Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Jul 1988

Vol. 120 No. 13

Housing Bill, 1988: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 23.

Debate resumed on 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.".

— (Senator Ferris.)

Mr. Ferris

To conclude on the amendment I accept what the Minister has said. I was waiting to attract his attention to wrap it up. Apart from the other problem I have raised about the redeeming of annuities for older applicants to the other scheme, I mentioned the peculiar anomaly that has arisen with the low cost housing and I hope the Minister will have an opportunity, to look at that. It is special to the low cost houses, particularly as some have been repaired and have been offered to people. The non repaired houses have been offered at a lesser value but the differentiation between the two is so high that I feel the Minister should examine the position in consultation with the local authority involved in the reconstruction programme because most people would like to buy the houses when they are repaired but very few would be capable of repairing them to the standard that would be required. The kind of people we are talking of are in a special category.

There is a request from my local authority in South Tipperary to look at the matter. There was unamimous agreement by all the members, including members from the Minister's party that this was an anomaly which the Minister might not have foreseen. The Minister felt that the present day market valuations would have covered the problem but that was not the case. I would prefer if the local authority was grant-aided, the houses reconstructed to the required standard and then offered to the tenants but that may not happen.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Flynn)

In order that I may understand the Senator accurately, the tenant purchase scheme 1988 applies to applicants who were tenants on 1 January. Valuations were put on the houses concerned and there were different discounts given. If repairs were carried out to a house last year by a local authority in the normal course of events or whatever that would mean that the house would have certain valuation if valued now. If a house did not have repairs carried out to it last year, a certain amount of money would be required to carry out the repairs but it was included in the guidelines that the repairs element would be taken into account in the estimation of the valuation of the house at current market values. I can see that people might like to have the repairs done before they would buy the house. Knowing that that would be the case I deliberately wrote in a provision whereby if a house was in need of repairs, the estimate of what it would cost to put it into repair would be taken into account with the market value estimate of the house. I was hoping that that would satisfy the requirement.

Mr. Doyle

That would be the right way to do it.

Mr. Ferris

If you look at the figures that have transpired on the ground, you would actually have to pay money to all the existing tenants who are left. In the low cost houses there was major reconstruction. Walls, roofs, etc. were changed. This was not just the normal reconstruction to various different kinds of houses. We are talking about a special group of houses in respect of which a pilot scheme was carried out, and it was highly successful. The Minister has continued to allocate money to the councils to allow that programme to continue. There are people in houses which have now been identified for repair work, where contractors have been appointed who are going ahead with the work. That coincided with valuations being put on those houses by the local authority and the valuer in the area for the houses as they saw them. The value of such a house now, in its non-repaired state, is such that if you were to take into account the cost of repairing it, you would have to give money to the tenants.

Mr. Flynn

If a contract has been placed through the remedial works scheme I announced for a particular set of houses and if the contractor is in and has started the repairs and some are not finished when the valuation is given, the valuation will obviously take account of the house as it will be when finished just as, say, the one next door that happened to be finished last month had a certain valuation put on it. This does not necessarily mean that the person would be disadvantaged because of that. They can proceed with their application for tenant purchase. I tried to indicate to local authorities that if there were houses in the one estate and they were more or less the same, the same valuation would apply to them all. If some houses in an estate are having work done on them and a contract has been agreed under the remedial works scheme for work on the others, the same valuation would naturally apply even though the work might not be finished for another month or two. Those concerned will not be disadvantaged in that regard. If there is a particular case or cases or an estate about which the Senator is worried and if he would like me to give special consideration to, I would be pleased if he would convey the details to me as quickly as possible because obviously there is a time scale attached to all of these so far as the Department are concerned. I will look as sympathetically as possible at any such case.

Mr. Ferris

I will do that. I thank the Minister for his offer to look at the problem. I would not be raising it in this way if I did not know the local authority's difficulty in the matter. I can give the names of the schemes now. They are Carron Reddy Estate, Tipperary, Wood-view Estate in Cahir, a special scheme in Ballyclerihan which is due for demolition and the balance of the scheme at Castle Quarter in Killenaule.

Mr. Flynn

Where part of a refurbishment scheme has been carried out a tenant can apply to buy a house which has yet to be repaired but the price he will pay will be based on the value of the house after it has been repaired. That might settle the matter.

