Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Feb 1966

Vol. 220 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - Housing Subsidy (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that the Government should facilitate the provision of Tenant Purchase Schemes for Corporation tenants in Dublin, Cork and other municipalities, by providing the same subsidy facilities as are available to rural local authorities. —(Deputy Clinton.)

Mr. Jones

The Minister's intervention yesterday evening to all intents and purposes finished discussion on this motion because he said it was not acceptable to him. The Minister would be less than just to himself in adopting that line without waiting to hear the full reply. He described the motion as a pious incantation which could do no good. One of the bases of the motion is the equality of all individuals before the law. If a house purchase scheme is devised to make houses available throughout the State to local authority tenants and enable them to own their own homes—something which the Minister agrees, I think, is desirable—it can hardly be argued that different canons of justice should apply as between residents of urban and rural areas. It is presumed that all people are equal before the law in that everybody should have the same facilities. It is hardly fair to say at that stage that it is a question of necessity and that necessity knows no law; but that is the basis on which the Minister is arguing this case.

The Minister quoted another phrase, which sounded rather trite at the time, that his function was to provide houses and not dispose of them. The Minister is being less than fair to himself and the office he occupies in this matter. His function is to provide homes, not shelters. This evening and for some time past we have been discussing housing legislation. We should assume that the people who will occupy these houses will have a right to make homes of them. The right of a home certainly ensures that family traditions continue.

The Minister made a distinction between rural and urban areas in this matter. He said one of the reasons why you can envisage a purchase scheme in rural areas on terms you cannot have in urban areas is that in rural areas the houses were isolated and, if vacant, would not always be readily occupied again. That is a bit of a fallacy. It may be all right for the purposes of argument here. Readily, throughout the country in any local authority area any house that becomes available anywhere is eagerly sought after. In regard to the argument of a family continuing to occupy the same home, to say you can apply this to rural areas and not to urban areas does not invalidate the argument one way or the other. The Minister would be nearer the mark if he said it was purely a question of cost, that there would be a certain loss in regard to the short-term payment of subsidy. This is the real kernel of the situation and not the argument the Minister was trying to rely on to dispose of this motion.

Surely urban houses have as much an attraction for the people who occupy them and surely their families would be anxious to remain on in them? Deputy Ryan quoted figures which showed that when a purchase scheme was applied to houses here in Dublin, out of 500 houses concerned, 300 immediately became subject to purchase. The Minister says purchase schemes are available. We know they are, but the distinction is, so far as urban authorities are concernred, that the subsidy is not continueds once a purchase scheme is made.

Local authorities are apparently becoming less and less inclined to get rid of property at present. Perhaps the Minister is in this frame of mind, too? They seem to think it would be much better to hold on to property rather than dispose of it. I suppose in some cases there may be exceptions where the disposal of property might not be in the best public interest. But, by and large, many houses have been purchased in rural areas. Where the houses provided by the local authority in the first instance were not large enough to serve the needs of the families occupying them, they could not be enlarged by the local authorities themselves. However, once a purchase scheme became applicable to them and they were vested in these people, they were able to enlarge them themselves and qualify for the grants applying to that type of enlargement so necessary for a growing family. That is being denied to residents of urban areas at present in their being deprived of the right to a purchase scheme where the subsidy will be the same level as in rural areas.

The Minister mentioned that these houses become available at a price which nobody can pass over. I presume that, in the ordinary way, the same canons would apply to homes in rural areas as in urban areas. I presume that the immediate family of the occupant would have first claim upon it and that they would be no less eager to continue with that right of ownership. I cannot see why they would not want to continue to exercise the ownership which, in their time, was exercised by their parents and maybe even grandparents, rather than have the position that speculators might get possession of such houses. I should imagine that, in all instances, the rights of the local authority are protected by reason of the fact that, for the duration of the purchase scheme, they would be the controlling interest. There has been a tendency over the years, particularly in respect of housing estates, to extend the number of years purchase in regard to these particular houses and therefore I cannot see how the interest of the local authority would in any way be interfered with.

The Minister said that houses would not be available for those who need them. That statement presumes that the houses would pass into the ownership of people who did not need them. If a person is selling a house which he holds within the terms of a purchase scheme, then such person may not sell it without the permission of the local authority who have an over-riding determination as to whether or not the proposed purchaser is a suitable applicant. Therefore, the Minister's argument falls in that case.

The Minister speaks of the liquidation of our stock of houses. He is making an academic argument. Has he any figures on which to base his assumptions in this respect? The word "liquidation" brings back to our mind the Second World War and the meaning of a wiping-out of a particular area. When the Minister speaks of "liquidation" here, one might be inclined to think that the housing estate, as such, would vanish if a purchase scheme were applied to it, but I do not think that would happen.

The Minister says that, under the new Housing Bill, when enacted, regulations will be made in regard to the future vesting of houses. It will be subject to regulations which may be changed. There would be power to make purchase schemes, having regard to the attractiveness of a particular scheme. I would point out that that power has been there all the time in regard to purchase schemes.

