Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 Jul 1979

Vol. 315 No. 13

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1979: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 5.

Question again proposed: "That section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Quinn

Yesterday I sought permission to raise on the adjournment the question of the administration of the conservation grants which the Government introduced in relation to substitution of solid-fuel back boilers. I was informed by your office that I could deal with the matter under section 5 of this Bill. It is in that context that I am now raising the matter. I have been contacted by a number of constituents over the last four weeks who told me quite clearly that when the Government announcement was made—it was not unrelated to the fact that the local and the European elections were taking place—that there would be, as the title of the GIS statement stated, a house improvement grant scheme and energy conservation. When they sought clarification from the Department on this they were told they would be eligible for this grant.

They went ahead and commissioned builders and contractors and got an estimate for this work. They were subsequently told by the Department that they no longer qualified, because they had been in receipt of a grant within the last ten years. I asked the Minister to clarify the situation last Wednesday. The indications from the official channel then were that the matter should be properly dealt with on Committee Stage of this Bill. We got to Committee Stage yesterday and, despite the request from Deputy Fitzpatrick, the Minister indicated that he was not yet in a position to clarify his scheme but that he would be making a statement within the next couple of days.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Barrett)

A couple is two.

Mr. Quinn

The Minister will be doing it tomorrow since he said that yesterday. The Minister is pretty good at organising administrative schemes. Will he be able to tell us tomorrow how this scheme he has designed will work? Is it too much to ask him to bring the announcement of that forward by one day and tell us now how it will work since the Ceann Comhairle has ruled me out of order twice in trying to raise this matter on the adjournment? The official White Paper that accompanied the GIS statement reads as follows:

Grants for conversion from oil to solid-fuel heating.

A grant of up to £600 is available for the installation of a fireplace, stove or other solid-fuel burning appliance in a house which has not got one. In determining the amount of the grant, the cost of installing a back boiler is taken into consideration. A householder who has an oil-fired central heating system but no fireplace could qualify for this special grant, which is not subject to the normal limiting periods for further grants. If he is able to connect central heating radiators to a solid-fuel burning appliance, the Department will raise no objection but the cost of central heating connections and elements will not be allowed for grant purposes. Where a house has already a fireplace but no back-boiler, the cost of installing a back-boiler including plumbing connections will reckon for grant.

That is the official Government information slip which I obtained. If there is additional information which the Department have, which was issued at the same time, perhaps the Minister can clarify that for me. There is, unfortunately, no date on the GIS statement that I have. As I already stated the title of the statement is House Improvement Grant Scheme and Energy Conservation. The first paragraph states:

The Minister for the Environment, Mr. Sylvester Barrett, T.D. is concerned that effective measures be taken to conserve energy in domestic housing.

I suppose, as an Opposition Deputy, that one should be grateful that at least some of the noise we have been making on this side of the House penetrates to the other side of the House. The second paragraph states:

To this end, he has already laid down thermal insulation standards for local authority houses commenced on or after 1st July, 1976. These standards will apply in full to new private houses in July, 1979.

That is about three years overdue. The statement continues:

Where existing houses are concerned, the position is that under the house improvements grants scheme, a house on completion of the improvement work must be provided with adequate heating facilities, including a solid fuel fireplace. The cost of providing these facilities, including a back-boiler, if one is being installed, is taken into account in calculating the amount of the grant. Where a house has no solid fuel heating facilities and no other improvement work is required, a special grant is available for the installation of a fireplace or solid fuel burning appliance. This special grant does not prevent a householder from getting a further improvement grant at any time.

As a further contribution to energy conservation in existing private houses, the Minister has decided that a house, after completion of grant-aided improvement work, must comply with certain standards in regard to attic insulation, cylinder lagging and draught elimination. The cost of these works will be reckonable in calculating the amount of the grant. This requirement will apply to work commenced on or after 1 April 1979.

There is no date on this statement from the Government Information Service and when Deputy Fitzpatrick yesterday said it had been reported in the papers before 7 June, the Minister replied that the newspaper story was reported on 14 June. When people rang the Department at the numbers 684169 and 684411—I believe there are three telephone extensions for the Dublin area in O'Connell Bridge House—the interpretation of that statement by officials in the Department was that first there would be a delay of six to nine weeks before an inspector could call and that the staff were completely snowed under in trying to cope with the applications which makes a nonsense of what the Minister said yesterday about a more efficient operation of the grant scheme from a centralised Department. The real point at issue is this: the people who inquired if they would qualify for a grant despite the fact that their house was built within the past ten years or that they had received a general improvements grant, were told initially that they would qualify. Then on last Friday week a directive appears to have come from Government sources saying the Government had changed their mind and that there was going to be a re-jig of the terms of the scheme. The Minister would appear to confirm this by saying that he will be making a statement on the new terms of the scheme.

