(Cavan-Monaghan): According to this section “house” includes: “any outoffice, yard, garden or other land appurtenant thereto or usually enjoyed therewith and any building or part of a building used or suitable for use as a dwelling and `housing' shall be construed accordingly”. I should like to inquire whether outoffice, yard or garden standing alone will be considered within that definition of “house”. It appears to me that it would. If that is so will the Minister tell the House why he wants to include the words “any outoffice, yard, garden or other lands appurtenant thereto or usually enjoyed therewith”?
Death of Member. - Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1979: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
A reconstruction grant for a house is usually given for work done within the area of the house.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I can understand an improvement grant being given for improvements carried out to the dwelling-house but my difficulty is that “house” is stated to include “any outoffice, yard, garden or other land appurtenant thereto or usually enjoyed therewith”. That subsection goes on to state that: “house” includes any building or part of a building used or suitable for use as a dwelling and “housing” shall be construed accordingly. I could understand the second part of the definition if the first portion was omitted but, as I see it, a derelict outoffice and a bit of a garden with it falls within the definition of a “house” under the Bill. Does the Minister agree with that proposition and if so will he tell us why he is anxious to include an outoffice on its own within the definition of “house”?
The previous definition of "house" included "any outoffice, yard, garden or other land appurtenant thereto or usually enjoyed therewith and, except as aforesaid and in section 15, 16 and 17 of this Act, includes any part of a building used or suitable for use as a dwelling and "housing" shall be construed accordingly". The purpose of the change is to make it possible to give grants for chalets on islands, for instance.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That is a laudable thing to have in mind and provide for, but in my view, if the definition simply stated that “house” includes any building or part of a building used or suitable for use as a dwelling and “housing” shall be construed accordingly, that would be wide enough to cover the intentions of the Minister. It baffles me why the Minister is seeking to include in the definition section any outoffice, yard, garden or other land appurtenant thereto or usually enjoyed therewith. Why does the Minister want to include that? I could understand it if the Minister turned the definition around to read: “a house shall include any building or part of a building used or suitable for use as a dwelling and any outoffice, yard, garden or other land appurtenant thereto and usually enjoyed therewith”. The definition gets a hold of the outoffice, yard or garden first and regards them as a “house” and goes on to state that any building used or capable of being used as a dwelling shall be described as a “house”.
This is another example of reaching back into a former Act and lifting a definition. The fact that a definition was used in a previous Act does not mean that it is correct. It may have been used when, perhaps, there was a less vigilant Opposition than at present. I deplore the practice of lifting a definition from another Act and plonking it into this Bill. I do not know why the Minister is anxious to regard a farmyard situate a mile from a dwelling-house as a "house" in this Bill. That is what he is doing. Cattle rearing sheds or piggeries situate miles from a farmer's dwelling-house, whether suitable for conversion to dwellinghouses or not, will still be defined as a "house" within the meaning of the section.
A piggery a distance from the house would not be "appurtenant thereto". This definition has been in existence for 13 years and has not been found wanting or defective. It applies to all Housing Acts. The slight amendment in the definition is being made to make it possible to give grants for chalets on some islands.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am not objecting to giving grants for chalets on islands and I am not introducing this as evidence that I intend prolonging the debate on Committee Stage. The definition of “house” is broken into two sections. It includes
any outoffice, yard, garden or other land appurtenant thereto or usually enjoyed therewith.
There is not a word in that about a dwelling or about it being suitable for a dwelling or being near a dwelling. The definition goes on:
and any building or part of a building used or suitable for use as a dwelling and "housing" shall be construed accordingly;
The words that appear after "and" make sense and would cover anything that one would want to convert into a house or a chalet, but that has nothing to do with the words before "and". The words before "and" seek to include every outhouse, office, dwelling, yard, piggery or cattle house in the definition of "dwelling". I know that the Minister will lean heavily on the fact that this definition has been in operation for 13 years and the fact that it appeared in the Housing Act, 1966 and has done no harm. We should not ask ourselves whether it appeared in the Housing Act of 1966, but whether it makes sense, and when we are putting through a Bill we should not perpetuate nonsense but should try to improve on what was in previous Bills.
The word "outoffices" seems to be the kernel of the Deputy's objection.
(Cavan-Monaghan): How would a yard be a house?
One must have a yard if one has buildings.
(Cavan-Monaghan): This relates to a yard only.
It is included. House includes any outoffice, yard, garden and so on. On Report Stage I will look at the word "outoffices" with a view to excluding it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I would be glad if the Minister would do that and I would suggest that he turn the definition around to say that it includes any building or part of a building used or suitable for use as a dwelling, and any yard, garden or other land appurtenant thereto or usually enjoyed therewith. It would make sense then.
I will look at that on Report Stage.
On the interpretation of "house", would an application for the provision of a water supply to a yard qualify for a grant? Would the definition of "house", as indicated here enable a person to get a grant or would the regulations tidy up specifically? Is it a question of the Act specifying, in terms of definition, the whole thing, and the regulations closing any loopholes?
The regulation would not permit a grant for water other than into the house but there are agricultural grants to cover that.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is the definition of “improvement works” wide enough to cover the carrying out of insulation work such as double glazing to the house, without any other reconstruction? I understand there was some doubt about double glazing. Will the Minister confirm also that the definition is wide enough to cover the conversion of a central heating system from oil to solid fuel?
In view of the numerous inquiries in my Department about the various types of work comprising the installation of solid fuel heating systems which would qualify for improvement grants, I will make a statement within the next day or two to clarify the position.
The Minister may be able to make a statement tonight, if I get the Adjournment.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is a little unusual for the Minister to tell us that he will make a statement clarifying the position within the next day or two. It would be inappropriate for the Minister to make such a statement anywhere other than in this House. As the House is at present discussing the Housing (Miscellaneous) Provisions Bill, 1979, the Minister could not have a more appropriate platform from which to make such a statement. At the same time, the Members of the House would have an opportunity of questioning the Minister on it and of discussing it. I trust that the Minister will consider this House as congenial as any place he might have in mind to make this statement and that he will make it here.
Is section I agreed?
I want clarification on——
Clarification on statements would not arise on the definition section.
It will depend on the progress of the Bill. If it is not possible while the Bill is before the House, it will be possible in the Seanad in the next day or two.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Are these grants available at the moment?
I will make a statement clarifying the whole position in the next day or two.
It does not arise on this section.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It does arise.
It does not. We are on definitions here and nothing else arises.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The best possible way to clarify this is to write it into the definition section. I am not clear whether the Minister has any doubt about the matter. If there is a doubt we will have to put down an amendment here to include insulation such as double glazing and the conversion of a central heating system from oil to solid fuel. That would be far more effective than any nice talk that the Minister will have at a social function. Future judges are not likely to take notice of something the Minister said at a dinner or even at a more formal political gathering. If it is written into the definition section, the Minister, his Department, his successors and the judiciary would be bound by it. I would like it cleared up on this section and not afterwards.
My question relates to what Deputy Fitzpatrick raised, so perhaps the Minister could reply to both of us together. Having regard to the next 20 years in relation to the general question of cost and supply of energy, surely the Minister in respect of the definition of a house should recognise that energy conservation is included in the phrase "improving a dwelling", and he should be free to indicate to the House that improvement includes improving the standards of energy conservation irrespective of what difficulties may arise in the administration of the grants scheme.