Mr. Ferris

The programme in Carron Reddy in particular, is a large programme and the actual repair programme will probably extend over four or five years because the Minister has not given enough money to complete them all in the one year. Let us be honest about this.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I would prefer if we did not refer to individual locations and items.

Mr. Ferris

I appreciate your dilemma on this.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ferris

The Minister now knows my dilemma. This section deals with the new tenant purchase scheme so my comments are relevant and I thank you for your assistance, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. The Minister now knows the schemes and the timescale. I can now go back and tell the local authorities — or the Minister will tell them — that the existing tenants in houses cannot buy them and that the deal will take place when the houses are completed and repaired.

Mr. Flynn

The allocations of money have already been funded for remedial works on that scheme.

Mr. Ferris

And a commitment given to continue it over a period to finish the work. You cannot leave some of them in disrepair. We have a scheme of 79 houses in one area and we have repaired five by way of a pilot scheme and 20 will be done in the next phase. I do not expect all of them to be done this year.

Mr. Flynn

There is a slightly different element introduced now by the Senator. Where refurbishment is under way or has been contracted for or money allocated to it under the existing estimate, then what I said applies. Should it transpire, for whatever reason best known to the Government, that the remedial works scheme is terminated — that is not my intention but let us take a hypothetical case where there is a change in the next couple of months and it is terminated by somebody else — then the money would not be funded in there and consequently the Senator's proposition could not stand. It can apply only in so far as this Minister's allocation of remedial works schemes applies this year.

Mr. Ferris

If the Minister, with his advisers, look at the schemes I have mentioned he will see the problem. I want to be fair to the Minister and to the tenants who want to buy their houses.

Let me go back to the anomaly that has arisen regarding people who purchased even as late as 31 December. I know of somebody who had the title deeds to the house formally transferred almost on New Year's Eve. Two days later their relative next door, who did not have such an efficient solicitor, did not have a formal transfer is now paying almost £20 a week less — or will be — for an identical house in the same street. I realise this is a legal problem but I am suggesting the Minister has the power to bring in an amendment on Report Stage which would take this anomaly into account. I am suggesting it only for where there are direct comparisons of houses in a street, all considered to be of the same value, or tenants in the same income bracket paying different amounts for the same kind of house in the same condition and of the same value if all the houses were to be valued now.

Perhaps one way to meet this is to reduce the mortgage period of repayment as an equalisation process. It is only a suggestion. I suggest the Minister has the power to make the necessary amendment and I am begging him to do it. I cannot do more than that.

Mr. McGowan

The amendment reads: "Where a dispute arises between the purchaser and the local authority as to the amount in the open market——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We are on the section, Senator.

Mr. McGowan

I see there cannot be a dispute because the house will never be on the open market. That cannot arise. As the 1988 tenant purchase scheme is in process at the moment with guidelines set down is in the course of being implemented, there is no way one can force the Minister to commit himself here, however sympathetic he may be. I would dearly love to see Senator Ferris's plea to the Minister succeed because I would come up quickly with a number of schemes. However, I cannot see it occurring. I do not want to be negative, but I cannot see the Minister interfering now where clear guidelines have been set down and the scheme is in progress. As I said last night, it is the best scheme ever introduced by a local authority. It is very successful. Those who have houses which were repaired prior to the purchase scheme being announced are very lucky. Where houses were not so repaired the people concerned can also take advantage of the provisions in the scheme where allowances are made. For members of a local authority this is fairly simple arithmetic.

Mr. Fallon

I support the scheme fully and I am encouraging tenants to take part in it as actively as they can. It is one of the finest schemes ever produced by any Government. Perhaps the Minister can give me some guidance on an aspect of the scheme which has been brought to my notice. The scheme provides that local authorities shall put up a 100 per cent loan for the houses and that the houses shall cost the market value less 40 per cent. As the Houses are comparatively new, that is 40 per cent less the £2,000. In this new scheme £13,000 is the net figure.

It has been suggested to me that a building society have offered them a figure of £16,000. The net price at which they should buy is £13,000 but they are being offered £3,000 up front as well. In other words, it is £16,000. Is that type of arrangement legal?

