I dealt with the relevant matters of that section and expressed my views. I have grave reservations about it, taking into consideration the people who may have to dispose of their houses due to circumstances outside their control. It will be a major headache for those who will face this situation.
Housing Finance Agency Bill, 1981: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 4 as amended stand part of the Bill."
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, before section 5, to insert the following section:
"5.—(1) The number of the directors of the Agency shall be fifteen including the chairman.
(2) The directors of the Agency including the chairman shall be appointed by the Minister.
(3) One of the directors (other than the chairman) of the Agency shall be nominated for the appointment as such director by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
(4) Four of the directors of the Agency (other than the chairman) shall be nominated for appointment as such directors by such body or bodies representative of the elected members of local authorities as the Minister may determine.
(5) Two of the directors of the Agency (other than the chairman) shall be nominated or appointed as such directors by such body or bodies representative of pension funds and life offices as the Minister may determine.
(6) One of the directors of the Agency (other than the chairman) shall be nominated or appointed as such director by the Association of City and County Managers as the Minister may determine.
(7) One of the directors of the Agency (other than the chairman) shall be nominated for appointment as such director by the Construction Industry Federation.
(8) Two of the directors (other than the chairman) shall be appointed as such directors by the Minister from persons who are members of a committee of a co-operative housing society.
(9) One of the directors of the agency (other than the chairman) shall be nominated for reappointment as such director by the Minister for Finance.
(10) One of the directors of the Agency (other than the chairman) shall be nominated for appointment as such director by the Minister.".
There has been a lengthy debate in the House on youth employment over the last ten days and we have also devoted a considerable amount of time to the setting up of other State agencies. Our amendment to this section is specific with regard to the number of directors of the agency, their qualifications and the area they represent. For the record I should like to quote what the amendment states:
In page 4, before section 5, to insert the following section:
"5.—(1) The number of the directors of the Agency shall be fifteen including the chairman.
In that we differ from the proposal of the Minister who intends having between three and nine directors. Our amendment further states:
(2) The directors of the Agency including the chairman shall be appointed by the Minister.
We do not have any difference with the Minister on that issue. Our amendment continues:
(3) One of the directors (other than the chairman) of the Agency shall be nominated for the appointment as such director by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
(4) Four of the directors of the Agency (other than the chairman) shall be nominated for appointment as such directors by such body or bodies representative of the elected members of local authorities as the Minister may determine.
(5) Two of the directors of the Agency (other than the chairman) shall be nominated or appointed as such directors by such body or bodies representative of pension funds and life offices as the Minister may determine.
(6) One of the directors of the Agency (other than the chairman) shall be nominated or appointed as such director by the Association of City and County Managers as the Minister may determine.
(7) One of the directors of the agency (other than the chairman) shall be nominaterd for appointment as such director by the Construction Industry Federation.
(8) Two of the directors (other than the chairman) shall be appointed as such directors by the Minister from persons who are members of a committee of a co-operative housing society.
(9) One of the directors of the Agency (other than the chairman) shall be nominated for appointment as such director by the Minister for Finance.
(10) One of the directors of the Agency (other than the chairman) shall be nominated for appointment as such director by the Minister.".
I hope the Minister accepts this amendment because it will improve the Bill and correct a major defect in it because the format of the board has not been outlined as it was, for example, in the Youth Employment Agency Bill. The suggested membership is 15. First of all, why not a representative of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions? The Fianna Fáil Government from 1977 to 1981, like other Fianna Fáil administrations, had very close contact and consultation with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. As normal procedure, on practically a weekly basis there were meetings with the congress by various Ministers. The Taoiseach at the time, Deputy Haughey, met the Irish Congress of Trade Unions probably on more occasions than any other Taoiseach in the history of the State. He recognised and respected the importance of the trade union movement not only in regard to the industrial life of the country but also the general well-being of the country. I recall, as Minister for the Environment, being present at a meeting with the congress where the Taoiseach had six or eight of his Ministers present and one by one we outlined our proposals for the advancement of this nation and for job creation. When unemployment is running at 133,000 job creation is a very important issue. There should be this relationship between the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Government. It is sad that there is this lack of co-operation between a Government, of which the Labour Party is a part, and in which the Tánaiste is a Member of the Labour Party and the congress. We recognise and admire the role of the trade union movement. This was evident from our commitment not just to national wage agreements but to national understandings. Our record in this regard is something of which we can be duly proud.
One of the main planks of this Government's election programme was that a body would be set up to decide on wage norms. The figure that eventually came out of the deliberations of the three wise men was 6½ per cent. As a result of discussions between the Government, the employers and the trade union movement this figure was brought up to a level of 12 per cent. We understand from newspaper leaks that the figure is now up to around 15 per cent for the public service sector. We were committed to the concept of national understandings. A part of this Government, the Labour Party, are now reneging on the idea of national understandings. We could have had a national understanding, we were close to it, but because of the intransigence of the Government we have not. If they had compromised, if they had taken the broad and long-term view we would have had a national understanding. All we are talking about now are national wage agreements, agreement first for the public service and then sector by sector throughout the economy. A national understanding goes much further than this. An understanding includes social concepts, social advancement, commitment to employment. We have not got such a national understanding.
We in Fianna Fáil appreciate the importance of the role of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. We want to see it strong, vibrant and involved in the life of this country. We propose in this amendment the representation of the congress of trade unions on the board of the housing finance agency. I hope the Minister will accept our good faith.
We also propose in this amendment the inclusion of four directors who:
shall be nominated for appointment as such directors by such body or bodies representative of the elected members of local authorities as the Minister may determine.
The Minister intends operating the loans through the 41 local authorities. They are entitled, if they are to operate the Bill, to membership of this board. They are the ones who will be doing the work. The agency will be sitting in some hotel room having an auction as to which favoured financial institution is to get these very special bonds that will be paid for by the unfortunate borrowers in the long run. The parties that form this Government, together with their two pet Independents, have cried many crocodile tears about the importance of local democracy. We are putting it to the test. If the Minister is to charge the 41 local authorities with the administration of a hare brained scheme like this, a scheme which will result in people having to pay back £140,000 in respect of a £20,000 loan, he should include these local authorities in the operation of the agency.
In this amendment we propose also that two of the directors, apart from the chairman, shall be nominated or appointed by bodies representing pension funds and life offices. I welcome the idea of the involvement of life offices in this way. While I was in the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy I encouraged the use of life offices and pension funds in this way as a means of making money available for housing.
Leaving aside the proposal of the Minister to fireproof these financial institutions against the effects of inflation and disregarding also the totally right-wing approach of that proposal, if we are to secure, as the Minister intends, funds from both the pension funds and the life offices, these bodies should be represented as of right on the board of directors of the agency. This morning we argued at length about how the agency would succeed in achieving co-operation from both the management and the staffs of the local authorities. Without that goodwill the agency cannot work.
The Minister has decided that the agency will perform their lending functions through the existing structure of the 41 local authorities who are operating the SDA loans scheme. We suggest that one of the directors of the agency other than the chairman, be nominated or appointed by the Association of City and County Managers as the Minister may determine. We do not want this done at the behest of the Minister but rather that it be written into the legislation. The whole operation of the directive setting out regulations as to this new form of loans depends on the co-operation of the city and county managers and their staffs.
In Ireland we have a civil service and local authority structure of which we can be very proud. The loyalty and commitment of the employees have never been in question. From January 1978 until October 1980 I served as Minister of State at the Department of Industry, Commerce and Tourism as it is now. Apart from considering it a privilege to have held such office, I was privileged and reassured also to be in the presence of such committed and loyal servants. This situation is something we should be very proud of, something that we should treasure. In October 1980 I was appointed Minister at the Department of the Environment and again I found among the staff there the same level of dedication and commitment to Government and to State. I do not know whether the Minister ever served in a junior ministry.
I am afraid that I had a deprived childhood in that sense.
