asked the Minister for Local Government what his attitude is in the matter of the application of differential rents by local authorities; whether he has ever recommended that such rents should be imposed upon existing, fixed-rent tenants or upon new tenancies only, and if, in view of existing confusion on the matter, he will state the position of local authorities in so far as power to fix rents, either non-variable or differential, is concerned.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Differential Rents.
10.
The Housing Authorities (Loan Charges Contributions and Management) Regulations, 1967, made by me under sections 44 and 58 and other relevant provisions of the Housing Act, 1966, provide that the payment of housing subsidy will be conditional on lettings of new dwellings being in accordance with a rents scheme approved by me which takes account of the financial circumstances of the household and the standard of accommodation and amenity of the dwellings. Under these provisions, subsidy will not be paid for any new houses let in future at a fixed rent.
Housing authorities can increase the fixed rents of existing houses without my sanction. However, in order to qualify for subsidy, they must have regard in making such increases to the requirement in the regulations to charge income-related rents for all dwellings "as soon as is reasonably practicable".
About half of the housing authorities in the country, including Dublin Corporation and Wicklow Urban Council, have adopted rent schemes which I would regard as complying with the requirements of the regulations. Some thousands of poorer tenants have benefited by rent reductions under these schemes, while no one has been asked to pay, in rent, a disprotionate share of his income. In regard to the remaining authorities, I consider that the decision as to when or how it is "reasonably practicable" to adopt schemes is a matter in the first instance for them, subject to review by me in due course in connection with the subsidy payments.
In this connection, I would stress that housing authorities should bear in mind that the object of current policies is to ensure that no one in need of housing is refused it or is forced to pay a rent beyond what he can reasonably afford; that current subsidies for housing paid by the tax and rate payers, amounting now to more than £6 million a year are distributed equitably so that those most in need qualify for the greatest measure of assistance; and that the rate of increase in overall subsidy payments—estimated at up to more than £1 million a year cumulative, every three years for a programme of 4,000 local authority houses annually—does not absorb resources essential for the construction of new houses for those who so badly need them.
May we take it from what the Minister has said that every proposed renting scheme which is considered by any local authority can be implemented only subject to his sanction and approval?
Every new scheme, but housing authorities may increase fixed rents without reference to me.
But they cannot charge fixed rents for new houses?
That is right.
Will the Minister not agree that as a result of his circular of 30th May last year whereby for the first time surpluses on old housing schemes could be devoted to new schemes, and by his refusal to increase the amount on which he will grant a subsidy, which is now £1,600 and which is far less than the cost of a house, he created a situation, now verified by his statement that they cannot charge fixed rents, in which he is demanding that the rents of old houses be increased?
That is not a correct interpretation of it.
When does the Minister propose to apply these increased rents?
I do not apply any increased rents. This is a matter for the housing authorities.
I am asking a question to which I have not got a reply. After the election, I suppose?
Would the Minister agree that he is not prepared to make a clear statement on rents hoping that the 20th June will come before he is forced to do so? Is it not also true that he has instructed local authorities that they are now entitled to charge rents according to the replacement cost of houses rather than according to the cost of erection, that the economic rent now applies to the replacement cost of houses, with the result that houses which cost £70 to build are being rented at 50/- or £3 per week?
The rent that people are asked to pay would be strictly related to their incomes and their capacity to pay. This is done in order to make it feasible to provide houses for those who are not lucky enough to have houses at present.
Is the Minister trying to ensure that tenants of existing houses and tenants of new houses will pay the rents for those who will come in instead of the State subsidising the rents, as even the British did when they were here?
(Cavan): Is it not a fact that the Minister's circular proposes substantially to increase the rents of houses built many years ago, houses which have no modern amenities, such as bathrooms, water, sewerage and so on? Would the Minister take steps to encourage local authorities to provide such amenities before he talks about increasing the rents?
Very attractive purchase schemes are available to persons whose rents would be increased in accordance with the differential renting system.
If the Minister refuses to increase the amount on which he will pay a subsidy, which is £1,600, when the cost of such houses is £1,000 more, and, at the same time, promises the advantage of surplus rents on old housing schemes to be devoted to new ones, surely he is forcing local authorities into increasing the rents?
I do not know what Deputy Donegan is talking about and I think the Deputy does not know either.
The Minister knows perfectly well what I am talking about and I know as much about this matter as the Minister does.
Is the Minister not aware that the policy of rationalising rents adopted by his predecessor has been availed of by many housing authorities to increase rents out of all proportion? Will the Minister say what redress these tenants have against rents which they regard as unfair and unjust? Is the Minister not aware that housing authorities are availing of this policy of rationalising rents not to confer benefits on the poorer sections of the community but rather to buttress the rates? In all the circumstances, will the Minister not indicate now what redress these tenants have against this unfair imposition? Why does he make this distinction between tenants in Dublin and in the country generally?
There is no distinction.
Indeed there is.
There is good reason for it.
The local elections are coming up.
The Dublin scheme represents my idea of a just renting system, a system, in other words, which enables people who cannot bear the type of fixed rents in existence, which apparently the Labour Party think should be imposed upon them generally, to be housed——
Rubbish.
——and to ensure that those in possession of houses, and able to pay, pay economic rents for them.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling Question No. 11. I will allow no more supplementaries.
(Cavan): Why does the Minister not increase the amount on which he pays subsidy to the value of the house?
(Interruptions.)
Order. Question No. 11.