In his opening statement last night, the Minister said that purchase scheme facilities which exist at present are not being availed of. As Deputy Ryan and Deputy M. E. Dockrell pointed out, one of the reasons why they have not been availed of is that the attractiveness of the purchase price is militated against by the fact that subsidy will not continue to be paid in regard to the scheme. Deputy Ryan mentioned that it could vary by as much as £1 in relation to any particular dwelling. That is a factor which would or would not make a proposition attractive particularly in purchase schemes in relation to artisans' dwellings and other houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts where people, in the main, have large families and generally a limited income. Such people could not afford to indulge in any cash speculation in regard to the purchase of their home. They are confined to a weekly wages, which, in the main, does not vary too much. The attractiveness of a scheme to such people would lie in the fact that it was within their financial resources to avail of it, and, in this case, non-subsidy is a factor which would not make it attractive.

The Minister says that the motion is not concerned with the Housing Bill which is going through this House at present. The general purpose of the Housing Bill is the provision of houses. Everybody's aim, in the various housing measures that have come before this House from time to time, has been the provision of houses for the people. The endeavour has been to provide homes in which units of the nation can set up families who will become attached to their homes and remain there. Certainly, I do not think anybody had the idea that people would not be rooted to the homes in which they were born and lived and would not desire to remain in them.

One of the binding forces in Irish life has been a good community spirit. People have taken a pride in ownership and in their locality. In various commendable movements such as the Tidy Towns Competition, and so on, we have appealed to people to take a greater interest and pride in their homes and locality. In the Town Planning Act, we had the same idea of making places attractive and keeping them attractive. Certainly, the qualities of home ownership would be one of the dominant factors in this matter and would outweigh anything else. In the long run, the State and the local authority will not lose anything on this. Earlier on, they will have to find more capital to provide homes which is one of the outstanding needs of our economy at present in large centres of population.

The binding argument on which this motion is based is that people ought to be equal before the law and ought to have the same facilities. Most of the amenities available in the urban areas are now available in our rural areas —water, sanitation, lighting along the footpaths, roads, open spaces, and so on. Therefore, no extra amenity is available in urban areas as against rural areas. For that reason, I think the Minister should concede this of right.

I could not follow very well the Minister's argument as to why he had prejudged the issue except in so far as I think it is mainly concerned with costs. I do not think the Minister wants to be held to his phrase that he is the provider of houses and not the disposer of them. In this House, we make facilities available for the provision of houses. It should be our aim to make homes available to the people wherein they may live contented and useful lives, which their families after them will continue to maintain under the same conditions and be induced to improve them and keep them in a good state of repair and that they would always form the basis on which we might depend for a continuing population in these areas. Ownership gives people a link with a place and a sense of responsibility. It is for that reason that we felt the motion should be put down and hoped that it would have been accepted in that spirit by the Minister.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. P. Brennan)

It is very difficult to understand the attitude of Deputy Jones when he takes the Minister to task for coming in at such an early stage of the debate on this motion to indicate his attitude towards it. It has always been the practice in relation to Private Members' motions for a Minister to intervene at a very early stage to indicate his views. The Fine Gael Party would like to have it both ways. Last night the Minister was forced to his feet by the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Fine Gael Party, a number of whom were in the House at the time.

Mr. Clinton

We thought the Minister was anxious to get in.

Mr. P. Brennan

It seems that Deputies opposite were very anxious to get him up. The least one would expect is that the Minister would indicate his attitude to the motion. Deputy Tully was on the same lines last evening, even though he was not in the House at the time the Minister intervened, nor was any other member of the Labour Party present. The Minister would have preferred to have heard a few more Fine Gael Deputies giving their arguments. If he did not have an opportunity to do so, it was no fault of his. The debate would have collapsed if the Minister had not offered at that time.

The Minister was accused last night by Deputy Ryan of prohibiting people from taking part in tenant purchase schemes. I do not think there is any foundation for that accusation. As Deputy Ryan himself pointed out, there is legislative provision already in existence whereby local authorities can prepare a scheme within their own areas covering all their estates or any part of them and allowing their tenants to purchase.

If I remember correctly, in 1953, the Minister for Local Government issued a circular to each local authority indicating the ways and means by which they could compile schemes for tenant purchase. That was followed by a circular from a Minister of the inter-Party Government in 1955 or 1956 asking them what they had been doing about it. There was no indication in the second circular that the terms would be any more favourable than they were in the first case. So it was a Fianna Fáil Minister who originally gave the local authorities a means by which they could arrive at a scheme and the inter-Party Government Minister condoned that and did not indicate that he would be any more generous.

No matter what may be said, the Minister for Local Government is not in any way prohibiting people from buying their own houses. It is the local authorities. A number of local authorities have schemes and a number of people have availed of the schemes. There are a number of local authorities who have decided not to have schemes. I do not know if there is anything one can do about it except get rid of the members of the local authorities and have new members elected. If Deputies on all sides of the House were more vocal in their own local authority areas as to the importance of having schemes prepared, the tenants might get the opportunity of purchasing their homes.