A junior ministry is a fascinating position. However, as a result of the vagaries of PR coupled with the support for the Government of the two pet Independents, I ceased to be Minister in July. During my time in office I had occasion to meet many people from the private sector. This is a sector, too, of which we can be very proud. Most of the people involved are first generation entrepreneurs who have done a superb job on behalf of the people. However, I found in the public sector a level of commitment that could very well be a lesson to any private sector employee. Right down the line in Departments, in local authorities and in semi-State bodies — from managers down to the people sweeping the streets — there is a tremendous level of commitment. I found during my time in office that there was never any question of staff not wanting to work late when they were required to do so in order to prepare legislation or answers to questions. It was not unusual for them to work until midnight on behalf of the people. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary and every other member of the staff of the Department of the Environment and to thank them for the loyalty and co-operation that I found in the Department during my time here. The same is true of the city and county managers and their staffs around the country. When we are passing legislation imposing extra duties on local authority staffs, they deserve recognition. It is in recognition of their role and their importance in the operation of this Bill that Deputy Connolly and I, on behalf of Fianna Fáil, propose that one of the directors of the agency, other than the chairman, shall be nominated or appointed by the Association of City and County Managers as the Minister may determine. The Minister may have the intention to appoint a city or county manager but a city or county manager should not be appointed at the whim of the Minister. He should be appointed and included in this Bill as of right.
In our democratic system Ministers change from time to time so no one Minister should be allowed to decide whether a representative of the Association of City and County Managers should be appointed. It should be written into this legislation in the manner in which we have suggested. There are many aspects of society which are important. Depending on your commitment to health, social welfare, industry and so on, you will have varying degrees of priority as to their importance. But in the day to day life of the individual the local authority manager is more important than anybody else. Without his efficiency, loyalty and commitment, our lives would be a scourge, even more so than they are under the present administration. The city and county managers working with democratically-elected public representatives, provide all the services which make life comfortable for us. Roads are maintained, we have street lights, water and sewerage schemes, dustbins are collected, if our roads are flooded in a storm someone will come along and ease the situation. All these services, which we take for granted, are provided through the co-operation and loyalty of the county manager. We feel strongly that the Minister should accept this amendment.
In proposing the guillotine motion, in which this legislation was included, the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach talked at great length about social needs, the importance of the injection of extra funds into the housing industry and the importance of that industry. We have always recognised the importance of the construction industry generally. The dead hand of Coalition Governments down through the years has been the curse of the construction industry. When they have been in power the construction industry has been brought to its knees and in the last six months it is in a worse state than ever.
(Limerick East): I am sorry to interrupt but the Deputy is straying from the amendment, which deals with the appointment of directors to the agency.
I do not want to argue with you Sir, but the amendment says that one of the directors of the agency, other than the chairman, shall be nominated for appointment as such director by the Construction Industry Federation. I am merely clarifying the reason why we included the Construction Industry Federation.
Acting Chairman
Please continue and keep to the amendment.
I always attempt to be relevant to the point under discussion. The importance of the Construction Industry Federation and the construction industry generally to the well-being of our economy is well known. It is unfortunate, but true, that on every occasion the Coalition Government were in power there have been increases in the level of unemployment in that industry, not only the industry itself but in its related industries. Ask any builders' provider, any manufacturer directly associated with the construction industry, any building company or any building worker how things are at present. After Christmas things will begin to look very grim indeed — I could use stronger words but I will not — for the building and related trades. But this agency will not be the saviour the Minister suggests they will be. They will be only another bureaucratic body.
In the amendment we propose that a representative of the Construction Industry Federation be appointed to the board of the agency. The Minister may say that it is his intention to have such a representative, but we in Fianna Fáil recognise the importance of that industry to the life of the country. Indeed, there is a saying to the effect that the construction industry is the barometer of the Irish economy.
Sin seanfhocal nua.
In our amendment we give that recognition to the construction industry. In his speech the Minister referred to the co-operative housing movement and in our amendment we propose that one of the agency directors should be nominated from among the members of that movement. We accept the Minister's bona fides in relation to the co-operative housing movement and therefore we expect him to accept the amendment.
Our amendment suggests that the Minister for Finance should nominate a director. It is through the possible generosity of the financial institutions that the agency's funds will be provided. Here we have an extraordinary situation. Every day the Government have been acting as Santa Claus to the financial institutions whom they are fire-proofing to the tune of 1 per cent to 2 per cent above the inflation rate. Here they will be given an investment opportunity in what are known as gilts. This is being done at the expense of prospective borrowers. I will speak latter on the effect of that on the money market. So let us add a representative of the Minister for Finance to the board.
We also suggest that the Minister for the Environment should have a representative on the board and I hope that when he is making that appointment he will take advantage of the wealth of experience of personnel in the Department. It would be invidious to mention particular officials, but among them is a wealth of experience of housing finance and it would be inappropriate if he had not on the board of an agency of this kind a person of such experience, a representative of the superb staff in the Department of the Environment.
I cannot accept the amendment. It would be undesirable and unusual to write into this or any legislation a provision that the board of a company should be comprised of representatives of certain associations or bodies. I have no objection to most of the people listed in the amendment, they would all be worthy of consideration except one, but the suggested board of 15 is far too big. I have in mind a board of between three and nine members and I would be thinking of the middle point rather than the lower or the higher end. It will be a specialised board which will have very important work to do, but not a great deal of administrative work because the local authorities will be distributing the funds the agency collect.
The Deputies made a strong plea about the necessity for including the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the trade union movement on the board. If I propose a board of seven or eight and if I include a member of the trade union movement, he will be one of eight, whereas under the amendment he would be one of 15, and he would have a considerably weaker voice. His voice would be half as strong. Many people could mention worthy organisations who should be represented on the board which the Deputies have not listed. I jotted down a few which occurred to me and I am sure other people could think of many more who would be worthy of inclusion on the list.
Why not include a representative of the building societies? What about the Royal Institute of Architects? What about the Auctioneers and Valuers Association? As I pointed out, this agency will be dealing with second-hand houses and it could be suggested that somebody on the board should be familiar with that matter. Why not include ACRA, the combined residents association? Would they not have something to say because they are living in the houses the agency will be helping to fund? What about the Town Clerks' Association who are very close to the operation of the SDA loans scheme? What about NATO? We could make a case for including them because local authority tenants will be entitled to get the more beneficial type of loans. What about the Institute of Chartered Surveyors? Those are seven I thought of off the top of my head. Deputies opposite thought of another seven. If we publish a list like that, we would have telephone calls and letters, "me-too" letters. It is undesirable that a Bill should list organisations which should be represented on the board of a company which is being set up.
I am surprised that Deputy Burke and Deputy Connolly suggested that a representative of the pensions funds should be on the list. It would be undesirable to have a representative of the pensions funds on the board. There would be a conflict of interest because this board will be negotiating with the pensions funds to get money from them at the cheapest possible rate. To have somebody representing the pensions funds on the other side of the table would be a negation of what the board is supposed to do, that is, the directors are expected to act in the best interests of the company. One member of the board would have a conflicting interest because it would not be in his interest as a representative of the pensions funds for the pensions funds to part with the money at the lowest possible rate. He would not be able to act in the best interests of either of the companies he was representing. I have to reject this amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 75.
Tá
- Acheson, Carrie.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh. (Wexford).
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Clement.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom
- (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- 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.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- (Dublin North-West).
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- 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.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Browne, Noel.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McCartin, John J.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Markey, Bernard.
- 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.
- Taylor, Madeleine.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies F O'Brien and Mervyn Taylor.
Amendment declared lost.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Agency as regards loans made to persons other than a housing authority shall in relation to the combined amount paid in principle and interest by such persons ensure that such amount shall not exceed the total amount which would have been paid on the same loan for the same period under the traditional type of house purchase loan scheme at the average rate of interest obtaining for the period of the loan."
This is a very important amendment, striking as it does at the very heart of the regulations being laid down by the Minister. This is merely a skeleton Bill enabling the setting up of an agency. The key to the matter is the proposals the Minister will make in his directives to the agency in their operation. Consequently it is very difficult to propose amendments to the Bill because we are not discussing the heart of the matter, the Ministers' regulations.
We feel that this amendment would considerably improve the lot of the less well-off whom this Bill purports to assist. I would remind the House of the superb assessment of this legislation by Mr. Colm Rapple in the Sunday Independent of 27 September this year in which he stated:
It is a great wonder that Margaret Thatcher did not come up with the idea of a housing finance agency on the lines now being proposed by the Government. But perhaps it is even too right-wing conservative and anti-welfare state even for her. The proposed scheme clearly aims at shifting the burden of housing the less-well-off away from the State and onto the shoulders of the less-well-off themselves. And it does so in a slick way which gives an initial impression that the scheme is devised for the benefit of the poor. It isn't and could not possibly claim to be.
