Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jul 1988

Vol. 120 No. 13

Housing Bill, 1988: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question, "That section 14 stand part of the Bill" put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

On a number of occasions during the discussion on this Bill, both on Second and Committee Stages I raised and quoted the figures relating to local authority house building and the extraordinary reduction in the number of completions estimated for 1987 and, now, for 1988. This seems to be an appropriate occasion to ask the Minister to confirm the statistics that he or his junior Minister supplied in the Dáil in April 1988 and perhaps give us some indication of whether he expects that the sort of low level of local authority house completions we have seen in recent years will continue. Within the context of grants or subsidies for dwellings and so on presumably he must have some idea of what are future prospects. At the nub of many of the issues dealt with in this Bill — to do with homelessness in particular and other matters — is the question of whether sufficient local authority housing, that is, low-cost State subsidised housing, will be available. Would the Minister elaborate on how he envisages the future for the sort of housing provided for under section 15?

The principle behind the Bill is to provide accommodation for the homeless, the aged, disabled and travellers. While we might be meeting a housing need in certain areas there are others in respect of which we are not meeting those needs. This is very obvious in many areas in relation to the elderly. We have in our population some very old and some very young people. Housing for the elderly is an especially important issue in urban areas where there are long waiting lists. The waiting and transfer lists are very long in my local authority area. If we are to house the aged, local authorities need capital allocations. This year Dublin Corporation received no housing allocation whatsoever.

Another principle behind the provisions of this Bill is the housing of the disabled. The disabled can be housed only if the money is provided by local authorities for the building of local authority dwellings that can be adapted to the needs of handicapped people. If there is no finance available, they cannot be adapted. It is essential that the Minister should consider these categories at this time, namely, the elderly and handicapped and allocate the necessary funding to local authorities to provide accommodation for those categories.

Since January of this year the loan charge subsidy system for funding of local authority programmes, including housing programmes, has been replaced by a grants system. Section 15 of this Bill is necessary to provide the statutory back-up for this change. It is a broad provision allowing for either a grant or a subsidy system. In the past it was always a subsidy. Now it will be by way of grant with a circular transfer rearrangement so far as the Local Loans Funding is concerned. The provisions of this section will enable that to be done by way of grant or subsidy. Section 10 of the 1979 Act is being replaced by this section for subsidies only and not for grants. That is the basis for this section.

I take it the Minister is not prepared to discuss the scale or otherwise of local authority house building in the immediate future. Senator Doyle and I asked him on a number of occasions to comment on the figures because they are related to the intent of this Bill. If there are not going to be any local authority houses built in the next few years, many of the good intentions of this Bill will be simply pious aspirations achieving nothing. What is the point of having a scheme of priorities for letting local authority dwellings if there are no local authority dwellings available to let? It is a fine and nice aspiration. Presumably it means that anybody who is not number one on the Dublin Corporation housing list will not get accommodation.

I wish the Minister would either tell us that he does not want to talk about it — in which case I suppose we will have to put up with it — or at least respond to Senator Doyle's concern, as a member of a local authority, and mine, as a Member of this House, using the figures supplied by the Minister to the Dáil about the estimated numbers of completions for this year and the dramatic prognosis for the future. Can the Minister give us some idea? Does he have any view as to what will be the sort of level of local authority housing completions in the immediate future? Is there a policy on it; is it an ad hoc arrangement that will be dependent on the discussions on the Estimates taking place at present, or does he know anything about it?

I have no intention of discussing the content of the discussion on the Estimates in so far as housing or any other element of the departmental brief is concerned in the Seanad today. That is not what this Bill is about. As far as I am concerned, the Government and the Minister will provide whatever funding is required for any housing programme they think necessary in the circumstances. This is the means whereby that can be achieved by way of grant assistance to local authorities. I do not think it is relevant to be talking about budgetary estimates or whatever on this legislation.

I made a passing reference to Estimates. The marginal note to section 15 refers to grants or subsidies by Minister for dwellings, sites and assistance provided by housing authorities. I am simply trying to elicit from the Minister his view on the future scale of local authority house completions. Could he confirm the figure supplied to the Dáil in November 1987 on the estimated number of local authority house completions for 1988 of 1,600? Was that too low, or too high, or does he know? Can he confirm the figures supplied to the Dáil on 27 April 1988 that the allocation for new house starts in all the major urban areas was nil for 1988? Both of those figures are relevant to the provisions of section 15.