Mr. Flynn

It is extraordinary to be getting into details of one particular housing application and to debate it like this. The short answer is "yes" but I think the Deputy had better not pursue it any further.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

In fairness, this House may differ from elsewhere. Debates are always a little more liberal and wider.

Mr. Flynn

I am not challenging your ruling. That is a matter of what the House does, but my attitude is that the legislation in normal circumstances is here for clearance section by section and amendments are put down. I have no particular objection to going into the details of one application balanced against another but I do not know whether it is the way to get on with the business. All I can say in answer to the question asked is "yes".

Mr. Fitzsimons

I agree totally with Senator Ferris regarding people who have availed of a previous scheme and I ask the Minister to be as sympathetic as possible in such circumstances. In some way it reminds of the parable about the owner of the vineyard who paid workers who came in at the 11th hour as much as those who were in at the start. I suppose in equity they do not lose out due to the fact that this is probably the best tenant purchase scheme of all time. My UDC, Ceanannas Mór, last night unanimously passed a resolution to ask the Minister to look sympathetically at this problem. I ask him to do so.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the section agreed?

Mr. Ferris

Will the Minister come back on Report Stage with some suggestion on this section in line with Senator Fitzsimons' contribution, which I respect and not just because it coincides with my view? It is a view widely held and it applies only to houses of similar status in similar schemes in towns and villages. We do not expect the Minister to make a widespread exemption order for the whole country. That would be unfair. A compliment to his existing scheme is the fact that it has exposed the anomalies of the past two years. We are not blaming the Minister for them but we are asking him, because of his now generous scheme, to address the problems that have arisen, perhaps by way of resolution or order or at least to give a commitment that he will look at them. Let him ignore the comments of Senator McGowan and come back with an amendment on Report Stage. None of us is infallible and we would like to help the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 24 agreed to.

SECTION 25.

Question proposed: "That section 25 stand par of the Bill."

Mr. Ferris

I have had cases of married people applying for a new house and being given a grant and then the marriage was dissolved or there was a legal separation. In one case of a legal separation part of the arrangment was that the man retained the house and for a number of personal reasons the woman with her children had to go elsewhere. She applied for a grant and built a new house. Then she was told she could not be given a grant to build a new house, although it was her first house, because she had been considered a beneficiary of joint ownership under the previous Act. Does this section allow that person in her own right to claim for building a new house for the new family unit, for herself and her children?

Mr. Flynn

In short, this section — and I know it will be welcomed unanimously by the Seanad — amends section 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1979. That was the statutory basis for paying the new house grants. The effect of the amendment is to broaden the category of exceptional circumstances under which the £2,000 first time purchaser's grant can be paid to previous owner-occupiers, and is to include now formal marital breakdowns. I was concerned that there were cases of undue hardship, and considered this was a good thing to do in certain specified circumstances; but because they are specified circumstances, I have to refer Senators to subsection (5) (a) (i) and (ii), and all the provisions indicated in the section for precisely the kind of person who can now be entertained for what often is a second grant.

Mr. O'Shea

Does this section cover a divorce granted in another jurisdiction?

Mr. Flynn

That would be covered under paragraph (i) "... whose marriage has been dissolved or annulled by order of a court of competent jurisdiction".

Mr. O'Shea

Where an annulment is granted by the Church authorities—that is, in an ecclesiastical court — would that be considered a court of competent jurisdiction also under this section?

Mr. Flynn

I do not think so legally. Rather than pressing that case to individual circumstances, let me be clear. Where marital breakdown and deeds of separation are concerned, it can often happen that hardship would be suffered by individual spouses who might have to leave the marital home and would seek to rehouse themselves. In so far as it is possible for the Minister to interpret that as flexibly as possible, he will do so.

Mr. Ferris

Even retrospectively? Two years ago, people who wanted a house were precluded. I know we are legislating from a current date, but some of these houses might not be completed now. We can imagine the dilemma facing a separated wife who is trying to provide a house. Maybe it is unfair to be specific but——

Mr. Flynn

The only difficulty with that is that if I once break a starting date to go back to entertain an applicant retrospectively, I cannot put a deadline on the retrospection then and I could be inviting applications back as far as you wish to go. In those circumstances, I do not think I can concede that point. The quicker this legislation is passed the quicker people will be able to apply under it.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 26 and 27 agreed to.