It will impose on them far more onerous terms for borrowing money than are available to their better-off neighbours.
In this amendment we are attempting to tackle that right-wing approach which is so evident in the directives the Minister has indicated he will give. The amendment is a considerable improvement to the section. Let us remember what the intended directive will mean to the mortgage holder. There has been no attempt by the Minister to refute Mr. Rapple's article and the figures contained in it. He states that a £20,000 loan over 25 years will involve repayments of £140,000. This will not achieve the aim stated by the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach in proposing the guillotine motion when he said that what was needed was an injection of funds and a Bill to tackle a social need. Far from eliminating a social need, it creates one. Not only is there the problem of repaying £140,000 over 25 years but there is the further problem that up to year 17 it is financially impossible to sell your house, buy another house and move to another district because of the amount of money you will owe. On a loan of £20,000 in year 17, paying back for 16 years, you will still owe £58,013. What sort of attempt to tackle a social need is that? What sort of benefit is that to the less well-off? What sort of assistance to the first-time house purchaser or second-time house purchaser is that?
A person who gets a job and moves to another part of the country for a number of years will have to tackle the problem not only of buying a new house in the town he goes to but of trying to sell off his existing house and of getting enough money for it to pay off the loan. In the amendment we are trying to make sure that the traditional type of mortgage situation will continue. Those lucky enough to start off life buying a house with a SDA loan will know from day one exactly what they will be paying for the remaining years of the loan. They will pay a fixed interest rate and fixed repayments. Those people will know where they are going and how much they are eating into the original loan. They will be able to say from year to year that there is a reduction in the original size of the loan.
We are worried about the Minister's statement yesterday that this new scheme will replace the local authority loans scheme. Last night, resulting from pressure from his own backbenchers and concern within the Labour Party, he came in to the House and said: "Sorry about that. That could have been misunderstood. The local authority loan scheme will continue". One cannot at 11.30 a.m. make a statement saying that it is envisaged that at full operation this new scheme will replace the local authority loan scheme and at 10.30 p.m. make a statement saying "Sorry about that. The local authority loan scheme will continue". One cannot say those things within that number of hours without having one's credibility questioned. It has become more obvious today, in relation to the response of the Minister to points made, that this Bill has not been thought out. The Government and the Minister have not thought out the full implications of this Bill. This is obvious to anybody who has listened to this debate and can read the Minister's statement at 11.30 yesterday morning and his other statement at 10.30 p.m. last night. There has to be serious concern about the consideration given to this Bill.
I suggest that our amendment would be acceptable to any fair-minded person who knows even the slightest thing about the housing finance market either at SDA level, building society level or any other level. The amendment is reasonable. It tackles the problem and, at least, it gives the necessary guarantees to mortgage holders and potential house buyers that they will not be faced with the dilemma of having to repay £140,000 on a £20,000 loan or will not find themselves in a situation, if they have to sell their houses, of being unable to sell them in the early years of the mortgage because of the regulations envisaged in the Minister's directive.
The Minister had a lot to say about a person who finds himself unemployed or ill. His repayments will go down and he will not find himself having to face eviction. It is laudable that the threat of eviction should be removed from people. But let us consider the matter a little further. The Bill is meaningless in regard to the difficulties which have been envisaged. If a person is unemployed or ill, his repayments will go down. But the reality is, as the Minister has laid it down, that the person's repayments will be calculated on the basis of his P60 for the previous year. If you are ill or unemployed in September or October, what is the situation with regard to repayments? Do you still operate on a P60? Even if you have the repayments reduced, what is the situation at the end of the period? The Minister said yesterday that extra years would be added to the term of the loan. I suggest that under this directive we will have second and third generation mortgages. Grandchildren will be paying off the loans of their grandparents and still not owning their homes. That is the reality of this directive. We are into the second and third generation mortgage if this is continued. Only very questionable benefit is available at the early stages for the first-time buyer. If this money is raised from the pension funds and insurance companies, I suggest it be put into the SDA loan schemes, that the income and eligibility limits be increased and that the mortgage subsidy scheme be further improved, even above the level we introduced last April. The Minister is on a slippery slope. I strongly question how deeply this measure has been researched and if the Minister is aware of the implications here for the house purchaser.
I support this amendment. Public representatives who have experience of the present local authority loans scheme accept that it works very well, that local authority officials understand the position and that there is a flexibility in the administration of the present scheme which is of tremendous assistance to borrowers. The borrower knows from day one what his position will be. He will be making his repayments at a fixed rate. Under this legislation the borrower will not know what his position will be. Granted his repayments will be related to a percentage of his income, but one must consider that a worker's wage increases are generally related to the cost of living. Wage increases are usually given to help a worker meet his overheads, which arise as a result of increases in the cost of living. In other words, if a man gets an agency loan he will find it impossible to make his repayments in years to come.
The investor has gilt-edge security. He is protected in every way, while the borrower has no protection. What happened to the people in the Labour Party who are not here to examine this Bill in detail? They are the so-called representatives of the workers. I am amazed that the Labour Party have not come in to support our amendments and I find it hard to see how they can vote against them. Where are Deputy Kemmy and Deputy Browne?
I agree with Deputy Burke that we should have more time for a detailed examination of this Bill. We all understand the importance of housing. We all know a certain pool of money is available, but will this agency make more money available for housing? I think it is questionable. We hear pious platitudes from the Fine Gael Party about setting up all party committees to discuss various aspects of legislation, but here is an area on which there is general agreement and they could have set up such a committee to discuss this agency.
In my view the Government are trying to justify themselves. They are rushing this and other legislation through to give the impression that they are doing something and to satisfy their backbenchers who go back to their constituencies week after week and hear nothing but complaints about the way the Government are conducting the business of the country. We should have been given more time to discuss this Bill. Again, I ask the Labour Party and the socialist Independents, as they describe themselves, to consider their position when voting on this amendment and to support us.
This is a remarkable amendment. I do not think it could be seriously considered by the House for various reasons. First, it refers to loans intended to be made by the agency, whereas the Minister has made it clear that the scheme will be operated through the local authorities and loans will be made by the local authorities. Whoever drafted this amendment did not take that fact into account, because the amendment does not refer to loans to be made by the local authorities but only to loans to be made by the agency.
The wording of the amendment is untenable and I do not know how it would be capable of operation. It uses such vague expressions as the "traditional type of house purchase loan"— that would have to be defined — and "the average rate of interest obtaining for the period of the loan"— I do not know how one could calculate the average rate of interest for a loan for 20 or 25 years. I do not think too much thought has gone into the drafting of that amendment.
I realise that the general tenor of the amendment would be if it was applied to loans made by the housing agency, but in that context it goes counter to the purpose of the Bill. If that idea were to be implemented it would negative the effect of the Bill in its entirety. I assume that is what the Opposition intended when they tabled this amendment.
The key factor here and the chief benefit to be had from the agency is that a new, and vital source of funds becomes available for a new purpose. It becomes available from a new source for commercial reasons. The people putting up the money will be gaining a far higher rate of interest and a better investment for themselves than they would under any comparable form of investment. They will be getting an index-linked intestment guaranteed by the Minister for Finance, which is a very attractive proposition. It makes that money available for the topping-up procedure which will bring in, by means of a second mortgage, people who could not buy a house with the constraints of the SDA loan. Much of this debate has been on the basis that the mortgager would be borrowing the entire purchase money under this scheme. I must admit that, if that were so, it would in most cases put the mortgager into financial difficulties with his repayments. It is a mistake to think that the entire purchase price of the house will be coming through the agency scheme. I would like to think that those funds will be used as the top up element, which would be a smaller part of the cost of the house. If that is so, the bulk of the cost comes from the SDA scheme at the subsidised rate. This is right and proper and it is absolutely essential that it should continue. The Minister indicated yesterday that it will continue and that the high interest element, which I regret too, will be confined to the top-up element in the mortgage. Were it otherwise I confess I would foresee difficulties in the medium and long term operation of the scheme.