In an effort to move forward on this, can we be more positive? This section gives the Minister certain powers to transfer, by grant or subsidy, funds to local authorities to do various things. From the information available to us and from the figures available to members of local authorities, this year the number of new house starts is minimal throughout the country and particularly in rural areas. Is it appropriate to ask the Minister in view of waiting lists for local authority housing throughout the country, seriously to consider the new powers conferred on him here and, in line with the Estimates approved at Cabinet level in the preparation of the budget, to increase funds under this section so that the principles of the Bill will be met and the situation addressed in parts of the country where there are growing waiting lists, particularly for old people's dwellings and family houses? There are exceptions in built-up areas. In some towns houses are locked up, but I am talking about the overall position and the overall figures, to which the Minister has access. There are large numbers of people in need of housing and their needs cannot be met by the local authorities with the funding allocated to them at present. This section gives the Minister new powers to do this by grant and/ or subsidy. Can the Minister address that problem and be more generous in the coming years?

The purpose of the Bill is to give special categories, namely, the aged, the disabled and the homeless, priority in housing. There is little or no use in local authorities giving people priority for housing unless there are houses to allocate. That is the essence of the Bill. You give priority only when you can give people accommodation. I speak on behalf of the disabled and the elderly, because they are in desperate need of accommodation in Dublin and, I am sure, in other areas. I could not, in conscience, ask for a capital allocation for housing generally, but for inner sitting housing certainly. Leaving that aside, I can make a good case for the elderly and the handicapped.

I suppose Senators might see a relevance attached to it as far as housing in general and housing policy are concerned but it has nothing to do with the subject matter of section 15. While I try to be as accommodating as possible, I would be leading Senators on to be repetitious and to speak off the section and for maintenance of good order I do not think I should do that. This section of the Bill provides the method whereby the Minister for the Environment will be able to fund whatever housing programmes are necessary henceforth to meet whatever lists are available from the assessments already indicated in the other sections of this Bill. I cannot go beyond that. Surely everybody understands that.

The real problem for Senators is that all the points raised today were raised on Second Stage, but in his reply the Minister of State did not address any of these issues. I would have been satisfied if the Minister had responded to them on the conclusion of Second Stage, which was a reasonable expectation of Members of the Seanad. Unfortunately, that did not happen and that gives rise to our requests today to the Minister.

Could we remind the Minister that section 15 (1) (a) talks about "the provision of dwellings (including houses, flats, maisonettes and hostels) by the authority"? Surely that is what we are talking about. The Minister can quantify or qualify that in any way he likes, but it includes all those definitions of dwellings about which we are au fait and concerned. Senator Doyle has limited his demand to a special category and has stated that he could not look for an overall blanket allocation. I have mentioned old people's dwellings in particular, but they all come within the definition in this section of dwellings.

I fully agree with Senator Doyle. The reply on Second Stage, unlike the replies of a number of Ministers in the past couple of weeks, by the junior Minister at the Department of the Environment was entirely unsatisfactory.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair would prefer if we dealt with section 15 at this stage.

I am trying to explain to the Minister why we have to do these things. It is because matters that were raised on Second Stage were not dealt with. It was uncharacteristic of the way in which a number of Ministers have treated this House in the past number of weeks, when we have been extremely busy and when they put considerable effort into replying in detail to complex issues raised on Second Stage. If it had been done, we might not be doing what we are doing now.

I want to defend my right to adjudicate on legislation in this House on the basis of whether it will work; whether it meets a perceived need; whether it fits into the context of the general body of legislation in the area. Quite clearly, a Bill like this, full of pious aspirations about what local authorities are supposed to do in terms of priorities of lettings etc., but not backed up by sufficient resources to meet existing needs — not to mention the additional needs listed here — is something close to being farcical. I would like to know whether the Minister proposes to respond to the increasing concern of a large number of people that we will have a housing crisis in a short period of time because of the decline in local authority house building. This section gives the Minister the power to make money available which, depending on his action, will either alleviate or add to that crisis. This is a perfectly logical and reasonable request. It is perfectly clear that the Minister is not prepared to discuss the matter. I cannot make him discuss it and neither can the Leas-Chathaoirleach, but I profoundly regret that we cannot be allowed to make a proper adjudication on the relevance or otherwise of this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

I raised a point with the Minister on a previous section and he correctly referred me to section 23. It is the anomaly that has arisen regarding people who have already opted for the old purchase scheme and are not in a position to avail of the new generous scheme announced by the Minister. At this stage I am talking about mortgages, because people have entered into mortgages with local authorities. Perhaps section 17, which deals with mortgages on houses sold or leased by housing authorities, is the relevant section.

