Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Jul 1979

Vol. 315 No. 12

Private Members' Business. - Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1979: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

Mr. F. O'Brien

What concerns me regarding this section is that the Minister has not indicated that there is to be a change in the amount of grant payable. However, he says that he can make such a change by way of regulation but I do not regard that as satisfactory. Any piece of legislation could be strung together by way of numerous meaningless phrases but that is not what Parliament is about. Legislation should not involve backdoor politics. It should involve a Minister coming before the House with proposals either for new legislation or to amend legislation. This whole Bill seems to hinge on the Minister making changes later by way of regulation. This means that a regulation is laid before the House and that we have no option but to accept it. I consider this to be a departure from parliamentary procedure. Therefore, we must consider this whole matter seriously.

If the Minister had indicated clearly that there would be a substantial increase in the grant, the situation would be different, but all he has said is that the level of grant would be reviewed. That is meaningless, because anything can be reviewed at any time without any action being taken on it. I accept that perhaps the Minister is controlled by other Minister in relation to any change in the grant, but we should have had a clear indication as to what is intended in this regard. I am surprised that a Government with such a majority would use the tactic of making changes of this nature by way of regulation or by way of order. We should be very careful in this respect because we might be witnessing the first step in the diminution of democratic politics.

I am concerned that, were we to allow this type of development now, it might be accepted practice for the future. However, if the Minister is to proceed in this way he at least owes it to the House to state clearly the type of grant he has in mind. The whole situation is vague so far. Any proposal that involves a significant change should be brought before the House for debate and the Opposition given the opportunity of seeking to amend it. Though at the end of the day the proposed amendments may be rejected by the Government, at least they would have been thrashed out in the normal way.

The only way to have good legislation is to give all sides of the House a part to play in the final form of that legislation. Usually useful and reasoned amendments from the Opposition are accepted by a Minister. Earlier today the Minister accepted an amendment that was tabled by Deputy Fitzpatrick and I thought the Minister had put his name to it also in order to overcome a technicality. Because of the Government majority we would not have any opportunity of changing a regulation introduced by a Minister. If the Minister is insisting on regulations he should give us his views on grants for new houses. Instead of giving us his views he keeps telling us that the matter will be reviewed. Have the Department any new ideas on grants for new houses in view of the escalating costs? I am disappointed that the Minister has not given us his views on the matter.

Mr. Barrett

Deputy Quinn made a point about voluntary bodies like NABCo. In view of the provisions of sections 12 and 45 of the Housing Act, 1966, relating to special assistance to voluntary bodies, and section 11 of this Bill concerning low-rise mortgages, the amendments recommended by Deputy Quinn are not necessary. I assure him that my Department will continue to facilitate non-profit organisations in regard to multiple applications and prompt inspections.

Deputy O'Brien referred to the making of regulations and the changing of grant schemes by regulations. It is not undemocratic to do so and the Bill provides for the making of such regulations from time to time. I should like to remind Deputy O'Brien that changes were made in grants to handicapped persons in 1975. In 1976 certain income restrictions were made by the then Government, and changes were made in 1977. These changes were not even made by regulation; they were just announced. I should also like to point out to Deputy O'Brien that regulations will be placed before the House for 21 days and the House will have the power to annul them. Any changes that are necessary can be made from time to time by way of regulation rather than by the introduction of a new Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister referred to changes made in 1973 but he should have referred to 1972.

Mr. Barrett

I referred to 1975.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister should have referred to 1972, a year in which some changes were made. Section 4 gives the Minister the power to make grants in respect of new houses. So far he has not replied to our criticism of the present standard of housing grants. I think I made the case clearly that the present grant of £1,000 is inadequate, having regard to the drastic increase in the cost of houses since 1977. I have argued the matter in detail. It is on the record of the House and I do not propose to argued the matter again. However, the Minister should have replied to my contribution. If the Minister was treating the House seriously he would at least have given us his views on the present level of grants and he would have told us what his intentions were when he comes to fix the grant, as now he must under this section. He has brushed aside the contributions criticising the level of grants and he has brushed aside the debate. Worse than that, he has told us that it is his intention to make a major speech on this topic.

The Minister is seeking powers to make these grants but will not tell us whether he thinks the present grants are adequate, inadequate or excessive. He will not even tell us whether he intends to increase the grants. He is not treating the House as it should be treated, especially when he is asking for a blank cheque. When one asks for a blank cheque one usually gives an indication of what one intends to do with it. The Minister may be fighting a losing battle with another Minister. It may be that he is not a free agent or that he is making a case to the Government and awaiting the decision of the Minister for Finance.