For the life of me I fail to see how the agency could be self-financing as a long-term proposition if its borrowing powers were limited to the £200 million and if the bulk of the people were borrowing their full mortgages through the agency. If that were so, the bulk of the mortgagers would have little choice but to avail of the hive-off element, the proviso that enables a person, instead of paying the full interest, to rely on the 18 per cent of his income from the previous year. Will the Minister confirm, when he is replying, that there will be a clause written into each of these mortgages that, at any time, that will be adequate and there will be the option for the mortgager to limit his repayments, in each and every year that the mortgage continues, to this 18 per cent? That is an essential protection for the mortgager and a key aspect of the whole scheme.
If the position developed that the bulk of the people were relying on that 18 per cent cut-off proviso it would mean that the moneys flowing into the local authorities and through them back to the agency would be considerably less than the interest which would be payable by the agency to the life offices on the index-linked basis. There is bound to be a substantial shortfall. Of course, that can be made up for a time by further borrowings but there is a limit to the length of time that can go on and eventually the point will be reached where the borrowing capacity of the agency will be exhausted, either by its having reached its limit or by having reached its other important limit, namely, the availability of funds from the life offices with which to fund it. There should be a provision to enable the scheme to be subsidised if necessary because it is a good scheme and it has a valuable and important role to play. Its role is to fill a gap that has never been filled before. The scheme should be maintained and I would be in favour, if the necessity arose, of an appropriate measure of subsidy being put into it. That may not arise for some years. Perhaps it will not arise at all. It depends on variable factors such as how the rate of inflation, interest rates, wages and the cost price of houses will develop. If it is a worthwhile scheme it is worthwhile subsidising it if the necessity arises.
I support the amendment. Deputy Taylor mentioned the wording of the amendment. Perhaps it is not completely correct. Local authorities are not mentioned, but there is no doubt that they are intended. As Deputy Taylor said, if a person falls on bad times the period will have to be extended. I will not be around in 26 years' time but when the public representatives who are around meet the grandchildren of the people who get these loans they will want to know what kind of an assembly agreed to loans like these. There is no maximum. It depends on inflation. Nobody can say what they will have to pay.
As one who got a local authority loan at an interest rate of 4 per cent about 26 years ago I can speak with some authority on this subject. I am still paying at the rate of 4 per cent. This new scheme will be attractive to young people but they will not realise what they are taking on themselves. It will make the provision of a home easier for them within the first few years than would be the case under any other loan system but in their enthusiasm about going into a house they may not think ahead to ten or 15 years when they are likely to have a family who are at an expensive stage of education. It is all very well to talk about salary increases but we are talking here about people in the £7,000 to £9,000 income bracket, people who will need whatever increases in income they get merely in order to keep pace with cost-of-living increases in the ordinary way without ever having to pay increased repayments on their houses. Incidentally, I might mention here that I detest the idea of percentage increases in incomes because what they mean is that the lower one's income is, the less one gets.
I cannot see how this scheme will work if we do not impose some maximum in terms of repayments. As Deputy Taylor has said, it will be difficult enough for the legislature to have the money to continue the scheme but the borrower must be protected in some way. If we provide a scheme that is open-ended we will be creating all sorts of difficulties for our now young people in the years ahead, people whose children and grandchildren may curse such a scheme. It is ludicrous to provide a scheme which will involve the repayment of about £120,000 on a £20,000 loan. We cannot be exact about the figure since we do not know what the level of inflation will be but we can be sure that it will be very high.
I was very disappointed that we did not have more time in which to consider amendments. If, after Second Reading, each Deputy had been in a position to go to his constituency and discuss the pros and cons of the legislation, we would all come back much better equipped to deal with Committee Stage. I say this because there are many smart people who are not in this House and who know a good deal about borrowing and lending. We could well have done with a period of three weeks or more in which to consider the Bill. I appeal to the Minister to have some regard to the situation in which people will find themselves in the years ahead if this Bill goes through as intended. There is no point in talking about certain people having options. The group we are talking of will have no option but to borrow from this agency. I support the amendment.
I wish to indicate my strong opposition to this amendment. There are a couple of points that both Deputies Burke and Callanan overlooked in tabling the amendment. We must bear in mind that nobody will be obliged to obtain a loan from the new agency. People will have the option of doing so. The other point is that anybody borrowing from the agency will be able to decide some time later, if he so wishes, to terminate the contract and to switch to a building society or to some other lending agency.
But with a penalty.
This scheme will be open to a couple where the principal earner has an income of between £7,000 and £9,000 but if, as is frequently the case, the spouse of that person is earning about £7,000, their joint income is about £16,000. Such a couple will be entitled to a loan from the agency. Are the Opposition seriously suggesting that a couple in such circumstances should be subsidised to a greater extent than that to which we subsidise people who are in receipt of SDA loans? Is that not precisely the purpose of the amendment? What Fianna Fáil are saying in this amendment is that we should give millions of pounds more by way of subsidy to house buyers. That is a laudable aspiration and while we all appreciate that this is an area in which we should give as much as possible, we do not have the finances to afford the type of scheme that Fianna Fáil are proposing. In the four years before this Government were returned to office, Fianna Fáil had the opportunity of pumping that sort of money into housing but they did not do so. They had the opportunity in Government of providing millions of pounds for housing but they now oppose a scheme the effect of which will be to help people.
Obviously, Deputy Molony is not very familiar with the Bill because he talks in the first instance about people withdrawing from a legal undertaking into which they have entered. Does he think that people would be able to do that having regard to the enormous penalty it would involve? The Deputy must know that that is not a possibility. The purpose of our amendment is to ensure that the borrower will know exactly what he will have to pay. We are living in the age of inflation and since we do not know what the level of inflation will be at any time in the future, we cannot say how much a borrower will have to pay for a house within the terms of this scheme but on the basis on which we have been working, we know that the repayments will be many times greater than the actual loan.
Deputy Molony talked about the loans scheme that successive Governments have been operating. The success of the SDA loans scheme was borne out last year when under that scheme almost 28,000 new houses were completed. After the previous election we improved the scheme and the limits with regard to incomes and the maximum loan. We raised that substantially and the people who were getting those loans from the local authorities knew exactly what they were going to pay over a fixed period. Earlier in the year we brought in a subsidy to cover the first crucial three-year repayment period which was a very substantial help to the borrower.
In this case the borrower does not know what he or she will have to pay. A lot of figures have been bandied about as to what repayments will be. It may be an enormous sum, depending on the rate of inflation, but the financial institutions have gilt-edged security under this Bill. They know where to get the best return for their money and they will get a very good return here because it is index-linked to inflation. After eight or ten years, when a couple are rearing a family, repayments will go up and up. At that stage the children will be at a very expensive age and there will be great expenditure involved. That is why we are putting down this amendment.
The Bill states that the agency should be self-financing. That means that there will be no aid given to the borrower. The borrower will pay the full going rate at the time. No one has said whether this will mean any additional funds for housing. The Minister stated that he did not know but hoped additional funds will be provided.
The Deputy has spent the last ten minutes saying it is a very good investment.
Does the Deputy mean it is a very good investment for the borrower? It is money available for housing at a price. It is index-linked to inflation. A borrower who takes out a contract this year will not know in 1983 or 1984 what he or she will have to pay. When a person got an SDA loan which we granted and substantially improved over the years, he knew exactly the term of years and the interest which would have to be repaid. This is not the situation now, it is a whole new ball game in financing. It opens up the housing finance situation and digs into possibly the whole structure of financing, both on the gilt market and otherwise. It is open to question whether it can be controlled or not. We must not get away from the fact that the borrower will pay according to the money market of the day. It is fine provided the person has the income to meet it but with a change of employment or redundancy, the borrower may have to dispose of the house and will still owe a lot of money. On the open market the house may not fetch a high enough price to meet all that is owed. I would like to know how this problem can be solved. A leading financial correspondent dealt with this in great detail——
He provided more opposition to this Bill than the whole Fianna Fáil Party.
I am not saying he provided it but the Minister has not contradicted him. He said that on a loan of £20,000 over 25 years the borrower would pay about £130,000. If a person has to dispose of that house after about 12 years it will have to fetch about £80,000 to pay what he still owes. Depending on the supply of finance and demand, much will depend on what the value of that house will be. In any line of property it depends on the finance available and how many people are interested in buying it. If it does not fetch a good price a serious situation arises.
