I raise this matter because for a considerable time I have been at a loss to understand the thinking of the Government who made a decision on this scheme. I particularly do not understand the recent decision of the Minister for Local Government to suck back into local authorities and the Government a certain proportion of profits made. The situation now is that any purchase scheme must be, in the opinion of the Minister, fair and equitable. In such schemes there are three involvements: the tenants, the local authorities and the Government.
My problem is why, if a scheme has been considered fair and equitable at the beginning, the Minister can decide later to suck back into Government and local authority funds a certain amount of the money made through resales. I could understand this if gross profits were being made through speculation but any profits made in these purchase schemes must be of a very minor nature. My party are opposed to speculation and we would always agree with any Government action to curb it. If there was a possibility of large profits being made here we could readily understand the Government's decision.
The position is however that the Minister has decided that local authority house purchasers are second-class owners with no rights. Why did he discriminate against tenant purchasers in this way? In the private sphere, house owners have certain rights: they can sell their houses and buy houses elsewhere. The Minister's decision in regard to tenant purchase however has created an inferior type of house owner. A tenant becomes the owner of his house the day he completes the necessary documents in a lawyer's office. The position now in regard to such a person is that if he sells the house of which he has become owner within three to five years he must pay back one-third of the profits he makes on that sale.
I do not think the Minister in his private capacity would accept such a situation. Once the tenant purchases his house it becomes a private dwelling. The Minister knows that a house, unlike a car, appreciates instead of depreciating in value. When the scheme was being drawn up the Minister must have been aware that houses purchased under it would increase in value. If he is to be logical, why should not all sales of local authority property attract the same limits? Land also increases in value, so why does not the Minister insist that the local authority get back money from profits made on industrial sites sold by them?
As I have said, tenant purchasers have been put in an inferior position. A person who buys and develops an industrial site owned by a local authority has not to pay back anything although he might make enormous profits. Is it not true therefore that tenant purchasers are being victimised? The Minister acknowledged the case made by Deputy Lemass that many tenant purchasers resell their houses to meet family requirements. The family may have grown and they may need more accommodation, so they sell their houses to buy bigger ones. They may want to sell their houses to buy one elsewhere for employment reasons or to be nearer to schools and so forth. One could name a variety of reasons why a tenant purchaser might wish to move.
The position here is that honest tenant purchasers are being victimised. When this regulation came before us in Dublin Corporation the broad opinion of all parties was that there were unfair aspects in it. I put it to the Minister that he should consider the situation of tenants who have occupied their houses for up to 30 years and in that time have paid substantial amounts in rent to the local authorities. It may be argued that the tenants were provided with a variety of services during that period but such costs have been repaid many times. Tenant purchasers are people struggling for the first time to get a stake in the community through house ownership, and to turn them into second-class owners with inferior rights is very wrong.
Perhaps the Minister will have another look at the situation in the light of experience after a period of six to 12 months. If he feels an injustice has been done then he should rectify the situation. It is a reflection on the people who have purchased from the corporation and who endeavoured to better their accommodation for the reasons I have given already, proximity to employment, size of family or other family circumstances of one type or another.
The question of snob value was raised today. I am not concerned about that. I am concerned about the basic rights of an individual to purchase a house. If a fair and equitable system was operated, then there should be no real adjustment. I do not think the amount of speculation is great, if in fact it takes place at all. People have sold houses; they will sell them again. No matter what type of house a person purchases, he will probably sell for profit. Some people always have that desire to make a profit. Nevertheless, the number of people involved must be very small in relation to the large amount of speculation which takes place through the purchase of local authority property which costs far more than any corporation dwelling.
In view of the representations made from time to time, in view of the concern expressed by local authority members of all parties, I hope the Minister will give us an assurance and say he will have this examined to ascertain whether or not the arguments made are valid. Seeing that it is operative I do not think the Minister would be prepared to dismiss it lightly. But it would be reasonable were he prepared to say at this stage: "I am prepared to examine it to see if there is any reason for reverting to the previous situation and give local authority dwelling purchasers the same rights as people purchasing on the outside market." I know that if I were confronted with this situation with regard to a house in the private sector, certainly I would not accept the stipulation whereby restrictions of that nature would apply.
The Minister must have been aware when this purchase scheme was initiated that at some stage in the future the property would increase in value. I am rather surprised that, at a later stage, he found it necessary to introduce the system he did. If this is accepted many councillors and members of local authorities feel that other restrictions may follow in time, that as credit restrictions are brought into force, some other system will be introduced to deprive local authority householders of the opportunity of selling. Some people who indicated their intention to purchase have now intimated that they are no longer interested because of the restrictions placed on them and they are prepared to rent accommodation. That is an unhealthy situation.
As I have said, I do not agree with speculation of any kind. But if the Minister is to tackle the situation he should do so on the broad basis that everything a local authority says is sold for profit within three or five years, would apply to tenants also. It does not apply in the field of industrial or housing sites or indeed to other property local authorities may dispose of from time to time.
I would ask the Minister to review the situation, taking into consideration the representations of councillors and experience of its operation for six or 12 months, as the case may be. If he feels then it is not justified he should rectify the situation.