The definition will cover the grants we are referring to. When I say that I will clarify the position in relation to these grants I am referring to the actual details that the definition will cover.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Would the Minister not think that it would be a good public relations exercise in energy conservation to write in that improvement works in relation to a house include—the provision and installation of private water or private sewerage facilities is ancient—energy conservation? Would the Minister not consider it a good public relations exercise to write in energy conservation into this definition in this year when the conservation of energy is so important? In all seriousness I suggest that the Minister write those few words in on Report Stage.
It is unnecessary to do so. Why should we single out those areas the Deputy has mentioned? It is unnecessary because they will be covered by the definition of improvement grants, just as many other types of improvements are covered already.
(Cavan-Monaghan): If the Minister is going to do a bit of steamrolling, surely it is every bit as necessary as private water supply. The Minister might equally exclude private water supply and private sewerage. Surely to goodness they would be regarded as reasonably necessary for the purpose of rendering the house more suitable for human habitation. They are beyond doubt. Water and sewerage are there and are built into our ordinary way of life. But, as of now, there might be some doubt as to energy conservation. I would respectfully urge on the Minister that the spelling out of energy conservation is more necessary than the writing in of water and sewerage which ordinary civilised living demands. On the other hand, energy conservation is something that could be done without in normal circumstances but is necessary because of the energy conditions obtaining throughout the world at present. The Minister would not be losing any face. This is probably a definition taken from some Act when oil was for nothing and coal could be had for the taking. But the whole situation has changed.
When oil was for nothing and Arabs appeared as Kismet.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I would be fearful that this definition was taken from some previous Act also and that the draftsmen did not take into account the present energy situation. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to write in “energy conservation”.
Grants dealing with water and sewerage were until now payable under the Sanitary Services Act, 1962. They are now being incorporated in this Bill and that is why they are specifically mentioned. I can assure the Deputy, who mentioned the energy situation, that the definition as it stands will cover the type of work about which the Deputy has been speaking, that is, back boilers, insulation and so on.
This is really non-contentious. We are speaking on section 1 of what is going to be a long Bill. May I suggest to the Minister that until he goes out of office in two-and-a-half years' time he will attend a number of housing conferences at which the whole question of energy conservation will arise. Furthermore, it would be useful to be able to state that in the definition of a house the Irish Government had seen fit to include, as constituting improvement, the question of energy conservation. It might be merely a public relations exercise but it would be an advance.
I should like to see incorporated in this section also the question of grants for the rewiring of houses, an area which has been neglected in the past with resultant serious fires. While certain sections do qualify for a grant, there is not a grant, as such, for rewiring a house. Our housing stock is getting older, costs are rising and people are deferring carrying out such work, something I regard as very serious. If it were included it would act as a protection and leave people feeling happier, because we have seen the tragic consequences of such defective installations. As we are engaged in rewriting this Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill it is important that we look at the whole area, and this one I have mentioned warrants considerable scrutiny.
The definition covers these matters in relation to back boilers and conservation. Therefore, it is unnecessary to include them. However, in an endeavour to satisfy people I shall take a look at it between now and Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2
Amendment No. 1 in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 31 and 32 are related and may be discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, lines 6 and 7, to delete subsection (4).
These are technical amendments. I propose to insert before section 22 a new section to validate the payment of grants or subsidies made by the Minister, or by a housing authority, from the date of commencement of the grant scheme or subsidy arrangement. The dates of commencement of the grant scheme and subsidy arrangements are contained in the table to the proposed new section. The deletion of section 2, subsection (4); section 4, subsection (5); section 5, subsection (4); section 6, subsection (9); section 7, subsection (4); section 10, subsection (7); section 11, subsection (4); and section 12, subsection (2) are consequential on the insertion of this new validating section. The insertion of the proposed new section will obviate the necessity to have regulations as may be made under the relevant sections of the Bill actually made on the day the Bill becomes law.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I think I am correct in saying that the Bill as a whole will come into operation on its becoming law after signature by the President, or on such other day or days as the Minister may, by ministerial order, bring it into operation. Apparently for some years past the Minister, his predecessors and his Department were operating in anticipation of this Bill. As the Bill was originally drafted each section which dealt with grants or benefits conferred over the years was stated to come into operation as from the date on which those grants and so on commenced.
I accept the amendment. I agree it is a much clearer and less cumbersome way of validating these grants and so on, these acts done by the Minister and his predecessors, than the system of doing so by nine amendments, as was previousy intended. It makes it absolutely clear now that the Bill is for future use, as from the date on which it comes into operation and anything included in it is intended for use in the future and not retrospectively.
The Minister's amendment is a good one and tidies up the Bill considerably. It puts beyond doubt that the Bill, as now introduced, is the Minister's thinking on housing subsidies and grants in general, that it is intended for future use and, as far as the Minister is concerned, for the foreseeable future.
There are actually ten amendments altogether. Amendment No. 32 provides that the different provisions of the Bill can be brought into operation on such day or days as may be fixed by order of the Minister. It is largely consequential on amendment No. 31. Certain sections can be brought into operation on the passing of the Act. It is intended that other sections which require regulations to be made will be brought into operation as soon as possible thereafter.
The amendment is much clearer because it locates in one part of the Bill validations for all the various grants. It is non-contentious and the Labour Party accept it.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
There are a few matters I should like to refer to. The section states:
The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service and subject to such regulations as may be made by the Minister for the purposes of this section, authorise designated housing authorities to discharge on his behalf the function of paying grants of one or more, as may be specified in the regulations, of the kinds of grants that the Minister is empowered to pay under the Principal Act or this Act.
The Minister's Department have been paying the grants in a lot of areas. It is right that one body should be responsible, but that body should be the local authority. The most competent body to deal with housing grants and the payment of those grants are the local authority. With regard to grants for Dublin city, the delay of an inspector from the Department going out to inspect the premises is inordinate. When one is dealing with a local authority with regard to the purchase of a house an inspector is out within a week to inspect the house. I believe that local authorities are best able to deal with housing grants. The Minister's Department would be better off if they delegated this role to the local authorities.
I know of a case of a man waiting for five months for an inspector from the Minister's Department to inspect his house for a repairs grant. This man is operating on a bridging loan because the corporation will not pass his loan until the necessary improvements are carried out. If this was under the local authority that inspection would be carried out within a week or ten days. When we are talking about tidying up legislation and making it more effective, we should give responsibility to local authorities.
We are always talking about devolution and giving more responsibility to other bodies. This is not happening in relation to this Bill. The Minister is not giving responsibility to local authorities. If he did it would be in the best interest of the people looking for grants.
It will be possible in the future to have more devolution under this Bill. On the introduction of the £1,000 grant payable by my Department and the £600 improvement there was such an upsurge of applications that it would not have been possible for individual local authorities to cope with it initially. It is better to wait until we see how it works. It is possible in the future to have more devolution of this under this Bill.
We should now make the decision to devolve totally to the local authorities. When the Minister says there was an upsurge in the grants I believe that local authorities are equipped to deal with those. They are more capable of dealing with any upsurges than some of the Government Departments. This is why I favour devolution. I would like to see it inserted into this Bill that it is the local authorities who control all this. If that is not done we are getting back to the situation where we are not sure if the Department of the Environment are doing it or the local authority are doing it. I urge the Minister to look at this again.