There are some 69 urban local authorities who have schemes covering 21,854 houses. Dundalk, for instance, has a scheme of 1,136 houses, and 700 houses have been sold to the tenants.

Mr. Clinton

Is the subsidy continued in these cases?

Mr. P. Brennan

The terms are the same in any part of the country. In Monaghan, there is a scheme of 176 houses, and 85 have been purchased; in Sligo, a scheme of 95 houses, and 86 have been purchased; in Ballina, 90 houses included in a scheme, and 77 have been purchased by the tenants. So that, where a local authority have made the effort to provide a scheme, I do not think the figures would indicate that the tenants are prepared to buy.

The arguments made during this debate would seem to indicate that the Minister was doing something to prevent people from having the opportunity to buy their own houses. That is not so. Each local authority has the power to draw up a scheme and to make it possible for tenants to purchase houses. What the motion seeks is that the subsidy should continue so that the houses would be given to the tenants so much cheaper. The Minister said last night that the scheme would be such that it would be impossible for a tenant to refuse to buy.

Mr. S. Dunne

Would you be paying the tenant to buy the house?

Mr. P. Brennan

The point could be made that in some local authority areas where we maintain that the price of a house on a purchase scheme is still low, nevertheless, the rents are so low that it is not a proposition for the tenant to buy. That is one of the reasons why the purchase schemes are not being availed of in many parts of the country.

An argument was put forward here yesterday evening that it was unreasononable to expect people who were paying the economic rent over a number of years to pay more money for the house. I think it was Deputy Clinton who made the point. There are very few people paying the economic rate in many housing estates. Even where there are, they have been subsidised for every day they have been in it to some extent.

Mr. Clinton

In what way?

Mr. P. Brennan

The number would be very small in comparison with the number who are not on the economic rent.

Deputy Jones talked about the figure given here by Deputy Ryan last night for vacancies in the Dublin Corporation estate in recent years. There was some argument between Deputy Ryan and the Minister as to the figure. Deputy Ryan gave a figure of 250. Our information is that in the ten year period 1955-56 to 1964-65, the average was 981 vacancies. This, no doubt, was a great help to the corporation in finding accommodation for other people.

We, and I personally, are in favour of as many people as possible owning their own houses. The terms laid down in the circular sent to each local authority in 1953 are very attractive and tenants can still buy houses from local authorities at a very reasonable figure. It is almost certain that, if they do buy the houses, within a week they can put them on the market and double their money without the least trouble. The same applies as far as county council cottages are concerned.

Mr. S. Dunne

In practice, the number of cases where that happens is very small.

Mr. P. Brennan

Some members of local authorities would not agree with the Deputy.

Mr. S. Dunne

Where do the people who sell the houses go to live?

Mr. P. Brennan

That is the extraordinary thing: they find alternative accommodation.

Mr. S. Dunne

They must clear out.

Mr. P. Brennan

I am not a member of an urban area authority. I do know it has happened in Arklow and to a considerable extent in an urban area in Wexford. I know in relation to vested cottages that there is not a week that Wicklow County Council has not an application for the sale of three or four. Do not ask me where the people go.

Mr. S. Dunne

Wicklow?

Mr. P. Brennan

The county. Arklow decided not to have a tenant purchase scheme and there is not a Fianna Fáil majority in Arklow by any means. I understand Bray are trying to decide on a scheme. It is under consideration at the moment. Some local authorities want these schemes; others do not. If those who tabled this motion would direct their attention to their own areas and try to get their various local authorities to bring in these schemes, they would have no difficulty. The authority is there.

There was talk of people paying very high rents under the differential renting system who would have to pay a very high price for their houses. There is a scheme in Dublin whereby a tenant can get a very high grant for the purpose of rehousing himself. He can also get 99 per cent loan facilities, irrespective of his income, for an SDA house. If a tenant wants to buy a house, he can certainly do so. The facilities available provide every encouragement.

Deputy Tully said last night that it was very hard to persuade a tenant that a house built for £80 to £100 40 or 50 years ago is now worth £400. That is true, too, of course, even in the case of houses built in the past 20 years. Houses that cost £1,200 to £1,300 are being sold now for £3,500. We all know house property has appreciated in value. I have no doubt the tenant knows it, too, and all he is waiting for is his local authority to devise a scheme which will enable him to purchase the house, even at £400.

Deputy Jones said the only reason the Minister would have for refusing to accept this motion would be the cost. If the Fine Gael arguments are right, the Minister is at the moment subsidising tenancies and, therefore, it could not be a question of cost at all.

Mr. Clinton

That is what makes the attitude so baffling and so difficult to understand.