The other day the building societies deferred for a month a decision on mortgage interest rates. If they increase their interest rates, as people think they will, the position will worsen. This section could have been passed long ago if the Minister had talked to us and told us what he thinks of the present housing grants. He has not said they are adequate. I do not think he wants to go on record as a Minister for the Environment as saying that the present grants are adequate but he has not said that he proposes to increase them. I can only conclude that he is in the stranglehold of the Minister for Finance or of the Government and that he is not a free agent. We are entitled to know. If this was the ordinary way of fixing the level of housing grants or housing subsidies, then it would not be so extraordinary but here we are invited for the first time, to depart from the traditional way of fixing house grants by legislation and to hand that authority over to the Minister to exercise by regulation.

In no circumstances are we entitled to more generous treatment from the Minister than when dealing with housing grants. But the House has been insulted and it comes very badly from a Government that can sit there smugly, at present at any rate, with 84 Deputies behind them to steamroll this through the House. But that is all the more reason why, in the interest of democracy, we should have a more frank approach from the Minister and it is all the more reason why he should be prepared to discuss housing grants, because this is largely what this Bill is about and we cannot provoke the Minister to get up and discuss housing grants. I suppose we will have a repetition of this when we move on to section 5 dealing with improvement grants. I cannot put it any stronger than that.

If we vote against the section it will be said that we are voting against housing grants. But what grants are we voting against? We do not know. It is a section which is difficult to vote against because we are being told that it is providing for housing grants. It is providing for unknown grants and if the Minister were even to say that he would be substantially increasing the grants then we would know where we were going but we are asked to vote blindfolded in favour of this Bill and to trust in the Minister's goodness and generosity. It is not good enough.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy is saying that we are departing from the traditional system. We are departing from the traditional system when we look at the years from 1973 to 1977. During that period private new house prices and earnings more than doubled. Grants were restricted during the same period. Fewer people were able to get grants because of those restrictions. There was not a mention of a regulation. It was just done.

This year, with regard to grants, provision was made for £30 million for new houses compared with less than £5 million in grants made available in 1977 by the National Coalition Government. That is certainly a departure from tradition. Under this Bill we are making provision to improve grants by regulation. The regulations will be placed before the House for 21 days and if Deputy Fitzpatrick or the House are dissatisfied with any changes contained in those regulations they are free to have them annulled by this House.

Deputy Fitzpatrick can continue to criticise me because I will not disclose when we are going to make a further increase in grants available and because we have said it is under review and that in due course when increases are made it will be done by regulation placed before this House. What was done during the period of the Coalition Government was done without even a semblance of a regulation but just an announcement of restrictions of existing grants. That is the position as far as I am concerned. Regulations will be made and placed before this House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I would be much more obliged to the Minister if he would deal with his proposals for the future instead of talking about the past. It is true that certain adjustments were made in grants by regulations between 1974 and 1977 but at least during that time the Minister's predecessor did not come into the House with a 22-section Bill dealing exclusively with housing grants and refuse to talk about housing grants. That is what the Minister is doing.

Mr. Barrett

The Bill does not deal exclusively with housing grants.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister may cheesepare if he likes. Section 4 deals exclusively with housing grants and section 5 deals exclusively with house improvement grants. The Minister's predecessor did not ask the House to enact a section dealing exclusively with housing grants and refuse to talk about it.

I do not thank the Minister for his £1,000 grant because, as I pointed out, the average cost of a house at 1 January 1977, according to the Minister's statistics, was about £11,000.

Mr. Barrett

It was £14,000.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am talking about 1 January 1977 and I am asking the Minister to look at the column in the little booklet which deals with building society houses. He will find that for the year 1976, that is 1 January 1977, the average cost of houses was £11,000. If he looks at the same paragraph he will find that, for the first quarter in this year, the average cost was £22,000.

Mr. Barrett

The cost is £21,000.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is between £21,000 and £22,000.

Mr. Barrett

The average cost for 1977 was £14,000.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): That is at the end of 1977.

Mr. Barrett

It is for the year 1977.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Yes. But the Minister was there and his magic £1,000 grant worked for the second quarter of that year and jumped up the price of houses. I am at least getting the Minister to talk about the housing prices so I have achieved something.

Mr. Quinn

We will have to wait until the Cork by-election.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): We are getting on with the debate now and if we prod the Minister on for another while we may get him to talk about grants. At any rate the cost of houses has jumped dramatically since the Minister's grant was introduced. But for many people it was not an increase of £1,000; for some people it was, but for many people it was much less. That is the atmosphere in which we come in here with a Government which said in their manifesto that it would be easier to buy a house and cheaper to keep it. The grants were fixed at 1977 price which are very nearly half of what they are now, and I cannot get the Minister to talk about housing grants. I have provoked him into talking about house prices. It is the Minister's fault and nobody else's if this debate is developing as it is developing because the Minister has made no effort to accommodate the House; he has made no effort to be frank with the House; he had made no effort to convey to the House his thinking or the thinking of his Government on housing grants and yet he expects to get this section through and he knows he can because of his majority. That is a bad day for democracy and for Ireland and it is not a great day for the Minister and his party.

