Vol. 284 No. 4
asked the Minister for Local Government if there is any precedent other than the Galway Corporation decision in 1974 (details supplied) for refusal of consent to the sale of a purchased local authority house on the ground that the purchaser was not a member of the working classes requiring the house for his or her own occupation; and, if so, if he will give details of any precedents.
4.
asked the Minister for Local Government the procedures to be adopted in deciding whether an intending purchaser of a local authority house, which was constructed under the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, requires the house for his own occupation; and if he considers that the consent to such sale should be withheld on the ground that the purchaser is adequately housed.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
Under the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919 my consent is required to the terms of leases made by local authorities, and unless an amendment to the terms of the original lease is proposed I have no further function in the matter. I am therefore unaware of any precedent such as that referred to by the Deputy.
The question of the procedures to be adopted in deciding whether or not to consent to an application for resale is a matter for the local authority in whose estate the dwelling is situated, and in reaching their decision the authority are bound by the terms of the lease.
In the particular case to which the Deputy has referred the terms of the lease specify that the local authority's consent can only be given where resale of the house is made to a person for his or her own occupation. As the local authority had consented three years ago to the sale of another dwelling in their estate to the intending purchaser, they decided following consideration with their legal advisers that having regard to the terms of the lease, they could not consent to this sale.
Could the Minister state how the local authority should determine whether a person requires the house for his or her own occupation?
I assume the local authority decides that if a person is living in one house he does not require a second one, as he cannot live in both at the same time.
Is the interpretation, then, that a person should not be the owner of two houses? The Minister will realise that the person might require the house that he intended to purchase for his own occupation but because he is the owner of another house the sale is being withheld; it is not because he intends living or not in the house that he would like to purchase.
Local authority houses are erected for the housing of certain people, and if somebody is allowed to purchase one local authority house, apparently, it is considered not correct to allow him to purchase a second local authority house. Otherwise, he might possibly build up a string of local authority houses which could be used for purposes other than those for which they were erected.
May I ask the Minister if that is the real interpretation of the section and if that is the way it is being applied; that what is really intended is that a person should not be the owner of more than one house because the technicality of whether or not he requires it for his own occupation, as the Minister appreciates, could be argued for a long time?
The decision was taken by Galway Corporation, not by me.
