(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister is asking for a blank cheque and is not telling us whether he has any intention of increasing the grant. He should tell us his proposals in regard to the housing grant. He should tell us how much he proposes to increase the £1,000 grant by and when he proposes to do it.
Death of Member. - Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1979: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
At the next election.
In order to help people to purchase houses the grant should be index-linked. This would ensure an annual review of the grant and would not require regulations. As the price of a house has increased by 49 per cent since the introduction of the £1,000 grant, the grant should be increased substantially.
Subsection (2) (d) relates to occupation of the House. This provision imposes too many hardships on too many people and should be changed to provide for payment on completion of the house.
The condition in regard to occupation was introduced in 1976. As this condition can be changed by regulation at any time, it is not necessary to change the Bill. As the amount of the grant can also be increased at any time by regulation, it is not necessary to change the Bill in this regard.
Would the Minister not consider changing the condition relating to occupation? I have come across a number of cases where there was hardship, and nothing can be done. Just because somebody breaks an agreement or does not live up to the terms of the agreement all sorts of regulations are made to penalise a lot of people just because a few have violated an agreement. That should not be the spirit of legislation. It should ensure that when we are giving something it is made available as quickly as possible—in this case as soon as the house is built. I would ask the Minister to amend this on Report Stage to provide that grants should be paid when houses are completed.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I raised what I consider to be a substantial point about the grant in relation to the price of houses having regard to the increase in the cost of building and so on since 1977. I pointed out that the Minister is innovating here in so far as he is asking that he be given for the first time, a blank cheque in the from of power to make regulations adjusting the grant up or down as he thinks fit. One would have expected that, in the light of the new departure, the Minister would have been more forthcoming with that. Indeed normally he would have come in here with a Bill fixing the grant at £1,000, £750, £1,500 or £2,000. That would be the Bill and we would have an opportunity of discussing the adequacy or otherwise of the grants. I would make my case about the inadequacy of the present grant of £1,000. The Minister, in a one-minute speech contemptuously says that it is not necessary to deal with that Bill now and that it will be dealt with by regulations. Indeed the House and the country could be pardoned for resisting regulations and resisting them as much as they possibly could.
The Minister's behaviour just now seems to me to be an excellent reason why we should not delegate to the executive, in the person of Ministers, the power to legislate for us and that is what we are doing here, and certainly the Minister has done no good service to the principle of legislating by regulations in the way that he has dealt with a point that was made by myself and Deputy O'Brien. Indeed the Minister's behaviour justifies a tougher line by the Opposition in regard to this measure if we are to discharge our obligations to the country as a parliamentary opposition. This is the first time since housing acts ever came before this House that we have had this method and when we avail of the method to discuss the adequacy of grants and try to get from the Minister some expression of intent as to the future, he contemptuously says it does not concern him and that he will do this by regulations in his own good time. It is not good enough.
If this is the beginning of a drift from legislation in this House towards bringing in here a fait accompli to be steamrolled the rest of the way by 84 Deputies without any opportunity of amending the regulation then we have a duty to perform and that is to resist this sort of thing. This Bill was brought in with an armful of other Bills a fortnight ago and we were expected to pass the whole lot of them in two days. This Bill and three contentious agricultural Bills, a tourist Bill, a B & I Bill and a dangerous substances Bill, to mention but a few, were expected to be dealt with in a very short time.
This Bill was circulated on 1 May last.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It was circulated in April. Why did the Minister not process it in April, May and June before the dying days of this House? Of course I know it was knocking around.
The Deputy knows that the Family Planning Bill kept this House going in between times.
(Cavan-Monaghan): This House is, in the words of the Minister for Health, an Irish solution for an Irish problem. According to the old-fashioned Irish methods a house is more important to a family than a contraceptive.
The Opposition did not see it that way.
(Cavan-Monaghan): This is not good enough and I want to protest in the strongest possible manner about the performance we have just had from the Minister.
