a Certificate from a Clergyman stating that you intend to marry within twelve months. You must also submit the P.60 for year ending 5/4/81 for the person you intend to marry.
On receipt of the above documents your application will receive further consideration.
We, in Roscommon County Council, discussed this issue — all other county councils received the same circular — and I thought it would be impossible for Government councillors to support the circular requirement. However, as recently as 18 November last a new circular was issued from Deputy Barry's office, reference H/4/81. It is in relation to the assessment of income tax for SDA loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. Tonight Deputy Callanan sought clarification on the requirements.
In the new circular the Minister says that strong representations were made to him that some local authorities were taking into account the joint income of intending spouses. It was his view that there was no justification for that if employment of a temporary nature was involved. If the county council were satisfied on that ground they could ignore the income of one of the people who were proposing to marry.
This is another vague request to the local authorities. What is a permanent job? What is a temporary job? Realising the strong objections which have come from right around the country to his first circular on 18 November, to some extent the Minister watered down the initial embargo on single people proposing to marry. In this new circular he told the local authorities that, if one of the spouses was in a temporary job, the income could be ignored. Soon after the marriage that person would leave the job.
What kind of a situation arises when the Minister puts forward this proposal and it is implemented by the local authority? There has to be policing to discover whether the applicant has a girl friend. He then has to receive a letter from the local parish priest or the reverend minister, whichever the case may be. He then has to go back to the local authority and they may decide that he intends to marry. He then has to provide the P.60 for his girl friend. If their joint income is above £7,000 they will be deprived of a local authority loan. The new requirement will mean that the county council will require a detective agency to investigate whether the spouse has a permanent or temporary job. What is permanent and what is temporary?
If a gentleman or a lady was engaged to a Member of this House would the Minister regard the Member's job as temporary or permanent? I would not regard it as permanent. If Government Deputies are engaged to be married will their incomes be ignored for loan purposes on the basis of the job being permanent or temporary? That is a very good question. In many cases this job in the Dáil has been very temporary for many people.
How could a local authority implement this circular? I will be seeking detailed clarification from the Minister to guide the local authorities. They will require the Minnie Brennans of this world to find out whether the job the boy or the girl is engaged in is temporary or permanent. As Deputies know, Minnie is a character in "The Riordans" and she is a local sub-postmistress. She may be involved in providing information for the local authorities and the Minister. The local authorities are extremely upset about this situation because it is very embarrassing for them.
At one stage courtship was a very straightforward matter between a boy and a girl. They proceeded to the day when the question would be popped. Now the question is: "Where is your P.60? How much are you earning? Would the two of us get a loan?"
"Did you apply for the £9.60?"
That would be a problem which would arise after they got married. This is before they even get to the church. The question is: "What is your income?" That is a very impertinent question to ask your girl friend. The girl friend may decide: "This business is getting out of hand. He did not pop the question. Why should he ask me that very impertinent question?" That is what he has to ask her. The Minister is laughing but this is his own circular. It was not composed in the Gaiety Theatre.
I am laughing at the time I will have in a moment.
If it had been composed in the Gaiety Theatre when the Coalition parties got together, there might be an excuse for it. Maureen Potter will have a field day in "Gaels of Laughter" this Christmas when she deals with this aspect of courtship 1981, Irish style, courtesy of the Coalition.
They proceed to discuss the question of the P.60. At that stage he may not have asked her whether she would marry him. He has to find out whether they are eligible from a financial point of view to build a house. They get the P.60 and discover that they are not eligible for the £14,000 loan because their joint income is over £7,000. They have two choices: whether to call the whole thing off and get somebody else, or she may decide that her job is temporary and apply to her employer to state that her job is temporary. That is another aspect of the whole silly affair as a result of the circular issued to the local authorities.
He then has to go down to the local parish priest or reverend minister. Visualise the situation when a decent Roscommon man, west of Ireland man or Irishman says: "Father, I am going with a girl and we intend to get married." The priest says: "That is fine. What can I do about it?" He says: "I want you to fill up a letter and sign a form and give it to me because otherwise I will not get a county council loan." I suggested recently that we should have a standard letter which the parish priest or the reverend clergyman could sign. Has the Minister got that letter available to circulate to clergymen? I want a few copies to give to the local clergymen in Roscommon because they do not know what it is all about.
