Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 15 Dec 1981

Vol. 331 No. 10

Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order 1981: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Creed)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order, 1981

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on 7th December, 1981.

The purpose of the Housing Act, 1969, was to prevent the unwarranted demolition or change of use of habitable houses which was depleting the housing stock at a time of difficulty in keeping pace with housing demand, particularly in Dublin city. The Act was intended to be a temporary measure, due to expire on 31 December 1972, but it included provision in section 13 for its continuance in operation after that date if the conditions so warranted. In fact, it has been continued in force since by the Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Orders, 1972, 1974, 1977 and 1979 and will expire on the 31 December 1981 unless continued by an order made by the Minister for the Environment after it has been approved by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas.

The Act requires generally that the permission of the housing authority must be obtained for the demolition or change of use of any habitable house. In determining an application for permission under the Act a housing authority must have regard to the state of repair of the house to which the application relates and to the adequacy of the supply of dwellings in its functional area. An authority may either refuse permission or grant it, with or without conditions.

While the powers made available by the Act have been utilised occasionally by at least 38 housing authorities, in practice the controls have only been exercised to any degree by a few, principally by the Dublin authorities and Cork Corporation. Statistics furnished by these authorities of applications made to them and of their decisions thereon and representations made by them to have the Act continued in force indicated that the Act has helped to preserve a considerable number of houses.

Up to 30 September 1981 applications for permission in respect of 2,463 buildings had been made to Dublin Corporation. Permission was refused in 1,045 cases and granted subject to conditions in 1,365. Of the 325 applications received by Cork Corporation in the same period 222 were granted, 87 were refused and 16 were withdrawn. However, it can be said that these figures may not of themselves provide a true indication of the Act's effectiveness. It has had a deterrent value and at the same time the application of its provisions has been responsible for a number of replacement dwellings and there has been the assistance to local finances of the contributions made to them where permission for demolition and change of use had been granted subject to such contributions.

Where a housing authority have refused permission or granted it subject to conditions there is a right of appeal to the Minister. By the end of September this year, 1,106 appeals had been submitted. Of these, 59 were not received within the statutory period, 116 were withdrawn, 879 were determined and the remainder were under consideration.

Whether the Act should be continued in its present form has been the subject of much debate in the House. I note from the record of the discussion on the resolution on the 1979 Continuance Order Motion that the then Minister was recommending the continuance of the Act because, while satisfied that some form of permanent control for this purpose was necessary, he was not satisfied as to the form the control should take and wished to consult local authorities for their views on the matter before taking a decision.

When I took office I found that local authorities had been consulted. The results showed that the vast majority did not avail of their powers under the Act but preferred to use their powers under the Planning Acts to control change of use of residential property. Only two local authorities made a case for retention of the Act, but although both used their powers extensively neither offered any suggestions as to how the weakness of the Act might be overcome.

On consideration, I am prepared to accept that there is need for some control of the type provided by the Act, but I am inclined to the view that the control would best be exercised by planning authorities under the planning code and that whatever legislative amendment is necessary for the purpose in that code should be made.

The considerable pressure of other business since I took office has not enabled me to have developed so far any amendment along these lines. The position is directly related to the question of reviewing the present provisions governing the withering of planning approvals and permissions, a matter on which important representations have been made and concerning which the Government intend to make an announcement in the immediate future.

In the meantime I would not wish that the powers available under the 1969 Act to those local authorities who use them should be lost through the lapsing of the Act and I propose to continue them through this order for a period of three years from 31 December 1981. While I ask the Dáil in the circumstances to approve of the order now before them, I can assure Deputies that it is my intention to review the situation within the period of extension and, if appropriate safeguards can be provided by planning legislation, it would be my intention to allow the 1969 Act to lapse before the terminal date now proposed.

On this basis I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Raphael Burke

I deeply regret that because of the Government's action in the House today in the motion which restricts the time for debate of items such as the motion now before the House, the Courts Bill, 1981, the Merchant Shipping Bill, 1981, the Rent Restrictions Bill, 1981, and the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1981, we will not have adequate time to debate this important motion. Neither will we have time properly to consider the other Bills I have mentioned. It is to be deeply regretted from a democratic point of view. The order to which the motion refers is as follows:

The Minister for the Environment in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 13 of the Housing Act, 1969 (No. 16 of 1969) hereby makes the following Order, the draft of which has been approved by a resolution passed by each House of the Oireachtas:—

1. This Order may be cited as the Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order, 1981.

2. The Housing Act, 1969 (other than section 11 and subsections (1) and (2) of section 13) shall continue in force until 31st December, 1984.