SECTION 28.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35 may be discussed together. Amendment No. 34 is consequential on amendment No. 33 and amendment No. 35 is an alternative.

Mr. B. Ryan

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 20, lines 20 to 25, to delete all words after "hereby" to the end of the section and substitute "repealed.".

I am a little surprised at your ruling that amendment No. 35 is an alternative to amendment No. 33.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes, amendment No. 35 is an alternative.

Mr. B. Ryan

I would have thought amendment No. 35 was consequential on amendment No. 33. If one attempts to repeal the Vagrancy Act entirely in section 28, then one is obliged to put a similar provision——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Both amendments have the same effect and there can be only one decision.

Mr. B. Ryan

Sorry, I misunderstood the word "alternative", not the first time I made a mistake. As I said on Second Stage, I want to compliment the Minister on the provision in the Bill. Many people have talked about it and the Minister has finally got it done. It was a particularly offensive piece of legislation and we do not know how widely it was used.

There is still a section in the Garda Commissioner's report on the Vagrancy Act in which begging is one specific offence that is referred to, and the rest are compounded under the title "other offences". No amount of effort can elucidate from the Garda authorities the actual breakdown of the "other offences" under the Vagrancy Act. I suggest that the whole offensive Vagrancy Act should be disposed of because it contains references to offences which no longer have any real relevance. There is reference to people displaying their wounds in a way to curry favour. It refers to fortune telling, magic, spells and all sorts of stuff which have a lot more to do with the perception of the early to middle 19th century than with the late 20th century. It also refers to begging.

My own feeling is that begging ought not to be an offence of itself. Begging ought to be an offence only where it gives offence to other people or is done in a threatening fashion. The suggestion that the poor old guy who stands on O'Connell Bridge and holds out his hand is guilty of the same offence as somebody who aggressively accosts pedestrians in, say, Grafton Street, is quite ludicrous, but they are both committing the same offence, which is the offence of begging. Begging is actually an offence for which the only penalty is imprisonment. There is no provision for a fine for begging. That is why I raised the question here, not in the expectation that the amendment will necessarily be agreed.

The Minister has a long-standing commitment to the rights of the travelling people and has extended his concern to the homeless. The application of the vagrancy laws against those who are most disadvantaged in our society ought to be re-examined by the Government, and there is none better than the present Minister to be the driving force in the Government for that re-examination. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment: if possible to accept it but, if not, to pursue the matter within the Government and have this offensive legislation replaced by legislation which reflects the practical problem. There is a practical problem here. People are entitled not to be harassed, offended or threatened by people who beg. To suggest that the fellow who stands with his hand out on Partick's Bridge in Cork or O'Connell Bridge in Dublin is somehow guilty of an offence which could land him in prison is quite ludicrous, in my opinion.

Mr. Ferris

The Minister has already addressed himself to the Vagrancy Act, 1824, as applied to Ireland by section 15 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, and we are amending it by removing what was an obnoxious section — that every person wandering abroad and lodging in any barn or outhouse, or in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or wagon, not having any visible means of subsistence, and not giving a good account of himself or herself. We were wondering why the Minister did not amend the whole Act. One way of finding that out was to put down this amendment. Perhaps the Minister will say why he has kept some sections of this antiquated Act. There must be a very good reason for it and this is an opportunity to hear from the Minister.

Mr. Flynn

I am pleased to include this section in this Housing Bill. I am pleased that the inclusion of it is getting such a warm and unanimous response from the Seanad. The reason we cannot go further at this stage is because only one section of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, applies to Ireland, namely, section 4 and the proposed amendments are defective in that important respect. The Senator said that he did not put it down for that reason so I can understand his point of view. Moreover, it would not be appropriate to provide in a Housing Bill for the repeal of section 4 of the 1824 Act which is a provision concerned with a range of offences many of which are not concerned or connected with homelessness or other issues that are relevant to this legislation.