They go to the clergyman and he probably does not even know them. They tell him they intend to get married within 12 months. Presumably the reverend minister or the priest will give them a letter. They then proceed to the county council. All things being equal, the letter provided, the guarantee of marriage on the table, the P.60 in order, and if not the P.60 the girl friend or the boy friend says the job is temporary, and they get approval for the loan. At that stage they are informed that the loan will not be paid until they get to the church on time. After the marriage ceremony they are provided with a certificate which they submit to the local authority. Then the loan may be paid provided that the local authority have the money to pay it. It might be some months afterwards.
It seems the Minister has some discretion. He can decide whether to pay the loan prior to the marriage date. There is something in the regulations which states that the council, in consultation with the Minister, may decide — and I presume he will get many of these requests and representations from his own party — to expedite the whole process and that the local authority will be allowed to pay the loan slightly before the marriage date.
What happens if the marriage is called off? Will the loan be withdrawn? Will the young couple be brought before the courts? In our time in Government we brought in legislation banning breach of promise actions. This is a new type of action 1981 style. It is the new shotgun method. The couple have entered into a binding agreement not only to marry but to build their house and get a loan. What kind of pressures is the Minister placing on young couples who propose to marry, build a home and raise a family? He is putting immense pressure on them.
Mind you, this pressure may be beseeched when the situation arises for a possible annulment in due course. It is possible to say — and the Church courts are quite clear on these issues — that there was pressure on the couple to force them into a marriage which was not voluntary. Surely there is no worse pressure than financial on a young couple which forces them to marry. I believe the Minister is putting that pressure on young couples today, which is a very serious and onerous responsibility.
In fairness to the Minister I think he will have to change the rules. This motion has proved a very useful exercise in highlighting the injustices perpetrated in those circumstances. Having heard the arguments advanced by this side of the House I believe the Minister will find himself in a situation in which he will amend the regulations, restoring the situation to that obtaining when we left office in July last. The situation then was clear-cut—young people were given loans under Fianna Fáil. Young people are deprived of loans under the National Coalition Government.
I would like to remind the Deputy that he has five minutes remaining.
On a point of order, the Deputy was interrupted for about ten minutes.
And he is being interrupted again, and they want another Fianna Fáil speaker.
He was interrupted by Deputy Mitchell.
The Chair would explain to the House that the Acting Chairman left word for me that Deputy Leyden took possession of the debate at 7.15 p.m. I must then, according to the order, remind Deputy Leyden that he has five minutes remaining. We should not have any interruptions.
Seeing that the words are placed so sweetly on the document before you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would ask further that you ask the Acting Chairman was it not a fact that from 7.10 p.m. until 7.22 p.m. Deputy Mitchell prevented speakers, aided and abetted by the Minister and the Minister of State.
We will have to get a stop watch.
The Chair is assuming that he can anticipate Deputy Leyden's co-operation on this and that he will capsule the remainder of his romantic considerations into four minutes.
I am finding it very difficult because——
We will give him what we will call injury time.
He will need it.
I want to get more time because in fairness I will not have had 30 minutes. Just in case I am cut off before the time——
(Interruptions.)
Would Deputies please allow Deputy Leyden to conclude.
Eight minutes more, if I may.
Two-and-a-half minutes.
I indicated that the Deputy had five minutes earlier. He has now four minutes remaining.
I want to deal with the situation in which a person has no intention of marrying. This is a very serious situation because somehow it is implied in this circular that the provisions apply to young people only in the 20 to 25 age group and that they can somehow delay applying for a loan. Many people in their forties and fifties have applied for loans. Many of those people are single and will never have an opportunity to own their home under the present administration. I raised this issue before in the House. I raised it also on many occasions in Roscommon County Council. I said I was launching my little crusade to change the rules in this regard and I am appealing to the Minister to help me in this crusade. There was a major crusade launched by the Taoiseach some time ago in relation to the Constitution. In this regard the same Taoiseach, chairing a Cabinet meeting, decided on these changes which discriminate totally against single people. What kind of an attraction is that to the single people of the Six Counties to tie in with us down here? That is absolute discrimination against single people.