Our experience of local authorities is that they respond if upsurges occur. With regard to the grants for improvements there is a very long delay at times and this should not happen. It stops people from getting on with the work because inspectors will not inspect the work. The Minister should be able to say that it is his intention to do something about this next year if he will not agree to do it now.
I can readily understand the reluctance of the Minister and the Government generally to cede to local housing authorities the right of making housing grants and determining the level of the grants since they come from the Central Fund. This section refers only to the administration of housing grants and obviously retains to central government the right to determine the grant.
I am baffled by the Minister's comment that there was an upsurge of response to the £1,000 grant and that local authorities would not have been able to cope. My experience of this matter is that the people who were unable to cope were the centralised Government Departments. No centralised administration could readily cope with this matter. We have also had very bad experience in the last three or four years in relation to direct communication. There have been breakdowns in communications of one kind or another, whether by industrial go-slows, telecommunications disputes or technical faults. The Minister must know from the backbenchers in his party how difficult it is to get through to various Government Departments. I am not being specific here about the Custom House or O'Connell Bridge House. I am talking about the overload we are putting on central Government because central Government feel they must administer this kind of system.
Surely we could recognise the principle of devolution by giving to local authorities the right to administer those grants while the Minister retains for himself and for future Ministers sufficient discretion in relation to how that administration is to take place and how the allocation of money is to take place? People who live in parts of the country where they are not on STD have great difficulty in trying to chase up a grant when it is coming from any Government Department.
I do not know what the Minister's thinking is in relation to the devolution of power to local authorities. With regard to housing the local authorities have the staff, the experience and the commitment of the local public representatives to do the job properly. If the local authorities were given power in relation to the matters in this section it would reinforce their role in the local government system. I would also like the Minister to specify why the Minister for the Public Service is being included in this section and why his permission is being sought.
The theme of this Bill is flexibility. It is the first time that the principle of devolution has been recognised in this way in any Bill. In this instance there is provision for more devolution in the future and that may be the best thing to do as time goes on. As I said, it is better to see what will be the experience. Admittedly there have been delays but I would point out the following facts: the number of reconstruction and improvement grants approved in 1976 was 13,000, in 1977 it was 11,000 and in 1978 the applications numbered 38,530. In order to counteract the delays referred to by Deputy O'Brien, more staff have been recruited and this is where the Department of the Public Service become involved.
That was a sizeable upsurge, whether at local authority level or in the Department of the Environment. I have no doubt that problems were created for local authorities. This is the first time recognition has been given to devolution in those matters and the Bill makes it possible and feasible to do this in the future.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am glad to see this section written into the Bill but I should like more evidence that it will be used by the Minister. The Minister said that this is the first time that devolution of this nature has ever been recognised in a Bill. He was careful to use that expression. If he had said anything else he would not have been correct because it was his predecessor who introduced this system of devolution as a pilot system in Meath, and I think in Longford and Westmeath also, as far back as 1973. That is why subsection (4) deeming it to have come into operation on 14 May 1973 was first written into the Bill. It is now being removed from it and the retrospective portion is being validated by the Minister's amendment.
I am told that the pilot system worked very well in Meath. It is too bad the Minister saw fit to depart from it. I am not surprised it worked well because it cut out a lot of duplication. There is a crazy situation obtaining at the moment. When a person applies to a local authority for an SDA loan and then to the Department for a grant his house is inspected on at least two occasions, perhaps three, first by a local engineer in respect of the SDA loan and then by someone from Dublin or some other county for the purpose of the grant application. Thus, there is a duplication of inspection and of expenses and this should be cut out.
I think the Minister backed a loser when he said that due to the upsurge of applications in respect of the £1,000 grant it was necessary to cut out devolution in order to speed up matters. Having regard to the conditions necessary to qualify for the £1,000 grant, the Minister could not have thought of a better way of slowing up the scheme than to cut out the devolution initiated by his predecessor. One of the qualifications for the £1,000 grant was that a person had not built a house before and that had to be checked. Somebody based in the Custom House in Dublin would not be in a position to know whether a person in Belmullet was building a house for the first time. The best method of checking an application like that would be through the rate collector in Belmullet, a person who knows the locality and who could interview the applicant if necessary. In many cases it would not be necessary because the rate collector would know the local conditions and could clear the application immediately. Therefore, the Minister's argument that the reason for cutting out devolution was to speed up grants is ludicrous.
Much lip service is given to the principle of decentralisation. I understand that the Government have made a public statement that they intend to decentralise Government Departments over the next few years and in that way conserve energy by making it unnecessary for buses to travel in their hundreds to Dublin every weekend to take civil servants home. Here is an excellent way of showing our good faith in regard to decentralisation by continuing the practice started by the Minister's predecessor in entrusting the administration of these grants to local authorities.
There is an excellent argument to be made for this. In every county council there is a housing administrative unit and I venture to suggest that in some counties they are not working to full capacity. These units have been administering supplementary housing grants for a number of years and they administer housing loans all the time. The necessary machinery and skills are available. Each county has its own housing engineers. It is absurd and unjustifiable that this work should be duplicated. In many counties the staff are not working to full capacity and even where they are it would not be difficult to supplement the staff to bring it up to necessary strength to do more work.
While that is happening, down the country people are being left without grants for unnecessarily long periods. This section in the Custom House is clogged with work. They have far too much to do. The expense of administering housing in general is doubled in many cases by two salaries having to be paid instead of one and by reason of travelling expenses having to be paid from Dublin to Glangevlin, for instance, a distance of about 125 miles instead of having to pay these expenses only in respect of journeys from Cavan to Glangevlin, a distance of about 40 miles. That is the type of absurd situation that exists. I am glad, therefore, that the Minister is recognising the wisdom of his predecessor in introducing this pilot operation and I hope sincerely that he will give the House an assurance that this move is not merely a cosmetic exercise but that it will be put to work in the immediate future as an earnest of the Government's belief in decentralisation and also for the convenience of house builders and of applicants for grants and for the purpose of speeding up the housing drive.
I shall be as brief as possible since I do not think anybody here has any interest in delaying the processing of this legislation.
I welcome the principle of devolution. It is a concept which, as the House knows, this party advocate strongly, but I do not understand the reason for the provision in subsection (1) for the Minister to act with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister of the Public Service. This is a section dealing with the devolution of the administration of housing grants. While the Minister has seen fit to assume powers to devolve to local housing authorities certain administrative matters he has tied his own hands by providing that first he must seek the consent of two separate Government Ministers.
The Department of the Public Service are not the most successful personnel section in the country at the moment and, frankly, I shudder to think that a scheme for the devolution of administration—and we are talking here only about administration—could be held up by a delay in obtaining the consent of the Minister for the Public Service. I fail to see the relevance or the need for this clause. I fear that for reasons unrelated totally to the provisions of this Bill or to the objectives that a Minister may consider desirable in terms of housing grants, the Department of the Public Service could issue some kind of bar, withholding consent and invoking some section of the 1979 Act to uphold their position. What is involved here is a dangerous ceding of power to central government in the name of devolution in respect of local housing administration.
Any devolution or any extension of devolution must involve necessarily extra staff in the public service, whether at urban or county council level and that situation, obviously, must involve the Minister for the Public Service. It should be remembered, too, that because of the derating of domestic dwellings, 60 per cent or even a little more comes from the Exchequer. However, the point is that devolution involves additional staff in the public service. It is possible that, as Deputy Fitzpatrick suggests, there are in some areas people who are under-worked but in the event of additional staff being required the Minister for the Public Service would have to be consulted.