This appears to me to imply two things. First, it was an election gimmick that did not even have the merit of being properly thought out but which had at least the merit of being a good idea in terms of energy conservation and for that the Labour Party welcome it. I am not party to the operation of administration in the Department and I can only put together the experiences of my constituents and people in the Dublin area, but it appears to me that somebody in the Department thought the scheme was a good idea but they did not work out the implications or the cost. When the applications started to come in and when somebody calculated what it might cost, the Department appear to have backtracked. That is the construction I am putting on the experiences of people who responded to the Government press release when they contacted the Department. I was unable to raise this matter on the Adjournment and perhaps the Minister would give us a trailer of what he is going to say tomorrow in relation to the new terms.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): There seems to be considerable confusion about the grant for conversion from oil-fired central heating and other heating to solid fuel heating and that should be clarified immediately.

Deputy O'Brien and I raised this matter yesterday and Deputy O'Brien suggested that a ministerial announcement or advertisement had been made in connection with this matter. The question arose as to whether such an advertisement appeared in the newspapers and, if so, the date on which it appeared. The Minister was adamant that he did not cause any advertisement to be published in any newspaper but he said on more than one occasion that he answered parliamentary questions on the matter. The question then arose as to whether these parliamentary questions were before or after 7 June. I have a very clear recollection that the Minister stated yesterday that he answered these questions in the House on 14 June. Am I correct in that?

Mr. Barrett

13 June.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister said 14 June.

Mr. Barrett

The press report was on 14 June.

Minister of State at the Department of Education (Mr. Tunney)

Both dates are after 7 June.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It shows the bungling of the Government.

Mr. Tunney

The Deputy is not in a court of law. It is still after 7 June.

Mr. Barrett

Yesterday we were talking about the press report which was on 14 June.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): When the Minister yesterday mentioned the date of 14 June I went to the trouble of checking the Official Report for that day and it is no wonder I could not find the reference.

Mr. Tunney

The Deputy is acting as if this were a court of law.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister of State seems to be particularly annoyed this morning. He must not have a lot to do.

Mr. Quinn

He is also Minister for Sport.

Mr. Tunney

I am annoyed because the Deputy is making a nonsensical point and is holding up the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy Fitzpatrick please continue on the Bill?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): If the Chair will get me order in the House I will continue.

Mr. C. Murphy

The Deputy's new title is ridiculous.

Mr. F. O'Brien

It is not 11 a.m. yet. That is why they are here.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): They are working themselves up into a fighting attitude.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. Deputy Fitzpatrick on section 5.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The suggestion now is that the announcement made in regard to these grants has been changed and the Minister proposes to make what he calls a definitive statement on the matter tomorrow or the day after. I repeat my invitation to him and I join with Deputy Quinn in the request that he would make that statement now so that we may have an opportunity of discussing the position on this section. It is the least the country would expect from the Minister on an occasion like this. I will check the Official Report for 13 June and will come back to that later.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I am surprised the Minister has not been able to make a statement. Whether 13 or 14 June is the relevant date it is a month ago since the announcement was made and there is still considerable ambiguity whether the grant will be payable where a person had received a grant within a specified period. The longer the delay the more anxiety will be caused and the more suspicious we become regarding embargos. The Minister has not given any indication of his views in relation either to the £1,000 grant or to the improvements grant during this debate. He has a closed mind on the matter. This is regrettable particularly when this legislation is to be operated in future by way of regulation. Having regard to the extent of power that the Minister will have by reason of that situation, one would at least have expected him to give his views regarding the grants. I understand that the Department of Finance would have the last word regarding the amounts of grants but we might at least have the views of the Minister for the Environment. Instead, he is dodging all the issues. The original statement from the Department gave a clear impression that the grant we are talking of here would be paid without there being any strings attached provided that it was for the type of work specified in the section. Now, however, we hear that a couple of days must elapse before the Minister can give us the details. In other words, he is not master of his own destiny but is awaiting instructions from elsewhere. That is a disgraceful situation. The Minister ought to be ashamed that he, as Minister, is not in a position to make a statement regarding this grant.

Mr. Barrett

First, I should like to clarify the position regarding accusations made last evening by Deputy O'Brien and repeated here today, but not by him, to the effect that this grant was an election gimmick. I answered a parliamentary question regarding this grant on 13 June and my reply was reported in the press the following day. That was the first mention by me in this House of this grant and, consequently, I fail to understand how anyone could think that the grant could be related in any way to the elections which took place some days earlier. This type of charge, therefore, can be seen for what it is.

Yesterday I said that within a couple of days I would announce details of these grants. That promise stands and the announcement will be made within the shortest time possible and when the details are ready to be announced. Regardless of whether the announcement will be made in this House, in the Seanad, or in another place it will be made. It may even be made during the course of the discussion on this Bill depending on how long we continue to debate the measure.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Will it be made tomorrow?

Mr. Quinn

The Minister entered this House in 1968 and he has been a Minister now for more than two years. Having regard to that background is he serious in saying that in respect of a scheme which he referred to first in this House on 13 June, he has not yet worked out the details? Is it the position that a scheme was decided on, that valuable civil servants' time in the GIS was spent on the preparation of a press report in relation to that scheme but that the details are not known yet? From what one might refer to as the half statements and half explanations and the teasing replies that we have had from the Minister, is it reasonable to deduce from what we have heard now on the penultimate day before the dramatic announcement of the details of this scheme, that the Minister still is not aware of what the scheme is about? Four weeks ago he used valuable GIS time for the preparation of a press statement on the matter.