I want to deal with the situation in which a single person, who has no opportunity to marry, applies. How can the Minister advise that person? Must he or she decide to live in inadequate housing? The applicant may be male or female, a spinster or a bachelor in the old Irish terminology. They have no opportunity to marry and they are being deprived not alone of wedded bliss but of a home to live in. Surely that type of discrimination is totally unfair. I have many people coming to my constituency clinics appealing to me to endeavour to change this situation. All I can do is use this House in an endeavour to change the regulations. I believe the Minister is a reasonable man and will come round to our way of thinking, restoring the situation to what it was prior to the change of Government.
Speaking last night at a function opening the headquarters of the Educational Building Society the Minister said there was a significant downturn in the number of houses built in the last nine months of this year compared with the same period in 1980. I have here the Irish Independent of today according to which he said that in 1981 20,445 houses were built as against 21,766 in 1980. Surely this is an indication of the effect the circular is having on the house purchasing and building situation and indeed its disastrous effects on employment and unemployment. Many people who would otherwise be building throughout the country have ceased, which has a major effect on the building industry.
I am sorry I have not more time because I have many more things to say on this issue. I can say only that approximately 40 per cent of loan applicants are being affected by this circular, 40 per cent of people who applied who were single, or single and about to be married—it was 43.4 per cent in the last quarter of 1980, and that figure is taken from the housing loans statistics 1977 to 1980.
I appeal to the Minister to use his good offices to change that circular. He has made a mistake. Let him be man enough to admit it, change the rules and restore the situation to that obtaining when we left office this year.
The Minister. Might I ask the Minister to co-operate when I indicate that he will have until 8.15 p.m.
I want to say something about that first, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and then say something about what happened in your absence when another Deputy was in the Chair. This debate this evening did not start until six minutes past seven, by that clock there, because Members of the Opposition Party tried to continue into Private Member's Time the debate on the Youth Employment Agency Bill. I asked the Chairman at the time if that would come out of their time rather than out of the Government's, and he would not give me any undertaking in that regard. I repeat my case to you now, Sir, that the time taken was taken by Opposition speakers depriving the Government of their five minutes between 8.10 p.m. and 8.15 p.m. this evening. I am asking now if you will cut down the amount of winding up time for the movers of the motion to ten minutes to allow us on this side conclude our contribution.
The Minister appreciates that the Chair calls on Deputies in accordance with the routine in which they offer and must carry out——
That is a separate point. The point is that Private Member's Time this evening did not commence until six minutes past seven. Given the normal rotation of speakers in Private Members' Time Government Party speakers taking their normal length of time, are entitled to five minutes prior to the concluding speaker from the Opposition benches. We are being deprived of those five minutes because the Opposition moved into——
I must explain to the Minister that on several occasions those five minutes have been given to Independent Deputies.
There are none of them here. They are not interested.
Yes, of course. But on this occasion when there are only——
There are none of them here.
Therefore, it would fall to be a Government speaker on this occasion and we have now been deprived of that. I will leave it there. I want to protest about the ruling.
I want to protest also about what happened when Deputy Callanan sat down at about 7.15 this evening. Deputy Mitchell and I were sitting on this side of the House. You were not in the Chair at that time. It would be an exaggeration to say before he sat down but, as Deputy Callanan sat down, Deputy Leyden rose to speak. The normal courtesy of this House is that speakers alternate between the sides. Deputy Mitchell, who was the next speaker on our side, was under the impression that Deputy Leyden was making an inquiry or raising a point of order. Deputy Leyden then launched into a contribution to the debate — which I enjoyed very much — depriving Deputy Mitchell of a chance to speak. That is over now and nothing can be done but I want to protest that the normal courtesies were not observed.
In defence of the Acting Chairman, I must say that his problem was that he looked towards the Government benches and saw a Minister and a backbench Deputy, neither of whom offered. Traditionally the Minister would get precedence over the backbench Deputy, and he thought the matter had not been settled by them. When neither of them offered he did what was required of him, namely, he called Deputy Leyden who was offering. That is as the Acting Chairman saw it, and rightly so.
I am sorry the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was not here. Seconds passed between the time the Acting Chairman looked at our benches and Deputy Leyden commenced to speak. The impression on this side of the House was that Deputy Leyden was merely making an inquiry.