It would be helpful to the House if I referred to exactly what is in the Housing Act, 1969, and reminded the House of its sections. In the Title, the Act is referred to as follows:

An Act to make provision to control the demolition or use otherwise than for human habitation of certain houses.

Initially we have the interpretation section. Section 2 refers to general obligations for obtaining permission. Section 3 refers to applications for permission. Section 4 deals with permission for demolition or use otherwise than for human habitation of habitable houses. Section 5 provides that a housing authority may require a house to be made fit for human habitation. Section 6 provides for the enforcement of a reinstatement notice. Section 7 refers to the recovery of instalments mentioned in section 4(3) and expenses incurred by a housing authority under section 6(1).

Section 8 provides that appeals relating to reinstatement notices and demands for expenses may be made under section 72 of the Act of 1966. Section 9 refers to the non-application of the Act in certain cases. Section 10 deals with provisions applicable where permission is required under this Act to and under the Act of 1963. Section 11 deals with the amendment of section 66 of the Act of 1966. Section 12 is the transitional section and section 13 concerns the short title, construction, collective citation and duration.

All of these sections in the original Act were intended to preserve the stock of housing. In discussing this motion one must ask what action have the Government taken to preserve and increase our housing stock. If we look at the motion in narrow terms, it is a continuance of the existing situation with a recognition by the Minister of the need to review the situation some time between now and 1984. If the Minister is seriously considering a review of this legislation, why does he need the period between now and 1984 to do so? My concern is that he may be putting it on the long finger. If he were serious, he would have confined himself to a 12-month period. The Minister referred to pressure of other legislation and other items in the Department. If he were sincere he would have given himself 12 months continuance. Exactly what are the Minister's proposals and what are the trends of thought in his review?

Before going on to the general question of the maintenance of the housing stock and additions to it, and the Government's policy in that area, I would ask the Minister to direct his attention to section 5 of the Act we are being asked to continue in operation. Section 5 gives to the housing authority the power to require a house to be made fit for human habitation. From my experience I found that one of the great defects of the Housing Act, 1969, was that, while property owners were waiting for a decision to be made by the local authority or by the Minister on appeal, they quite consciously allowed the condition of their property to deteriorate to such an extent that the local authority or the Minister had little option but to grant permission for a change of use.

If they did not the house was allowed to deteriorate to the stage where it could no longer be used for human habitation. It was easier in that case for the local authority to grant permission for a change of use rather than to try and impose section 5 which required the house to be returned to a state fit for human habitation. In my experience in the Department a number of these cases came before me. How does the Minister intend to tackle the problem of property owners who quite consciously and irresponsibly permit and assist in the deterioriation of their property while awaiting permission for a change of use from a habitable residence to an office block, a shop, or whatever.

The whole operation of this Act needs to be looked at. I welcome the Minister's statement that he intends to look at it, but I question his sincerity about his review of the Act when he says that he will take until 1984 to look at it. The Minister for the Environment is not really sincere about tackling the problem if he is asking for a continuance order up to 1984.

As I said, the Act refers to the maintenance of the housing stock. That is really the kernel of the Act. I question the Government's sincerity about improving the housing stock. I want to remind the House that, when the previous National Coalition were in office, with the exception of a decision made within a month of taking office to increase the limits of the local authority housing loans and the income limits, from March-April of 1973 until they were thrown out of office, chased out by the Irish people in June 1977, they did not increase the income limits or the loan limit of the SDA loans.