I have said that I have looked at the Standing Orders of the House with a view to putting down an amendment either to this section or the one to which the Minister referred. This would propose that existing mortgage owners would be afforded an equalisation clause because of the anomalies that have arisen in the values previously placed on houses. I refer to comparable houses in schemes beside one another in which people opted to buy houses before 31 December 1987 and had them legally transferred.

Within weeks the Minister announced a new scheme which had a different set of values and a different process of market valuation. This has now resulted in an anomaly in that some tenants living beside others with similar incomes, opted for the previous scheme. We could all say that it is hard luck, that they opted for the other scheme but I was hoping that there could be some sort of ministerial amendment or at least a commitment that the Minister would look at the anomaly that has arisen and have an equalisation process by, maybe, shortening the period of the mortgage repayments for the people who opted for the previous purchase scheme. I hope I am making myself clear so that the Minister might address the problem which has arisen. I have defended the new scheme; I have advocated it; it is an excellent scheme and it will achieve a lot of what the Minister has been trying to do. There is widespread support for it. I want to make this crystal clear because I was misrepresented yesterday — not by the Minister but by other speakers who said I was against it. I am totally in favour of the new scheme, but because of its generosity, it has thrown up the anomaly to which I referred. The Minister might address that problem now or come back with an amendment on Report Stage.

The Senator made that point yesterday and it has nothing to do with section 17. It could be raised under section 23 but it is not for me to say that. That is the section that deals with the tenant purchase scheme as announced some time ago which operated from 1 January 1988. Section 17 is purely technical, dealing with a different thing entirely. I have already responded to the item the Senator raised last evening in so far as I undertook to look into the matter to see if there was substance in what he said and if there was need to discuss the matter further. Perhaps the Senator would make the case again on section 23?

Yes, I will do that.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 18 to 21, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 18, before section 22, to insert the following new section:

"22.—section 114 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for ‘one hundred and thirty' in subsection (1) of ‘two thousand five hundred'.".

This is a technical amendment.

There is already within section 114 a mechanism by which the level of rental income specified in this section could be increased. It can be done by amending regulations to be made by the Minister in accordance with section 114 (3). Section 114 of the 1966 Act is not one that I particularly considered in the context of the present Bill, as an increase in the limit does not require to be provided for in the Bill. I am not in a position to say whether there is a case for any increase in the order suggested, which is £130 per annum to £2,500 per annum. I must admit that there may well be a need to look in detail at the section and to decide after examination if a new rent level should be set and, if so, by how much. I propose to do this when the Bill is enacted and I will bring forward the regulations if they are necessary.

In view of what the Minister has said, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.

I move amendment No. 32:

In page 19, between lines 10 and 11 to insert the following subsection:

"(4) Where a dispute arises between the purchaser and the local authority as to the amount of the open market value the dispute may be referred to arbitration by either party to an independent arbitrator. The costs involved in the arbitration shall form part of the purchase price of the dwelling and shall be included in the terms of the mortgage.".

This was the section we wanted in connection with the new tenant purchase scheme. It was put in at the time the scheme was announced and was generally thought to be ideal in the event of disputes arising about the market value. Since the market values have been announced the need for this arbitration may not be as great as considered initially. It is important to be honest with one another in this House.

The market values that have been announced are generally satisfactory and reasonable. I do not see the need now for an independent arbitrator. I have not discussed this with Senator Ryan but I have a list here of every house in my own county with which nobody could argue. However, I will deal with the problem on the section. The Minister might like to confirm, as communicated to him by the local authorities, the take-up on this scheme and how it has been formulated throughout the country.

That is very fair of the Senator and that is exactly the experience we had in the matter. It might have been thought at the start that there would have been a lot of problems attached to this. Guidelines which were issued in the matter to local authorities indicated that they should be reasonable in their valuations and not set down something that would make it impossible for people to participate in this scheme. They have taken that on board everywhere and I have had no complaints from any local authority. There were little problems at the start and they were ironed out amicably between the local authorites and the Department. We do not want an elaborate arrangement which would inevitably lead to delays. The Senator understands that until section 23 becomes operable following the signing of the legislation by the President, we cannot finalise any of the sales so there is a little delay. Seeing that it is a short scheme, operable only from 1 January 1988 and terminating at the end of 1988, I am anxious to press ahead with all haste now to give the thousands of people — I cannot give the exact numbers — but it is a very substantial number of the 119,000 local authority dwellings who want to avail of this purchase arrangement a chance to do so.

The Senator is quite right in saying that we do not have a problem in the matter. It would not warrant setting up an elaborate system of review. For that reason I appreciate the fact that the Senator is withdrawing the amendment.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share