There are other points I want to make on this section. Some of them are substantial and some are less than substantial. The next thing I want to deal with is section 4 (1) (b). It relates to a person who builds a house the foundations of which are or were completed on or after 27 May 1977. That was intended to provide that the foundations must not have been laid or completed earlier than 27 May 1977. I doubt in fact that it says that because I believe that if foundations were completed on 1 May they were also in a completed state on 27 May. It is subject to argument and there should be some better way of drafting it. It would probably be better to say that the foundations were completed not before 27 May. It would be better drafting and it would put it beyond doubt. So, instead of what is there, I suggest that it should be that foundations were completed not before 27 May.
I do not know what the floor area is at the moment. I know that in 1979 or thereabouts it was reduced from 1,500 square feet to 1,250 square feet.
It is 1,300 square feet.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I have dealt with the amount of the grant. The Minister has undertaken to consider payments of grants by moieties.
There is one thing I want to say about the occupation of a house. People can build as many houses as they like and sell them. As long as they do not occupy them they still qualify for the grant. That is strange. Under the regulations at present, in order to qualify for a grant, the applicant must not have previously built a house for his own occupation. He can build as many houses as he likes and so long as he does not occupy any of them he is entitled to the grant.
Section 4 (2) (e) states:
A requirement that a person to whom the grant is paid or the spouse of such person, either separately or with each other, has not previously purchased or built for his or their own occupation another house.
Two people could build a house for their own occupation and live in it for several years. That house would have been built jointly. One of them could get married and the married couple could apply for a grant. They would qualify because the previous house would not have been built by either of them solely and would not have been built by the married couple. I do not know if that is the intention. If a person builds a house he does not qualify for a grant. If he jointly builds a house with his spouse he does not qualify for a second grant, but if he has built a house with another person, other than a spouse, he would qualify for the grant if he applied as the spouse of somebody else, or a widowed person who got a grant with his or her spouse would be entitled to another grant. I make this as a drafting point. It is a loophole. I do not know what the intention is. I do not know if I have made myself clear. If the Minister can see any substance in what I am saying I will be glad if he will look at the matter between now and Report Stage.
I dealt previously with the means test. I can only denounce the Minister's silent proposals in the strongest possible way. He intends to introduce a means test but he is not saying anything about it.
Section 4 (2) (g) states:
... requirements in relation to the payment of any other grant or subsidy in respect of the house under any enactment (including this Act).
What is involved in that? In my absence an amendment was moved to section 4 (4) which the Minister accepted. I am glad the Minister accepted it because it is better drafting and more flexible to say that it would be more reasonable to build a new house than that it would be less expensive to build a new house. It is a more reasonable approach to someone who suffers the calamity of his house being burned.
The Minister's behaviour is absolutely disgraceful in refusing to discuss the level of grants while at the same time asking for a blank cheque to churn them out in his own good time. That is not good enough. In future I will resist as much as I did in the past proposals to legislate by regulation.
With regard to the point made by the Deputy about the regulations, I clarified for Deputy O'Brien the fact that any increase in the grants from time to time could be done by way of regulation. I also said the same applied to the question of occupancy of a house with regard to the grant. It was not necessary to include it in the Bill as it could be done by regulation. I do not see how that was a high-handed approach by me. The level of grants will be reviewed from time to time and changes made if necessary. It will be done by regulation. The regulation will be placed before the House for 21 days and the House can annul it if they see fit during that time.
With regard to section 4 (1) (b) and the question of the foundations and 27 May, we will have a look at that between now and Report Stage and may be able to improve it. With regard to sections 4 (2) (e), when a person purchases a house or builds it jointly with another person who is not their spouse, for example, brother or sister, this would not debar either of the parties who wish to apply subsequently for the £1,000 grant. One of the conditions of payment is that the applicant must occupy the house as his normal place of residence on a year round basis. In a case where one of such parties needed a house of their own, for example, on marriage, it would be wrong to refuse them payment of the grant.
We are aware of difficulties which arise in cases where a person is separated from his or her spouse and one of the parties wishes to purchase or build another dwelling. There is a sympathetic attitude towards such cases if they claim the grant in respect of a new dwelling they are occupying. Evidence is sought, for example, legal documentation relating to the separation and so on. Such applicants are treated sympathetically.
With regard to section 4 (2) (g) the only reason for this is to prevent a person getting grants from two Departments for a house, the Department of the Environment and the Department of the Gaeltacht.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I raised the point that a person may build as many houses as he likes, sell them, and still qualify for a grant for one for his own occupation.
