I presume that I have ten minutes.
Adjournment Debate. - Low Rise Mortgage Scheme.
The Deputy has ten minutes, and five minutes to the Minister.
I want to raise the question of the administration of the Low Rise Mortgage Scheme and its application to single-parent families where there is only one child. According to Dublin Corporation, the scheme applies to persons who, at least one year prior to the date of application, had applied and been accepted by Dublin Corporation at the time as constituting a family of three persons in need of rehousing on the ground that their existing accommodation was dangerous and so on.
Specifically the issue here is that Dublin Corporation have regarded single parent families, with one child, as being the equivalent of three people and, for their housing purposes, have always regarded that to be the case. Recently an application by a single parent, with one child, for a low rise mortgage scheme was turned down by Dublin Corporation. When I challenged their decision I was told that the Department had ruled specifically—in their interpretation of this—and had clearly indicated that while the corporation may give the loan of the capital sum, the Government were not prepared, in the interpretation of the Department, to pay the subsidy.
I want to ascertain from the Minister who is running the Department of the Environment. First of all, in the Fianna Fáil Manifesto it is said that because Fianna Fáil believe that as many families as possible should own their own homes they will make it easier to buy a house and cheaper to keep it. That is the manifesto promise. The White Paper published in January 1978 at paragraph 5.7 said:
It is the Government's policy to help and encourage as many as possible to provide their own homes.
The Green Paper published in June 1978, at paragraph 5.16 said:
The Government's policy is to ensure that as many people as possible are able to purchase their own homes rather than have to rely on rented accommodation. To enable them to do so, there must be an adequate supply of small to medium-sized houses available for purchase at acceptable prices, and there must also be an adequate supply of mortgage finance available in an appropriate form.
The National Economic and Social Council in their comments on the Green Paper, in paragraph 5.15 said:
An important determinant of the demand for housing is the flow of loan finance—especially the flow of building society advances. The flow of advances by building societies is dependent on their net inflow of funds, which in turn is dependent on the flow of deposits.
They go on to say, at paragraph 5.17, that the council agrees with the Green Paper that house purchase should be made easier for some potential house-buyers, in particular for those on relatively low incomes, and then go on to talk about the overall management of funds.
Therefore, in three specific quotations, one before the general election and two afterwards, the indications and policy of this Government are fairly clear. However, its interpretation in the lower regions of the Department does not appear to be so. When this question arose I put a Parliamentary Question to the Minister asking him if he would revise the regulations of the low rise mortgage scheme so that single parents with one child who otherwise meet the requirements of the loan will become eligible to receive the loan. The Minister's reply essentially was that he was reviewing the situation—a favourite refrain of this Government—and that no decision had been made until that review had been completed.
However, it was not the first time the matter had been brought to the Minister's attention. In fact Cherish had written to the Minister a letter, of which I received a copy and of which the Minister was aware I was receiving a copy, drawing his attention to this administrative anomaly. The Minister replied to Cherish on 6 December, acknowledging their letter, but did not give any indication of what was happening.
I think I have established the case fairly clearly. There is a clear Government policy with regard to encouraging home-ownership. The Government have taken a lot of major initiatives in terms of making finance available and so on. A number of families, and specifically one of my constituents, approached me. I advised the woman in question to go for a low rise mortgage loan. She applied to the corporation. Initially the corporation said: "yes, you qualify on all the normal counts", and then she was turned down. I contacted the principal officer in the Housing Department of the corporation. He took the matter up with the Department. The Department quite clearly stated that the Government would not be prepared to entertain this application because it was in conflict with their interpretation of the scheme. As I understand, that is the factual situation. If I have not presented the case clearly, it was my intention to do so and I will certainly accept any corrections.
I want to know what is happening in the Minister's Department. I want to know did he specifically make that decision. I want to know if the Minister had on his desk, at any stage, a memorandum or note seeking advice on interpretation of this scheme when it was raised and pressed by the major local authority housing agency in the country, namely, Dublin Corporation.
First of all, I want to know did the Minister himself see this application and refuse it. If he did I want to know how he can reconcile that decision with Government policy as stated in the three documents from which I have quoted. If he did not see it—and I can readily understand he cannot see just everything—I want to know who the official is in the corporation who obviously flew in the face of Government policy. I want to know at what level that official dealt with the matter and I want to know what senior official, assuming the Minister did not see it, okayed the position because I presume, when a matter is raised by a principal officer in the housing department of the corporation, it merits at least a second opinion in the Custom House. It seems to me the Minister's officials do not know what Government policy is, which is regrettable to say the least, and are, therefore, in a contradictory position in regard to the administration and implementation of the Minister's own declared objectives for which he has a democratic mandate and which he has quite clearly repeated on a number of occasions. I have given three Government quotations and the Minister himself is on record on more than one occasion quite clearly reiterating the Government's policy of encouraging home ownership.