I have had the pleasure of working in close association with Department of the Environment officials, who are highly-qualified and efficient. They gave me good advice on many matters and I am most grateful to them. When the agency come into operation many people will find themselves in a dilemma about loans and repayments and I suggest that they will need advice on the possible consequences of taking out loans. Things may look lovely for the first year or two, but then difficulties will begin to arise. That is why we have put down this amendment to the effect that the repayments shall not exceed those operating in regard to loans in other areas. It has been interesting in the past couple of days to notice that the great socialist upholders of the rights of the people, Deputies Kemmy and Browne, have not been here.
They have been talking to the Taoiseach.
They gave their views an hour ago — they walked into the right lobby.
I have seen many independent Deputies come and go.
All parties come and go.
I admire Deputy Taylor of the Labour Party for his courage in coming in here to speak——
Would we apply ourselves to the amendment?
I notice there are more Government Deputies than Opposition Deputies in the House.
For the first time today.
I wish to draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that in room 355, occupied by Deputies Liam Cosgrave, Gay Mitchell and me, the division bells are not ringing or the monitor working. We did not hear the division bell an hour ago and consequently we were not here. I would be obliged if the matter were corrected without delay.
It is an important matter and action will be taken.
And we got the impression that they were here to participate in the debate. They are here in case there would be another division.
I am glad I succeeded in lightening the discussion——
We are here for debate, not for merriment.
I accept what you say with reservations.
Excellent. Full marks.
It is apparent that the SDA scheme will be phased out. That scheme has worked well over the years because of the form of standard contract between the local authority and the borrower. Here we are getting into a new arena in the matter of interest rates. The Minister said he does not know how exactly it will work. I accept that, but we all know it will mean that the borrower will have to pay on the due day the full rate of interest. The scheme will deal only with the purchase of new houses and there is no provision for renewal or improvements. There is no money for such work.
You left no money after you.
The local authorities had to return it to the Department because they could not spend it.
There were no funds available.
Deputies O'Brien and Calleary will have every opportunity to contribute. This is Committee Stage.
I was adressing some remarks to the Opposition——
Address them through the Chair and you will be right.
From now on borrowers will be paying the full market rate. The Government could not get away from their responsibility to provide housing finance and they have changed emphasis: they are going to the financial institutions and offering them a gilt-edged investment. The borrower will carry the whole bag and baggage. I asked earlier will any more money be available under this new arrangement. There will not. It is a change of emphasis. The Government are asking the financial institutions to make money available to the borrowers. They will have to pay it all back. The Government have no obligation to make the necessary money available, as we did when we were in office.
It has been said that we did not make money available and that when I and my colleagues were leaving the Department money was not available. Over the years, Supplementary Estimates were introduced to meet additional expenditure. We would have made the extra money available. Government speakers should not say we left no money in the till. Where did the money come from to pay for the additional appointments made by the Government? They brought people from outside into their Departments. We found out only yesterday that they are making more of those appointments. We completed almost 28,000 new houses last year. Nobody can deny that. It was an all-time record. The package we introduced in the spring of this year was aimed at helping people in need of housing, and giving them the necessary help to meet their repayments in the first three years.
We are now having a shift of emphasis and a shift of finances from one purse to another. The borrowers will have to carry all of the burden. We are told the agency will be self-financing. That means they cannot go to the Government for money. If the Government want to make a change in that, a new Bill will have to be introduced. The Government are changing money from one direction to another, but will there be any more money for housing? We have heard "ifs" and "buts" but nobody has said there will be more money for housing. I do not believe there will be. The implications of this must be spelled out to the borrowers. I hope the borrowers will realise the burden which may be placed on their shoulders.
(Dublin South-Central): An impression is being created that this agency loan will be of benefit to the poorer sections of our community. I agree that it makes it easier for some people to get a house. The only reason people will resort to this agency is that their financial position does not make it appropriate for them to go to the other institutions like the building societies. Over a period of 25 years a person who borrows from this agency will have to pay more for his house. There are many implications in it. The repayments will be smaller in the initial stages. Repayments to the building societies are substantial, but repayments to this agency will be in the region of 18 per cent of the person's income.
This is to operate side by side with the SDA loans, but I believe it is the Government's intention to phase out the SDA loans eventually. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, if the Government try to replace the SDA loans with agency loans, the interest will be kept at a reasonable rate. Repayments to the agency will be in the region of 18 to 20 per cent.
It was pointed out several times that the agency will have to be self-financing. They will get money from the various pensions funds and they will be index-linked. Therefore, plenty of money will be available for the agency. Money will flow into the agency from many of the financial institutions. The fact that the funds will be index-linked will make them far more attractive than anything the financial institutions could get on the commercial market. There will be a queue at the Minister's door of financial institutions wanting to lend money to the Minister for this agency.
As it is to be operated by the local authorities side by side with the SDA loans scheme, it will be attractive for the local authorities to divert applicants to the agency. At times there is a scarcity of SDA loans. The danger is that the Minister intends to phase out that scheme and many applicants will be automatically diverted to the agency loan which will be far more expensive than an SDA loan. Will the same criteria apply with regard to interest? At the moment applicants to the building societies can offset their interest against their income. I hope the Minister will indicate that the same concessions are to be given in regard to interest paid on this loan as to interest paid to building societies where the interest is offset against income.
I suuport this amendment. I do not know how repayments of 18 per cent are to be defined over a long period. I presume when loans are made of £25,000 or £30,000, or whatever the case may be, that is all that will be required back by the agency, plus the interest. How does the Minister arrive at exactly how the capital will be paid back in a given time? We are talking about 18 per cent of the person's salary. If the interest rates came down to 4 per cent or 5 per cent that could cause a big fluctuation in incomes and the figure of 18 per cent could go up to 20 per cent or 25 per cent.
I was hoping we would be told exactly how the capital will be repaid, for instance, whether there would be an adjustment made at some time during the period to ensure that the person who has taken out the loan will not have paid more in capital than he should. In other words I was hoping the same principle would apply as to an SDA or building society loan. The intention of the Bill I am sure is that no more capital will be repaid than in the case of an SDA or building society loan.
I would have no objection if this agency operated absolutely independently. But given that funds are being channelled through local authorities I fear there will be an inclination on the part of local authorities to encourage applicants to take up loans from the agency. As I have said already, there is no doubt but that they will have an ample supply of money. But that will be it, there will be no money available for SDA loans. That will certainly render the price of houses much dearer. There is no use in contending that this money is intended to help the poorer sections of our community. I agree it may help those people who cannot now obtain a loan on a house from any source.
The Minister mentioned the second mortgage. I wonder who will be entitled to such mortgages? For example, will it be confined to people within the £7,000 income bracket, or will other people qualify? For instance, would people who might apply for building society loans be eligible? Is it envisaged that the second mortgage would replace a bridging loan? Bearing in mind the way house prices have increased it is practically impossible for the average householder to get a deposit together. I wonder if such an applicant could apply to this agency for a second loan on his house because, if that were possible, it would be very helpful. We are all aware of the enormous strain placed on house buyers today especially those who must resort to bridging loans which are confined to a very short repayment period. It must be said that an applicant to a building society knows what will be the amount of his repayment from the very beginning but even that person may have to resort to a bridging loan to be repaid over a period of three or four years.
I feel this scheme will make houses dearer for those who cannot afford them. I am convinced that anybody with a sufficient deposit will go to a building society in preference in the certain knowledge that after an initial period of four or five years there will be a substantial reduction effected in their repayments when salary and wage increases are taken into account. There is no doubt that the terms of building society loans are preferable, whereas couples availing of this scheme in 20 years' time will still be paying 18 per cent and it is difficult to hazard a guess as to what salaries might be at the end of that time. However, 18 per cent over a 20-year term can amount to an enormous amount of money. On the other hand, a person operating on a building society loan will have his house practically for buttons in 20 years' time. There is no point in contending that this scheme favours or will help the poorer sections of our community. The only way in which it may help them is in the initial purchase of a house but in the longer term it will not benefit them. This means that such people will pay more dearly for their houses than the people who have the initial deposit. Even if the person with the necessary deposit were eligible for this scheme I do not believe he would make application.
