Vol. 411 No. 5
12 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for the Environment when he intends to extend the terms of the scheme which provides extensions to persons who are in overcrowded conditions to the tenants of local authority houses as well as to owner-occupiers; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The question of extending to local authority tenants the scheme for the improvement or extension of a private house in lieu of rehousing in local authority accommodation does not arise. It is already open to an authority to provide such an extension to one of their rented houses as a response to an established need arising from overcrowding of existing accommodation.
Is the Minister aware that his social housing programme is lying stillborn in the councils around the country because of the legal mine fields he has not sorted out? Does the Minister not accept that this specific aspect of the social housing programme is a catch 22 situation in that the scheme requires people to be on the housing list yet also requires that they own the house so that the local authority can provide the extension? Does the Minister realise that Dublin Corporation, for example, do not allow persons who own a house on the housing list, no matter how overcrowded their housing conditions are? Does the Minister accept that the scheme will be stillborn? Does he realise there are no application forms available for people who wish to participate in the scheme.
I hope not. I will take note of what the Deputy has said in this regard as it is of concern to me. I accept that the shared ownership scheme has not taken off in the way I had wished it would.
I told the Minister so.
We all told him so.
I know also that it is the agreed wisdom of all local authorities that it is a magnificent scheme if we could finalise the legislation to make it operable.
If only there was some way we could benefit from it it would be a magnificent scheme.
To try to get over the intervening period we went to considerable trouble to get a leasing arrangement that would accommodate the requirement. That was done in a generous way in advance of the legislation. I know legislation is required and it is my intention to bring it to the House. I will be seeking the co-operation of all sides to allow it to be put in place before Christmas and then the full benefit of the scheme will come into play. I understand from local authority housing officers that the scheme is awaited eagerly. I accept that at present some people are activating it under the existing arrangements, but not everybody.
The Minister put the horse before the cart.
Is the Minister aware that while some local authorities deem themselves to be in a position to approve extensions in places of overcrowding in privately owned houses they feel they have not the power or authority to do likewise in local authority houses where the overcrowding is caused by a housing applicant who is a sub-tenant in the local authority house?
I assume the Deputy is making this case and I will consider it.
Will the Minister accept that the targets he set in the plan he produced in February for the various schemes will not be met before the end of the year? Will he indicate to the House what he proposes to do with the finance he had intended to make available for those schemes? Does he intend to enable local authorities to build houses with it or does he intend to hold it over to the next year? Clearly the money will not be spent by the end of this year and what does the Minister intend to do with it?
I do not envisage that there will be any surplus cash in the housing purse at the end of this year. Deputies can be assured that every shilling allocated to housing will be utilised.
Was this delay planned?
In fact it is not correct to say that we will not be meeting our target; I am satisfied we will.
The Minister used a smoke screen to distract people from the fact that we are not building local authority houses this year. Will he accept that the actuarial view of the shared equity scheme, in particular, is that there will be a horrendous burden on those who take out shared ownership and that the total cost, in rent and shared equity, will be a very severe burden on people who cannot afford to take out a loan in the normal way?
I do not accept that.
Given the abysmal failure of the social housing programme will the Minister agree that steps will have to be taken to get a house building programme off the ground, particularly in the Dublin area? Will he agree that incentives will have to be made available to encourage co-operative house building on many of the local authority sites that are lying idle given that the local authorities have been starved of cash to build houses?
We are having an extension of the question. That is a separate matter.
The option the Deputy mentioned is part of the social housing plan. I agree it is something that can be worked on. In fact all the options set out in the plan can do precisely what we require to deal with our housing waiting list.
They got the Minister over the local elections.
They are all doing very well.
They are not doing anything.
I accept that shared ownership requires legislation to make it really effective.
Will the Minister encourage co-operative house building?
I am encouraging it.
There is no family housing being built.
Does the Minister realise that the financial responsibility for the interim arrangements he relayed to local authorities in relation to the implementation of the social housing plan lies with the local authorities? Does the Minister recognise that the local authorities do not have sufficient funds to implement that interim arrangement? Does he accept that it is highly unlikely that any part of the social housing plan will be achieved before the end of the year? This plan was first announced in the budget last January and it is high time the Minister got off the fence, faced reality and accepted it was a total farce.
It is going very well, and the members of your authority have said so.
Was that just a good press conference?
The Minister claims that it is going very well. Will he not accept that there has been a 25 per cent reduction in housing starts registered with the National House Building Guarantee Company this year compared with last year?
I do not have the exact figure but I did have a figure relating to a previous question as far as housing was concerned.
Question No. 6, the Minister did not answer it.
Perhaps it was. In 1987, 15,376 private houses were completed; in 1990 that figure increased to 18,536 — a 20.5 per cent increase; and the estimated figure for 1991 is 17,200.
Private houses?
So it has dropped by 25 per cent.
I had those figures available in reply to Question No. 6, had we reached it.