Mr. Barrett

I replied to a parliamentary question on this matter on 13 June.

Mr. Quinn

I am talking about a matter that I was prevented from raising here on the last couple of occasions that I endeavoured to raise it. On the first occasion that I attempted to raise the question of this conservation grant the Department denied that there was any such grant but I went down personally to the Department with the relevant press release. What is at issue here is something far more important than an election gimmick. What is at issue is the basic incompetence of the Minister and the Government. What happened in effect was that after two years of inactivity regarding conservation in the building industry, the Minister said that something was being done in this area, that there would be a maximum grant of £600 and that this grant would not be related to the normal conditions applying to a grant whereby if a person had received a grant for improvements in the previous ten years he would not be eligible and also that if a person having obtained this conservation grant applied for another type of improvement grant within two years, he would not be disqualified from receiving that other grant. Four weeks later the Minister tells us that the details of the grant are not available yet but that they may be available tomorrow.

Mr. Barrett

I might make the announcement today.

Mr. Quinn

That is an advancement.

Mr. F. O'Brien

We would expect a better answer than that the Minister might make the announcement today.

Mr. Quinn

I should like to take the Minister to meet some of the people who have been in touch with me about this grant or to take him to some of the harassed officials in the Department who have had to deal with telephone inquirers and to explain that what was said last week does not hold now and that the directive that came from the Government this week makes liars of the officials. People were told that they qualified for this grant but when they set about organising matters they were told that because they received a grant nine years ago for improvements they are not now eligible for this special energy conservation grant. How much more incompetence must we accept from this Government with 84 seats before the public realise that the people hiding behind the benches opposite do not know their job?

In a way I would be more reassured if the announcement had been an election gimmick because that would suggest some degree of cunning or administrative competence. Through I might not agree with that I could at least be comfortable about it. The Minister indicates now that he may tell us the details today despite the fact that half-an-hour ago he indicated that this would not be the case.

Mr. Barrett

Yesterday I said the announcement would be made within a couple of days and that promise stands.

Mr. Quinn

This morning the Minister indicated to me by raising two of his fingers that a couple meant two when I asked when the announcement could be expected though yesterday the Minister had said that it would be made within a couple of days.

Mr. Barrett

I understand a couple to mean two. I did not state whether the announcement would be made today or tomorrow.

Mr. Quinn

You said yesterday that it would be within a couple of days.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should address the Chair.

Mr. Quinn

I apologise to the Chair. This legislation was circulated in late April or early May but was not brought forward until recently. The provisions in regard to new house grants and improvement grants in this section, and in section 4 which we have just dealt with, relate to the terms under which regulations for these grants can be drawn up. Therefore we cannot discuss the specific schemes of grants currently in operation.

By virtue of a decision of the Ceann Comhairle's office, we can discuss the specific grant scheme announced by the Minister through the GIS in June in a GIS statement which is not even dated. The House is now being asked to accept as normal competent Government administration that the Minister who introduces this grant scheme and puts facts and figures on paper still does not know how it works, and his Department do not know how it works. People who have applied for this grant and who have looked for contractors are supposed to accept that this is a reasonable state of affairs, that this kind of bungling is a reasonable kind of Government activity and an acceptable level of performance by a Government with 84 seats in the House.

I would ask the Minister to tell the House if the details of this scheme have been finalised. If they have not been finalised and he is waiting until the Government meeting on Friday, fair enough. We will accept that is the state of play, and he cannot give the House the information. I accept that as something over which the Minister has no control, irrespective of his responsibility for announcing a scheme the details of which have not been worked out in advance. If the details have yet to be finalised, and will not be finalised until the Government meeting tomorrow or on Friday, so be it. If there is not that constraint on the Minister and if he has the details of the revised energy conservation scheme, he owes it to the House to explain them to us so that, in turn, we can explain them to the people who sent us here.

The Minister is not showing sufficient respect for our democratic institutions if he refuses to make the announcement here, and seeks the refuge of the Leinster branch dinner of the CIF, or some other hospitable body who would be in a position to accord hospitality to him, in return for which he would dignify them by issuing a Government statement so that the occasion would be noted in the newspapers as a venue at which the Minister made an official announcement.

Mr. Barrett

I have no plans to do anything like that.

Mr. Quinn

I do not think the CIF have any plans to invite him to any dinner at the moment, bearing in mind the way they feel about the CRVs.

Mr. Barrett

I can assure the Deputy I will not starve on that account.

Mr. Quinn

Regrettably in the past it has been the practice to make announcements on such occasions.

Mr. Barrett

Not by me.

Mr. Quinn

The Minister either knows how his own scheme works, or he does not. If he does not know, because senior Ministers in the Government have not yet told him how much money he will get, I will accept that. Regrettably you have allowed the Department of the Environment to be relegated to the second division in contrast to your predecessor. If you do know how your own scheme works, your primary responsibility is to tell the House now.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I have secured the Official Report of the debate on 13 June, the day on which the Minister answered this controversial question. A number of supplementries were asked. I asked the last supplementary because I had received a number of queries from constitutents of mine on this very topic. As reported at column 238 of the Official Report I said:

I understand the Minister to say that the grant is available for the purposes of converting from oil to solid fuel. Is that correct?

Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan-Monaghan): Without any regard to the age of the house or when a previous grant was paid?

Mr. Barrett: That is correct.

I conveyed that information to my constituent. I should like to know from the Minister whether he stands over that answer, whether that answer is correct, and whether the information I gave my constituent on the strength of that answer is correct, or if I am to tell my constituent otherwise.

Mr. Barrett

As I have already said, I will announce the details of these grants and Deputy Fitzpatrick will be able to tell his constituent when he goes home. He will know before he goes home, assuming he will be here for the remainder of the week.

Mr. Quinn

That is pathetic.

Mr. Barrett

A hell of a song and dance is being made here about when and where I will make this announcement, whether it will be at a CIF dinner or a dinner somewhere else removed from this House. I would remind the House that the National Coalition placed restrictions on grants in 1976.

Mr. Quinn

Here we go again. Once more with passion.

Mr. Barrett

Those restrictions were announced during the Christmas holidays.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. When the Minister is replying he should be allowed to reply without interruptions. The Chair should be addressed. He is not here as an ornament.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Is the Minister standing over the statement he made on 13 June? We are not interested in whether he makes the statement tomorrow or the day after. Is he standing over that answer? Yes or no. Is he supporting what he said in the House or is he going back on it? I should like an answer from the Minister. Is he supporting what he said on 13 June, or is he running away from it?

Mr. Quinn

Pass.

Mr. F. O'Brien

This is more of the arrogance we have to tolerate. The Minister is afraid to answer the question. He is running away from it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am grateful to the Minister for telling me——

Mr. F. O'Brien

Nothing.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): ——that I will be able to clarify the position for my constituent if I stay here until the end of the week. This Government got into office on the basis that they would create confidence so that the country could move forward.

If my constituent rang me up now and asked me could I confirm the information I gave him about the grant for solid fuel, I would have to tell him that, to the best of my information, when the Minister answered my question on 13 June, he did not know what he was talking about, he does not know the position yet, he is groping about in the dark and will find out as soon as he can and, when he does, he will let me know and I will then tell my constituent. In the past three weeks this man may have gone to the trouble and expense of converting from oil to solid fuel on the basis that he would get a grant, and now he may not get the grant.

How can anybody have confidence in a Government who treat their Minister for the Environment like this? I hope what I am saying now will be of help to the Minister. Whatever the result is, I believe when the Minister spoke here on 13 June he spoke in good faith and said what his intentions were. The great men behind him, the Minister for Finance and Economic Planning and Development, are now turning the screws. Is the Minister going back on his word? The Minister should tell the House if what he told us earlier, information which he conveyed to our constituents, will be followed through.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Silence is golden.

Mr. Quinn

The Minister has been asked a number of questions but the record will not show that he sat in his chair and did not answer any of them.

Mr. Barrett

I have replied to them on more than one occasion.

Mr. Quinn

Deputy Fitzpatrick raised a question in relation to a final supplementary question put by him to the Minister on 13 June to which the Minister replied that the grant was available to people irrespective of the fact that they may have been paid grants in the previous ten years. I should like to know if, irrespective of the details the Minister intends announcing tomorrow, such people do not qualify for a grant? Can we deduce that much from the Minister's statement? We are not accusing the Minister of deliberately misleading the House but we are saying that, for whatever reason, the answer given on 13 June to Deputy Fitzpatrick misled him and many other Deputies. I am aware that it also misled a lot of young officials in the Department of the Environment. Can we get confirmation to the effect that people who got a grant within the previous ten years do not qualify for the grant I am speaking of? Many of my constituents would like to know if they qualify for that grant. Is the Minister in a position to say that for a variety of reasons, some of which we understand because we recognise that government is not easy, something which Fianna Fáil did not recognise in May 1977, the situation has changed and that those who got a grant within the previous ten years are not eligible for the grant announced by the Department recently?

Mr. Barrett

I have already stated that I will be announcing details in the very near future. The Deputy must await that announcement.