Deputy Mitchell had informed the Chair that he was going to speak.
I ask the Minister to accept that the Acting Chairman acted in good faith.
I believe he did.
The Minister has lost a few minutes now.
Of course I accept what the Chair has said. I always accept the rulings of the Chair.
The Minister threw down his documents in disgust. I saw that quite clearly.
(Interruptions.)
The Chair appeals to the House to proceed with the business as ordered.
Deputy Callanan and Deputy Leyden made several references to the circular which indicated to local authorities that when applications for loans were received the income of both people should be taken into account. Am I correct in assuming that Deputy Leyden and Deputy Callanan object to that? I was not sure from Deputy Leyden's speech.
It is being implemented in that way as a result of the circular.
That local authorities should take both incomes into account when assessing eligibility for a loan? Is the Deputy objecting to that point?
It is one of the points.
I will deal with that later. The amendment in my name reads as follows:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and to substitute:—
"takes note that because of the inadequate provision made for expenditure on housing by the Department of the Environment in 1981, the Government were compelled to confine, at this stage, house purchase loans and the mortgage subsidy to those most in need—namely married people, those about to be married and special categories of borrowers."
When I speak about an inadequate provision for housing, I want to place clearly on record that I mean not only an inadequate provision for house purchase but also massive underprovision for local authority housing. This underprovision was made not through bad or incorrect estimation but in the clear knowledge that the minimum required was far greater than that provided.
The amount provided in the public capital programme for local authority house-building in 1981 was £108.5 million. This was increased in May on the eve of the general election by the provision of an extra £2.5 million for the Cork area where there was a danger of imminent lay-offs because of lack of finance. The total inadequacy of the increased provision of £111 million can be seen when it is compared with the actual expenditure of £113.6 million on the programme in 1980 and when account is taken of the fact that house-building costs increased by nearly 23 per cent between mid-1980 and mid-1981. The Government provided £2,500,000 million less for house-building in 1981 than they did in 1980 despite the fact that there was an increase in house-building costs of nearly 23 per cent. That was the concern shown by the then Government for housing the people. It was a disgraceful performance and I would be ashamed to say I was a member of such a party.
When I took up office on 1 July I found that 75 per cent of the total capital made available for 1981 had already been drawn from the Local Loans Fund and that some authorities who had extensive house programmes in progress had absolutely nothing to draw. The consequences of this were that many managers were contemplating putting contractors on notice that they would not be able to honour certificates of payments in the second half of the year.
When I became a Member of this House ten or 12 years ago there was a Fianna Fáil Deputy who was very fond of starting each speech, irrespective of the subject under discussion, by saying he remembered that when Fianna Fáil came back into government Dublin Corporation had not the price of a bag of cement. Deputies opposite will know who I am talking about. When I came back to office this year, not alone had they not the price of a bag of cement but they had not paid for last year's cement.
It did not show up in the Estimates.
I was genuinely surprised to find that the situation was so bad. I was even more surprised to find there was no apparent intention on the part of the former administration to do anything about it. In other words, the local authority housing programme was collapsing to a level which would see the completion of only about 3,000 houses in 1982 and no action was taken to avoid this. I find it hard to reconcile this lack of concern for those in the greatest need of housing with the solicitude for families in need housing so regularly expressed since July by Members on the other side of the House.
Immediate action was called for and I am glad to say the Government did not delay in deciding on my recommendation to provide an additional £30 million for the programme. This was an increase of 27 per cent on the existing provision and represented an increase of almost 40 per cent on the capital provided for the programme in 1980. The enormity of the problem left by the previous Government can be gauged from the fact that even with this massive increase in finance a number of local authority programmes are still in difficulties. Present indications are that completions this year will be at the lowest level for 10 years and that the programme had been run down to such an extent that it will take quite some time to get it back on a good footing.
I admit I am digressing now but I was interested to see that Fianna Fáil Deputies like to be called former Ministers. They do not like to be called Opposition spokesmen, frontbench spokesmen or shadow Ministers.
I have not said a word.