We have a number of schemes for encouraging house purchase. The only scheme run by the State is the SDA loans scheme. We depend on the building societies, the insurance companies, the banks and other lending agencies for the remainder of the loans. Between 1973 and 1977 the National Coalition Government showed a total contempt for the State's involvement in the SDA loans scheme. Since they took office this time through the vagaries of PR, and the kindness of socialist, question mark, inverted commas, Deputies, once again they have shown their contempt for the only agency in the State which is geared to the provision of loans for house purchase. They came into power on 30 June last. From 23 July we had three budgets in a week — we had the budget on Tuesday when we saw the increase in VAT, from 10 per cent up to 15 per cent on most items; we had all of the other savage increases announced on that Tuesday; on the Wednesday we had the increases in electricity, CIE, postal and other charges announced and on the Thursday here at about 12 noon in slipped the Minister for the Environment, Deputy P. Barry and with a stroke of the pen he altered the regulations for the SDA loans scheme.

I would remind the House of exactly what we had done in power from 1977 to 1981. When we assumed office there was the ludicrous level of income eligibility of £2,350, and £4,500 was the size of the loan. Over the years we increased those figures, the last increase constituting one section of the housing package I announced in April last, which increased the loan to £14,000 and the income limit to £7,000. Part of that package also were the subsidies and so on, to which I will revert later. At that stage we had demand for the SDA loans scheme running at a record level. What happened? With the usual narrow-minded, backward looking administration and decisions that typify this Fine Gael-Labour Coalition, they removed from eligibility 22 per cent of potential borrowers. They excluded loans for single people. We all know — and the figure of 22 per cent proves it — there is a tradition of single people, men and women, buying homes. Within three weeks of coming into power this Government removed such applicants from eligibility for SDA loans.

Tomorrow we will be asked to consider a Housing Finance Agency Bill which purports to make extra finance available from the private sector for the purpose of providing loans for house purchase. Surely if this administration were serious about the provision of money for house purchase, rather than setting up another layer of bureaucracy with all the expense that that entails, they would remove the conditions that have debarred 22 per cent of potential house buyers from availability to the SDA loans scheme. They already have a national scheme, the local authority house purchase scheme. We do not need another layer of bureaucracy; rather they should just provide the finance through the SDA loans scheme.

On top of that third budget in July last, as I have described it, the Minister for the Environment removed the availability of the mortgage subsidy from single people, again hitting this 22 per cent, admitted by the Government, and I use the Minister's own figure of 22 per cent.

We are told that this agency which we are to discuss tomorrow and Thursday under this guillotine motion — and we were told by the Minister of State earlier when moving the guillotine motion — is urgently required to meet a desperate social need and is a measure which will enable the Government to establish an agency which will ultimately channel private sector funds into housing. There is a serious shortage of funding for housing in this country at present. That is the responsibility of the Government and let them tackle it. It is said that this measure is designed to give the necessary injection of resources to alleviate the problem. The Bill we will be discussing tomorrow will be an enabling one.

If the Government are concerned about the construction industry on the housing side let them make adequate funds available and not be cutting back in the way they have been, in the discriminatory removal of single people from the availability of SDA loans and mortgage subsidies. We discussed this last week and the Government, with their pet Independents, great Socialists, voted against our Private Members' motion to restore the availability of this subsidy and loan to single people. Just in case the Minister of State might feel that this has to do with single people only, might I say that the SDA loans scheme is literally on its knees. To all intents and purposes it has come to a halt in all of the local authorities around the country because of the actions of this administration. If the Minister of State is serious about maintaining and improving the housing stock, if he is serious about the provision of funds for loans, let him provide the money now, let him give this injection of funds about which the Minister of State spoke earlier to maintain and increase the housing stock which is what this Housing Act of 1969 we are discussing here is all about.

I would ask the Minister now to consider the joint income situation of applicants. Again the rules were changed in July last. There is now in operation a regulation which was defined here by the Minister of State's predecessor, the present Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, in response to questions in this House, when he said that the joint incomes were taken together unless the wife was in a temporary job, but he would not give a definition of "temporary". I can tell the House and the Minister of State that the SDA loans scheme is no longer operable in most local authorities. Local authorities are not operating the scheme because where will one find a joint income of husband and wife under £7,000? The situation obtaining in regard to a man about to be married is that his income and that of his fiancee's are taken together. There are very few couples in permanent jobs whose joint income would be under £7,000.

We do not need motions of this type, or Bills such as the Housing Finance Agency one, and the great beating of breast by the Minister of State saying that there is a serious shortage of funding in housing in the country at present and that this measure is designed to give the necessary injection of resources to alleviate the problem. What we need is reality and some honesty from this administration. What is needed is money, not Bills setting up new bureaucracies.