Mr. Quinn

It is not the Deputy who will have to wait because I have not applied for one of those grants but a lot of my constituents must wait. However, they would have had to wait a long time because, as officials of the Department stated, it would take up to nine weeks before inspectors could investigate applications. That is another indication of administrative overloading and incompetence. I regret that an official spokesperson for one of the three parties here has been misled. Although the fact that the Government party have 84 seats may indicate that the Opposition do not have any rights we have certain rights. I would have thought that a minimum right was to obtain a simple reply to what I considered to be a comparatively simple question. I regret that a winner-take-all attitude here enables a Minister, backed up by 84 pairs of marching feet, to sit and tell us to wait and that he is not able to tell us anything.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The matter we are discussing arises out of a question asked by Deputy Collins and supplementaries to that question, as reported at columns 236 to 238 of the Official Report for that day. In the course of that the Minister drilled out in the clearest detail that the grants were available. He was questioned by Deputies E. Collins, Mitchell and myself about this matter and his mind was crystal clear that the grants were available. He also stated that if a person has already two forms of central heating he would not qualify for a grant but he told us that the grants were available for a person who wished to convert from oil to solid fuel central heating, whether or not he got a grant before. The Minister also stated that the grant would amount to a maximum of £600. Why all the uncertainty now? Why is it necessary to clarify that? If the Minister intends changing that, he should say so. We are asking the Minister to confirm that, irrespective of what he intends announcing in his definitive statement, he intends standing over the statement he made on 13 June. I do not think any self-respecting Minister should come here and say that what he said on 13 June was his own imagination, his own wishful thinking and that he cannot now proceed with that.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mr. Barrett

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 6, lines 35 and 36, to delete subsection (9).

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Subsection (2) makes provision for a contribution in kind by way of building materials or labour or other contributions to a person in respect of improvement works which are being carried out by that person. I should like to ask the Minister whether in the case of a person who is in poor circumstances a local authority is authorised to carry out repairs for that person to his private house. I am aware of some people who live in their own homes on a hand-to-mouth basis and who are not in a position to carry out repairs. In those cases a grant is not of much use. Housing authorities should be authorised to carry out repairs in such cases. Will the Minister tell us how it is proposed to work it and who will provide the money? Will the Minister also deal with the question I raised about people who may want a toilet, for instance, repaired or installed but who cannot make any contribution? Are the local authority authorised under subsection (2) to carry out that work?

Mr. Barrett

This is a wide-ranging section which is in operation at the moment with regard to essential repairs. This grant is made available mainly to elderly people and a contribution is not required in many cases, depending on means. It can be used by regulation from time to time for further extensions.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Will the Minister use the regulation generously here in relation to elderly people who need to have essential repairs done?

Mr. Barrett

It will be used for essential repairs.

Mr. F. O'Brien

In a generous way? This applies to any ordinary domestic householder who may wish to have essential repairs done. Will this grant be a 100 per cent grant?

Mr. Barrett

It can be up to 100 per cent.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Is it administered through the local authority?

Mr. Barrett

That is correct. The local authority can act as an agency in carrying out the repairs if necessary.

Mr. F. O'Brien

For a private domestic householder?

Mr. Barrett

It relates mainly to elderly people in county health districts. The Deputy also wondered about the type of repairs that would be carried out. This was mainly devised for the purpose of making dwellings where old people resided habitable so that they would be able to live out the remainder of their lives in their own dwelling.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I was not aware of that but I am glad of it.

Mr. Barrett

It applies more to rural areas.

Mr. F. O'Brien

It does not apply to urban areas?

Mr. Barrett

No.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Why does it not apply to urban areas? An elderly person in an urban area can have problems as well.

Mr. Barrett

It was designed to benefit isolated elderly people in isolated areas. It does not apply to urban areas but, if it is decided that it should, it can be done by regulation. At the moment it applies to essential repairs only.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Whether an elderly person is living in a lonely part of the country or in the city he can be isolated and this scheme should be made available in urban areas as well. A lot of elderly people in the city cannot afford to have repairs done because they have not got the money. This is an excellent section which should be extended across the board to benefit a lot of elderly people who cannot afford to have essential repairs done.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): This is a useful section which could relieve a lot of misery and hardship being endured by elderly people if it were generously operated. Some people would not be able to get a contractor or to arrange for the repairs to be done even if they were given the cost of the repairs and in those cases the local authority should move in and do the repairs. An old person could be living in a house worth a good few thousand pounds but because he is living from hand to mouth on social welfare benefits he would not be able to spend £50 on essential repairs. It is difficult to get local authorities to do the work quickly. It is a long drawn-out process and the Minister would be doing a charitable thing if he circularised local authorities with reference to this section and told them to operate it as it is intended to operate.

Mr. Barrett

Local authorities are fully aware of these essential repairs grants. The Department of the Environment make a grant of £300 available and there is no limit on the local authority as to how much they can back that up with and they are quite entitled to carry out the repair work.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): They rarely do it.

Mr. Barrett

They are entitled to carry out the repairs with the consent of the householder.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): If he were capable of organising the essential repair work it would be cheaper for the householder to do it himself, but many people are so helpless that they cannot get a contractor. I know the essential repairs grant was increased from £80 to £300 but rarely do the local authorities pay the full amount. They invariably require a contribution from the householder.

Mr. Barrett

Depending on circumstances.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is very rare. Perhaps they are more generous in Clare than in other places. Statistics show that they very often require a contribution. I am making a case for the person who cannot organise the job himself, where the local authority should move in and get it done quickly.