Mr. P. Brennan

The attitude of the Minister is that houses are being made available to tenants in areas in which the scheme is in operation at a low figure. He is not against continuing subsidising houses, but he does not think the time is opportune as far as this motion is concerned because there is already legal provision there. If the occasion warrants it, the Minister can, by regulation, continue to subsidise a tenant purchase scheme. In the areas in which the schemes are in operation, they have been quite successful and nothing the Minister has done in his term of office would suggest that he is against the principle of people owning their own houses.

The onus is on the local authorities and, if they do not bring in these schemes, there is nothing the Minister can do. There is no reason why every local authority should not have its own tenant purchase scheme. It would be quite wrong for Fine Gael to suggest that, because the Minister is not prepared to accept this motion, he is against the principle of people owning their own homes. Deputies have already been unfair in suggesting, as Deputy Tully did last night, that the Minister rushed in here and in the shortest possible time indicated his views with regard to accepting or not accepting the motion. I have been in the House now for about 11 years and the practice is that, when the proposer and seconder have spoken, the Minister gets in and indicates his attitude. I cannot understand why it should be implied that he should have waited until 6.30 or 7 p.m. this evening. Actually the Minister intervened at the stage at which he did because there was no one else offering. There were some Fine Gael Deputies present who have since spoken. There was no one on the Labour Benches. The Minister's intervention gave those who followed him much greater scope. I am sure they would have been most disappointed if he had said he would accept the motion.

Mr. Larkin

I did not intend to intervene until I heard the Parliamentary Secretary state that corporation tenants who wished to purchase their houses can obtain a loan of 99 per cent of the valuation. Surely that is evading the issue. Resolutions on the lines of this motion have been adopted on more than one occasion, and with the support of the Parliamentary Secretary's Party, by Dublin Corporation. In respect of these tenant purchase schemes, the Minister should indicate that he is prepared to continue the subsidies from State funds at present being paid.

That approach is supported by members of his own Party, not purely on a local basis but as Deputies. In view of that, it is surprising to hear the Parliamentary Secretary take that particular line. Of course we are aware of the fact that a corporation tenant who is living in a three, four or five-roomed dwelling will get a loan of up to 99 per cent if he is prepared to surrender that dwelling, but does the Parliamentary Secretary think that corporation tenants are all mad? If they are satisfied with the size of the dwelling in which they are living and with the facilities of that dwelling as suiting their family commitments, why should they leave it, even though the Parliamentary Secretary says they can get a loan to buy a house? I do not know of any houses built under the Small Dwellings Act that have less than five rooms.

It is quite true that the corporation can adopt a scheme with regard to a particular area but if the corporation do adopt a scheme in respect of a certain area where the dwellings are subsidised, the Department say that they will stop those subsidies. If there is no question of the subsidisation of these houses, the total cost will fall back on the ratepayers. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister can weep salt tears for the ratepayers when the occasion arises, but, when the question arises of a local authority deciding to introduce a scheme for tenant purchase of existing dwellings, will the Department of Local Government continue to pay the subsidy? When that question arises, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary lose all the sympathy they have previously been expressing to the ratepayers.

There is also the problem as to what extent a scheme of purchase would require sanction by the Minister for Local Government. In that regard would such a scheme be subject to sanction and would all its conditions be subject to sanction? This is important, having regard to the fact that in 1932, 1933 and 1934, Dublin Corporation built dwellings at a cost of from £300 to £400. In 1950, the cost of these dwellings had gone up to about £1,100. In 1960, the cost was £2,000 and now it is about £2,500. If a tenant purchase scheme were now presented to the Department by the local authority, would the Minister be prepared to sanction such a scheme for £300 and £400, based on the original cost of the dwellings or would the Minister insist that any such scheme would have to be related to the present market value? I am not clear as to the extent to which the Minister's sanction is necessary and, if it is necessary, to what extent he would be prepared to consider the suggestion.

In the Dublin area, there are a relatively small number of cottages that were originally built on the same basis as agricultural cottages and which were taken over under the greater Dublin Act of 1930. Many of these cottages have not got the amenities of modern dwellings but what would be the Minister's view in regard to a purchase scheme for them? It is a peculiar fact that if you cross the city boundary into County Dublin, these cottages can be and have been vested for a very moderate payment, but because the same type of cottage, built under the same conditions and about the same time was brought into greater Dublin under the Act of 1930, the opportunity does not lie with the tenants to have them vested. This is a problem.

There is also the problem that there could be a certain amount of trading in these dwellings if purchase schemes were brought in. The extent to which such trading would take place is a moot point. There were tenant purchase dwellings built in Dublin in 1954 and some of them were sold within a year or two. There were others built in 1952 and within two or three years the people who went into them, for one reason or another, sold their interest in them. That was also the situation with houses built in Dublin in the 'thirties. I accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says that if a tenant purchase scheme is brought in, whether for new or for existing dwellings, there will be a certain amount of sale of those dwellings. Why should there not be?