If the Government were serious about the construction industry and the maintenance of and addition to the housing stock, one would have to look at their record with regard to the building societies. In April or May this year we had to have discussions with the building societies regarding the inflow of funds because they play a major role in the provision of housing finance and are expected this year to provide about £300 million. They had a difficulty because of competition from the banks and other agencies and their inflow of funds could have been damaged unless there were an increase in their deposit rate. Conscious of the role of the building societies and the need for funds and recognising at the same time the undue hardship which would be created for mortgage holders without some form of subsidisation, we in Fianna Fáil decided to allow the building societies to increase their deposit rate but to subsidise mortgage holders in their repayments. In his infamous speech on the July budget the Minister for the Environment announced the removal of that mortgage subsidy.

When we left office on 30 June mortgage holders, because of our subsidisation, were being asked to pay an interest rate of 13.15 per cent; today the mortgage interest rate is 16.25 per cent because of the removal of the subsidy by this administration. This is the Government who talk about the need to tackle inflation and the cost of living generally and who purport to care for people. They also purport to be concerned about maintaining and increasing the housing stock.

What has been the role of this Government with regard to encouraging the insurance companies and the banks to involve themselves in the provision of funds for the maintenance and increase of the housing stock? All we have had so far is waffle and I look forward to hearing the Minister telling us tomorrow how much money he is getting from the insurance companies and pension funds and how much he will inject into the building industry.

A very important sector of the housing industry affected by this order is the area of rented accommodation. Because of the guillotine motion passed earlier today we will not have the opportunity of discussing on Committee Stage the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1981 and I very much regret this because Deputy Connolly and I have put down some major amendments on behalf of our party in an effort to improve the Bill and to provide guarantees of security and equity to tenants and landlords. The Bill, which will be going to the Supreme Court, will not have the benefit of a full and thorough investigation in this House on Committee and Report Stages. The Supreme Court will be asked to decide on a Bill passed after a Second Stage debate, the other Stages being passed by the Members of Fine Gael and Labour and their pet Independents going through the lobbies.

I wish to put on record exactly what is included in the amendments we envisaged.

An Ceann Comhairle

Unfortunately it is not relevant to the present motion.

Mr. Raphael Burke

I accept the Chair's ruling but would say that the present motion is concerned with the continuance of an order under the Housing Act which is specifically designed for the maintenance of the housing stock. Rented accommodation is very much affected. The maintenance of the housing stock depends not only on the landlord but also on the tenant who is proud of his flat and is prepared to spend money on its improvement. The Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1981, makes allowance for the tenant who is prepared to invest in the improvement of his dwelling and to that extent I feel that the discussion on rent is related to the maintenance of the housing stock. If the tenant and the landlord are not prepared to maintain and improve a dwelling we get back to the situation where the landlord will let the dwelling deteriorate to the extent that a permission will be needed under the 1969 Housing Act.

In the encouragement of tenants and landlords to improve their flats a fair rent is very important. Section 6(2) states:

For the purposes of subsection (1), the gross rent shall be the rent which, in the opinion of the Court, a willing lessee not already in occupation would give and a willing lessor would take for the dwelling, in each case on the basis of vacant possession being given, and having regard to the other terms of the tenancy and to the letting values of dwellings of a similar character to the dwelling and situate in a comparable area.

Fianna Fáil feel that is not fair to either the landlord or the tenant, that it will create major social problems and severely damage the housing stock, which is the object of the Housing Act, 1969.

Our amendment deletes that subsection and replaces it with the following:

the gross rent shall be the rent which, in the opinion of the court, would be reasonable and fair, having regard to the respective economic circumstances of the landlord and tenant, and the character and situation of the dwelling.

Mr. Creed

On a point of order, are we discussing the Landlord and Tenant Bill or the motion?

An Ceann Comhairle

We are discussing the Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order. I brought it to the Deputy's attention that he was digressing, but he explained that what he was saying was relevant to the Act because he was talking about dwellings, the improvement of dwellings, housing stock and incentives given by landlords and tenants. Therefor, what he was saying was relevant to the motion.