It appears to me that very few of the well shod Members of this House really appreciate the difficulty very many members of the public face. The difficulty is not one of what type of accommodation——
I did not quite hear the Deputy's opening remarks; perhaps he would repeat them.
What I said was that it appeared to me that some of the well shod Members of this house do not appreciate the difficulties——
I should like the Deputy to classify his remarks.
It is very difficult not to interrupt the Deputy with that sort of impertinence.
——of people in need of housing. It is not a question of what type of housing they can get at what price. It is a question of their having no housing whatsoever. Yet nothing has been done about it. In very many cases the alternative to the provision of houses under this scheme is to leave people in very bad housing accommodation or in a situation in which they must pay exorbitant rents for totally unsuitable accommodation, which amounts to money down the drain. If one takes into consideration the amount of money such people will spend on exorbitant rents and the discounted cash flow which will arise on account of inflation it will be seen immediately that this proposal is a very good one. It will place people in the position of acquiring an asset which is increasing in value. For that reason anybody, business-people or those with a business sense who compare the alternatives will view this proposal as being not alone worthwhile, constituting a facility which will improve the quality of their lives but one which will also improve their financial situation in so far as they will then become people possessing some sort of asset growing in value. In business terms, leaving aside the social factors, that makes sense.
I hope Deputy Fitzpatrick is correct, that a lot of people will invest in this fund. What the Minister is endeavouring to do is to inject into the total funds available additional funds, diverting them from speculative areas and putting them to use for the many needy cases at present on our waiting lists, some of whom may be living with parents or parents-in-law, a very large number of whom suffer not just social deprivation but in many cases from illness and, in particular, mental health problems. It is not uncommon for such people to be on valium. Regularly at constituency clinics I discover that people with housing problems breakdown because of being in a hopeless situation.
This Bill will give people some hope and is aimed at the most needy. It has been said by a previous speaker that in the last year of the Fianna Fáil administration 28,000 houses were built. I am not sure how many were built, but it probably left the national stock about 10,000 short for that year. It is a question of whether the aims were assessed and an attempt made to meet them. Instead of opposing this measure, the Opposition should be congratulating the Minister for doing what they failed to do by providing funds for people to enable them to buy their own houses. We are all aware that the local authorities are not in a position to provide them. When we were last in Government we increased the housing budget for Dublin Corporation by 87 per cent, whereas in 1979 the increase under the Fianna Fáil Minister for the Environment was 5.26 per cent.
Did anyone read the Deputy's speech at a meeting of the corporation when he said that people who could afford to paint their houses should not be living in local authority houses?
Deputy Burke will have the opportunity to reply if he wishes.
I do not believe it is the Minister's intention to phase out the SDA loans scheme.
He said he would. The Deputy should read his speech.
I understand that the Minister does not intend to do so and perhaps he would confirm that.
Deputy Fitzpatrick has said that the scheme will be more expensive than the SDA scheme, and that is a fair point. However, there is not much point in having a less expensive scheme which is of no use to a person earning less than £7,000 who cannot possibly buy a house for £14,000 or £18,000. Realistic funds must be provided for the purchase of houses. This is a good Bill. The objections raised are really hare-brained and typical of the sort of nonsense Deputy Burke has been bellowing. Some day he will give a good performance and take us by surprise.
Deputy Mitchell is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks that this Bill will help the people we have been talking about.
We must allow for him. He is amateurish.
Many of the people he has been talking about will not benefit under this Bill and their only hope is for rehousing under the public capital programme. Deputy Mitchell is probably better heeled than many of us on this side, as are his colleagues.
In part of his speech the Minister expressed a sentiment which seemed to be in line with the proposals contained in his amendment when he stated:
In any event, of course, repayments will cease when the total amount required to cover the agency's costs have been repaid, even if this is long before the originally envisaged maturity date.
What is the position of a person who has a maximum mortgage of £22,500 and wants to move from the house after ten years? An answer to that question might take some of the heat out of this debate.
I have given the answer before, but I will do so again in my reply.
The Minister should accept this amendment. Under the SDA loan scheme there is a formula by which people who are moving house can pay an extra instalment and pay off their loan. That is what we would like to see in this scheme. If the Minister will answer this point, we will judge what what to do.
Those of us who have been involved in local authorities, particularly in Dublin where one third of the population reside, are acutely aware of the difficulties confronting the 6,500 famlies at present on the housing waiting list. A set of circumstances have arisen since 1976 which have made it impossible for many people who were willing to provide their own homes to do so. The escalating cost of housing and the large deposit required have excluded them from the possibility of ever being able to achieve their aim.
As an example I will give some rough figures. In 1966-77 we in the local authority tendered for a housing contract and the price per unit was £14,000; today the same house is costing approximately £24,000. Increases of this kind in the private sector have meant that many who would have bought their own houses have been unable to do so and are now on the corporation's waiting list. I have personal experience of tradesmen earning good money who wanted to pay their own way but were precluded from buying houses because they could not raise a deposit of perhaps £7,000 or £8,000. A deposit of £2,000 was an attainable goal but the higher amounts were totally beyond their capacity.
During the weekend of the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis there were show houses which were to be on view. No doubt with a pending election in mind, the Minister made a magnanimous announcement on the Friday night increasing the SDA loan by £2,000 and offering the marvellous £18,000, of which very few people have been able to avail. The show houses which were to be opened on the Saturday closed for the weekend and opened the following weekend £2,000 dearer.
On a point of order, the Deputy has made an allegation, not against me or the Government of which I was a member, but against the civil service and the section of the Department of the Environment which deals with certificates of reasonable value.
That is not what I am speaking about.
On a point of order——
Acting Chairman
I do not think it is a point of order.
It is. The Deputy has made a very serious allegation.
Acting Chairman
That is not a point of order. Will Deputy Burke please resume his seat and allow Deputy Glenn to continue?
On a point of order, I am entitled——
Acting Chairman
If it is a point of order.
A serious allegation has been made by the Deputy as part of her contribution and this needs to be clarified.
If the Deputy would allow me to continue——
Acting Chairman
If the Deputy would sit down Deputy Glenn might clarify the point.
On a point of order, a serious allegation has been made by the Deputy.
It is a very serious matter for the people looking for houses.
As I understand a point of order, when the Deputy who raises it speaks everybody else sits down. I would like to raise a point of order without interruption.
Acting Chairman
If it is a point of order I will take it.
On a point of order, is it in order for a Deputy to make an allegation not just against a Government but against the civil service operating the certificates of reasonable value?
Acting Chairman
The Deputy made no such allegation.
The certificate of reasonable value section of the Department of the Environment is being challenged by Deputy Glenn.
Acting Chairman
The Deputy made no such allegation. Will Deputy Alice Glenn please continue.
She did.
If Deputy Burke would listen to what I said, which I am sure could be repeated for him, he would know I did not make that allegation. I said that private builders with houses on show closed them down for that weekend and put £2,000 on them.
That is an accusation against the certificate of reasonable value section of the Department of the Environment.
Acting Chairman
Will Deputy Burke please allow Deputy Glenn to continue?
It is an allegation against the public service.
Acting Chairman
It is not. Deputy Glenn without interruption, please.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Deputy name them?
I will name them.
Acting Chairman
It is not in order to name builders in the House.
I will supply Deputy Burke with the names of the builders. It was reported in the Irish Independent on the Thursday evening——
Will the Deputy name them?
Acting Chairman
Will Deputy Glenn please continue without further interruption?
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
I should like to remind Deputy Burke that names of builders should not be entered into this debate.
Allegations are being made against officials of the Department and against the certificates of reasonable value section.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Burke is out of order.
I am not out of order. The Deputy is making accusations that cannot be substantiated.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Glenn without further interruption.
Could I ask Deputy Burke in a more reasoned fashion to indicate——
Will the Deputy ask the Chair.
I am addressing my remarks to the Chair. I would like Deputy Burke to indicate to me how he is confusing certificates of reasonable value when I am speaking about small builders with houses on sale putting the price of them up. What has that to do with certificates of reasonable value?
The Deputy is blaming the civil service again.
I am prepared to supply names.
Acting Chairman
It would be out of order to name builders.
Will the Deputy name them and let them be challenged by the certificates of reasonable value section of the Department of the Environment?
Acting Chairman
I would like to remind Deputy Burke that it is not in order to name builders in the House.