Mr. Quinn

In relation to the administration of the grant by local and housing authorities generally, I will give a specific instance, because, due to the communication difficulties, it is difficult for me to raise it in any other way. Will the Minister indicate, if a Beauty Board lining inside an extension to a house for which a grant was sought qualifies for the grant? I refer specifically to the refusal of a grant of £600 in relation to the construction of an extension which cost £2,130. I will give the Minister details later on. The specification for the construction of a single storey extension at the rere was 11 inch cavity walling, concrete flooring and three layers of mineral felt on a flat roof, and Beauty Board as a lining to the internal walls was not allowed and must be removed. Do we take it from that that Beauty Board is prohibited?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy is going into technical details which might lead into every possible material used. I will permit the Minister to reply to this.

Mr. Quinn

I was prompted to raise this on the grounds of the general communications difficulties but I can convey the details to the Minister later on. What I am raising in general terms is, if one applies Beauty Board to the inside of an extension, as distinct from paint or plaster, is one prohibited from getting a grant?

Mr. Barrett

With regard to the person concerned, if the Deputy lets me have the details I will definitely clear it up, but on a specific material such as the Deputy is speaking about it would be more appropriate to raise it as a parliamentary question.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 7.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 10 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.

Mr. Barrett

I move amendment No. 10.

In page 6, lines 57 and 58, to delete subsection (4).

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. F. O'Brien

I want to say a few words about grants for the housing of elderly people, most of which are channelled through local authorities. We should examine this whole area. A couple of voluntary housing bodies have developed housing for elderly people. But more people could be so encouraged if all of the grants and assistance were made more attractive and publicised. If an elderly person cannot get a local authority apartment they are then subjected to the market forces outside and very often forced to pay very high rents, and of course they are in receipt of an old age pension only. The Minister should examine the private sector in this respect to ascertain whether or not there could be some means of subsidising such housing. It may not be his Department that would be involved, but since we are talking about grants for the housing of elderly people, where people are living in private accommodation some way should be investigated of subsidising them, be it by way of rent subsidy or otherwise. They are very vulnerable, helpless people in lots of ways if a local authority cannot provide housing for them.

Some hostels in this city have been the homes of many elderly people for very many years. The whole area of grants for these people should be examined taking into account where they are residing and endeavouring to uplift the standard of their accommodation. We do not seem to take this matter very seriously. A number of such hostels in this city are doing a great job, but because of financial constraints on them they are being run down, thereby not providing the type of accommodation or service elderly people require and to which they are entitled. I would appeal to the Minister to be generous in this area, first of all, in encouraging voluntary bodies to provide housing for these people, with greater drive being shown by him through the local authorities to build more. In the last administration that was done and it is important that it be continued. There are many elderly people living in very poor conditions and paying high rents they cannot afford.

Reverting to the hostel situation it is important that we be generous with grants to ensure that the living standards there and the services provided are of a high quality. Generally these hostels provide housing for men. If such grants were made available it would render their accommodation so much more satisfactory.

Mr. Barrett

A vastly improved scheme for elderly people and for voluntary bodies involved in their housing was initiated recently—improved grants, £1,000 grants and, for the first time, loans being made available as well as various subsidies. Therefore, there has been a much more generous scheme available to such voluntary bodies in recent months. It has been made the business of local authorities to operate these schemes, not the Department; the local authorities are the bodies responsible. That package was received very well by all of the bodies concerned and considered to be a vast improvement on what had obtained heretofore.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I know that grants for hostels are being administered by local authorities. But these local authorities have financial restraints placed on them and they must refer back to the Department to know what they should do. It all reverts to a matter of £sd. While the package is reasonably generous, in a lot of ways it does not go far enough. However, I suppose one can never go far enough in the area of housing of elderly people or in doing things for them. I believe we are not doing enough. In this respect we should be genuine and give generous grants to hostels in Dublin, all of which are in need of a major facelift and refurbishing. But that cannot be done because the finance is not available. If we did so we would have done a good job, retaining a particular type of housing stock for a certain sector of the community. Only a couple of years ago one of the major hostels in this city threatened to close down, putting up to 300 people out on the street overnight. Fortunately a grant was forthcoming but it is one given on a day-to-day basis only.

I should prefer to see a positive, long-term policy in this respect so that these hostels could be rendered places in which men are proud to live rather than being considered somewhere with less than an ordinary standard of living. Great credit is due to the people who run these hostels. They are fantastic, dedicated people. We are fortunate to have them but they are not getting the back-up service they need. The amount of money involved here would be substantial and not merely that necessary for keeping them going on a day-to-day basis. I want to see these places completely refurbished, with proper living accommodation and cooking facilities being provided, having also areas to which men can retire, relax in, have discussions and which generally can be regarded as a home rather than an institution.

Mr. Barrett

The Iveagh Trust is the hostel about which Deputy O'Brien has been speaking. I have approved proposals of Dublin Corporation to pay a periodic contribution to the trust under section 12 of the 1966 Housing Act. This can apply to houses or hostels. Section 5 of this Bill enables a body like the Iveagh Trust to qualify for a house improvement grant. This applies to the houses.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I know that.

Mr. Barrett

Hostels are primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Health.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Yes, but given that such hostels have a large content of actual housing, when the Minister receives a request—and indeed I will be pressing the local authority for greater grants for this particular hostel and any other hostel that wants it—he should respond generously. The type of grant being paid at present is on a day-to-day running basis. I should like to see a grant being paid for the purposes of refurbishing, rendering such places more comfortable and liveable, requiring more financial aid than has been forthcoming to date. If proposals from the local authority for refurbishing of these hostels are sent to the Minister, I hope he will give them very sympathetic consideration.