Mr. Creed

I accept your ruling but is it in order for the Deputy to quote in detail amendments which would be more appropriate to another Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle

In normal circumstances that would not be permitted but in the peculiar circumstances prevailing today the Deputy is in order.

Mr. Raphael Burke

I thank you for your ruling. Without a fair rent, as defined in our amendment, tenants will not be encouraged to take a pride in their property and landlords will not take a pride in their property because there will not be any return for them. Another Fianna Fáil amendment says that in cases of hardship created by increases in rent State assistance shall be provided. This package, which unfortunately will not be debated tonight because of the guillotine motion and the disgraceful performance of this administration, will encourage the maintenance and improvement of the housing stock which is central to this motion.

We are very worried about the delays which will be created by the proposals going before the Supreme Court, because they will not have the benefit of our amendments and discussion in this House. The District Courts will be clogged with the extra 35,000 tenants in controlled dwellings who will be asking for court decisions on a fair rent.

One of our amendments, if accepted, would have set up a fair rents tribunal to mete out justice. The tribunal would consist of a president, who would be a judge of the Circuit Court, and six other members who were suitably qualified for membership of such a tribunal. Because of the delays in the District Court as envisaged in the proposed legislation, which will be steamrolled through this House at 10.30 p.m. this evening, the housing stock will be damaged and injustice will be imposed on both tenant and landlord. I appeal to the Minister of State and his Minister to take an opportunity in the Seanad to accept our amendment and to set up the Fair Rents Tribunal because it will improve the legislation and make it workable. The Minister of State and his Minister will not have any difficulty in accepting this amendment because in the election manifestos — and I am sure if there two pet Independents were asked they would agree also — the Coalition parties committed themselves to setting up a Fair Rents Tribunal.

Fine Gael not only said it in their manifesto but last May they came to this House with a Private Members' motion and proposed setting up a fair rents tribunal and five other items which together would cost £45 million, and that was a conservative estimate. One proposal made by the then Deputy Keating was to give £35 million in grants to landlords to improve their dwellings and to maintain the housing stock, but we have not heard very much about that since, nor about the fair rents tribunal.

We have a series of amendments down for discussion which will improve the housing stock, which will help to improve this Bill and which will be fair to both landlord and tenant. They will also remove from the landlords and tenants the undue hardship and expense created by going to the District Court for assessment of rent. I know we will not have an opportunity to discuss these amendments tonight because of the guillotine motion, but I ask the Minister of State and his Minister, two reasonable men——

Mr. Creed

We were dishonest a while ago.

Mr. Raphael Burke

I did not say so. I said they were reasonable men.

Mr. Creed

The Deputy said we were dishonest and insincere.

Mr. Raphael Burke

Totally insincere.

Mr. Creed

Give me a chance to reply and I will tell the Deputy how insincere he is.

Mr. Raphael Burke

I suggest that in the Seanad the Government accept the Fianna Fáil proposal to set up a Fair Rents Tribunal. The formation of the tribunal could be a president, being a Circuit Court judge and six members suitably qualified for membership because of their knowledge or experience. In this way the administration will have an opportunity to improve the housing stock, as is envisaged in this motion. We do not need new levels of bureaucracy in the Bill which is for discussion tomorrow. The motion envisages not only the maintenance of the housing stock but an increase in it. The former Minister of State at the Department of the Environment said that the Housing Finance Agency Bill is urgently required to meet a desperate social need but the desperate social need is an increase in the housing stock and the maintenance of the existing stock. I should like to know that happened to the £35 million that Deputy Keating, now Minister of State at the Department of Education, promised would be made available to improve rented housing stock accommodation. That promise was made last May but I do not see it in the Housing Finance Agency Bill, in the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill or in the Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order, 1981. Of course that Minister of State is a marvellous man and he is good at making speeches. In fact he has been known to make three on the one night in different parts of the country, not only bi-location but tri-location. He made the commitment in May that as soon as Fine Gael were elected to Government they would make £35 million available to landlords to improve their rented accommodation. That was one of six points he made in relation to this problem. The Minister of State also said, in relation to the maintenance of housing stock in rented accommodation, that he would provide £1,000 tax credit for tenants of rented accommodation.