If a person buys a house under the SDA facilities, there are certain controlling provisions under which he may not sell that house for two or three years. Yet where the owner of such a house can show the local authority that he has a legitimate reason for leaving, whether because of change of employment or for reasons of family health, the local authority are usually prepared to agree to a change of ownership. Where the real problem arises is in connection with the situation that could arise if, in the case of some of these areas, a tenant purchase scheme was introduced and, as a result, a number of dwellings were withdrawn from the housing pool.

This is where we come back to the basic problem. If the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Department were doing their job, the problem should not occasion any great difficulty because at least by the time schemes were drawn up, negotiated and agreed—that would not be done overnight—there should be a reduction and some easement in the need for houses. I use the word "should", but having regard to the fact that advances for house construction schemes are being held up in the Department, I can well understand the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary taking the attitude which they take in regard to the question of purchase schemes for corporation dwellings.

Reference has been made to the possible effects of the withdrawal of a number of dwellings from the housing pool. This could be of importance in a situation where last year in Dublin, and for a number of years, vacancies were around 400 dwellings. If the construction programme were progressing as planned and anticipated and not being hindered by the Department, the Minister and the Government, the problem would not be so acute.

Mr. P. Brennan

The corporation talked about a scheme in 1959 and you did not pursue it.

Mr. Larkin

The corporation put through a scheme in 1959. A resolution was adopted at the Housing Committee, and which was supported by members of this House, and one of the conditions they sought was, in the interests of people who might be interested in buying dwellings, that in cases where subsidies should apply, the Government should be asked to continue them. It is immaterial to me who was Minister or who was in Government at the time. The fact is they have raised the matter on more than one occasion and on each occasion the answer was that the Government were not prepared to continue any form of subsidy in any case where a tenant purchase scheme was introduced. That was the situation and as far as I am aware, that is still the attitude of the Minister and the Government.

The problem then is whether, in those circumstances, the subsidy at present paid by the Government in respect of these dwellings should be thrown on to the tenant purchaser—in which case it may have the effect of making the purchase price unrealistic for him—or alternatively asking the ratepayer to bear a greater proportion of it.

Mr. P. Brennan

You must have a lot of houses in Dublin Corporation which are not subsidised. Why do you not come up with schemes for them?

Mr. Larkin

We are dealing with one thing at a time. The Parliamentary Secretary is entitled to ask these questions but he is only asking them to avoid answering questions put to him as to why the Government are not prepared to continue the subsidy. Whether there are dwellings that do not carry a subsidy is another aspect but that aspect may well be taken into account by the City Manager, having regard to the possible effects of the withdrawal of dwellings from the housing pool. My remarks on that still stand, that it could be a serious problem. If a number of dwellings were withdrawn from the housing pool, and if a percentage of those were sold to people who did not qualify for houses, it could well be a serious matter at a particular time for those on a corporation waiting list. That situation is serious and could be very serious in the context of the Government's failure to do their job in regard to the housing programme. If they concentrated on not holding up tenders submitted for their approval, the other aspect could be dealt with, possibly without too much difficulty.

All Parties, and in fact local authority circles, are agreed that it is a good thing to establish the rights of tenants to purchase their own dwellings. That is on record from the Labour Party and on record from the Fianna Fáil Party, and I am sure Deputy Dowling will bear me out. I think he was present when resolutions were adopted to this effect and I have no doubt he supported them. Two questions arise, one being the equity of the Government making their contribution because it is more than likely if a scheme was produced, that the position would be that the prospective tenant purchaser would not qualify for a grant for a new dwelling because it would not be a new dwelling. It is more than likely that he would not qualify for a remission of rates because it would not be a new dwelling. Having regard to that, surely there would be an obligation on the Government, where a subsidy applies, to continue to pay the subsidy.

Mr. P. Brennan

What are you doing about the people who are not subsidised?

Mr. Larkin

We can raise that on another occasion.

Mr. P. Brennan

Did you come up with a scheme?

Mr. Larkin

We can discuss that with the Parliamentary Secretary some other time. The only thing is that while the Parliamentary Secretary is always polite, it is very difficult to get anything from him. It is no answer to me, or to anybody else, in regard to this motion to ask: "Why do you not do something else?

Mr. P. Brennan

The Deputy wants the subsidy to continue in relation to 50 per cent of the corporation's houses. That is what it amounts to.

Mr. Clinton

It will continue in any event.

Mr. P. Brennan

There are 50 per cent of the corporation's houses which are not subsidised but there is no scheme for them. They do not benefit one way or another.

Mr. Larkin

That may be so. The position I raised was in respect of certain circumstances where the subsidy exists. I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary justifying the withdrawal of that subsidy. There are Dublin Corporation houses on which the subsidy was not paid but on which grants were paid. It was a capital payment. That matter has been disposed of long ago.

Mr. P. Brennan

Have you a scheme to allow those people of whom you are talking to purchase their houses?

Mr. Larkin

If the Parliamentary Secretary will answer my question, I shall think about his question. He is flying on two wings. There is the question of subsidised houses and houses on which subsidies are not paid. There are certain dwellings in fairly high demand. Even though houses in certain areas were constructed at a fairly moderate cost many years ago, if there were a vacancy tomorrow, there would be queues running into hundreds seeking that house. Consequently the approach would be different in that case. I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary justify, if he can, the attitude of the Government in saying they will not continue the subsidy.