Mr. Barrett

Our function under section 12 deals with the housing aspect of the hostel. The Minister for Health would have a function with regard to the comforts the Deputy mentioned.

Mr. F. O'Brien

When we build houses we install water, bathrooms and other comforts. That is what I am talking about. When two Departments are involved nothing is done. The Iveagh Hostel houses men and that comes under the Minister for the Environment. There might be other aspects that come under the Minister for Health but we are talking here about housing 300 or 400 men. The grant would be to improve the housing stock in the hostel which would be the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment. Health matters could be dealt with by the health boards, perhaps by way of providing additional money for food and so on. If the local authority put forward proposals for refurbishing the hostel would the Minister look at it in a favourable light?

Mr. Barrett

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Mr. Quinn

I move amendment No. 10a:

In page 7, after line 4, to insert a new subsection as follows:

"(2) A housing authority may, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, make a loan to a person under the age of 21 and at least 18 years of age purchasing a house or carrying out improvements to a house."

The background of this amendment is in response to a constituency representation in which a number of young people applied to Dublin Corporation for SDA loans or low rise mortgage loans but because they were under the legal age of 21 they were not eligible to get a loan. I inquired from the housing officials in Dublin Corporation and they clearly indicated that they were bound legally by the majority laws that relate to contracts and the signing of contracts by minors.

I am not sure if this amendment is acceptable to the Minister or the Department, but it will not involve any additional expenditure as such. As we have lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, we might amend other legislation to lower the legal age to 18. A large number of people are discriminated against when they go to a local authority for a loan. I do not know what the position is in relation to building societies. The Minister might tell us if this amendment would be extended to building society loans. I am dealing specifically with SDA loans and low rise mortgage loans.

We have a very young population, which will increase in the years to come. The marriage rate for young people is increasing. I know of a number of young people who got engaged and want to get married but cannot get a loan. They then decide either to spend their savings on a holiday, because there is not much point in saving for three or four years, or they decide not to buy a house but to rent a flat.

This is a simple proposal. I looked through the Bill to see which section would be the most appropriate for this amendment. This seemed to be the most appropriate section, although it is described as dealing with loans by housing authorities to improve houses. My amendment says that a housing authority may, with the consent of the Minister and the Minister for Finance, make a loan to a person under the age of 21 and at least 18 years of age purchasing a house or carrying out improvements to a house.

Mr. Barrett

This amendment is tied in with the overall position of minors— namely, persons under the age of 21 years—under the law relating to contracts. I will try to explain briefly. Generally speaking, a minor may be a party to a contract but at any time he may repudiate the contract. If a minor mortgaged a property to the local authority, for instance, and the authority made a loan to the minor on the security of that mortgage, should the authority wish to repossess the property in the event of default in repayments by the minor or otherwise, he could simply repudiate the mortgage contract and the council would be left without any security for their loan or any effective means of recovering the loan. This type of situation would not be satisfactory.

The provisions whereby a person who was party to a contract as a minor may repudiate the contract at any time are enshrined in our legislation, primarily for the protection of minors, that is, to prevent unfair advantage being taken of persons of immature years. It is unfortunate that a person who may be quite responsible and of good earning ability should be hindered from entering certain desirable contracts by provisions which are intended for his protection. The only exception to this general rule is that a contract for necessaries may be enforceable against a minor.

The Law Reform Commission, at the request of the Attorney General, have carried out research into the law relating to the age of majority and have published a working paper and proposals to reduce the age of majority to 18 years. Copies of these documents have been published and widely circulated and the commission are awaiting observations on them. Pending action in regard to these proposals, the present position is that local authorities, like all mortgage lending agencies, are generally unwilling to accept a loan application from a minor unless he was within, say, a few months of reaching the age of 21 years. Furthermore, where a lending agency accepted a loan application from such a person and approved the loan, it could only be done on the strict understanding that the purchase of the house in question and the completion of the mortgage would not be effected until the person had reached the age of majority. The amendment of the law contained in the proposals of the Law Reform Commission will meet the objectives Deputy Quinn is aiming to achieve and his amendment would not. Legislation to rectify this position is now being considered.

Mr. Quinn

My amendment is noncontentious and I appreciate the Minister's reply. In the interim period before the Law Reform Commission's proposals are turned into legislation does the Minister see any way the position can be changed so that young people aged 18 and over who apply for an SDA or low mortgage loan can be accommodated by the local authorities? If the Minister accepts that a local authority can sign on in principle an application from a young couple, indicate that they would pay rent on a mortgage for the first three years and that when they come to their majority they sign the contract and it can become legal—therefore meeting the requirements pending the reform of the majority legislation—then perhaps the Minister could indicate this by way of circular to the local authorities. There may be some other way to go about it. My objective is clear. It could take up to three or four years before the necessary legislation is effected.