If that £1,000 was made available it would go a long way to encourage tenants to improve their properties, as is envisaged in the order under discussion up to 1984. That Minister of State made other commitments on behalf of his party, the key one being that the courts were not a suitable vehicle for deciding agreements on rent or other details of tenancies between a landlord and a tenant. On the night in question in May that Deputy, backed by other Fine Gael Members and Deputy Barry Desmond, who contributed to the debate on behalf of the Labour Party, committed themselves to the setting up of a fair rents tribunal. We are providing the Government with an opportunity to set up such a tribunal because we realise it is vital and that the district courts will grind to a halt with the weight of work.

The motion before the House must be judged in the context of decisions made by the Government since they came to power with regard to the maintenance of and the addition to the housing stock. What is their record? I should like to remind the House of their decisions. They have debarred single people, who represent 22 per cent of all first time house buyers, from access to local authority loans and they removed single people from eligibility to the housing mortgage subsidy of £3,000. Against that background the Government propose tomorrow setting up another agency increasing the bureaucracy. This is being done by an administration that has spoken out against the public service, whose Ministers and spokesmen daily tell us about the expense of the public service and the drag it is on the national Exchequer.

We do not need a Housing Finance Agency, we need an injection of funds. I accept the statement of the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach who said that there was a serious shortage of funding for housing and what was required was an injection of resources to alleviate the problem. A Housing Finance Agency is not necessary to do that; we need funds from the Government. If the Government want to raise those funds from the private sector they can do so under legislation dealing with the Office of Public Works. There is no need for a further layer of bureaucracy that will further exacerbate an already difficult situation.

The SDA loans scheme is a disgrace to this administration. It has been allowed to grind to a halt and the Government are aware of that. They are using the setting up of the Housing Finance Agency as a white-washing operation to give an impression of action even though action is not being taken. The Minister of State should come clean on this issue and stand by even the odd promise that was made in the election manifesto put to the people earlier this year. A fair rents tribunal was promised but the Government are going back on that. A promise of £35 million for the improvement of the housing stock of landlords but there is not hide or hair of it in any of the measures before us. Tenants in rented accommodation were promised £1,000 tax credit to encourage them to improve their housing stock but there is not sign of it. A promise was made, even in the Gaiety Theatre document, that the mortgage subsidy scheme would be maintained at its present level but within three weeks of taking office, in the July budget, that subsidy was removed from 22 per cent of those who had benefited from it.

We have all heard of the speeches by the Taoiseach and his Government against discrimination, against women in particular.

Mr. Briscoe

Conning the women of Ireland.

Mr. Raphael Burke

Many of the women who want to buy houses cannot do so because of the discriminatory regulation brought in by the Government. A lady I know bought a house but had not signed for it before going on holidays in the middle of July. When she returned she learned that the Minister for the Environment on 23 July removed her eligibility to the mortgage subsidy. Her calculations on whether she could purchase that house were thrown to the wind because of that discriminatory decision. It is a bit sick — a crude expression but a true one — for the Taoiseach to put himself forward when addressing public audiences as being the leader of a liberal administration that is against discrimination of all forms. Last week in the course of Private Members' Business we asked him to reintroduce mortgage subsidies for single people, but he went through the lobby and voted against our motion. He was accompanied by his colleagues in the Labour Party and his two pet Independents, the two great socialists of our time and many another time. It is, I suggest, indecent of the Taoiseach to talk of being against discrimination when at the same time, through his Ministers, he introduces regulations which are discriminatory in their nature.

These are regulations which remove eligibility for SDA loans and for mortgage subsidies from, according to the figure given by the Minister for the Environment on 23 July, 22 per cent of house purchasers. How can we have any respect for a Government who are prepared to renege on their promises to this extent and who are prepared to engage in such double talk? How can the electorate ever be expected to believe election promises from Fine Gael or Labour at any future election time? One of their promises was a fair rents tribunal. Instead of bringing before us the Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order and asking for the Act to be continued to 1984 it would have been more credible for the Minister of State to have asked us to agree to a one-year continuation. He has told us that he intends to review the operation of this Act in its entirety but this promise is as hollow as the promise of a review he gave last week when speaking on the Committee Stage of the Rent Restrictions Bill. He said then that he was reviewing the whole area of rented accommodation.