On the question of withdrawal from the pool, the facts are there for anyone to read, the fact that sanctions for construction are being held up. The pool should normally be getting smaller reasonably rapidly and the demand should be easing to such an extent that it would be possible, without doing too much damage to the people on the housing waiting list, to think in the terms in which the Parliamentary Secretary is talking, but the Department of Local Government and the Minister are continuing to impede the housing programme.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

This motion has everything to recommend it, and I am surprised at the attitude of the Minister last night and of the Parliamentary Secretary now. There are no grounds for differentiating as between the urban and rural areas. I see no reason why the same facilities could not be provided for the tenants within urban areas as are available within rural areas. I am very conscious of this fact myself because the constituency I represent has both urban and rural dwellers.

The argument of the Minister that it was his function to provide houses and that there his responsibility ended is ridiculous. Every encouragement should be given and every assistance possible should be made available to people to purchase their own houses. Most people aspire to ownership and this motion is a timely one. The problem of the withdrawal of houses from the pool was raised by Deputy Larkin. I would agree with Deputy Larkin that if the withdrawal of the houses from the pool was such as to interfere with the solving of the housing problem, as he says, it is a reflection on the housing policy of the Government.

It is true to say, as the Minister states, that tenant purchase schemes are in operation. We have one such scheme being implemented in Limerick but my experience of that scheme has been that the response to the invitation to apply for purchase was poor. It was poor by reason of the fact that the purchase conditions were not sufficiently attractive to induce the majority of tenants in the area to opt for purchase. As I said at the outset, most tenants aspire to ownership and it is the duty of the Government to facilitate the fulfilment of that aspiration.

Mr. Dowling

Seeing that I have been named, I wish to say a few words on this motion. First of all, I agree in principle with tenant purchase. The Minister agrees with tenant purchase. I believe in the right of ownership. It is a social satisfaction that should be fulfilled, and the local authorities who have the power should present schemes to the tenants. I mentioned some evenings ago at a council meeting that if a scheme was not being drawn up, I would ask the manager to draw it up.

Much of what Deputy Larkin stated is correct. That there is agreement among all Parties on the purchase scheme is a reasonable assessment of the situation. We have the power in our hands to draw up these purchase schemes and we have been doing it for a considerable time. There are periods of high and low demand which alter the policy and outlook of the corporation to tenant purchase schemes. It has been said the corporation are doing nothing to assist people to purchase their own homes——

Mr. James Tully

By discontinuing the subsidy.

Mr. Dowling

Many schemes were subsidised to the extent of approximately £1,000. We make free sites available and will make them available in the future, whereby the tenant as well as getting the site, gets £275 supplementary grant, plus £275 Government grant, worth approximately £1,000 to each tenant. Further sites will be provided when they become available. At last Friday's meeting, we made several hundred such sites available for corporation tenants who are desirous of building their own homes. Every single house counts. The chairman of the Housing Committee knows the efforts made by the corporation to get back even one house. It is a good investment to give a supplementary grant of £275 to get back a house worth £2,000.

While the scheme proposed by the corporation had much merit, I was disillusioned with the way sites were allocated. Individuals and groups brought pressure to bear on the members of the corporation and packed the gallery to ensure that political blackmail was applied to force members to vote one way or the other. This was done in the corporation in recent months. In regard to the older schemes, the more select schemes, the same type of pressure may be applied to public representatives—this political blackmail which has been a feature of local authority politics in the past 12 or 18 months so far as some members of Dublin Corporation are concerned. Therefore, we have to think twice before formulating purchase schemes and allowing ourselves to be bulldozed into a situation whereby valuable sites in selected areas are given away to selected tenants. Until such time as we have a more mature outlook and less pressurising of public representatives, we should call a halt and have a second look at the situation.

As I said, I am in favour of tenant purchase. The important question is the subsidy factor. When the corporation decide to formulate a purchase scheme, they will look for the best terms they can get for their existing tenants. They will try to induce the Minister to give some addition to what is already there or give them parity with others, although there is not parity in relation to many of the factors concerning purchase schemes in rural and urban areas.

The question of the housing pool is an important one. We make every effort to ensure that houses are channelled into the pool. There is still high priority in the waiting list. We are housing five in one. There was no problem about a purchase scheme when we were housing three in one and there will not be again in the future. Every single house is needed.

The location of the site is important. The older houses are more valuable to the tenant than houses on the perimeter in such places as Finglas, Ballyfermot and Coolock, where you almost have to pay a person to live so far out. The house built for £300 or £400 is the one on a centre city site. The price paid, the market value, will be low in comparison with the price paid for a recently built house in a perimeter area. The tenant who has the good fortune to be in the select site will get his house at a much more reasonable rate and deny the tenant in the perimeter area the chance of a suitable location. This is very necessary for people like dockers whose employment takes them to centre city areas at inconvenient hours.