Mr. Quinn

This section is going to be agreed because the Minister has the guns, but in regard to his reference to the two points I made, I will have to check this out. However, I accept in good faith the points that have been made by the Minister in relation to the two sections in the Housing Act, 1966. I would prefer to see them amended and brought up to date should that be necessary. Perhaps the passage of time between now and the autumn when we take the Report Stage of this Bill will enable us to look at it and we can deal with it then.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Amendment No. 7 not moved.

Mr. Barrett

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 5, line 45 and 46 to delete subsection (4).

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. F. O'Brien

This is one of the most important sections. It deals with improvement grants. It is not what it says but what it does not say that worries me and this side of the House. In relation to:

Regulations under this section may, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, make provision in relation to all or any one or more of the following:

(a) the amount of a grant,

we must get back to the nitty gritty of the amount of grant. Again we will have the old chestnut that this will be decided by way of regulation. I am not satisfied about that. I intend to challenge this right along the line. It is not the way to do business. Unfortunately we are left with no alternative but to challenge it.

The grant for the improvement of houses was £400 and was raised to £600. There was a lot of ambiguity and sleight of hand done at that time. The Department of the Environment is raising the grant to £600. One who is contemplating house improvements will say "that is £600 and we can get £200 from the local authority. They will raise the ante and it will be another £600. That is £1,200." That is how it looked to the ordinary man in the street. To me it appeared that we would get a grant of £1,200 but, when we looked at it, it was raised from £400 to £600.

A grant of £600 today is not a grant in the real sense to people contemplating a sizeable improvement on their homes. I would have thought that £1,200 was what would be contemplated but this was not so. This is the gobbledegook which we had to bear with in the early days of this Government, the promises that they made before the last election, the lack of action on these promises since they came into office and the double talk which followed them. If we speak about the amount of grant we must speak in terms of a meaningful grant. We speak about requirements in relation to the suitability of the house concerned for improvement. Surely any house that is in need of improvement should qualify for a grant. We should not be speaking about suitability but if it is in need of repair or upkeep it behoves any Government to ensure that the grants are forthcoming.

As regards occupation of the house, unless one is keeping livestock in the house I assume that a house is where people live and if they are or if it is set out in flats we should be able to pay grants. These are conditions which impede people from getting grants. Regarding requirements in relation to the type and purpose of the improvement works, if one does a sizeable paint job on a house one is improving and preserving one's property. One could look for a grant for that.

If one gets a grant, one will not get another one for a number of years. It is not a question of being able to nip in and claim a grant every other year. I do not see why we have all these requirements and regulations. We should give special consideration to housing in the inner city which is old stock and may be run down. There is an inter-departmental committee on inner city problems. They could look at housing in the inner city and say: "This is what we recommend for this; this is what is wanted".

As regards:

(e) requirements in relation to the financial and family circumstances of the person to whom the grant is paid, and

(f) requirements in relation to the payment of any other grant or subsidy in respect of the house under any enactment (including this Act).

we are delving into the realm of what they have got. Given the amount of money we are speaking about, to start putting on these constraints is niggling. If we can encourage people to improve their property, in the long term that is a very sound investment for the State. They will not always be there and the house will pass on in reasonably good condition. Surely that is what we must be thinking about. We must ensure that the housing stock is maintained.

In the centre of Amsterdam they get large grants for historical dwellings. In Holland they also get income tax rebates for house improvements. We should be thinking in terms of improving our city and making it a brighter and more pleasant place, instead of it being run down because people are not getting the type of assistance they require. As time passes older people tend to live there. There are constraints on those people and they are not getting the assistance they require. There is a vast area where flexibility is necessary.

Section 5 (3) provides:

A grant shall not be paid under this section unless the house the subject of the grant, upon completion of the works concerned, complies with such conditions, if any, as may be determined by the Minister from time to time for the purposes of this section in relation to standards of construction of houses and the provision of water, sewerage and other services therein.

That goes without saying. We are writing it in as a constraint.

This morning I mentioned grants for rewiring houses. We must take a long hard look at this and at grants in general, and not put a moratorium on when grants are available. If essential works are necessary for health or safety, they must be carried out without having a moratorium of seven or ten years. If a person gets a grant for rewiring he will not look for another grant for 20 years possibly. In an older city many houses are in need of rewiring and maintenance. Because grants are not forthcoming, people put them on the long finger. To date we have been fortunate in not having any major fire catastrophe. We are living on borrowed time and on our luck if we carry on without rewiring. A rewiring grant should be given to every householder the Department feel should qualify. The Department can ask for an ESB report and no doubt it will be forthcoming. If the ESB say the owners should have their houses rewired they should automatically qualify for a grant.

We saw advertisements in the papers about converting to solid fuel heating. The impression I got was that there was no problem, that the grant would be forthcoming, and that it was independent of any other grant in the previous year. Now it appears that is not so. It appears that if you got a grant two years ago you would not get one now. I thought the type of advertising I saw was dishonest. This is the type of information which comes out from the Department and misleads public representatives.