In regard to the Whitegate Oil Refinery, the Minister for Energy, not having the guts to answer the question put to him relied on his Minister of State to answer and he told us that the Government had asked for a consultancy to be set up to inquire into that matter. The point is that all of these promises of reviews and so on represent the hallmark of this administration. The attitude is not to make any decision but to go outside the House and make liberal speeches and then to act as I have indicated.

In regard to housing, the Government have damaged any possibility of the maintenance and improvement of the housing stock. We have had nothing but waffle about the need for an injection of resources to alleviate the problem. The Housing Finance Agency Bill is merely a skeleton in terms of legislation. All it does is to set up a new layer of bureaucracy. In fairness, Fine Gael in their preelection document referred to the setting up of a housing finance agency and there was reference also to the availability of loans.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that the motion relates to the unwarranted demolition of houses.

Mr. Raphael Burke

I accept your ruling but would make the point that the key to the Housing Act, 1969 is the maintenance of and the increasing of the housing stock. To add to the housing stock it is necessary to have available an efficient loan structure but to all intents and purposes the Government have scrapped the only national housing finance agency available. That was the SDA loans scheme operated by the local authorities. I say this because of the discrimination against single people in this regard and also because of the conditions in respect of income limits.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair appreciates that fully but one could argue also that because of all that it is necessary to concentrate on the existing housing stock.

Mr. Creed

The Deputy has been given a note which I expect is to tell him to sit down.

Mr. Raphael Burke

The Government have removed the only State agency that was available for the funding of local authority loans and, consequently, for the increasing of the housing stock. The suggestion that repayments on loans would be by way of a fixed percentage of income for the life time of the loan was put in proper perspective in an excellent review undertaken by an eminent financial journalist of the Irish Independent group. At from 17 to 20 per cent of income this journalist calculated that for a £20,000 loan for a 25-year period the repayments would amount to £140,000. The Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach told us earlier that the measure before us is designed to give the necessary injection of resources to alleviate the problems involved. How can the figure I have quoted be tied in with that statement? The Minister was trying to justify the disgraceful guillotine motion that the Government, with the help of their two pet socialist Independents, imposed on us earlier. I ask the Minister of State to come clean in regard to housing. The Government should take steps to remove the discrimination against single people with regard to loans.

Mr. Creed

What about the reconstruction grants?

Mr. Raphael Burke

I am glad that the Minister of State has reminded me of that matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has been generous towards the Deputy in allowing him encompass a rather wide area of housing. Please return to the demolition of existing housing.

Mr. Raphael Burke

The question of reconstruction grants is a very important element in this area because section 5 of the 1969 Act provides that housing authorities may require a house to be made fit for human habitation. As an encouragement to making finance available for housing the Government promised a £35 million grant for landlords providing rented accommodation. They also promised a home improvement grant. There were no ifs, buts, wherefores or anything else. They promised that a grant of £1,000 would be made available for home improvement and energy conservation purposes. What did we see? We did not see the thoroughbred that was promised but some kind of greyhound pup that would not run at a flapper meeting. We saw a grant of £600 introduced. It was so conditioned that the number of eligible applicants——

Mr. Creed

Sit down. The Deputy was told for the second time to sit down.

Mr. Raphael Burke

The exclusion——

Mr. Creed

The Deputy was the person who did away with the reconstruction grant. What grants did the Deputy have? We put £30 million extra into——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister of State should not encourage Deputy Burke to stray futher.

Mr. Creed

He has strayed from it without any encouragement from me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Burke should be allowed to address himself to the legislation which affects the unwarranted demolition of habitable houses.

Mr. Creed

The man who talks about insincerity and dishonesty, the man who bankrupted the building industry and local authorities.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Raphael Burke

As regards the last comment about bankrupting the building industry there is an old but true saying that the great barometer of any economy is the health of the construction industry. The dead hand of the Coalition is again on the construction industry as it was in 1973 to 1977.

Mr. Creed

The Deputy killed it. He made sure he killed it. Speak to the authorities about it.

Mr. Raphael Burke

I must be hitting a raw nerve with the Minister of State.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. W. O'Brien

The Deputy is leading with his chin.

Mr. Raphael Burke

In 1980, the last full year of our administration, a record number of houses were built.

Mr. Harte

The Deputy gave no money to the Donegal County Council.