I am judging by what I read in the papers. The Deputy is the former Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Killilea is the former Minister of State at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and Deputy Burke is the former Minister for the Environment. I wonder if Fianna Fáil are wise to do that? I do not think they are. The more time goes by the more former they become. It is rather like the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, the cat who disappeared and nothing was left except the smile. Perhaps in two years' time all we will see of the Fianna Fáil Party will be Deputy Killilea's smile.
Has the Minister anything constructive to offer? This is like a Benny Hill act.
On the private housing side, when we took office we found that the previous administration, with great publicity, had produced what they called the Housing Package, 1981, with new higher income limits and new higher loan limits for local authority house purchase loans schemes, a new special loan scheme for tenants and those on the waiting list and a new mortgage subsidy scheme. Although fully aware that the package would cost substantially more this year, the former Government made no provision for it. All they gave were promises with nothing to back them up. Although local authorities were informed of the details of the new package and given the go-ahead to accept and approve applications under the new limits, they were not informed of any increase in their capital allocations to enable them to meet the new demands.
There was very good reason for this. The Government did not authorise any extra financing for the purpose. The provisions would remain as they were in the public capital programme. There were plenty of promises, programmes and publicity but no money. Deputies are aware that the major part of the finance which local authorities issued to applicants approved for house purchase and reconstruction loans comes from the Exchequer through the Local Loans Fund. The 41 local authorities were informed in February last of their allocation for the year, the amount which it was expected would be available to provide for internal resources and the amount up to which they could draw from the Local Loans Fund monthly to finance payments as they arose. This form of allocation was decided upon at the start of the year because even then it was felt that the overall provision was already tight, many local authorities would find it difficult to manage and a monthly allocation would help them.
Subsequently, as I have said, in May 1981 the last Government announced their housing package, 1981, in which they decided to increase the local authority loan limit to £14,000 and the income limit to £7,000 and to phase out the low rise mortgage scheme but at the same time to introduce a new special scheme for tenants and those on the waiting list, with a maximum loan of £18,000. It must be clear to all Deputies, as it was clear to the last administration, that the consequences of this decision must have been to increase the demand for money in the current year over and above that which would arise because of the lower limits. The increase in the income limit from £5,000 to £7,000 made very many more eligible, while the increase in the loan limit was in itself of the order of 16 per cent. At the same time a new scheme with maximum loans of £18,000 for which no provision had previously been made was also introduced. Notwithstanding, the previous Government were aware that the effects of the proposal would require an additional £9 million in 1981. What did they do? Nothing.
The Minister is in Government now.
The Deputy's party were in Government in May this year. They made promises but they did nothing. Every single Department, you can go through them one by one, made promises.
(Interruptions.)
Can I crave the protection of the Chair?
The Minister in craving the protection of the Chair should realise that if he addresses the Chair and not the Deputies opposite he might not need to look for the Chair's protection.
(Interruptions.)
Will Deputy Killilea allow the Minister to proceed?
The punch line is coming. The motion refers to the mortgage subsidy scheme. Again, a new scheme was announced and there was great publicity at the run-up to the general election. They showed the people what great housing administrators they were, but failed to give any indication that the necessary finance for the scheme had not been provided. This scheme applied to first-time owner-occupiers of grant-type new houses. This is the famous mortgage subsidy scheme. Do they remember when that was launched? They had a great night then.
The Chair would remind the Minister that if he continues——
He has hired a script company.
(Interruptions.)
If it applies to the mortgage subsidy I thought I would be allowed to indicate——
Minister, if you continue to address your comments to the side opposite, obviously you should from your experience anticipate the reception which you are receiving.
My apologies, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I should have addressed you.
This is——
Deputy Killilea please remain quiet and allow the Minister to contribute.
This is the housing mortgage subsidy scheme which was referred to first at the gathering of the Fianna Fáil at their Ard Fheis in the RDS last March. Deputy Burke, then Minister for the Environment, got up on the rostrum — I saw him on television — and he said what he was going to do about this and that, it would apply to people in certain categories, there would be a three-year mortgage subsidy, and he was cheered loudly by a thronged hall.
Rightly so.