Deputy Fitzpatrick exaggerated a good deal the question of duplication. It is not often that there is a situation in which separate inspections are carried out by an inspector from my Department in respect of an SDA loan and the £1,000 grant. When one considers that of the 19,300 houses built in the private sector last year only 3,379 carried SDA loans, it will be realised that the element of duplication was not very marked. In addition, only a small percentage of reconstructions attract grants at local level under the SDA scheme.
The question of decentralisation was mentioned also. This is a concept with which there seems to be general agreement. The only question is that of timing. I am in favour of decentralisation, too, and as proof of my intent in this respect, part of my Department is in the process of decentralisation, the first time that any part of this Department has been decentralised.
(Cavan-Monaghan): To where is it being moved?
To Shannon town in County Clare.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I thought it might have been to Lisdoonvarna.
Was that not a surprising choice?
It is a new town.
The matter hardly arises on this section.
There is much talk of devolution and of the cost involved in this process but up to a short time ago these grants were administered by local authorities. In other words, the machinery for this work is in existence but the mistake was in bringing this work back to the Department. The time to have made the decision was when the decision was being made to give the responsibility to one body or another. That was when the responsibility should have gone to the local authorities. If the people in the Department, instead of trying to grab all the power for themselves, had realised the work that local authorities were doing in the area of housing, the situation might have been otherwise. We are not talking of something new.
If people wish to develop their houses they should be able to deal with their housing authority, who are the local authority. Even at this stage the Minister is dragging his feet on this matter. Would he be prepared to reconsider the situation especially now that the Department of the Public Service seem to dominate everything and to be watching prudently every penny that is spent, whereas if they were really prudent they would refer the matter back to the local authorities? I am sure that some local authorities have slack that could be taken up.
This brings in subsection (2).
The fact that there are so few inspections in respect of SDA loans is a total indictment of the £1,000 grant because if one considers the situation of only 3,300 people applying for SDA loans when 19,000 houses were built it will be realised that those who need assistance most in regard to housing are not getting that assistance.
The building societies are giving loans of the order of 70 per cent.
We should keep to the section.
I am only raising the matter because it was referred to by the Minister.
Nevertheless it is not quite relevant.
The building societies will not advance money to someone on an income of £3,500 and it is in respect of people on that level of income that the SDA loans come into operation. These are the people who need assistance most. I am glad the Minister has exposed the situation. However, he is unwise in persisting with this type of ad hoc devolution because there will still remain in the hands of the Department the question of who might or might not be in a designated area.
We are talking about the eradication of duplication. The only way to eradicate duplication is to give the powers to local authorities. The Minister and the Department will still decide the conditions of grants and the amounts paid. All we are asking is that local authorities be allowed to administer this type of activity. The public will benefit if the Minister takes his courage in his hands and gives the administration of housing grants to local authorities. As the Minister would not be imposing a burden on local authorities, I appeal to him to reconsider the matter.
I have heard the Minister's response to the points made by me. I should like to give notice that I propose to introduce on Report Stage an amendment which would have the effect of deleting the first clause and adding in subsection (2): "Before making regulations under this section the Minister shall consult with the Minister for Finance, the Minister for the Public Service and the housing authority so affected.", the idea being that the Minister should talk to other Government Departments in relation to any regulations which he may draw up but that he should not give them the power to withhold consent.
Deputies Quinn and O'Brien raised the matter of consultation with the Minister for the Public Service. Consultation with the Minister for the Public Service would take place only after devolution.
Provided he gave his consent. He can say that it was totally unrelated to the administration of the Housing Act. That is the essence of the objection.
Consultation would take place only on the principle, not on individual cases. Deputy O'Brien referred to devolution in Dublin and Cork cities. This would lead to duplication all along the line. Dublin Corporation prepared grant applications only. They were approved by my Department and there was an inspection at corporation level and an inspection at Departmental level, so there was duplication under that scheme. With regard to the devolution that took place in Longford, Westmeath and Meath, there was not the same kind of duplication because the local authorities were responsible for all aspects of the matter. No one is disputing the principle of devolution.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I referred to the abuses of duplicating work by having inspections by two engineers, one for loans and one for grants. In reply, the Minister stated that only 3,779 persons availed of SDA loans in 1978. I thought that that was a sizeable number. I also thought that the Minister thought it was a sizeable number because the last time I heard him talking about it he was boasting how useful the SDA loan was and how many people were still using it. I agree that the number is not as high as it should be. The reason for this is that the price of a house has doubled from about £11,000 on 1 January 1977 to about £22,000 at the present time. Surely the Minister is not basing his argument against duplication on his intention to operate the small dwellings loans with the same ceilings for incomes and loans as at present.
Before we dispose of this Bill I am very hopeful that we will have an announcement from the Minister that he intends to double the grants and income ceilings because it will take that to restore any sort of a relationship between the loans and the cost of building a house. In that realistic state of affairs, the number of 3,779 will be doubled and the Minister will have the duplication that I am talking about. Even if there are only 3,779 applications, each of those houses will be inspected by a county council engineer for the purpose of the loan and by an environmental engineer, residing either in Dublin or in some other county, for the purpose of the grant. That situation cannot be justified. I join with the other Deputies in saying that if our discussion on this section persuades the Minister to work the system introduced by Deputy Tully our time will not have been wasted. If the public knew about this wilful waste the Minister would have no option but to operate without delay the section which he is now writing into the Bill.
Surely the more inspections that are carried out the better will be the standards?
(Cavan-Monaghan): That is not necessarily so. Has the Deputy ever seen something turned down by one engineer that has been passed by another engineer?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, subsection (3), line 18, to delete "making" and to substitute "approval".
This amendment will approve the drafting of section 3 (3). It will ensure that the Minister's power to impose conditions relating to a grant towards the administrative and general expenses of an appropriate body is limited to the time the grant is approved by him. It would be unreasonable for the Minister to impose conditions subsequent to the approval stage.
I am not sufficiently versed in legal terminology to understand the difference between "making" and "approval" but I accept that it is an improvement.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
There are three sections to this now, assuming that section 4 has been cleared in the general amendment that we took first of all.
I am worried about the interpretation of subsection (2). This applies to a body which represents or promotes the formation of co-operative groups of voluntary associations which have as an object the provision of houses. My concern is that we seem to lack a sufficiently adequate definition of what a voluntary housing association or group might constitute. I am not raising this as a contentious matter but for the purposes of clarification. I would like everyone to be clear how groups which may be formed as a result of this might interpret it. I would hope that the Minister would make it quite clear that the body, which is the first and indeed the only one that I am aware of that has received a grant from the Government, would be given, among other things, the task of preliminary vetting or giving the stamp of approval to voluntary housing associations. I am referring to NABCo. We need some clarification in this area because my experience of voluntary housing associations is that they get quite chaotic and that the failure of one housing association is the albatross around the neck of half a dozen subsequent associations which try to get off the ground. So perhaps the Minister might clarify that.
The second point I want to make is in relation to the grant that was actually paid by the Government. It is really a very small amount of money. I am wondering what sort of performance the Government and the Minister for the Environment expect to get for a grant of £6,000 to NABCo. I know it is the first time that this grant has been given and it has been a regretfully long time in coming but really, in this day and age, to talk of a housing target of 25,000 houses per year and then to give a grant to the voluntary housing section of £6,000, which is about one third of the cost of an average house, is a bit unrealistic. I wonder if the whole thing is not in the nature of a token grant to an association for which I have a lot of respect and considerable knowledge and experience of over many years.