This new grant will have constraints on it. The Minister has promised to make a statement. He should be quite clear in his mind as to exactly what he intends to do. It seems to me that he is the servant of others and has to wait on their decision. The Minister should be able to stand up here tonight or tomorrow morning and say, "This is the situation vis-à-vis this particular grant and this is how it will operate. I will do this, and this is what will happen."

Some weeks ago there were advertisements in the paper. The Minister should know exactly where he stands once an advertisement appears in the papers. There should be no ambiguity, but there is ambiguity and the Minister wants more time. He is either master of his own Department or he is not. If he is master of his own Department, and this statement appeared in the public press a couple of weeks ago——

Mr. Barrett

What did I advertise?

Mr. F. O'Brien

There was an advertisement in the papers stating that people who wish to convert from oil-fired heating to solid fuel heating would be entitled to a grant.

Mr. Barrett

I answered parliamentary questions in the House. I did not advertise anything.

Mr. F. O'Brien

That appeared in the papers.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy is talking about advertisements. I did not put in any advertisements.

Mr. F. O'Brien

The Minister may not have put in any advertisements, but that appeared in the papers. If the Minister is trying to run away——

Mr. Barrett

I am not trying to run away from anything. I am clarifying the fact that I did not put in that advertisement.

Mr. F. O'Brien

This appeared before the European and local elections, and there was no rush from the Minister's Department to deny it.

Mr. Barrett

It did not appear.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Is the Minister telling me that it did not appear in the newspapers?

Mr. Barrett

Yes. The parliamentary question which I answered was on 14 June which was not before the European election.

Mr. F. O'Brien

It appeared in the newspaper before that. I am satisfied that there seems to have been a change of heart.

Mr. Barrett

It did not appear before that date.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I will check that matter out.

An Ceann Comhairle

What appeared in a newspaper is not relevant to this section.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Grants are relevant. It appears there has been an about turn on this issue. We should look at the problem in relation to giving grants for certain work in houses. For example, wiring has caused problems in many houses and we are all aware that serious accidents can occur if wiring is not attended to. We know that such work is put off by many people because grants are not available for it. I thought grants would be made available for the installation of solid fuel central heating but we must await the passage of this legislation before we know the Minister's attitude in this regard. The fact that we must await the passage of this legislation baffles me because the Minister is the person with the responsibility for grants. The Minister should make that statement before we conclude this debate so that we can be given an opportunity of tabling amendments for Report Stage.

I should like to raise the question of grants for housing trusts. I am aware that certain facilities are available for such trusts but we must bear in mind that in cases up to 500 flats are cared for by those organisations. I am aware of a housing trust in my area who were given an estimate of £38,000 to do some paintwork. That trust deferred doing that because they were not in a position to pay the money. A great majority of the flats under the control of that trust are subject to controlled rents with the result that the rents cannot be increased. However, the trust are anxious to preserve that property. In such cases it should be possible to obtain substantial grants from such funds to maintain that property. The trust concerned provide good housing and it is ridiculous to talk about giving them £600 towards the cost of redecorating. We should be thinking of giving the people who occupy those flats their own toilets, a bath or shower. At present they must use common toilets and do not have any baths.

In this connection we must always bear in mind what it would cost to replace such housing. The cost would be astronomical. The trust I am concerned about is a non-profit making body but it can no longer survive without State help. I should also like to mention a hostel for men in my area. Some years ago this hostel was threatened with closure but as a result of representation made by local public representatives Dublin Corporation made a grant available to allow it continue in operation. That hostel could be made into a reasonable home for such men. However, work cannot be carried out there without the aid of a substanial grant from the Department. Those who reside in that hostel if the building was closed down tomorrow would have to be housed by the local authority or the State. The voluntary organisation responsible for the running of it, like all voluntary concerns, do not get the support they deserve from the State. It is time we ensured that voluntary concerns are given all the support and help they need. There is no difficulty about checking the accounts of such concerns. I hope this is not left to the last minute because too often the last minute is too late.

Section 5 does not deal adequately with the question of grants. A £600 grant is no good in developing rundown housing stock. The development of local authority houses and flats is a good type of investment but we do not seem to realise that. I must ask the Minister to be flexible and generous in this instance. By doing so we will be acting in a prudent manner and we will get a good financial return for our money. We will not have to spend such large amounts of money on developing and building on virgin land. We should develop our existing housing stock so that people can live in decent accommodation. We are talking about conserving housing stock but we tend not to look at the amount of money we pay out. We think nothing of handing out £14,000 for a new dwelling but we will not spend £2,000 to rehabilitate an old dwelling.

