(Cavan-Monaghan): There are two principles or issues involved in this group of amendments, first of all, the control of the price of the site and, secondly, the appeal to the Circuit Court. There has been quite a considerable improvement effected here but, quite candidly, in regard to the attempt to control the price of sites, I thought the Minister was going further in these amendments. I was somewhat disappointed to hear him say it is not proposed to implement the power given to him here until the Kenny Report has been dealt with. I do not think that that report is involved in these amendments.
The first of this set of amendments Amendment No. 15—seeks to add another paragraph to subsection (3) of section 18. Subsection (3) begins by saying, the Minister shall not grant a certificate in respect of the sale of a house, (a), (b), (c), and then (d), to be added would read:
if the amount of the cost or value of the site of the House included in the price is greater than an amount standing prescribed for the time being under subsection (7) (h) of this section.
Amendment No. 19 proposes to add to subsection (7) a new subsection (h) which will give the Minister power to make regulations in relation to a number of things, including the amount that is the greatest amount that may be reckoned by the Minister in respect of the cost or value of the site of a house in determining an application for a certificate. The Minister can only shelve the procedure until after the Kenny Report becomes law if he does not make a regulation dealing with the price of land under subsection (7) of section 18, and I think he should make such a regulation.
Amendment 16 proposes to add a further paragraph to subsection (4) which reads at present:
The Minister may, on the application in writing of a person to whom a certificate was granted under subsection (1) (a)....
Anyway it proposes to add a paragraph to subsection (4) reading as follows:
The Minister may refuse to grant a certificate in any case where the amount of the cost or value of the site of a house included in the price is greater than the amount for which the site appears to the Minister to represent reasonable value.
In view of what the Minister says it appears that he does not intend to implement that subsection either until the Kenny Report is dealt with. That is a pity because an unanswerable case was made on Committee Stage that it is just not possible to control the prices of houses without controlling the price of land.
As soon as this Bill becomes law, as soon as the Minister gets round to making regulations under it, I would urge him to take the power to at least consider whether or not the site is value for money. If we are to have astronomical prices for sites, there is no way the Minister can keep down the price of houses. The Minister said on Committee Stage that even if the price of the site was a bit dear, a contractor by economising here, there and everywhere, could still make the whole package value for money. That is putting a temptation in the way of the builder to economise unwisely on the materials in the house or the workmanship, and that is bad. I strongly urge the Minister to utilise the powers and authority I am glad to see him taking in these amendments.
That brings me to the appeal to the Circuit Court. I admit I had not brought myself entirely up to date with delays in the Circuit Court, although I attempted to do so on several occasions between the Second Reading and Committee Stage of this Bill and was unsuccessful. The Minister tells me—and I am glad to hear it—that the present President of the Circuit Court has made improvements and brought things more up to date. But, from my knowledge of the procedures in the courts there will be delays. The Minister says at least it will not be the fault of the Court, that when appeals get onto the list and are ready for hearing they will be heard. But there will still be the solicitor, counsel, the architect and all the other experts to be consulted and brought together. I believe that the Minister still could allocate a Circuit Court judge to hear these appeals and be engaged in nothing else. I am not sure, but I believe he could perhaps give a Circuit Court judge the power to have the assistance of assessors because, if appeals under this section—against decisions of the Minister in regard to certificates of reasonable value—are heard in the formal way in court as obtains at present, they will be entirely unsatisfactory.
In this respect I note also that the Minister has not changed the amendment, as originally drafted. The Circuit Court judge will have two options only—he will be able to affirm the decision of the Minister, that is, to affirm the decision in refusing the appeal, or he will be able to grant the certificate, that is presumably, in the amount requested by the applicant. But I wonder under the subsection whether he will have power vary it. I maintain he should have power either to affirm the Minister's decision or vary it, that is, perhaps grant a certificate for some figure in between the amount requested by the applicant, or to refuse that amount. It is not easy to get this point over. As I see the position at present the court may, as it thinks fit—on the hearing of the appeal—affirm the decision of the Minister refusing the certificate, or direct the Minister to grant the certificate. If the judge is satisfied and is advised that he can direct the Minister to grant the certificate in a sum other than that for which the applicant has applied, I would be satisfied. But if the judge is to be tied to either affirming the refusal of the Minister or accepting the figure of the applicant, that is not a sufficiently wide discretion; he should have discretion to grant a certificate in a reduced sum.
Furthermore, nowhere in the Bill so far is there provision which will make the Minister give reasons for refusing a certificate, and until the Minister gives reasons for refusing a certificate an appeal is meaningless. How is a judge to hear an appeal in a meaningful way and give a reasonable decision unless he knows why the Minister refuses the certificate? It might be on site grounds. It might be because the roof was too dear. It might be on any one of a multitude of things, and unless the judge is going to go into all the plans and specifications item by item, he will not be able to arrive at a meaningful decision that will satisfy the parties unless the Minister gives his reasons for refusing the certificate.