He is only entitled to one.
The House recognises Deputy Fitzpatrick's legal expertise in spotting what might be considered to be drafting difficulties. I should like to raise three possible additions to this section which the Minister may like to consider. Two relate specifically to the voluntary housing movement. The third is a phased payment facility which will apply to all.
I should like the Minister to take power to do two things, first, to have a differential grant for voluntary housing associations recognised under section 3. If a voluntary housing association applied to build ten houses, they would get ten grants plus one, or plus two. There would be the same provision in the drafting of the grant regulations as there was in the old utility section where there was an extra 10 per cent.
The principle I am putting forward in essence is that if a group of people come together to build houses under the voluntary housing system, and in normal circumstances they are entitled to ten housing grants because they are building ten houses, their efforts should be further assisted by saying: "If you come together in that form and agree in a bona fide association under section 3, we will give you an extra grant. We will top it up.” If the legal power to do that already exists in the Principal Act, my proposal is redundant. If not, perhaps an additional subsection would meet the case.
The second point I should like to make is that if a voluntary housing association apply for a grant the Minister and the housing authorities should be able to deal with the application on a group basis. There should not be ten separate applications and ten separate investigations. Money given to voluntary housing associations should be so structured that they can qualify for a single grant and the £10,000—using the £1,000 grant as an example—can be paid in one cheque or in three phased payments.
What I am trying to do is fairly evident. I am trying to ensure that the Minister has sufficient power in this Bill to build into the regulations specific incentives to get people together in voluntary housing associations. The incentive would take two forms: an additional grant or a bonus grant relating to the number of applicants, and recognition that a single application could be made for the group and dealt with as a single application. The payment would be made in one or two parts instead of ten separate cheques.
My experience in the south county Dublin area is that in the past there was a great deal of paper work resulting from people having to fill in ten, 15, or 20 separate applications. I could draft an amendment for Report Stage. If the Minister has not the power to do this he might consider between now and Report Stage taking that power to do it by regulation.
Under sections 12 and 45 of the 1966 Act there is provision to assist these people by way of special loans and periodic contributions. It is not possible to make a capital grant available on the lines the Deputy mentioned. They get special treatment with regard to the acquisition of sites and the cost of sites. They are treated in a very special way, and rightly so. There is also help for them under the low rise mortgage scheme. There are ways of assisting them other than making an extra grant or a capital grant available to them. So it is possible to assist them.
I am really chasing the principle of incentives for voluntary housing associations to be formed and, if they are formed, to benefit from extra cash by way of subsidy or capital grant. If the Minister says he has that power in section 12 of the 1966 Act, fair enough. I am not so sure he has. That deals with extra moneys paid on top of the grants to which people are now entitled.
The second issue relates to the administration of the payment of the grant. That involves two things, first, accepting the principle that a joint application for grants can be made. By definition a voluntary housing association will not have a full-time secretariat like a building company. They should not have to go through the process of having to make a number of applications for exactly the same number of houses. The Minister has the safety net of the regulations he will draft. Some provision should be made for a joint application for grants and the joint payment of those grants in one lump sum or part thereof.
In my constituency there is a large trust, the Iveagh Trust. In the great majority of the flats the rents are controlled and, as a result, they have run into a great deal of serious financial trouble. We got some assistance from the corporation for them. There should be more flexibility here. Where we have existing housing stock like that, they should not be tied in to the normal grant situation. A number of those flats are old and require complete renovation, bathrooms, and so on. The grants they get for improvement are not adequate for that type of development.
There is a great need to retain and improve our existing housing stocks. A vast trust like the Iveagh Trust must be funded from central Government. We must look at this realisticly and protect that property from decay. They had to cut back on the painting of the complex because of the cost. This leads to a gradual deterioration of a good solid property in the centre city area.
Given that the Minister wants to make regulations here, there and everywhere in this Bill, there should be flexibility for a trust like that to make an application to the Department of the Environment for certain work such as an overall paint job. The inspectors can inspect it and look at the books and the financial structures of the trust and say: "This is an area which requires a generous grant." That would be money well spent. Any money we spend on the preservation of our housing stock——
We will be dealing with that on section 5.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.