What commitment is there next year to the continuation of this grant? What kind of guarantees do NABCo have if they start a programme that they will be able to sustain it over a number of years? The Minister is tied to a year-to-year budgetary system but in the context of the money we are talking about he should be quite capable of clearly indicating to NABCo, or indeed any other associations who might subsequently qualify for a grant, that they will be guaranteed funds of a minimum of so much over a certain period of time so that that organisation can make progress. The Minister, in his speech at the opening of the Liberties co-operative recently, went a long way towards accepting and agreeing with the support for the third arm of the housing movement, the voluntary housing movement. That was a positive advance and I welcome his speech at that opening because, for the first time, it gave official recognition to the positive contribution that can be made by the voluntary housing movement.
I am just wondering now if the Minister really thinks that £6,000 is enough and if he has any plans for increasing it. Have there been guarantees given to NABCo to ensure them some sort of continuity in January 1980?
(Cavan-Monaghan): Deputy Quinn has dealt with some of the matters I wanted to deal with and I will be glad if the Minister will tell us how many of these housing co-operatives there are in the country. What is the extent of the work they are doing? What type of grant has been paid to them to date? How many grants have been paid? It seems that the system of paying grants goes back to the beginning of this year. I would be grateful if the Minister would give us as much information as he has about these matters.
These people who build houses for themselves build about 200 houses per year. Six thousand pounds has been paid towards the administrative costs of NABCo. They have been looking for this for eight years or more and this is the first time that they ever got anything towards this.
The Minister is to be congratulated.
I thank the Deputy. Let me say that so far as we are concerned, we are very pleased with the way they have spent the £6,000 during the year. I can assure the Deputy and NABCo that we will let them know as soon as possible what we will do for them in the coming year. There will be no delay on our part.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Is that the only co-operative in existence at the moment?
That is the only group that has got this type of grant at present.
I welcome this, too. It is a step in the right direction because NABCo have, over the years, tried to get some sort of grant from the Department. While £6,000 is small it is a start and it is welcome, but it obviously can be improved upon. I welcome the Minister's statement that he will look into it to see what further improvements can be made.
These voluntary housing groups, particularly NABCo, have been fighting an uphill battle. They are the cinderella of the housing area. They are without any real guidance. As well as giving grants the Department should be able to give expert advice because they require this type of help.
I would like to see the Minister encouraging other voluntary housing bodies to set up in other areas. He should set up a committee or committees to see what can be done in this area because I believe that there is a lot of valuable expertise about; there are many people who want to help in the housing area but there is no guiding force. If the Department of the Environment were to set up a pilot unit to see what could be done to organise various housing aid societies it would be a big step forward.
In relation to old houses we should allow voluntary housing co-operatives to renovate them and let them to married couples who are in need of housing. That is an area which is worthy of consideration. There are a number of people who would give their time but they need a sense of direction. The Department could give this and could give expertise. We must be aware of our existing housing stock and of what we can do to preserve it. Sizeable grants would need to be made to enable people to buy and restore derelict property. The principle has been set for grants for voluntary housing organisations. Once a precedent is established it is easy to get things moving.
We should not be narrow in our approach and leave it all to NABCo but should tap the expertise available. There are a number of professional people who are willing to come into these housing aid societies to work, develop and improve the lot of people. I commend the section. It is a good one. I would ask the Minister to initiate within his Department a more positive approach in the whole area of voluntary housing help. If he does that it will be a worthwhile exercise particularly in large urban areas where there is a serious housing problem and a lot of property which is run down. The Minister could exercise powers to take over such property and make it habitable, thus providing valuable housing for people in need and improving valuable housing stock.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (2), paragraph (c), line 43, after "with," to insert "provided that a moiety of the grant shall be paid when the house has been roofed subject to the condition that the house shall be completed in accordance with any condition subject to which the certificate of reasonable value was granted,".
As the Bill is drafted and under current practice the £1,000 grant is not paid to an applicant until the house is completed and until he has taken possession of the house and is residing there. When this grant was first mooted, prior to the 1977 General Election, it was promised as a grant that would facilitate house builders in providing the necessary deposit for a loan. It was stated at the time of the manifesto and of the campaign that it would virtually provide the deposit for the house. Like many other things that were said at the time of the manifesto, it may not have been written in black or white into the manifesto but it was certainly spoken about as the deposit money. That was the promise that was made and the understanding on which this part of the Fianna Fáil manifesto was sold from door to door by the party canvassers.
I fully appreciate that £1,000 would not now pay a deposit, because the gap between available loan finance and the cost of a house has doubled if not trebled. The amount the house builder now has to find is much more than £1,000. It may very well go to £7,000 if he has to rely on the SDA loan. If he is lucky enough to get a building society loan he still has to provide a few thousand pounds. While the £1,000 would not provide the deposit it is more necessary than ever because, if the person does secure a loan, he has to do something in the nature of a door to door collection to find the balance necessary to build the house.
It is unreasonable that this grant, or subsidy as it is now called, should not be paid to the house purchaser until the sale of the house is completed or until the house is built. In the old days grants were not as high as £1,000 but they were every bit as valuable as the £1,000 grant is now. Half of the grant was paid when the roof was put on the house and the other half was paid when the house was completed and occupied. That is what I want the Minister to do. He will still have control over the applicant to ensure that he builds the house in accordance with the conditions attached to the certificate of reasonable value and to ensure that he takes up possession of the house as his residence. If the applicant does not do both of those things he will not qualify for the remainder of the grant. It is unlikely that a person would go through the performance of applying for a grant, build a house to the roof, collect £500 and then decide that he would not complete the house or reside in it. That is the argument I make in favour of this amendment.
It is a reasonable amendment. I hasten to add that putting the amendment in where it is may not be acceptable to the Parliamentary Draftsmen, but the drafting of it shows clearly what we have in mind. If the Minister accepts the amendment in principle he can instruct the Parliamentary Draftsman to amend section 4 so as to meet the thinking behind the amendment. It was never more necessary that house builders and house purchasers should have access to whatever finance is available to them for housing purposes and to have it at the earliest possible moment. It would enable them to get bridging finance and to pay something towards the deposit.
The whole purpose of any grant is to aid people. This grant of £1,000 was announced and heralded as something magnificent and fantastic. It was to solve the financial problems of all newly-married couples who were buying their house for the first time. Time has disillusioned many people about that. If a grant is to mean anything, it should mean aid while the house is being built. People have to make deposits and pay as they go along. It is easier to hold up a bank now than to get a loan from a bank. Serious consideration should be given to giving a moiety at the roofing stage, and it should be half the grant, £500.
The size of this grant must now be questioned. When does the Minister propose to double it, given the fact that house prices have gone up by 50 per cent? The Minister must consider increasing the grant to £1,500 and giving it as the houses are being built. The irony is that the grant is not paid until the person is living in the house, not when the house is completed and the legal documents are signed. A loose curtain hanging on the window will not do. The house is inspected to ensure that it is furnished.
I know people who could not go into the house because they had not got the price of the furniture. They could not get the grant because they were not living in the house. It is a Catch 22 situation. This baffles me. Grants should aid people and not obstruct them. The Minister should consider this amendment very seriously because cash is so tight. People have to borrow to move into their houses at very high interest rates. We now read in the papers that they will not be able to borrow. The gloss has gone off the £1,000 grant.