A serious allegation has been made.
Many people on the housing list are coming to my clinic week after week asking me when we are going to get this scheme off the ground. They cannot wait for it. If Deputy Burke opened his clinic I am sure he would have people coming to him saying the same thing. The people want to be housed. They are glad of an opportunity to be able to pay their way and do not want to be prohibited from buying homes because they cannot get the exorbitant deposits necessary. I believe that Deputy Burke played no small part in escalating the price of houses to the degree that he put them out of the market for the average worker. Those people wanted to buy their houses and the Deputy prevented them. The Deputy should keep that in mind when he comes to vote on this Bill and redress the wrong he perpetrated on those people. Let the Bill go through and give those people an opportunity to buy their homes.
I wish to put the record right. A serious allegation has been made. I have been in that Department with my colleague, Deputy Raphael Burke. Deputy Glenn stated that at a certain weekend there was a closing down of showhouses. That was a very serious allegation to make in regard to the civil service. She said there was also an increase in prices.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
There was no mention of civil servants.
This is a very serious allegation. The Deputy said there was an increase in the price of houses of £2,000 above the CRV.
Acting Chairman
That is not what she said.
On a point of order, she stated that there was a closure of showhouses that weekend and that the prices had been increased by £2,000 above the CRV.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Glenn did not mention the CRV.
The implications are far-reaching. As far as I am concerned my credibility and integrity is being questioned and the integrity of my colleague, the former Minister and above all the integrity of the officials of the Department who do not get the opportunity I and others in the House get to defend themselves——
That is a misrepresentation of Deputy Glenn's remarks.
Acting Chairman
I suggest we return to the amendment we are debating.
I want to clear up one point. Deputy Glenn said that the showhouses were shut down one weekend and the price went up by £2,000. The building industry was extremely depressed for the last six months Fianna Fáil were in Government, so it is possible that a builder would have a CRV for £27,000 and be selling those houses for £25,000 and then they went up to £27,000, when Deputy Burke was Minister. What Deputy Glenn said is no reflection on the civil servants.
No, and Deputy Burke and Deputy Connolly know that well.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
We will now return to the amendment.
Is the amendment being accepted?
No. I said when I stood up I wanted to clear up that point because I thought Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn wanted to speak.
I want to start off by removing the red herring that is being dragged through this debate for the last two days, that we are going to wind down the SDA loan scheme. I made it quite clear last night that what I intended by the remark in my speech was that we considered it would prove attractive to people eligible for the SDA loan scheme and that it was possible that the scheme would wither away. That is what I meant. I said it two or three times already today.
It is like this Government. They are winding down.
Like Fianna Fáil did from a majority of 22.
The Government will go out like a hurricane as they did before.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
Deputy Connolly is mixing his metaphors. The Minister now without further interruption.
Deputy Glenn is a marvel because she upset the Deputies more than they have been upset all day today.
(Interruptions.)
The debate was not as lively all day today as it has been since Deputy Glenn came in.
She is a decent, honourable woman who represents a constituency part of which I used to represent. The only mistake she has made is to join the wrong party.
I have gone over this ground three or four times today and twice yesterday. This scheme is not a substitute for any other scheme. It will attract different people from those attracted by the SDA loan or the building mortgage scheme, and people will be attracted for the very reasons stated by Deputy Fitzpatrick. Under this scheme we are catering for people who cannot put together the £9,000 or the £10,000 necessary to bridge the gap between the £14,000 available under the SDA loan scheme and the price of the house — £24,000 or £25,000.
Another category of people catered for are those who get loans from building societies. A person earning £7,000 or £8,000 a year cannot make repayments of £70 a week. In this Bill we are removing the burden of saving a very big deposit. There is no mystery about it; there is no sleight of hand. There are disadvantages which will be explained to everybody who wants a loan from the agency. A person earning £7,000 a year has a choice of three ways of buying a house: he can go to a building society and get a mortgage — and he will be repaying £160 or £180 a month; he can apply for an SDA loan — but he will have to get a deposit of £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000 which, for people under £7,000, is extremely difficult unless they are well beyond the age at which most people get married; or they can opt to get money under the new Housing Finance Agency, which means the deposit will be £2,500, and the repayments in the initial years instead of being 40 per cent to 45 per cent of their income will be 18 per cent.
The shortfall in their repayments during the early years is moved forward and becomes part of the debt they owe the Housing Finance Agency. As wages increase, through inflation or promotion, the borrowers reach the point where they are quickly wiping out the debt they built up. This is an alternative source for people who want to buy their houses but cannot save the deposit or afford the mortgage repayments.
Deputy Taylor was right when he said the drafting of this amendment would prohibit me from accepting it, because it cuts across the basis of the agency, which is that it should be self-financing. Deputy Taylor also said the 18 per cent would be constant throughout the lifetime of the loan. That depends on each individual, but if a person got a promotion his salary could increase from £7,000 to £10,000 and the 18 per cent repayments would be much higher. At some stage he would have a choice of repaying the loan at 18 per cent or he could cut down and repay at 12 per cent or 14 per cent, whatever would be the appropriate percentage to wipe out the loan after 25 years.
I realise I am repeating myself but the same points seem to be worrying many Deputies. Deputy Connolly for the last few days was referring to the gnomes of Zurich and the moguls of the banking world who would be latching on to the backs of the unfortunate working class people of Ireland and sucking their blood dry through this new housing scheme. I admit that language is a bit purple but that was the kind of thing he was saying.
I did not use that language.
I said I was exaggerating.
The Minister is out of line.
I believe pension funds will be anxious to invest in this agency because this is a gilt-edged investment. In my view, it is the duty of pension funds to invest in gilt-edged securities. I do not know if Deputy Connolly is an investor in a pension fund but when he becomes 65 years of age, in another 40 years——
The Minister is being very generous.
——and asks the pension officer for his pension — because he has been investing for the past 40 years — if the officer says he is sorry he cannot give him a pension because 20 years earlier he made a bad investment, Deputy Connolly will not be pleased. Pension funds are obliged to protect their investors.
They are not doing too badly.
When a contributor becomes 65 he is entitled to his pension. If we provide a way for these funds to be invested in Ireland we are doing the right thing. It is impossible to say exactly how much money will be invested, but it is thought about £300 million of pension fund money is available in any one year and about 10 per cent or 15 per cent of that is invested abroad. If we do no more than have that money invested here, and at the same time can provide houses for our people, this Bill will be worthwhile.
Deputy Calleary asked what would happen if a person sold his house.
I already answered that. If he sells his house he will owe a debt to the agency. It depends at what stage he got his loan, but he will have to pay off that debt.
The debt could be of £40,000 or £50,000, far more than he borrowed. I am trying to get information.
Yes, it could be depending on what happens to inflation in the next number of years. Most of us were Members of this House in 1973. The price of an SDA loan-type house then was £5,000. What is it worth today? The Deputy can answer that and that gives him the information.
The Minister has not answered my question. The Minister has not given me an idea because he does not know. If Colm Rapple's figures are wrong all of us would like to know. We will have to explain to people what the options are and we will not be able to do that. I can say to a person in respect of an SDA loan: "You will pay so much for ever more". What will I say about these loans?
I thought I had made it quite clear. The Deputy points out that there are advantages and disadvantages in this scheme. If the person goes for the SDA loan he has a deposit to make but his repayments are fixed over the period of the loan. If he goes for the building society mortgage the repayments are fixed but they are an extremely high percentage of his salary for the first few years. If he gets pay increases then, as a percentage of his salary, they diminish. If he goes to the Housing Finance Agency the percentage of his salary is fixed and as his salary goes up he pays an increasing amount of money until his debt is wiped out.
So Colm Rapple is correct when he says that when somebody borrows £20,000 he could, depending on circumstances, pay back £140,000?
Mr, Rapple has made an assumption which I do not accept. If his assumptions are correct, that is right.
It is considered normal, prudent practice for a person to take out a mortgage protection policy which is provided by the insurance companies. That is based on the fixed repayments on the mortgage. There could be difficulties in obtaining a mortgage protection policy on this type of mortgage. This would leave the family in an exposed situation. Would the Minister consider this aspect and make arrangements with the very insurance companies who are to be part and parcel of this scheme to ensure that facilities will be made available in every case where they are required for a mortgage protection policy. If this is not done a family could be left with no means of ever paying off their debt.