I appeal to the Minister to look at this whole area and to exercise prudent generosity.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): This section allows the Minister to make grants to persons carrying out improvement works on a house. In section 1 improvement works are defined as including:

...the provision and installation of a private water supply or private sewerage facilities in the house and any works carried out to the house (whether for the purpose of extending, enlarging, improving, repairing or converting it) that, in the opinion of the Minister, are reasonably necessary for the purpose of rendering the house more suitable for human habitation, but does not include decoration;

The Minister may make a grant for improvement works within that defination. When we were discussing the defination section we invited the Minister to enlarge on that definition by including energy conservation works. The Minister took the view that an amendment was not necessary and that the definition was wide enough to cover energy conservation works or improvements. I am concerned that the Minister is not obliged to make a grant for improvement works. The Minister may make a grant for such works but he or his successor might make the case that he was only bound to give the grants spelled out in the definition section. It is important that we at least know the Minister's thinking on the improvement works in respect of which he intends to make a grant.

On section 1 the Minister stated, when pressed, that he proposed to make a statement in regard to this matter in the near future. When questioned as to whether he would make a statement before the Report Stage of the Bill he stated that perhaps he would but that, if he did not, he might make it in the Seanad. In view of the Minister's attitude to new house grants in section 4 I must again complain that this is not the way to treat a house in relation to section 5.

The Minister says in relation to the definition of improvement works that there has been so much talk about it and so many inquiries that he intends to clarify the position in a few days. I am again coerced into saying that there is no better place in which to clarify the position than in the Dáil during the debate on section 5, which deals precisely with improvement works. I hope the Minister will see fit to tell us what he means by improvement works, because for the time being his opinion is important in relation to the passage of this Bill. If the Minister is asking the authority of the House to regulate housing grants by regulations he should be forthcoming with the House and should tell us exactly what he understands by improvement works. Various statements have been made about them. We understood that, for example, a person who wanted to install a fireplace in a house would get a grant irrespective of whether he had received another grant for reconstruction work in the recent past. The Minister should tell us whether that is still the position and should clarify the position in general in regard to conservation works on a house. That is the least we can expect.

This section also enables the Minister to fix the amount of an improvement works grant. When the Minister took office the grant was £400, £200 payable by the State and £200 payable by the housing authority. Admittedly at the time there was some form of means test in the form of valuations which excluded large houses. The Minister has increased that grant by 50 per cent. The maximum improvement works grant is now £600. The £200 payable by the housing authority was abolished; therefore the net increase was £200. I invite the Minister to agree that a grant of £400 for reconstruction on 5 July 1977 was much more valuable than a grant of £600 would be now. The cost of improvement works and reconstruction has increased by more than 50 per cent since 1977.

I share the views expressed by Deputy O'Brien that people should be encouraged to undertake reconstruction or improvement works. In so doing we are improving our housing stock, prolonging its life, resulting in less money being spent on new houses in these difficult times. I should like the Minister to comment on that. I invite him also to tell us what are his proposals in regard to the maximum amount of the improvement works grant, he proposes fixing under section 5 (2) (a).

I believe that the Minister abolished such means tests as were operative in regard to reconstruction grants when he assumed office. I note that in this section, as in section 4, he is assuming the necessary authority to re-impose a means test for these grants. I wonder why he is doing so, when he intends to do so and what is his thinking on it. The House is entitled to a clear statement from the Minister on that.

I regret to have to say that the Minister is skating round the edges and hedging from a candid debate on grants in general. Certainly he hedged and refused to be drawn into any debate on new house grants, something about which I was very disappointed. The Minister did himself less than justice in that respect when he refused point blank to be drawn into a discussion on new housing grants. On this section—dealing with improvement works grants—I want him to tell us what he thinks about the present rate of grants which have been increased by only 50 per cent since he assumed office. I want to know if he intends increasing those grants further and, if so, to what extent. I want to be told by the Minister what exactly he has in mind in regard to the means test for which he is paving the way in paragraph (e) of subsection (2).

I should be glad to hear the Minister comment on all of those points that occur to me under this section.

Mr. Barrett

Deputy O'Brien asked me to be flexible, generous and prudent. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a flexible, legal framework within which we can change grant schemes by regulations which will be before this House for 21 days and be annulled if the House so decides. This Bill takes us away from the rigid conditions which could be set out in legislation and makes provision for flexbility.

With regard to being generous, as Deputy O'Brien asked me to be, I am sure he appreciates that a very generous scheme of grants for house improvements, installation of piped water and sewerage services, the adaptation of houses for physically handicapped or severely mentally-handicapped persons, was introduced by this Government in 1977. In January 1977 reconstruction grants had been restricted to houses with low valuations. It is incorrect to say that the reconstruction or improvement grants were increased only from £400 to £600 at the end of that year. The valuation restrictions ensured that very many people got only the £200 Department grant; they did not get the supplementary grant. These valuation limits were so restrictive that if one lived in the countryside outside an urban or corporation area, provided the valuation of one's house was over £10—which is not an excessive valuation by any standard —one did not get a supplementary grant or a State grant from 1 January 1977. With regard to the restriction in urban districts the valuation limit was £15 which, in such an area, is not an excessively high one. In a county borough, such as Dublin or Cork, it was £20. Therefore, very many people did not get any reconstruction grants. Since the end of 1977 they all qualify for the £600 based on a valuation of £90 or over. Surely that was treating people very generously.