The more I hear, the more I feel that this matter will have to be examined more thoroughly in the future than it has been in the past, in view of the fact that we have had this type of pressure being exerted. At least, it happened in Dublin Corporation; I am not sure about other authorities. If the same type of pressure is exerted elsewhere, it is about time someone took a positive step to ensure that further sites are not made available until they are allocated in a reasonable and responsible way, so that every person in a position either to build or purchase his own house will have an equal opportunity and that no section of the community will get special consideration because of the pressure exerted on officials and public representatives.

Mr. Clinton

Deputy Dowling is to be complimented on the effort he has made to ride two horses at the same time. He is in favour of a purchase scheme. We have the peculiar situation now that the Minister is in favour of a purchase scheme; the members of the Labour Party are in favour of a purchase scheme; and we on this side of the House have brought in a motion asking for a purchase scheme. Yet the Minister intervened early on in this debate to oppose a purchase scheme——

Mr. P. Brennan

That is not right.

Mr. Clinton

——even though he admits it is quite a desirable thing and that a purchase scheme could at some unspecified date in the future be brought in by ministerial order without any additional legislation. At least, we have discovered that no new legislation is required and that the Minister is free to bring in a scheme by ministerial order to continue the subsidy. That is quite clearly to be read into what the Minister said.

The Minister has opposed this motion without giving even one good reason for doing so, and I believe the Parliamentary Secretary has also failed to give one good reason. There is no question of its requiring more money. It costs the Government the same amount of money to continue the subsidy if there is not a purchase scheme and they continue as at present. Therefore, money does not arise. The only thing that really does arise is the embarrassment that would be caused to the Government by a reduction of the number of houses available in the pool in any one year. This only arises at the present time because of the failure of the Government to provide sufficient houses over the past eight years. When the Government came into office, there was a pool of houses available every year of approximately 1,500. That pool has now practically disappeared. We are told there are now only about 500 houses. Of course, those 500 are filled as soon as it is possible to fill them.

We have the situation here where all the people representing the corporation areas feel that this is a desirable thing. In fact, we have had a deputation, on which members of the Government Party were represented, to the Minister asking for such a scheme. We have every side of the House favouring it. But, because of this embarrassment, because of the shortage of houses, the Minister says; "You cannot have it." That is the only reason. It may be opposed also because it is brought in by Fine Gael. It is not the first time that this has been suggested or recommended. But why the Minister continues to feel that this is going to be a harmful measure, I cannot understand.

I do not agree at all with the contention that if we adopt this scheme, the pool of houses will be reduced drastically. Quite a large number of our houses in County Dublin are in the urban areas of the county. We have more than 75 per cent of them vested already and the amount of sale of these vested houses is quite insignificant. The proof is there. We have the record.

Mr. P. Brennan

The resale?

Mr. Clinton

The resale of vested houses. Even when these houses come to hand for sale, I think that the council have complete control over their purchase. If there were any doubt left in relation to this matter, I think it is completely taken care of in the recent Bill that passed through the Dáil, that is, the Labourers Bill, 1965. Deputy Tully referred to this last evening. There is no question or doubt that the local authority has complete control over the type of person to whom these houses pass and, in fact, over the conditions that may be imposed before they can be disposed of.

Mr. P. Brennan

The council has?

Mr. Clinton

I quote from the Minister's Second Reading speech in the Dáil on the Labourers Bill, 1965:

In brief, section 2 of the Bill provides power for a county council to waive the restrictions on mortgaging, charging, subdivision or alienation of a labourer's cottage and plot during the period for the repayment of the annuity. Section 3 enables an annuity to be redeemed, if the council entitled to it think fit, by payment to them of an amount approved by the Minister. I should perhaps emphasise at this point that the amount which will be approved under the section will be related to the market value———and not to the original cost———of the relevant interest in the property, rather than to the present value of the annuity calculated on a strictly mathematical basis.

I think that all the power that is needed is contained in the Labourers Act to ensure that no undesirable traffic will take place as a result of a decision to bring in a purchase scheme and make available to people in the corporation areas the facilities available to the tenants of working class houses throughout the rest of Ireland.

No case has been made by the Minister, by the Parliamentary Secretary or by anybody who has spoken, as to why this discrimination should exist. We have the extraordinary circumstance here in Dublin where, due to extension of the boundary, we have people inside the city boundary who got these facilities from the county before they came in. They are now within the city area and are able to purchase their houses. They have very much reduced outgoings per week and at the same time, they are building up a capital asset. I think there is nothing more desirable than that people in that class should be made responsible by enabling them to build up this capital asset. It is a form of saving and, in my view, a very desirable form of saving. Why it is still opposed by the Minister beats me completely. He spoke of the backlog of demand. That is the kernel of his opposition. It is quite obvious that he is afraid of further embarrassment, embarrassment that has been caused by the failure of the Government to come in and supply the houses in the numbers in which they they should be supplied.