He got down off that rostrum and went out to the press corridor where they asked to speak to him about this new scheme. It seemed a very generous scheme. How was it to be paid for? Without batting an eyelid Deputy Burke said that the money would be borrowed. The story of the Fianna Fáil's life over the last few years is, "Oh, the money will be borrowed." Who is to pay for the borrowing? Is Deputy Burke serious? He gave a long lecture here on Fianna Fáil's commitment to thrift. A major portion of his speech was taken up with thrift and the dedication of the Fianna Fáil Party to thrift. You will understand, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, when a subsidy like this is introduced it is part of the current budget and must be paid for annually. This is the very reason, the number one reason, why the Fianna Fáil Party find themselves on that side of the House instead of on this side. They continued to borrow extraordinary sums of money to pay for the current deficit.
What about the future?
That is not so. Tell us about the Supplementary Estimates.
How am I doing for time?
The Minister has ten minutes.
I must take issue with some contributions to this debate. On a couple of occasions yesterday the former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Burke, spoke unctiously about Fianna Fáil giving encouragement to home ownership with special emphasis on encouragement to thrift. He was the man who was going to borrow the total money for the mortgage subsidy scheme. There was no question of thrift last April, but everybody should practice thrift now that they are in Opposition. Could any contribution by a representative of the most profligate Government in this country's short history sound more cynical and insincere? There is little evidence in the financial policies of the previous Government of the thrift so warmly commended. Why did other members of that Government not give effect to the concept of the thrift he recommends so warmly now in Opposition?
Deputy Burke's heart bleeds also for the problems of the unmarried applicants for SDA loans who were rejected because they were unmarried or not contemplating marriage within a reasonable time. As a former member of Dublin County Council Deputy Burke must be aware that that council and a number of other councils throughout the country before any letter was issued from my Department in July last had decided as a matter of policy that house purchase loans should be advanced to persons who were unmarried and not contemplating early marriage only in quite exceptional circumstances. This was the policy of Dublin County Council of which Deputy Burke was a member.
Dublin does not run Roscommon.
I do not see how somebody who subscribed to a policy of a council while he was a member of it should come in here and forget about that policy when he attacks us for doing precisely the same thing.
We are talking about Ireland, not Dublin.
Including my own county of Cork. A number of other counties have been pursuing precisely that policy for a number of years and Deputy Burke was a member of Dublin County Council when they were doing it. Yet he comes in here, as he did last night, and attacks the Government for adopting exactly the same policy. Either he has a short memory or he is a hypocrite. I do not think it could be both.
I want to say a word about the building societies subsidy because Deputy Burke was critical about the termination of the subsidy to the societies on 1 September last. The first thing Deputy Burke did when he became Minister for the Environment was to remove the subsidy which was being paid to building societies. That was the first thing he did when he was made Minister in September or October 1979.
He was not Minister then.
In 1980. The first thing he did was to remove the subsidy that was being paid then to building societies. A short memory or the alternative? I do not know. You have to answer that for yourselves. The Fianna Fáil Party collectively have a short memory. I am not sure if Deputy Leyden did, but other speakers spoke about the home improvement grants. Did any one of them open his mouth when those grants were wiped out completely by the last Government after being in existence since 1924? Since that time some form of home improvement grant scheme was in operation in this country and this great, big-hearted — when in Opposition — party never let a geek out of them about it. Deputy Burke is probably not a member of the county council now. Indeed, he was a member of the county council when this happened. pened. Does the Deputy remember Offaly County Council? He was part of the decision to wipe out the home improvements grants — Deputy Callanan in Galway County Council and Deputy Leyden in Roscommon County Council.
I objected to it.
Bully for you. Well done. Deputy Callanan is an honourable, decent, independent-minded man.
I am sure that there were councillors who objected to the Minister's circular more strongly than I did.
I am sure they did, naturally. Deputy Callanan is an honest, independent man and I respect him for it. The county council completely wiped out the home improvements grants which had been in existence from the twenties and on up into the seventies——
And on to the end of Private Members' time before the Deputy gets an answer.
——all through the seventies and wiped out without a geek from Fianna Fáil, with the honourable exception of Deputy Callanan. They came in here whining and weeping crocodile tears, for two hours last night.
On a point of order, how much time has the Minister?
I have four minutes left.
Would he please answer my question?
The Deputy is entitled to that. He has waited for a long time. He is entitled to the punch line. He raised a good point, which I accept fully.
I asked for three definitions. I would like to get them.