I have explained already the flexibility of the provisions of this Bill to deal with such matters by regulations instead of making announcements, restricting eligibility, and making them available to fewer people, such as happened on 1 January 1977.

In regard to expenditure on these improvement grants, I might say that in 1977 barely £2 million was expended. The new scheme of grants about which we have been talking—the £600 scheme—is so popular that the total expenditure this year will amount to approximately £17 million. A total of 37,550 applications for these improvement grants were submitted to my Department in 1978. This proves that the people who are availing of them consider them to be reasonably generous when it is borne in mind that most of them had no grants at all available to them for improvements after 1 January 1977 until we came into office. Indeed the lucky people who came under the £10 valuation—for instance, in rural areas—got the £200, plus a further £200 under the supplementary scheme.

More than once today reference was made to the question of energy conservation. This Bill enables me to make a grant available for energy conservation. In future the principal features of grant schemes will be set out by way of regulation which will be before this House for 21 days. That is more satisfactory than the changes announced since 1972, if we must go back to then. All the changes since 1972 were announced without any Bill or regulations. Deputies Fitzpatrick and O'Brien should get away from this bluffing exercise in which they seem to be engaging. This is a fairer and more democratic system of implementing the changes that will come about from time to time for the improvement of the grants schemes.

I should like to repeat also that I intend making a definitive statement on grants for energy conservation for housing within a few days. Let me say categorically that the details of the statement have not been finalised as yet but will be in a day or two, when I shall make the announcement. Deputy Fitzpatrick remarked on the fact that I would not do so during the course of discussion on this Bill. Whether I do so here or in the Senate will be dependent on the duration of this debate.

Apart from the house improvement grants other vastly improved grants were made available. For example, before the end of 1977 a sewerage grant amounted to £25 and a water installation grant amounted to £100. Since then the sewerage grant has been increased to £150 and the water installation grant to £200, a total of £350.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Am I right in thinking that the £125 was payable by the housing authority?

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy is correct. Deputy O'Brien spoke about the inner city. I will deal with that under amendment No. 18 which covers specific areas. He also spoke about the limitation period between grants. Up to the end of 1977 it was 15 years and since then it has been reduced to ten years.

With regard to the accusation of advertising, I did not advertise anything about conservation grants. I answered parliamentary questions in this House on 14 June after the European and local elections, but I can assure the Deputy that within a matter of days an advertisement will appear to ensure that people will know exactly who is entitled to these conservation grants and the amounts they are entitled to.

Any changes made in the new house grants will be improvements on the present system, not a limitation of the existing system as we had on 1 January 1977. When these improvements are made by regulation, that regulation will be before before this House for 21 days to be annulled if the House so decides. These changes will not just be the subject of statements being issued; they will be done under this legislation by way of regulation.

Mr. Quinn

A number of points come under this section. Let us deal with the principle of grants generally and try to clarify some of the points raised. Again we are talking about enacting legislation rather than a specific grant scheme. During the Second Stage debate the Minister may recall that I raised the whole question of conservation grants generally and specific renovation grants for certain areas.

The Minister referred to his own amendment on section 14 but this is the section which deals with this matter. However, if the Minister wants to defer discussion of this matter until section 14, that is all right. Is the Minister in a position tonight to talk about such a scheme of grants? Is he in a position to refer to section 5 (3) which states:

... the works concerned, complies with such conditions, if any, as may be determined by the Minister from time to time for the purposes of this section in relation to standards of construction of houses and the provision of water, sewerage and other services therein.

The reality is that unless the Minister can clarify that position precisely, because of existing bye-laws, any programme of renovation or conservation in the urban areas where it is required, particularly in the county borough of Dublin, would be negated. This would apply to any grant scheme that might be introduced, for example, to refurbish houses in Deputy O'Brien's constituency in the inner city.

To qualify for a grant, would standards and conditions of completion of construction work be independent of building bye-law regulations in a particular instance? I am not talking about the old bye-laws, I am talking about the new building regulations because the bye-laws are no longer in operation since 1 July. If one wants to use the UK system of standards of refurbishing, who will be involved in consultations in determining what the five or ten point standards will be? Perhaps the Minister could deal with this technicality, because we are dealing with enabling legislation in this section.

Mr. Barrett

Improvement grants relate to section 5 and generally do not have anything to do with building regulations.

Mr. Quinn

Normal practice is that in order to qualify for any of these grants one must get bye-law permission. I am speaking specifically from Dublin experience where there were bye-law regulations and there are now national building regulations. Frequently someone who does not need planning permission to get a grant will not get bye-law permission. The administration of bye-law permission in Dublin Corporation is extremely cumbersome and very slow and is often hit and miss, a bit like the CRV system. Therefore, it can be very difficult and frustrating for the ordinary person to get a simple grant to build a bathroom or kitchen extension.