Mr. Raphael Burke

Deny that 28,000 houses were built. Follow that record.

Mr. W. O'Brien

That is rubbish and the Deputy knows it.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Raphael Burke

The Government cannot take their medicine.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair appeals to the House to allow the Chair to direct the debate towards what we should be discussing — the unwarranted demolition or the change in use of habitable dwellings. Allow Deputy Burke to discuss that topic.

Mr. Haughey

Would you like me to name the Minister of State for expulsion from the House?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair wishes Deputy Burke to proceed without interruption.

Mr. Raphael Burke

I should be only delighted to do so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

——and be as relevant as he knows he should be but which he has not been.

Mr. Raphael Burke

I have tried to be relevant at all times. This is a complex area. It deals with the housing stock. The motion must be judged against the Government's record in power. Their record since they came to office with regard to maintaining and increasing the housing stock has been disgraceful. They have reneged on the schemes that were there and on commitments made to the people prior to the election.

Mr. Harte

The Deputy knows that is not true.

Mr. Raphael Burke

In the Gaiety Theatre document one of the major commitments made in regard to housing stock was the establishment of a fair rents tribunal because if a fair rent is paid one is encouraged to improve the dwelling. Where is the fair rent tribunal? They sat on legislation for six months.

Mr. W. O'Brien

The Deputy sat on it for six years.

Mr. Raphael Burke

They knew this was required. They introduced it about ten days ago and expected to have it rushed through the House tonight. The district courts which are over-loaded, over-worked and totally inappropriate vehicles to be used for decisions on rents are to do this instead of the fair rents tribunal. After due consideration we decided to set up such a tribunal and set out what we had in mind as part of our amendments. This will be rushed through the House. The feet of Fine Gael, who committed themselves to this, Labour, who also committed themselves to it, and the two pet Independents will carry this through. They will smile about it and say it is another great victory for the Coalition.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Raphael Burke

If the Government consider that this is victory the people will be waiting for them and when they get an opportunity——

Mr. Creed

In 1986.

Mr. Raphael Burke

In 1986 Cork County Council will await the Minister of State.

Mr. Creed

We gave over £1 million extra to what the Deputy gave.

Mr. Raphael Burke

That is the least the Minister of State could do. There are two Cork Ministers at the Department of the Environment. Did the Minister of State ever hear of Dublin?

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Lyons

On a point of order, £700,000 and £100,000 does not make £1 million. Deputy Creed said Cork County Council got £1 million.

Mr. Creed

There are three housing authorities in Cork and, for the Deputy's information, that was for the southern housing committee. There is the north Cork housing committee and west Cork.

Mr. W. O'Brien

The Deputy is new here.

Mr. Lyons

I may be new but I am not asleep.

Mr. Raphael Burke

I am reluctant to involve myself in a debate between two Corkmen.

Mr. Creed

Deputy Lyons accepts we gave £800,000 to one housing authority over and above what the Deputy gave.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Raphael Burke

The motion must be judged against the record of the Government. The dead hand of the Coalition is on the construction industry to the extent that we have a disgraceful number of construction workers unemployed, people who comprise a large percentage of the overall unemployment rate of 133,000. We do not need continuance motions with regard to the demolition of houses. What we need is constructive proposals to inject finance into this starved industry both in the new house sector, in the improvement sector and in the general construction sector. By that I mean roads, sewerage and water schemes. The Minister of State should give the same money, allowing for the high rate of inflation, as we gave last year and then we will praise him.

Mr. Haughey

We have come to the end of the business now——

Mr. Kelly

The end of a perfect day.

Mr. Haughey

As regards procedure, I assume the Chair will now put each Bill to us.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Haughey

Perhaps the Chair will permit me to indicate our attitude to the various Bills that have not been reached. The House is being asked to deal with four measures that have not been discussed. We will be voting on only one Bill, namely, the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill, 1981 — Committee Stage. We will vote against that because we have not had an opportunity to put our amendments or discuss the legislation on Committee, Fourth and Fifth Stages. We are not voting against the legislation as a piece of legislation but we are voting against it in protest that this fundamentally important social legislation is being put through the House without one word of discussion.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Fianna Fáil have filibustered on relatively unimportant matters.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am putting the question that the motion be agreed.

Question put and agreed to.