It went off it on June 16.
If we are serious about helping people to provide their own homes, we must provide them with the correct financial aid when they need it rather than having them running to the banks for an extra £1,000 at colossal interest rates which they cannot afford. They are up to their necks in debt and, obviously, this can cause serious problems for young married couples. This incentive while the house is being built would alleviate the terrible financial strain now being imposed on young couples who are trying to purchase their homes for the first time.
I would ask the Minister to examine this amendment. This procedure was in operation before, and it operated successfully. Surely the Exchequer does not want to hold back these grants to accumulate interest. Let us aid people who want to purchase their homes and get off the local authority waiting lists. We should give these people every incentive to purchase their own homes.
I should like to support the case made by Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy O'Brien. I can vouch for what they said from my own experience in my constituency. People have serious problems when they cannot get part of the grant during the course of the construction of the house. As a result, they have to borrow money to pay the expenses which are being incurred all the time. If they are building the house themselves, they have to buy material. Others have to make interim payments to the people who are building the house, and nothing is coming in. This amendment will provide money at the time when it is needed, when the house is in course of construction and has reached the roofing stage, and the bills are coming in. There would be money to enable some of the bills to be paid and reduce the high level of debt young couples have to undertake in the course of building a house. Usually this is the biggest investment they will make in their lives and they should be given help.
I endorse what has been said about the fact that it is very hard to get money from the credit institutions. In fact, it is almost impossible. This heightens the case made by the two Deputies for giving some money while the house is being constructed to reduce the amount of reliance and the period of reliance by people building houses on banks and other institutions for credit. In view of the fact that this procedure operated previously, I hope the Minister will see his way to accepting this eminently reasonable amendment.
It is difficult to listen to people criticising the amount of the £1,000 grant and saying it has faded into complete insignificance because of the cost of housing and, at the same time, saying it is significant enough to be broken up and paid in two parts.
There are two main reasons why I cannot accept this amendment. The first is that under the scheme the applicant has to occupy the house on completion. In the event of payment of an instalment and subsequent failure to comply with this condition, and also the CRV condition, the instalment of the grant would have to be refunded. Past experience has shown there were great practical difficulties in securing a refund, even when an undertaking was given by an applicant before the instalment was paid.
Payments of instalments of State new house grants was discontinued by the National Coalition Government on 1 January 1976. The main reasons for the decision at that time were administrative savings and the possibility that the applicant would not comply with the requirement, introduced at the time, that he should occupy the house on completion. In July 1976 my predecessor reintroduced instalments, provided an undertaking was received from the applicant that he would occupy the new house. However, later a number of cases arose where the undertaking was not honoured, and it is still proving most difficult to recover the instalments which were paid.
The second reason I cannot accept this amendment is that provision for payment of instalments on either a mandatory or an optional basis would increase administrative costs substantially, and tend to increase delays—they have been mentioned here today—in dealing with housing grant applications. In order to assist applicants grants may be paid directly to a bank account. This facility is being used to a considerable extent by applicants for the purpose of obtaining credit while the house is being built. It is being used very widely. Whether or not the banks have money they are willing to give credit facilities to people who have approval for the £1,000 and make the necessary arrangements to have that £1,000 paid into the bank account when it becomes due. It is possible to draw in advance of the £1,000 grant in that way. To comply with what is involved in this amendment would lead to greater administrative costs and a lot more delay in connection with the payment of grants and the processing of applications. Where people fail to comply with any undertaking given the question of refunds is always very difficult. My experience has led me to this belief.
I find it hard to accept the Minister's reasons for refusing to accept our amendment. We put it down because of the high cost of housing and the financial constraints on those anxious to purchase houses. While the paying of the grant in two parts would be administratively costly we must consider how necessary it is to assist people buying homes of their own. We have heard about people falling down in their commitments and the difficulties involved in recouping the instalments paid, but I am sure it is possible to get a hold on the property involved so that such people cannot opt out of their obligations. I was surprised that the Minister put forward so many excuses. It has already been proved possible to operate such a scheme. A similar scheme operated some years ago but was discontinued because people fell down on their commitments. However, the fact that a person breaks the law in some manner does not mean that what one is trying to achieve is wrong. That is a negative approach which should not be entertained. The Minister's attitude is regrettable particulary in view of the severe increase in house prices and the strain being experienced by young people in an effort to save a deposit. To state that such people would have credit in the bank is all very well, but it should be remembered that they must pay a very high rate of interest for that credit. We should be making every effort to help young people avoid going to the banks for such credit.
On a point of information, I should like to tell the Deputy that if instalments were to be paid it would mean 10,500 further inspections. That gives the Deputy some idea of what is involved.
I accept that, but surely that is not a valid reason for rejecting our amendment. It is always possible to put forward a dozen excuses if one does not want to do a certain thing and what the Minister has stated is just another excuse for not adopting our amendment. It is not a valid reason. We should be investigating the reasons for introducing such a system. There is a need to adopt our suggestion because of the steep increase in the price of houses and the fact that many young people are in financial trouble in their efforts to get a home of their own. I came across a case of a person who was earning £65 a week but had to meet repayments of £50 a week. I accept that the wife-to-be of that person is working and that her income was taken into consideration in the loan application but after marriage she may lose her job or become pregnant with the result that that couple will find it impossible to live. The Minister should be more generous.
We are not talking about the section but the way the regulations should be drafted to implement the terms of the section. The Minister should recognise the validity, in some instances, of the case put forward by the Fine Gael Members. I welcomed the tidying up of the administration in relation to grants two years ago because I was of the opinion that the moiety payment was not a good system. It involved extra administration. The £1,000 grant introduced by the Minister and the tidying up of the regulations were good but I was not aware at the time of a provision requiring occupation of the house. That has been counter-productive and has taken away the benefit of having it as an incentive to the builder to get off a site quickly. If the incentive is for the person to get into the house to get the grant as distinct from the builder completing it in order to get a certificate of completion, then efforts to get the builder to complete the contract are removed. This is like the retention money that is normally held on a construction contract which ceases on occupation to be a retention sum and becomes something in relation to the occupation of the house rather than to the construction of it. In drawing up regulations the Minister should look at paragraph (d) which relates to the occupation of the house.
The Minister has told us that acceptance of the amendment would involve 10,500 extra inspections but that is assuming that they would all be done from Dublin and that they all had to be paid half and half. In the case of houses that cost on average between £16,000 and £17,000 the grant, unfortunately, is no longer the critical element of finance it used to be. When the grant system was administered by Deputy Blaney those grants were quite considerable relative to the construction cost. Therefore, partial payments made a lot of sense. In all honesty they do not make the same kind of fiscal sense now if one is talking about a contract figure of £17,000 and a sum of £1,000, whether one gets it in two parts or not. The role of that grant in facilitating bridging finance or the cash flow in a contract is limited in relation to such houses but it would not be limited in relation to the 3,500 applicants who build houses with SDA loans. For those people the grant of £1,000 is in addition to amounts of £7,000 or £9,000 they would get.
