andMr. Cronin asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that, as a result of his decision on housing subsidies as communicated to Cork County Council (Northern Committee) by letter of 29th October, 1976, the ratepayers of North Cork will have to pay an additional 39p approximately in the £ PLV; if he will state (i) why he made this decision, (ii) why his decision was not made known before the estimate for North Cork had been agreed by the local committee, and (iii) why the explanatory circular letter did not issue, as stated, within a few days; and if, in view of hardship caused to ratepayers, he will now reconsider his decision.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Housing Subsidies.
19.
I understand from Cork County Council that the rate struck for 1977 in respect of North Cork shows an increase of 99p in the £ over that for 1976 of which 39p is stated to have arisen from the change in housing subsidy arrangements announced on 29th October, 1976, and 60p is due to other reasons.
The Government decision to change the housing subsidy arrangements was made after long and careful consideration of all relevant aspects, including representations made to me urging that greater discretion and responsibility should be given to local authorities in regard to the level of expenditure on the maintenance, improvement and management of their housing estates. The decision was notified to all housing authorities on the day on which it was made. Representations subsequently received were also examined fully by the Government who considered, however, that their original decision should stand. Accordingly, the circular letter detailing the revised arrangements was issued on 19th November.
Before making their decision, the Government had regard to the massive increase in Exchequer housing subsidy—from £5.8 million in 1972-73 to nearly £30 million in 1976. For 1977, on the amended basis, the subsidy must still be increased by several million pounds. Secondly, the Government have given unprecedented relief to local authorities by the transfer of local authority housing and health charges to the Exchequer. If the pre-1973 arrangements for financing these services were still in operation, rates for 1977 in many areas would be over £5 in the £ higher than they will be. Thirdly, it has proved to be administratively very difficult to ensure that expenditure on the maintenance and management of rented local authority houses would not be allowed to escalate unreasonably, simply because the State was bearing practically all the net cost involved. Several circular letters from my Department have had to be issued in an endeavour to secure reasonable controls. The response of most local authorities was reasonable and responsible and, in general, the new subsidy arrangements have given rise to little, if any, difficulties in these areas. Unfortunately, commitments in respect of repairs and maintenance still tended to get out of hand in some other areas and, in the interest of the general body of taxpayers, action had to be taken to deal with this situation.
It is a rational arrangement that local authorities who are responsible for assessing and collecting rents on their houses should be allowed to use those rents and the major part of the proceeds of sales of their rented houses for the purpose of maintaining and managing their housing estates. The State will bear the loan charges in full on the provision of these houses and administrative economies, both for the State and the local authorities, should result from the new arrangement.