I am not sure if it is legally possible. I think a lot of building societies insist on it. I would strongly recommend to anybody who has a mortgage to take out such a policy. I think one is being negligent if one does not do that. I would ask the agency to insist, and if they cannot insist, at least to recommend to everybody who is borrowing money under this scheme to take out a mortgage protection policy.
Is there provision for the mortgage redemption as there is under the SDA loan system?
Yes, one can terminate the loan at any time.
Is there a specified period over which the loan will be repaid? I should like to put another point to the Minister. This Bill is to make finance available for housing. At present people who are deemed to be eligible for local authority housing and who are on an approved housing list are being disallowed the £18,000 special category SDA loan because they are not deemed to be living in unfit or overcrowded housing.
The regulations read:
(c) a person—
(i) who, not later than one year prior to the application for the loan, had applied to a housing authority for tenancy of a house provided by them, and
(ii) whose family at the time of the application for a tenancy comprised that person and at least two other persons or one child, and
(iii) who had satisfied the authority that he was in need of rehousing by reason of the dangerous, structurally unfit or overcrowded conditions of his existing house and that because his financial circumstances were such he could not reasonably be expected to secure adequate housing accommodation from his own resources, and
(iv) whose family is in need of rehousing.
All of those conditions must be satisfied, not just three of them, in order to qualify for the £18,000 special category allowance.
But the people to whom I refer are on an approved housing list and will have to be rehoused by the local authority.
People may be on a local authority housing list but, as well as that, they must qualify under these, I admit, rather rigid terms before they can get the £18,000 loan. I am not sure whether they can be loosened a little but I will certainly look into it.
I read Colm Rapple's article on this and I have been working on a few figures. At present if a person borrows £20,000 at 12½ per cent over 25 years from a local authority and particularly from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, he pays back over £90,000. It is important to get that across.
We have heard people on the other side say that the new scheme will represent a costly type of housing finance. I do not agree and would like to hear from the Minister what his idea of the costings will be. From what I can ascertain this sort of financing will not be any more costly than are normal borrowings. For instance, if we take an ACC loan of £30,000 at current rates we find that it is as costly as will be a loan under this scheme.
I think Deputy Connaughton's figures are correct. I am informed that the repayments on a building society loan of £20,000 for 20 years amount to £83,000.
On a point of order, there is agreement to conclude debate on this Bill at 7.30 p.m. While there are many more points we should like to make, and I am sure the same goes for Deputies on the other side, we would appeal for co-operation from the Deputies opposite in allowing our amendment to be put now so that we may have some discussion on the next amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 76
Tá
- Acheson, Carrie.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- (Wexford).
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Clement.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom.
- (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- 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.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Browne, Noel.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- (Dublin North-West).
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- McCartin, John J.
- McMahon, Larry.
- 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.
- 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.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Taylor, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies F O'Brien and Mervyn Taylor.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill".
I should like clarification of subsection (4) which is very important because it relates to a second mortgage, a key factor in the Bill. The subsection contains the only reference to an agreement in the Bill. I should like to know what is the nature of this agreement. What is the intent and purpose of it?
There has been a demand for a long time to offer such top-up loans and the provision to do so is in subsection (4). At the moment we do not know how it will be done. It is to allow for top-up loans to be given.
The provision in the Bill is very vague.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Agency in performing its functions shall ensure that its operations and activities will not in any way interefere with or limit the provision of loans by housing authorities under the Small Dwellings Acquisitions Acts."
From the Fianna Fáil point of view this is the crunch element in the Bill. The Minister has said that he intends to scrap the SDA system and the amendment states:
The Agency in performing its functions shall ensure that its operations and activities wil not in any way interfere with or limit the provision of loans by housing authorities under the Small Dwellings Acquisitions Acts.
Among other things which he said with which we disagree, the Minister said yesterday when introducing the Bill that it is envisaged that at full operation the new scheme will replace the local authority loans scheme. We have debated at great length the importance to the house purchase market and potential home owners of the SDA scheme and it is to prevent its scrapping that we have put down our amendment. Whatever other damage the Minister will do, the one thing we do not want him to do is to dismantle the SDA scheme, which is a fundamental part of house purchase arrangements because it enabled people not only to purchase their houses but to know when they were entering into mortgage agreements that they would be on a fixed rate of interest and that the repayments would be stable for the life of the loan.
We do not have the time to go into this at great length, but I would ask the Minister to give us a guarantee that he does not intend to interfere with the operations of the SDA scheme. Yesterday and last night he said he would scrap it. As I said, this is a crunch point as far as Fianna Fáil are concerned.
I am glad to give the Deputy the clarification he seeks. I have given it already about half a dozen times. I said last night that I thought it is possible that this scheme would prove so attractive that the SDA loans scheme would wither away by itself. If that does not happen, I will not remove it. I cannot accept the amendment because its effect would be to differentiate between loans made to individuals and to housing authorities.
If it is just a matter of wording, I am quite prepared to arrange for a redrafting of the relevant words in the amendment. Yesterday the Minister said he would scrap the SDA scheme and he repeated that last night. Now that we have put down an amendment he says he is not prepared to accept it and that, to my mind, means that he intends to scrap the SDA scheme. Could the Minister not submit a suitably worded amendment when the Bill goes before the Seanad?
I could not. I have explained a number of times that this scheme is different from the SDA one and from the building society schemes. If I were to do what the Deputy has asked me to do, I would have to extend the subsection to include people who borrow under the building society schemes. That would be illogical. I have already told the House of my attitude to the SDA loans. I said on a number of occasions today that this scheme is designed for people who would not be able to put together the necessary deposits of £8,000 or £9,000 or £10,000 to buy houses under the building society schemes. This will afford such people a chance to get houses at a small deposit and it will allow them to pay only a small proportion of their incomes in the initial years of repayment. This Bill is different from either the SDA scheme or the building society schemes. Different rules apply to it.
Our amendment states "The agency is performing its functions..." The functions can mean the making available of a new type of loan. Though providing an alternative type loan, our amendment proposes that it will not interfere with existing loan schemes. Let us clarify this for all Members: if they vote against the amendment they will be voting for the abolition of the SDA scheme.
Rubbish.
I want to let every Member of the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and the Independents know that the loan referred to in the Minister's speech yesterday is an alternative type of loan. In voting against this amendment they will be voting for the abolition, in the medium to long term, of the SDA loans scheme.
That is nonsense.
That is exactly what is in this amendment. The amendment reads:
In page 6, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Agency in performing its functions shall ensure that its operations and activities will not in any way interfere with or limit the provision of loans by housing authorities under the Small Dwellings Acquisitions Acts.".
There is no room there for any misunderstanding.
There is. It could be very dangerous.
If the housing agency wants to provide the type of alternative loans the Minister suggests, so be it. I do not think they will work. That is the basis of our amendment.
The amendment is rubbish.
We have had a maiden speech.
I would not put it in the same terms, but our legal advice is exactly the same.
If the Government side of the House do not accept this amendment they are scrapping the SDA loans scheme.
It is now 7.30 p.m. I understand there is an agreement. I am now putting the question that the Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed to.
A Cheann Comhairle, I should like you to put the amendment.
I am afraid we have reached agreement for 7.30 p.m.
The Minister gave a reply which, unfortunately, I did not hear. The allegation was made that this new loan scheme will do away with the SDA loans scheme. The Minister replied to that but I did not hear his reply.
I replied to it several times in the past two days.
Would the Minister reply again?
I will repeat it again for the fifth or sixth time. The only way this scheme could do away with the SDA loans scheme would be if proved so popular that the SDA loans scheme withered away and there was no demand for it. That is the only way.
Nonsense.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 76.
Tá
- Acheson, Carrie.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Seamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- (Wexford).
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Coughlan, Clement.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom
- (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, Jim.
- 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.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim. Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Birmingham, George.
- Boland, John.
- Browne, Noel.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- (Dublin North-West).
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- 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.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Fleming, Brian.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McCartin, John J.
- McMahon, Larry.
- 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.
- Taylor, Madeleine.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Moore and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies F O'Brien and Mervyn Taylor.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 6 agreed to.
Sections 7 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Section 14 put and declared carried.
Sections 15 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.