It is my intention to propose on Report Stage the addition of a new subsection to this section which will have regard to this matter. If the Minister saw fit, in a system of devolution of the administration of these grants to local authorities, to give to such authorities the right to decide that in certain areas they could phase-pay these grants, then the benefit of what the Fine Gael Deputies are proposing would be applied in local conditions. It would remove from the Minister's concern the legitimate arguments of over-administration and increased administrative costs if he conceded to local authorities a system of general administration of housing grants and then said to them that, subject to various constraints and safeguards, they could make part-payments to housing applicants as the construction proceeds. We would then genuinely have the best of both worlds —a centralised system of administration requiring a moiety payment of 50 per cent or more than two payments, which poses real administrative problems for central government, and a devolved system of local administration which would give to a local housing administration the right to decide to make part payments.
That gives the kind of flexibility which would come from devolution of the administration of housing finance. This is the essence of what this section would enable the Minister to do. We are simply talking about a section under which the regulations will be drawn up but not specifically about regulations. The Minister should give himself power to allow a phased payment of the grant. The Minister and subsequent Ministers should have the right to introduce a phased payment if it is deemed to be a useful way of paying the grant. If we link section 4 with section 2 we are talking about the possibility of devolving housing grant administration in the most effective way and about spreading the money in the most efficient fashion so that the bridging loan horrors that Deputy O'Brien refers to can be reduced.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am disappointed at the Minister's attitude towards this amendment, which was put down in good faith to try to improve the section and alleviate the lot of housebuilders and house purchasers. The Minister told us that the National Coalition Government ceased the payment of grants by instalments on 1 January 1976 but that they restored the payment of grants by instalment six months later, having had six months' experience of paying the grant in one sum subject to an undertaking from the applicant to complete the house and to take up residence. There is nothing wrong with resuming that practice at the moment. The Minister said that it would involve about 10,000 more inspections. That is an argument for the attitude we took up on section 2 in relation to devolving the administration of housing subsidies to local authorities. It appears that 10,000 inspections were carried out during the year and that some of those were duplicated. The Minister also based some of his argument against this amendment on the grounds that past experience had shown that some applicants who undertook to complete a house and to take up residence if they were paid a moiety of the grant and, in default of completing the house and taking up residence, undertook to refund the moiety of the grant paid to them failed in their obligations. How many people since this system was resumed in 1976 received a moiety of the grant on an undertaking to complete the house and take up residence or in default to refund the money and failed in their obligations to do that? What amount of money has the State lost in that respect? The Minister should tell us that, because he said on a number of occasions that experience had shown that people did not honour their obligations and that it was difficult to recover funds. We are speaking here about the £1,000 grant as if it were static, as if there was no intention to increase it. I hope that the Minister will tell us, before we leave the section, that he has planned to increase this grant substantially.
We are on the amendment. The Deputy is speaking on the section.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I hope that the grant that we are asking to have paid in two moieties will be more than £1,000 and will be much more useful to the applicant. The gap between the availability of finance and the cost of a house is very wide at the moment. A man gets a loan of £9,000 under the SDA scheme and the very cheapest house he can buy will cost £16,000, which is £5,000 below the national average. There is a gap of £7,000 and while the £1,000 grant has been devoured it will at least reduce the gap to £6,000 at a time when every little counts for an applicant who must bridge the gap between the loan and the cost of the house.
The Minister's argument about a duplication of inspections is invalid because he can devolve that on local authorities. Will the Minister give the numbers who have defaulted and the cost of the State? I would stress that the gap between the available loan and the cost of the house is so wide now that every opportunity should be taken to help the house builder by making whatever is coming to him available at the earliest possible time. I would like the Minister to tell us how many people have defaulted and how much it has cost the State?
The number is not great but I do not have the exact number.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Could I count them on the fingers of one hand?
I do not have the number so there is no point in attempting to count. This creates difficulties and has created difficulties.
In relation to what Deputy Quinn suggested about any changes in the future, I would go along with what he said, but I do not agree that there is need for change at present. I will consider on Report Stage making some change which would permit me to pay by instalment, by regulation in the future, if it is decided that it is necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 Amendment No. 7 is cognate and may be discussed with No. 4.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, subsection (2), paragraph (f), line 50, to delete "the grant is paid" and substitute "a grant was paid prior to the passing of this Act".
We want to substitute the words "a grant was paid prior to the passing of this Act" for the words "the grant is paid". If those words are not inserted we would be fearful that financial considerations could be taken into account henceforth—in other words, that family circumstances and earnings would be taken into consideration. As it is, that is not the case, but to protect that situation in the future we would like to see those words written in. I know the Minister said he had no intention of putting financial constraints on this grant. But if those words are inserted that would satisfy us on this side of the House that there was not any intention in the future of putting such constraints on grants. That is important because it was the policy of the present Government not to do so. We should like to see it copperfastened in this Bill.
I ask the Minister to accept this amendment. We would all be satisfied that something at least was being done to ensure that in future there would not be financial constraints on grant applicants.
I regret that I must oppose these amendments. First of all I should say that in 1976 the previous Government restricted eligibility for State new house grants payable by the Department in respect of persons qualifying for supplementary grants. In January 1977 valuation limits were applied to reconstruction grants. On 27 June here in the House I intervened during Deputy O'Brien's contribution on the Second Reading debate and said that the purpose of section 4, subsection (2) (f) was to enable the restrictions imposed by the previous Government to be validated. I regret that on that occasion I misled the House on that point. I am now legally advised that such validation is not necessary.
The primary purpose of subsection (2) of sections 4 and 5 is to enable certain important elements of State new house and house improvement grant schemes to be applied or varied by regulation as occasion demands. Because of the frequency of changes in grants this type of flexible approach is necessary. Under subsection (2), for example, grants could be increased fairly readily without recourse to amending legislation. On the other hand, section 4 (2) (f) and section 5 (2) (e) would enable a means test to be applied. I am not planning the introduction of a means test at present but we cannot anticipate developments which could necessitate such a test in the future. It is intended to incorporate in regulations the main features of grant schemes. During the past 25 years it was not the practice to make regulations relating to grants. The details about grants were set out in the Housing Acts and in explanatory memoranda issued by my Department. Therefore I feel that section 4 (2) (f) and section 5 (2) (e) should remain unaltered. I regret I cannot accept these amendments.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am pleased the Minister availed of this opportunity to clarify his statement in the House on 27 June on the Second Reading of this Bill. On that occasion both Deputy O'Brien and I referred to paragraph (f) of section 4 (2), when we said that, in our opinion, it looked like the re-introduction of a means test. On that occasion, during Deputy O'Brien's contribution, the Minister intervened to say that he had no proposals to impose a means test, that he was merely validating something done by the Coalition Government. I admit quite frankly that the National Coalition Government did restrict housing grants to people who were entitled to supplementary grants. That is a fact and cannot be denied. But the difference between us and the Minister is that the Minister got into power on an undertaking that he would abolish the means test and that a person buying a house for the first time would receive a grant of £1,000. That was a nice, simple promise, a very easy argument to put over—£1,000 grant for all new house buyers without any ties or means test at all.
Now in the first Housing Bill introduced by the Minister he writes in, in black and white, machinery to operate a means test. Is the Minister not ashamed of doing that within two years of promising to abolish that means test? Within two years of a nice, simple promise of a grant of £1,000 for every first time house buyer, he comes along with proposals to introduce a means test that he and his party so often denounced. I looked for my copy of the Fianna Fáil manifesto when coming in here today. It is a document so sought after now by everybody, except the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, it is difficult to lay hands on. I must have loaned it to somebody and have not got it readily available. It is a fact that there was a promise made of £1,000 grant for all first time house owners and I do not think there was any reference to a means test. Certainly the slogan was: Vote Fianna Fáil, you pay no rates; vote Fianna Fáil, you will get £1,000 for your house; vote Fianna Fáil, you will pay no tax on your car. Those were the nice promises glibly made in May and June of 1977, made with considerable success, sucess to the tune of 84 Deputies.