The limited amendment to section 4 proposed in section 28, however, is related to homelessness and the repeal of section 4 in its entirety could not be contemplated without consideration being given to the alternative provisions that might be required. The Law Reform Commission have recommended that a number of the existing offences should be replaced by new provisons and the Minister for Justice will be considering the question of whether section 4 of the 1824 Act should be retained in the context of his examination of the Law Reform Commission report on vagrancy and he will be making recommendations to the Government on that matter.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am not going to argue with the Minister. At the end of what I have to say, which will be brief, I will be withdrawing the amendment. The Law Reform Commission's report on vagrancy is quite illiberal on the issue of begging. It makes no distinction between different kinds of begging. For example, there are children who beg. It is offensive to all of us that children should have to beg either because of need or because of parental neglect or parental pressure. There are those who stand and beg and cause no offence to anybody other than the visual offence of that sort of poverty or human degradation but that is not their fault. Then there are those who beg in a way which is offensive or threatening to people. There are three different categories involved; one to do with the care of children, one to do with people who just stand and beg and another to do with threatening behaviour. Unfortunately, the Law Reform Commission did not make such a distinction in their report.

I hope that the Minister who has an interest in this area perhaps will convey these sentiments to the Government so that the Government will think about begging in terms of those three categories. It is ludicrous to suggest that the harmless individual who stands or sits and begs and does nobody any harm is somehow in the same category as the people who cause great offence and often frighten others by their manner of begging. I simply put that to the Minister as a suggestion and a request.

Mr. Flynn

The Vagrancy Acts are primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, and it was in response to the many requests I received from organisations who deal with homelessness that I asked for permission to include it in my Bill. That is the reason it is in as it is and I could, obviously, only take it on board in so far as it affected my own legislation on homelessness. The points made by Senator Ryan and others are conceded.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Doyle

I am glad the Minister took this on board in the Bill. It was a recommendation of the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism who recommended that this should be deleted, and I am glad that the Minister has taken that into account.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 29 agreed to.

SECTION 30.

Question proposed: "That section 30 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. B. Ryan

I just want the guidance of the Chair on section 30 which refers to enactments specified in the Schedule which are to be repealed. Do I raise them under section 30 or when we come to the Schedule? I am at your disposal on this and simply want your guidance on the matter.

An Cathaoirleach

On the section, I understand.

Mr. B. Ryan

I am concerned about section 55 of the 1966 Housing Act. Section 55, under the marginal note "Building Programmes" states:

It shall be the duty of a housing authority, within such period after the commencement of this section as may be specified by the Minister and thereafter either at least once in every five years or at such intervals, being less than five years, as the Minister may direct from time to time, to prepare and adopt a programme (in this Act referred to as a building programme) setting out the works which they propose to undertake having regard to the housing needs of their functional area.

(2) A building programme shall be in such form as the Minister may from time to time direct and shall include the proposals of the housing authority, as respects the period to which the programmes relates, for the provision of houses, amenities, buildings and other land together with ancillary works or services to be provided in connection therewith,....

It is a long section and occupies almost two pages in Achtanna an Oireachtas. Could the Minister explain what provisions in this Bill substitute for section 55 of the Housing Act, 1966, or if there are no provisions which substitute for them, what is the reason for repealing this section?

Mr. Flynn

I take it we are talking about section 55 of the 1966 Act?

Mr. B. Ryan

Yes.

Mr. Flynn

That section is effectively being replaced by section 20. To explain it further, it requires housing authorities to have regard in the provision of dwellings to the latest annual assessment made under section 9 of the current legislation.

Mr. B. Ryan

Section 55 has to do with a building programme. Section 20 has to do with having regard to the assessment where it states, "maintain a reasonable balance between the respective needs of classes of persons". That could be a reasonable balance between the respective needs of the classes of persons specified for a static housing stock, or indeed a diminishing housing stock. There is nothing in section 20 which suggests that a housing authority must put together a building programme. That is what I am trying to figure out. Why will there no longer be an obligation on a housing authority to do what they are required to do under section 55 which is, as the Act states, to prepare and adopt a building programme setting out the works which they propose to undertake? Section 20 would mean that they would have to continue to look at how they allocate or propose to allocate their existing housing stock in the light of the assessments they have made. It imposes no requirement on them to develop a building programme. There is a fundamental difference there. I would like the Minister to explain, if possible, why he feels they do not need to do a building programme any more.