I am asking these questions in the context of the general question I raised about the system of rehabilitation grants for older house. How does the Minister propose to apply section 5 (3) to such a system, on the assumption that he has such a system of grants in mind? Maybe I am taking too much for granted. Perhaps I should ask the Minister if he is in a position at this stage to comment specifically on the matters I raised on the Second Stage dealing with rehabilitation grants and, specifically if he is in a position to positively respond to the suggestion made by the joint housing conference sponsored by the Department and the RIAI? I am not thinking of this solely from a Dublin point of view but having regard to the fact that a study was carried out in Waterford.

Presumably the conditions of the grants will apply under section 5. The non-generality of it would be picked up under section 14 because it would be confined to certain areas. Will the conditions of construction standards be independent of building bye-law regulations?

Mr. Barrett

The answer to the Deputy's last question is yes. With regard to the rehabilitation of existing council schemes, I intend to issue details of improvements regarding the old type schemes in the very near future.

Mr. F. O'Brien

When I asked the Minister to be generous he said that when we were in government we were less than generous. If one carried out a cost analysis on the value of the relative moneys at that time one would say it was not generous. I am not making any case for what happened. I did not agree with certain regulations, but £600 for a grant is not being generous in this day and age. If the Minister believes that that is generous, heaven help us for the future of housing stock in this city. If we have to depend on this kind of benevolence or lack of it for housing then we are all in trouble.

The Minister made the point that by regulation all that can happen is improvement. If he goes back to when we moved an amendment to ensure that there would be no means test after this Bill would be passed, he will remember that he rejected that amendment. All the Minister has in view is a means test for this £1,000 grant. I am not convinced that "by regulation" is the way to do anything. If the Minister wants to announce some goodies or an improvement of grants he does not have to do it by regulation. He can state at some after-dinner party or political function that he is giving an additional increase in the grant or whatever he is giving.

The idea of regulation is subterfuge to bring in legislation here that he knows he would not get before the House easily. If it is laid before the House it can be annulled or passed. With the situation here it will not be annulled if that side of the House want it to be passed, but it does not give this side of the House the opportunity to make amendments. When the Minister stands up here and makes magnanimous gestures saying that all that he can do is improve the lot of people, one is more than suspicious of it. I am suspicious of it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We have heard this a couple of times before.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Before the finish of this Bill, Sir, you may hear it again.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Repetition is not in order, and nobody knows that better than Deputy O'Brien.

Mr. F. O'Brien

We are now discussing section 5 and there are relevant matters——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not relevant to repeat the arguments over and over.

Mr. F. O'Brien

If it comes up in section 5 and it is relevant to discuss section 5, it is relevant to be said again.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not relevant to be said again. The Chair must rule and the Deputy knows the rules as well as anybody.

Mr. F. O'Brien

You are getting tired. We are all getting a bit tired.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not getting tired, but I am getting tired of listening to the same thing over and over again. It is not right. It is not in order.

Mr. Quinn

We will adjourn for some strawberries.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will adjourn for something if the Deputy does not raise a few new points. Now, Deputy, go on to something new, please.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I am on to section 5, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and if I am not speaking on section 5 please tell me that I am not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am telling you that you have said it all before. I have listened to it twice already. Repetition is not in order.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I have not been repetitive on section 5.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must have been listening to somebody else.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Obviously you were. Again talking about regulations, the Minister gave us the impression that all he can do by regulation is make life happier for us.

Mr. Quinn

That is what All-Bran does.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Everybody knows that the idea of regulation is to get stuff in that would not normally get through the House. To announce good news is done easily enough and everybody accepts it. The idea of this is not to introduce good news, as I said earlier in this section. That is not the good news. The Minister is being a bit naive when he is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, saying that all he wants to do by regulation is to introduce good news. We cannot accept that. I am not prepared to accept it and I will challenge it right through the whole legislation. It is not what we want. If the Minister puts it down by regulation he is not giving this side of the house the opportunity to debate it. If it is good news, as he said it was, why not bring it before this House? We would welcome good news any day of the week. This side of the House will support any increases in grants. As an Opposition we might advocate a little more—that would be right and natural—but we would welcome it. Do not be afraid, if he brings in good news to us we will not throw it back in his face. We will be kind and generous to him. But that is not what is going to happen, unfortunately. I regret that what will happen is that the little bits will be slipped in here and there.

Mr. Quinn

Like a means test.

Mr. F. O'Brien

That is on the cards at the moment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy O'Brien does not need any help at all.