Taking the definition of "temporary" first. Temporary means, in this sense, the length of time for which a person might hold his or her job and not the job itself. Someone may give up a job in 12 months after marriage. It is not the job itself.
How does the Minister know?
I do not want to be diverted from the subject. I am very short of time. On another point raised by Deputy Callanan, I want to say quite clearly that the early age at which people are tending to marry is of concern to many of us and the difficulties which this causes when people under 21 enter into a contract. Of course, the law says that they can enter into a contract, but can opt out of it again? The contract is not binding until they are 21.
That is right.
This is a problem which has to be tackled in a whole lot of other fields besides housing, but it does crop up in housing. I made representations to other Departments concerned to have the law changed generally on the point. If that does not happen within a reasonably short time, because of other demands and other priorities, if I have a Housing Bill to bring in next year — and I think that will happen — I will include some clause which will cater for that situation. This is an important point and I accept its validity at the present time. On another point referred to by Fianna Fáil speakers last night and tonight by Deputies Callanan and Leyden about the assessment of joint income for a loan——
And the title. The Minister should not forget that.
When I issued that circular in July, Deputy Leyden is quite right that I got a number of representations in this regard and decided that it needed a more flexible approach. I changed my mind and issued another circular. I make no apology for doing that.
You were bound to change.
If I find that something is not working, I will not have it hanging around my neck for ever. If I have made a mistake, I correct that mistake.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I want to tell the House where this originated, which is very interesting. A county council in the earlier part of this year were concerned about the application of the rules in this regard. They wrote to the Minister and asked, when assessing people's incomes for loans — Deputy Leyden sees now what I am speaking about — what should they do? The Department, on behalf of the Minister, wrote back that there was no justification for not including the total income of that couple when assessing their means for a loan for a house. Who do you think the Minister was? Hands up who the Minister was? The very Minister who introduced the motion here tonight — Deputy Raphael P. Burke, former — and getting more former — Minister of the Environment, on 6 March 1981.
The Minister never answered my question concerning the title.
Deputy Connolly.
I want, in the time I have available to me——
This is disgraceful. I was on my feet.
—— in speaking to this motion. This is an Opposition motion on the situation——
This is absolutely outrageous.
As we find the position now——
I am asking Deputy Mitchell to realise that Deputy Connolly must conclude at 8.30 p.m.
It is absolutely disgraceful. I was on my feet and it is absurd that I am not being allowed to speak.
Deputy Connolly must be called. That is the order of the House. I ask Deputy Connolly to proceed.
Up to now, both incomes are being taken into consideration where single people are concerned. This is in operation in my own county of Laois-Offaly and throughout a lot of the country. Let us not get away from that. However, I want also to point out that any county council may now alter a policy of its own accord as regards who gets the loan and who does not. That is a matter for the county council and for the manager of the day to decide. We have had a situation where, beyond doubt, local authorities were advised that joint incomes came into the mortgage income. That has been the situation up to now and certain categories may qualify. I am amazed that the Minister for the Environment is putting the onus on the clergy to decide who will be married and when they are going to be married. The clergy have intimated to me that this is putting them in a very difficult position.
That is right.
There is no doubt that they are being made judge and jury on this. That is not good enough. It is not right or proper. However, that is the situation now. There are many more implications. These persons who are going to marry must get into their own name the land on which they are going to build. If the marriage falls through — and many a marriage has fallen through because the man may not go ahead or the lady may say the marriage is not on any longer — what then is the position in regard to the title of the site? What a legal wrangle we will have then and who will win there? Everybody knows who, but I will not mention that now. I have followed what the Minister of State said last night and also listened to the Minister for the Environment stating that when we left the Department the finances necessary were not available. When one brings in a new scheme one is unable to say what the demand will be like. But let me remind the House that when the last Coalition Government were in office they did not raise the income level for SDA loans or the SDA loans themselves. When we came into office we had to rectify all of that. Since I came into Dáil Éireann there was never a year when there was not a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of the Environment and every other Department. There is no point in Government spokesmen saying that they were left without the money to do various things. It is not rubbing off any more on the public and it is not rubbing off on me either.