If it has not been simply—I am seeking parliamentary language—a ministerial mistake or some confusion on the Minister's part, if that is not the case, I want to know has the Minister actually refused this himself and, if so, can he indicate to the House the amount involved in the subsidy and any additional cost that would fall on the Department if they picked up this additional interpretation of the low rise mortgage scheme with specific reference to single parent families.
Finally, I want to say something about the difficulties of single parent families in trying to get houses in a city like Dublin. First of all, because of the nature of our society, single parent families tend invariably to be female parents with one child or children. If a man is left without a partner and has a child people rush to his aid because he presumably cannot cope with a child or children. If a woman is left in similar circumstances the same response is not there and frequently she is left on her own. Her difficulty in getting a mortgage, in getting guarantees for loans or overdraft, in getting a lease signed are innumerably greater because she is female. The difficulties are there. Cases have been well documented and Fianna Fáil Deputies who know their constituencies know that that is the situation. Yet, here we have a situation where either the Minister, who is ultimately responsible, directly intervened and said "No" in this specific instance when the matter was raised or someone in his Department said "No" and, if somebody in his Department said "No", I want to know what will happen to him and in what way is the policy going to be changed.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister, having brought this matter to light, if he would, independently of any review of the low rise mortgage scheme referred to in his reply to me on 7 December, forthwith make it known to every local authority that single parent families with one child will be eligible under the general terms of the low rise mortgage scheme.
This motion refers to the maladministration of my Department. There is no maladministration.
On a point of correction, I did not use "maladministration". I raised the point of administration.
There is no conflict here between Government policy and the Department of the Environment or myself. With regard to the point as to who decided this, I decided, not the officials. It is very important to realise that this scheme was introduced in November 1976 by the then National Coalition Government and the local authorities are responsible for the administration of the scheme.
The three categories are: (a) an existing tenant or tenant-purchaser of a local authority house who surrenders his dwelling to the local authority on receipt of a loan to purchase a private house; (b) families of three or more persons who, at least one year prior to seeking the loan, had applied to and been accepted by a local authority at that time as being in need of rehousing on the grounds that their existing accommodation was dangerous, structurally unfit or seriously overcrowded and that their financial circumstances were such that they could not reasonably be expected to provide proper accommodation from their own resources, and who are still in need of rehousing; and (c) a person who has been allocated tenancy of a new local authority house and who wishes to purchase that house.
These were the conditions laid down by the National Coalition Government, not by my predecessor. This went to Government and the Government made this decision. The Government of the law laid down these three conditions for a person who would have to qualify. A loan under the scheme can be 98 per cent of the cost of the house, or £9,000 maximum, whichever is the lower, and as a measure of the importance which I and the Government attach to this scheme a few months ago we raised the amount which would be available from £7,500 to £9,000.
With regard to the specific category to which the Deputy referred, I am aware of the category and the particular case. It is a matter of concern to me that this is the position but under present conditions that person cannot qualify. As I told the Deputy in my reply to a written question, the whole scheme is being reviewed at the moment and, whether that is a favourite word or one the Deputy does not like with regard to the operation of Departments, that is the position. We are in touch with local authorities in order to get a proper report as to how the scheme is functioning before we make the desired or necessary changes and I am sure the Deputy cannot quibble with that. He asked why I took so long to have a look at the scheme. There is a very simple answer to that. This scheme, worthy as it is, and it is a very good scheme and a very attractive scheme, did not get off the ground last year and it did not get off the ground until we were well into this year. Last year the total amount necessary for the scheme in a full year was £1,500,000.
This year it will exceed £6 million. I have made the necessary cash available outside of the estimated amount at the beginning of the year.
Immediately the returns come back from the local authorities, with particular emphasis on Dublin Corporation, the main authority involved in this scheme, changes will be made but those changes will have to be made by the Government since the scheme was introduced by the Government and the conditions were laid down by the Government. It is my intention to make any changes necessary with all possible haste when I have all the data essential in order to approach the Government.
As an indication of how popular the scheme has become, this year there were 645 applicants in category (a), 509 in category (b), the category referred to by the Deputy, and 549 in category (c). They were the figures on 30 September. An urgent review is, therefore, in everybody's interest. There is no delay on my part with regard to this review and changing the conditions. I repeat no official in my Department is in any way in conflict with Government policy with regard to housing.
How much is the Minister actually saving by excluding this particular category?
I have not got the figures. I have not got the breakdown but I will get the information for the Deputy.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.00 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 14 December 1978.