Mr. F. O'Brien

You, Sir, were giving me a little help a few moments ago. I must reject the Minister's point when he said he was bringing in this good news. If I could believe that, I would love it and accept it, but I cannot and the Minister knows it is not true. It is like "by order". Anything like that is done only to limit debate and the powers of this Parliament, and that is regrettable. I have said it today, and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will say that I am repetitive, but what we are being repetitive about is very important. We on this side of the House must be careful and watch legislation going through. As Deputy Fitzpatrick said earlier today, we were thrown a pile of legislation a couple of weeks ago to get through in three or four days. If we were naive and a bad Opposition not terribly concerned about the welfare of the people who put us here, we would have parcelled it all up and gone on our holidays two weeks ago. Because we are a responsible Opposition concerned about welfare we want to examine it and it is imperative that we examine line by line this very contentious legislation. We have not even started into it yet. We are not even at the tapes, as it were. When we come to the controversial stuff the balloon will go up and one will see red faces—not on this side of the House but on the far side and the benevolent brothers will be running from them. Having deviated a little from the section, before the Leas Cheann Comhairle tells me that I have, I will——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is good that somebody else realises that.

Mr. F. O'Brien

——take my leave.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Since you, Sir, came into the Chair you have complained about repetition. There has been a certain amount of repetition in this debate. Section after section, the Minister has refused repeatedly to discuss the Bill or to discuss housing grants for new houses or reconstruction, which is what this Bill is all about. That is why this debate has become so difficult. It is not possible to have a meaningful debate with the Minister in his present frame of mind. He disagreed with me when I said that housing reconstruction grants have improved by 50 per cent since he came into office. In support of that contention he said that there was a means test on housing reconstruction grants down to £10 valuation throughout the country, £15 in urban areas and £20 in county boroughs. He has increased the grant from £400 to £600 for people who previously qualified for the full grant and to people who did not receive a grant at all he is giving £600. It is correct to say that the very well off have fared better under this Minister. That is a fact of Fianna Fáil philosophy during the last election campaign and immediately afterwards.

Mr. Barrett

The person who has a house with a valuation of £11 is not well off.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): This philosophy was exemplified in the abolition of the wealth tax.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot discuss the wealth tax and other taxes on this Bill. I would ask the Deputy to get back to the section.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): We could be here all night if I were to discuss the wealth tax and I have no intention of it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We have no intention of staying here all night.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): This Fianna Fáil philosophy is exemplified in the abolition of the wealth tax and the withdrawal of health cards. It is true that under this Government the very well off have done better than the poor or the moderately well off.

Mr. Quinn

When they use the term "republican party" perhaps they mean Richard Nixon's party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies must stay on the section.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister is very anxious to talk about the past and I do not mind that. He would be a bad politician if he did not. However, I would ask him to talk about the present and the future. He talks about the flexibility of the Bill. In 1977 he fixed the maximum improvement grant at £600 and I want him to state what he considers would be a reasonable maximum in today's conditions. That is not unreasonable. I have also asked him to tell us what he thinks about conservation and to give us his definitive statement. He says this statement will be ready within a couple of days. This Bill was initiated on 27 April this year and the House should have dealt with Second Stage some time ago.

We all know that at the beginning of the energy crisis it was said not to exist; for some time it was described as a problem and then as a crisis. I found it difficult to get into this city today because of queues at petrol stations. One would have expected the definitive statement on energy conservation to have been dealt with on this Bill, particularly energy conservation within the home. Now the Minister tells us that this wonderful statement will be made when the Bill leaves this House.

Mr. Barrett

That depends on how long it stays here.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It will be here quite a while. We are not getting any co-operation from the Minister. He could have facilitated debate by being prepared to discuss the Bill. For example, on section 4 he could have discussed the level of new house grants and on section 5 improvement grants and the aid which could be given to people wishing to reconstruct their houses in a manner which would conserve energy. He is not in a position to discuss conservation grants or what he considers would be a reasonable new house grant or a reasonable grant for improvement works. He is now becoming annoyed.

Mr. Barrett

I am not annoyed.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): He is becoming a little irritable. He is not as placid as he was earlier.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is becoming a little annoyed, too. These points have been repeated about six times already and the Deputy knows that repetition is not allowed.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is Deputy Begley coming in again at this stage?

Mr. Quinn

When the Chair says he is getting annoyed too, does that mean he agrees with Deputy Fitzpatrick that the Minister was annoyed this evening?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot decide on the Minister's frame of mind.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): At the moment the Minister's mind is a blank. He is not in a position to give us the benefit of his thinking on the matters concerned in this Bill. Debate on this section should not last 20 minutes and I sympathise with the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a good job somebody sympathises.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): He has to sit there listening to us trying to extract information from the Minister. He is relieved every hour or so but I have been here since 2.30 p.m. This debate has being going on since 3.30 p.m. The Minister will talk about the past but is not prepared to talk about the present or the future. He will not tell us his plans.

Mr. Barrett

My plans amount to £30 million as against £5 million in 1977.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I have made the case on these two sections. The House has been treated disgracefully by the Minister who is asking for a blank cheque and the power to control grants by regulation. He owes it to the House to be more forthcoming and he is probably ashamed of his performance.

Mr. Quinn

There are some matters I wish to raise.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 11 July 1979.