What financial institution would give a bridging loan to a couple on the basis of a promise of marriage? I have no doubt that there is none that would. Now the joint income of both parties is taken into account so that it will be over the £7,000 limit and a loan will not have to be granted. We on this side of the House believe, without a doubt, that the SDA loans are about to go completely. Their days are numbered. The Government only have to bring regulations and stipulations so that very few people will qualify. If a couple go into rented accommodation when they get married they are paying at least £25 a week. If they then go ahead and get a local authority loan they will have to raise a bridging loan as well and will then find themselves paying out £50 a week between paying for the flat and the bridging loan. How could any young couple do that? These young couples will have no alternative but to go on the local authority housing list and ask the corporation or the County Council to house them. If they got an SDA loan they would pay the interest on the money and pay the charges and there would be no cost to the Exchequer. Earlier we were accused of borrowing. We did borrow but it was for productive purposes and we make no apology for that. We borrowed to give money to people to build their own houses and they paid the interest on the charges. What is wrong with that? We borrowed no more than the Coalition as to the rate of GNP when they left office in 1975.
I want to say a few words also on the housing package that we brought in. We brought in a subsidy to help newly weds and those about to be married in the first few years when payments would be severe. In rural Ireland, if a young man wants to get married, he will do the best he can. He may be lucky enough to get a plot from his father or his in-laws to build his own house. What position is he in now? I would have to advise him not to go ahead because he will not be able to raise the money from the local authority. His hands are completely tied. If we had been left in office we would have made the necessary money available both for local authority housing and for SDA loans. We would not have interfered with the system that was in operation. It was a good system. But now what is taking place is discrimination of the highest order. When one has to bring in the clergy to adjudicate on who is going to be married and who is not going to be married it is getting a bit highhanded altogether, with all due respects to the Government.
There is going to be an enormous number of new applicants on the local authority and corporation housing lists throughout the country. There will be four applicants for every house built. I am not surprised in view of the policy of the Government before the election when they said they were going to cut the capital programme. Everybody knows what that means.
There have been some U-turns in regard to a number of Departments. I hope that there will be a U-turn now and the Government will revert to the policy that we were implementing before we left office.
The Minister also mentioned home improvement grants. We did away with home improvement grants and I will explain why. We decided that the money available should be put into new housing to house newly weds and those about to be married. That was a reasonable thing to do because some people were getting home improvement grants for what I would call luxury extensions. I would like to deal for a moment with the home improvement grant that the Government brought in. There are so many conditions in it that very few people will get approval. There is a means test on that. There is nothing included for new roofs.
There is no means test.
There is nothing for walls.
What is the income ceiling?
There is a means test in the building regulations. The regulations state who will qualify and what they will qualify for. There are other criteria laid down in those. The people cannot be fooled all the time.
What the Deputy is saying is not true.
It is. Conditions are laid down. If a roof is collapsing there is no grant for it. If the walls are collapsing there is no grant. If windows and doors are rotten there will be no grant. Let us face reality. It is no use running away from this.
(Interruptions.)
Those are the facts. Deputy Collins was only sent in here to interrupt.
On a point of order, the Deputy is quoting from certain sources. I am entitled to seek the sources he quotes from.
What is he quoting?
He was not quoting from anything. That is the problem.
The Minister of State is obviously out of order.
He is suffering from a delusion like everybody else over there. I think I am coming into injury time now. Nevertheless let me say that the number of people who will qualify for such grants will be very few because of the criteria and the types of rules laid down. In conclusion I want to say that this implementation means that single people——
(Interruptions.)
This plan, if implemented, will mean that single people about to marry will be out. There is no doubt about that because the Minister has called in the clergy to be both judge and jury. He did not have the guts to face up to it himself. For all those reasons our motion should be accepted.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 72.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán. Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Burton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John F. Dukes, Alan M.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh. (Dublin North-West).
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- McCartin, John J.
- Markey, Bernard.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy. O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan Richie.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Spring, Dick.
- Taylor, Madeleine.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Acheson, Carrie.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Alderman Dublin Bay-Rockall Loftus, Sean D.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh. (Wexford).
- Callanan, John.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Clement.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig. Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- French, Seán. Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Joyce, Carey.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lemass, Eileen. Lenihan, Brian.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies F. O'Brien and Mervyn Taylor; Níl, Deputies Moore and Briscoe.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended agreed to.