I have dealt with control. I cannot see, really, what is left in this. The Minister's contribution to this debate was extremely short. It was obvious that he had no real grounds on which to turn down this motion and it was obvious that if it is possible to embarrass the Minister, he was embarrassed because he had to admit that the only ground for not accepting it was the fact that there was that vague sort of danger that the pool of houses becoming available would be lessened and the discretion of the county council in the selection of tenants would be interfered with.

It is possible that, in the sale of these houses, they would not pass to the person most deserving on the council's waiting list, but, in any of the cases where I have seen these houses being sold, the sale was not agreed to by the local authority until the local authority were quite satisfied that the purchaser was in fact the person who would, in the normal way, be a housing obligation of the local authority.

Mr. P. Brennan

That is the law.

Mr. Clinton

That is the law, I agree; but, in view of the fact that that is the law, I think it is harder still to understand the attitude. The Parliamentary Secretary has made the point that if people want to become the owners of their own property, there is a 99 per cent loan available to them. He has not considered this aspect. It is true that, on paper, there is a 99 per cent loan available to them but, in fact, it is nothing like 99 per cent. It is 99 per cent of the valuer's value of the house for sale and in many cases it bears no relationship to the selling price of the house. In fact, the difference between the selling price of the house and the valuer's value, on which this 99 per cent is based, might be £500. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary where ordinary working class persons are expected to get this £500. They just have not got it.

I will put another point. Suppose they were enabled, through the acceptance of this motion, to go into the market and sell their house, then that house, we are assured, passes to somebody who, in any case, is a housing obligation of the council. If they wanted to improve their position, if they wanted to buy a house in a better-class area or to move up the scale, they would be enabled to do so through the sale of the local authority house. The house would then become available for somebody in the working class and, at the same time, through the fact that they were more fortunate and were enabled to do it, the other people would move up the ladder and would be enabled to buy an SDA house. I believe that, in this way, more houses would become available because the inducement would be there and could be availed of by people to buy an SDA house if they wished to do so.

Mr. P. Brennan

Would they get a supplementary grant?

Mr. Clinton

They would. Everybody is entitled to that.

Mr. P. Brennan

No.

Mr. Clinton

Within a certain income range.

Mr. P. Brennan

That is different.

Mr. Clinton

The supplementary grant and the State grant are first deducted before the 99 per cent is estimated and still there is a difference in many cases of £500, due to the present-day cost of houses and to the fact that the arrangement for valuing houses is still all wrong because it depends on the eye of the beholder, on the eye of the valuer of the local authority. My experience is that that difference is there all the time.

Mr. P. Brennan

There is an appeal.

Mr. Clinton

There is no appeal. The purchaser has no right of appeal.

Mr. P. Brennan

The local authority has.

Mr. Clinton

The local authority need not necessarily accept the valuation of the Commissioners of Valuation.

Mr. P. Brennan

They do it.

Mr. Clinton

They do not always accept it but I have known them to do a sort of horse-deal and split the difference and it is still not right.

Mr. P. Brennan

If it is for the benefit of the tenants, it would be all right.

Mr. Clinton

This impediment exists for people who wish to become the owners of their own houses. The facility has been in existence for people now living in urban areas who formerly were within the county council area. They are described as being in the county and outside the corporation area. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Minister proposes to oppose this motion.

I would ask the House to vote for the motion because it is extremely important. I hope that even at the twelfth hour the Minister will change his mind.

Question put.

The Dáil divided : Tá, 45; Níl, 56.

Tá

• Burke, Joan T.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Creed, Donal.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lindsay, Patrick J.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Treacy, Seán.
• Tully, James.

Níl.

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies L'Estrange and Crotty; Níl, Deputies Carty and Geoghegan.

Question declared lost.

Boylan, Terence.Brady, Philip.Brennan, Joseph.Brennan, Paudge.Breslin, Cormac.Briscoe, Ben.Calleary, Phelim A.Carty, Michael.Childers, Erskine.Clohessy, Patrick.Crinion, Brendan.Crowley, Flor.Crowley, Honor M.Cunningham, Liam.de Valera, Vivion.Dowling, Joe.Egan, Nicholas.Fahey, John.Fanning, John.Faulkner, Pádraig.Flanagan, Seán.Foley, Desmond.Gallagher, James.Geoghegan, John.Gibbons, Hugh.

Gibbons, James M.Gilbride, Eugene.Gogan, Richard P.Healy, Augustine A.Hillery, Patrick J.Hilliard, Michael.Kenneally, William.Kennedy, James J.Kitt, Michael F.Lalor, Patrick J.Lemass, Noel T.Lemass, Seán.Lenihan, Brian.Lynch, Celia.Lynch, Jack.McEllistrim, Thomas.Meaney, Tom.Molloy, Robert.Moran, Michael.Nolan, Thomas.Ó Briain, Donnchadh.Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.O'Connor, Timothy.O'Malley, Donogh.Smith, Patrick.