I should like to thank the Minister of State for returning to deal with this matter which is quite simple. My concern is that the Government are proposing to increase local authority rents from 1 March and have set out in the circular Ref. H3/79 the terms and conditions of the rents of local authority dwellings for each local authority. I am concerned about the way those rents were devised and the discussions, as distinct from the negotiations, that took place between the Minister, the Department and representatives of the National Association of Tenants Organisations. From the information I received, and discussions I had with NATO it appears that the harmonious relationship that was established after a two-year national rent strike in 1973 by the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy Tully, has been put at serious risk because of the manner and the way in which those rents were announced.
According to my information, which is subject to correction, on 30 October last NATO received a telephone call from the Department requesting them to send a submission to the Department with regard to the proposed rent increase. On 15 December a meeting took place here—that was the occasion of the special one-day sitting of the Dáil to consider the EMS—at which a written statement was read out by the Minister. Soon after reading that statement, due to a Cabinet meeting, the Minister had to leave. That statement, effectively, announced what the Department of Finance were instructing the Department of the Environment to collect by way of local authority rents. In effect, there was no negotiation or discussion. Indeed, the document which the Minister read was not circulated to all the people present at the meeting when it was in progress. I do not wish to pry into what occurred at that meeting or interfere with the negotiations but I want to draw attention to the fact that NATO feel that the procedures in relation to the negotiations which existed in the past and resulted in the harmonious ending of the disastrous two-year rent strike have been put at risk. While NATO have queries in relation to the actual rent increases the first issue is one of principle.
Does the Minister for the Environment seriously understand the precedent he is setting in this regard and if so what is the basis for this departure? Are we to take it that NATO have no role to play in relation to negotiating or discussing rent increases in future years when this agreement ends? If that is the case I should like to tell the Minister that he must realise that he is seriously putting at risk the relationship that local authority housing committees have with their tenants. It is a difficult situation for local authorities because they are caught in the position where they get the benefit from all new rents collected and, therefore, have a strong vested interest in collecting those rents and ensuring that there is no difficulty with regard to rent strikes and so on but yet it is the Minister for the Environment who establishes the rents at national level.
A criticism that has been made frequently by Fianna Fáil councillors in Dublin Corporation is that NATO really have no role to play in this and that the tenants should be approaching local councillors to discuss rent increases. In fact, rents are established centrally and the local councils, as such, have no role to play. It is right and proper that a national organisation, like NATO, should have full negotiating status and be so recognised. Their proposals and submissions should be taken seriously. On the basis of the evidence I have it appears that a token gesture of negotiation—discussion—or participation took place belatedly last year in this regard. Those rents would have come in sooner were it not for the strong protest that was raised at one of the meetings about the fact that negotiations did not take place.
That gives cause for serious alarm. As a former member of the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation, having been elected in 1974, I was aware of the accumulated rent arrears that were there from the time of the rent strike and the difficulties the local authority had in trying to get them back over a period of time. In 1976 we still had major rent arreas directly brought about as a result of this rent strike which, in part, was a strike on behalf of NATO to get official negotiating status and to reduce a lot of socially unjust anomalies that operated then in the differential rents scheme.
I should like the Minister of State to address himself seriously to the status and position that the Fianna Fáil administration afford and give to NATO as an organisation. Clarification on that point is needed. He should clarify for all concerned, particularly for those in NATO, where they stand in relation to a Fianna Fáil Government and if they have a role to play in the process of negotiating rent increases. I should like to remind the Minister that a special delegate conference of NATO will be held on Sunday and that his views will be of interest to the delegates.
At the meeting in the House before Christmas when the Minister announced the amount of the increases dissatisfaction was expressed by the people involved and they were invited to respond to the Minister's proposals and make new submissions. On 29 January they met Department officials—unfortunately, the Minister was not present—and, basically, the same document was read out. The person handling the case for the Department indicated that there could be no negotiation on the figure but said that any comments or ideas NATO might have would be welcome. That is not negotiation and if that is what happened I should like to express the concern of the Labour Party about it. Having solved the problem left to us in 1973 when we took office we are concerned that we are now starting back on the same slippery slope and we will have the same problem on our desk when we return to office.
The second point I want to discuss is the further devaluation of the Department of the Environment by the Department of Finance. From reading the way this decision was reached it appears that the Department of the Environment were told by Finance what the rent increase would be. The Minister, without discussing the matter with the people directly involved, appears to have accepted this. Obviously one cannot be party to what happens within Government Departments and between Ministers, but we do know what discussions took place between the Minister and the people most directly affected—the representatives of the hundreds of thousands of local authority tenants who represent the low income families in this country. The Minister does not appear to have attempted any kind of consultation or discussion with them. He has simply accepted the direction of the Department of Finance in this regard. If that is the case, the present Minister for the Environment and his Minister of State are devaluing the role and relationship of the Department of the Environment vis-à-vis other Government Departments, and particularly Finance.
That is a fall back from the position held by the Custom House in relation to the previous Minister, having established between 1973-1977 the very clear and unambigious position of the importance of the Department of the Environment. When we come back into office we will have to scramble up the mountain once more to ascertain the importance and the primary position of the role of the Department of the Environment in attempting to provide social justice in the field of housing and other related matters. If that is the case this is a political charge I am laying on the Minister and the Minister of State. If my information is correct, they appear to be allowing themselves to be reduced to the second division so far as Government Departments are concerned. That is not in the interests of the importance of the portfolio they hold, nor is it in the interests of the local authority tenants on whose behalf they have the responsibility to negotiate with the Department of Finance.
I want to deal now with the circular and the proposed rent increase. There are a number of points I want to clarify, anomalies the Department might look at again. At the bottom of item 4 on page 3 of the circular letter we see the date 17 September 1976, the date before which people on social welfare incomes get a reduction of 50 per cent for income assessment in terms of rent. That date should be moved forward a year because effectively it means that a person must be continuously in receipt of social welfare payments for three years before he can benefit.