Mr. Ferris

When we read section 55 of the Principal Act we considered it a very important section. We were naturally concerned when the Minister indicated that he intended to repeal it. He now refers us to section 20 of the Bill, which is going back a little, which he says includes it. The note in the margin beside section 20 states that its additional provisions relate to sections 56 to 58 of the Principal Act. It says nothing about section 55. Section 20 of the new Bill does not refer to section 55 of the existing Principal Act. That is why we are concerned about its deletion.

Mr. Flynn

Section 55 of the 1966 Act is being repealed. I will briefly give the background to the repeal of section 55 of the 1966 Act. Section 55 imposed a statutory duty on housing authorities to prepare and adopt a programme setting out the works the authority proposed to undertake, having regard to the housing needs of the area. The programme was to include proposals for the building of local authority housing and also provision for assisting owner occupiers. However, the key element to the programme was, of course, the provision of local authority housing, and section 55 could only make sense in a situation where all, or virtually all of the cost, of their housing programmes were met by the housing authorities themselves. In this connection, the normal rate of subsidy for local authority housing envisaged in the 1966 Act was 33? per cent.

As the Exchequer progressively met more of the cost of local authority housing, the preparation by local authorities of building programmes for which the Exchequer would have to foot the bill was seen as an increasingly irrelevant exercise and over the 22 years section 55 fell into disuse. There is no point in retaining on the Statute Book a redundant and irrelevant provision. Section 55 is being replaced by the much more relevant requirements of section 20 (1) which requires housing authorities when providing dwellings to have regard to their latest assessment of needs under section 9 and to seek to maintain a reasonable balance between the needs of the different categories identified in that assessment, including the homeless, elderly persons and disabled persons. This new provision is designed to ensure that the local authority house building programme will in the future more accurately reflect the range and needs of the waiting lists rather than as in the past when we simply concentrated on family-type dwellings.

Mr. B. Ryan

Perhaps the Minister or a Member who is a member of one of the local authorities can clarify this for me. Under what statutory provision will local authorities draw up house building programmes? There must be a reason for repealing that provision. It was a useful provision. I am not aware and I could not be in a position to be aware of to what extent it has fallen into disuse, but what is clear is that in order to have a coherent policy of house building, local authorities must have some plans. They cannot decide now to build houses tomorrow as many things obviously would need to be done, such as the acquisition of sites etc. and these take time and require a plan or a programme. There has been enough political debate in this country over the years on the difference between a plan and a programme and I do not want to get us distracted on that issue, but in the light of the dramatic decrease in funding for local authority housing I am not prepared to be entirely persuaded that the repeal of section 55 is entirely unconnected with the dramatic drop in the provision of funds for local authority housing.

Who is going to decide when or if a local authority are going to plan to build more houses? On the other hand, if one is to assume that there will be virtually no money available for local authority housing for a number of years, then the whole idea of compelling them to plan a building programme, following which they will be told by the Government that they cannot build it and they will not be given the money to do so, seems to be potentially somewhat discomfiting for the Government and, therefore, it might be better to get rid of section 55. However, if the Members who are members of local authorities tell me that local authorities no longer plan building programmes and if they explain to me what they do instead then I would be less suspicious. I am perhaps a bit suspicious by nature at this stage.

Mr. Flynn

I do not think there is any need for the Senator to be that suspicious. The position is quite simple in so far as local authorities are concerned. Under the new provisions in this legislation they will have to carry out assessments in accordance with their priorities as laid down here for the various categories of people who need to be housed in their areas. Having carried out these assessments they will uput together their plans and seek funding from the Minister for the Environment to finalise the necessary arrangements to cater for their housing needs. It would then be a matter for the Minister of the day, from the funds available to him, to respond to those requests from the local authorities. That is the way it is done. There is no great secret about it. That is the normal practice which local authorities engage in and they do it quite efficiently.

Mr. Doyle

I cannot say they are doing it very efficiently at present. The problem is that they are not doing it at all.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 31.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 34 has already been discussed with amendment No. 33.

Amendment No. 34 not moved.

Section 31 agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

An Cathaoirleach

Amendment No. 35 has already being discussed with amendment No. 33.

Amendment No. 35 not moved.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.