I want to know why the Minister is introducing this provision in the Bill, which he first appeared to think was something to validate the mischief and doings of his predecessor but which he clearly knows now is not the case. Rather it is simply and solely a device to impose a means test on applicants for housing grants, not to introduce it by way of a Bill in this House but by ministerial regulations which will come before the House, if the Minister has his way, on a take it or leave it basis.
Is the Deputy on the amendment?
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am, I think I am anyway, but I bow to the superior wisdom of the Chair in that respect.
The Chair is unable to trace any reference.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am saying that section 4 (2) (f) contains machinery for the application of a means test and that that means test can be brought into operation by regulations the Minister will make and which, when laid before the House—if the Bill stands unamended—will come before the House on a take it or leave it basis. I am against that. I want to expose, as I am entitled to——
The Deputy will have an opportunity of speaking on that on the section.
(Cavan-Monaghan): When I put down this amendment with Deputy O'Brien I did so in my innocence—and I am not saying that the Minister made the statement knowing it to have been incorrect or to mislead the House— on the basis of the statement by the Minister that this was merely to validate previous grants subject to a means test. This amendment would make sure that from the passing of the Bill it would not be possible for the Minister to introduce a means test. The Government manifesto before the last election, which the Deputy from Roscommon said is an historic document, said there would be no means test. I am asking the Minister to honour the Government's commitment not to have a means test. The Taoiseach and many of the Ministers said that there would be no means test.
I make no apology for making the type of speech I have made. It highlights the deception used by the Minister and his party to get into power and their speedy retreat from their promises made in the manifesto at the first opportunity they got by introducing a Housing Bill in the House. The decent thing for the Minister to do would be to delete paragraph (f) on Report Stage if it is really his intention not to introduce a means test. When the Minister can justify departing from the manifesto he can come back to the House with a Bill, which can be debated in a more leisurely atmosphere when we are not so near an adjournment. We could then argue the rights and wrongs of the means test and we could be told what the means test was. We are not being told that now.
I am not trying to put any onus on the Minister because obviously when he made a statement he made it sincerely. I am horrified that the Government are now contemplating putting a means test on grants after being a very short time in government. In their manifesto they said that the means test would be done away with.
The amendment bears no relationship to a means test.
We want in our amendment to add the words "a grant was paid prior to the passing of this Act" to paragraph (f). This would mean that from the time of the passing of this Bill no means test could be introduced unless the Minister came into the House with a motion requesting that a means test be introduced. If the Government intend doing this by regulation this is a back-door method of legislation to which I am opposed.
The Minister said that this paragraph was inserted to validate actions taken by the Coalition Government. This amendment is very relevant to a means test and to the fact that the Government now contemplate having a means test on the £1,000 grant. This means they are now running away from their promises because the cupboard is bare. I am surprised that the Minister will not accept this amendment, particularly when we consider what he said to me last week. If we did not put down this amendment we would have been hoodwinked into thinking that there was no intention of introducing a means test. We have, as a responsible opposition, to oppose this. If a political party get into power on particular promises and within a short period want to renege on them it behoves a responsible opposition to show up this type of irresponsibility. This is our intention now that we have the facts at this late hour. When we put down the amendment we did not feel we would be arguing like this. We now find that there will be a means test on those grants. We must reject any type of means test. The Minister may say that there was a means test under the Coalition Government but we did not say before the election that we would not have a means test. The Government did and that is why we have to oppose this very strongly.
The Minister stated that he has no plans at the moment to introduce a means test but that in this type of legislation, because of the frequent changes in grants, it is necessary to have a certain degree of flexibility in the approach to the matter. This is particularly necessary when the changes will be made by regulations.
Deputy Harte on 12 June last inquired from the Minister if he would accept that the £1,000 grant scheme, as outlined in the manifesto, was most unfair because of the method of grant-aiding the building of houses. He asked if the Minister had any plans for the introduction of a means test for grants. It was quite clear from the way his question was framed that he was in favour of a means test for the grant. The Minister stated in reply that he had no plans at present to revise that scheme. I would like to confirm that there are no plans at present for the introduction of a means test. One cannot anticipate developments in the years ahead which could necessitate such a means test being introduced. This is the place to make provision for it.
If the Minister has no plans for the introduction of a means test he should withdraw paragraph (f) of subsection (2) of this section. That would allay all our fears. Once that paragraph remains in the Bill and once a means test can be introduced by regulation it comes before the House and it cannot be amended. It will be laid before the House and it is either accepted or rejected.
In my view that is not good enough. The Minister has indicated he has no plans, but other Ministers may have plans to put some ceiling income on the £1,000 grant. If the Minister is not prepared to withdraw paragraph (f) on Report Stage we will have to pursue our amendment because we would not be satisfied with an undertaking that there would not be an increase. We could not accept this in any circumstances from a Government who said two years ago there would be no means test. Now they are building into legislation a mechanism whereby, by regulations, by the back door, there will be a means test. If the Minister is not prepared to withdraw paragraph (f) we will have to pursue our amendment.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 35.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South- Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Conlon, John F.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garrett.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Horgan, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lipper, Mick.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Mannion, John M.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Quinn, Ruairi.
- Ryan, John J.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Woods and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies W. O'Brien and B. Desmond.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Only the Minister or the Minister of State may move amendment No. 5, which is in the names of the Minister and of Deputies Fitzpatrick and O'Brien but which is out of order so far as private Members are concerned in that it involves a potential charge on revenue.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, subsection (4), line 7, to delete "less expensive" and substitute "more reasonable".
Subsection (4) of section 4 will enable a new house grant to be paid to a person who is not a first-time owner-occupier in the case where the person's original house was damaged by fire, explosion or act of God, beyond economic repair and where refusal to pay rent would cause undue hardship. The effect of the amendment would be to relax the conditions applying in such a case so as to enable a grant to be paid where it would be more reasonable rather than less expensive to provide a new house. This amendment which was recommended originally by Deputies Fitzpatrick and O'Brien is in keeping with the sympathetic approach adopted in the subsection.
I am glad that the Minister is accepting the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, lines 18 and 19, to delete subsection (5).
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
(Cavan-Monaghan): This is one of the most important sections in this part of the Bill anyway and, consequently, I wish to speak on it.
I am sure the Deputy will keep in mind that the section has been rather well covered already in the debate on the amendments.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I intend making my points on this section item by item and the first point relates to the amount of the grant. In this Bill the Minister is being innovative in the sense that he is asking the House for a blank cheque. He is asking the House for authority to bring in from time to time, regulations which will decide the amount of the grant, which is now called a subsidy, payable to house builders.
At the moment only one grant of £1,000 is payable. The £1,000 grant was introduced in July 1977 and it replaced many other grants. It replaced a grant of more than £300 which was payable in certain cases. For those applicants it meant an increase of £700. It also replaced a grant payable to small and not so small farmers of up to £900 and meant an increase of only £100. Since I January 1977 the average price of a house for which loans were granted by building societies was £11,000. A similar house, according to statistics supplied by the Minister, now costs £22,000.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.