Mr. Barrett

I would hope not.

Mr. Quinn

It could. Perhaps we cannot amend the contract law in this thing and anyhow that would not be the way to do it if major reform legislation is coming through. There may be some administrative procedure that would enable the local authority to get over this problem. One suggestion I made to the law agent was that one of the parents of the couple undertook the mortgage contract for a period of three years, the maximum period, and when the person came to the age of majority the contract reverted back to him. That, I understand, was applied in County Meath. It seems to suggest that there would be double stamp duty and all sorts of other things. It is an administrative problem of which the law makes nonsense at the moment because of the majority age. If there are any suggestions as to how the objective can be attained I will withdraw the amendment on those grounds.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): This difficulty arises because the age of majority still remains at 21 years and, of course, that is entirely outdated. The Succession Act, 1965, provides that a person of 18 can make a will and a subsequent measure conferred the vote in general elections and local elections on people of 18. I think a constitutional amendment was necessary to do that. I know about the report of the Law Reform Commission and the recommendation that the age be reduced to 18. There should be no delay in implementing that recommendation. It is universally accepted that young people are maturing earlier, working earlier, and marrying earlier, and therefore, require houses earlier. They are purchasing expensive items such as motor cars and houses and they should be able to enter into a contract.

The Minister has said that there is only one exception to the rule that an infant is not bound by a contract and that is in the case of a supply of necessaries. Speaking entirely from memory, I think there is another exception and that is if the contract is held to be for the benefit of the minor or infant. I speak subject to correction in that but I think I am right. If that is right, purchase of a house could even be deemed to be a necessary and it could also be deemed to be for the benefit of the minor. A simple change in the law—it would be a piecemeal change in advance of the reduction of the age of majority from 21 to 18—a simple, one-section amendment deeming the purchase of a house to be a necessary or deeming a contract for the purchase of a house to be for the infant's benefit, would get over the difficulty, would bind the infant, as we call him, and would safeguard the lending authority. There is also the administrative suggestion by Deputy Quinn whereby the house purchaser would be the tenant of the local authority for three years at a sum the equivalent of the repayment of the loan and at the end of three years he would have the option of purchasing the house and would get benefit for the instalments paid over the three years. The argument against that might be that if he did not pay the instalments they could not be recovered from him. If he were married a house would be a necessity and any court would hold that a house is a necessary for a person who is married. I agree with Deputy Quinn that this should not be put on the long finger even for two or three years. It should be dealt with immediately if there is a solution to it. I am satisfied that the law could be changed by even an amendment of this Bill for housing purposes. The long title would justify it. It says:

An Act to amend and extend the Housing Acts, 1966 to 1970, and to provide for certain other matters in relation to housing.

That long title is adequate to amend the law and we could either state baldly that a person can enter into a contract to mortgage a house at the age of 18 and that is all we have to say, or we could use one of the other devices saying that the purchase or mortgage of a house would seem to be a necessary or is deemed to be for the infant's benefit. I support Deputy Quinn's amendment and suggest that the Minister have a look at it now.

Mr. Barrett

With regard to the heading "necessary", I understand that one local authority operate for people under 21 under that heading as a necessity of life. I am not familiar with the other provision on which the Deputy referred to about it being deemed for the benefit of the person. It is quite possible that in the event of it being tested the loan under that heading may be found to be valid and recoverable if necessary, but there is no experience of it.

When this Bill becomes law I will certainly bring to the notice of local authorities the question of whether it should be dealt with under the heading of necessity or necessary. I will also bring to the attention of the Law Reform Commission without delay what has been said here by Deputies with a view to trying to get any changes in the law brought forward.

Mr. F. O'Brien

This is a first-class amendment. In my area a lot of young people have had to do without houses or wait for a period of time and put off their intended marriages. It appears now that one local authority are doing what has been stated and it can, as the Minister pointed out, be done possibly in this Bill. He should instruct local authorities that they can lend moneys to people of 18 years and upwards.

Mr. Barrett

No, I did not say that.

Mr. F. O'Brien

The Minister did say one local authority.

Mr. Barrett

I did, but not under this heading.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I thought he said that he might be able to do it under this Bill.

Mr. Barrett

No, under the necessity of life under the old legislation.

Mr. F. O'Brien

The fact that one authority are doing it sets a precedent and that is important. The Minister should look at this precedent. Local authorities will tend to take the easy way out in the sense that normally it is not done and there may be a risk in recovering the loan if repayments are not made. There may be some risk, but, given the size of the problem, it would not be too great and a calculated risk is worth the taking. As Deputy Fitzpatrick has said, people now have the vote at 18. They are putting us into this House and putting people on to local authorities but when they seek local authority SDA loans they cannot obtain them. There is an anomaly here. I know that the Minister is sympathetic and I ask him to have a look at this and see what can be done. If something can be done I hope he will instruct local authorities forthwith to implement this where possible. I do not think that the demand is astronomical but even a small demand should be fulfilled.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister has undertaken to communicate with the housing authorities when this Bill becomes law and to draw their attention to the possibility of their treating a house as a necessity. I do not think that will work because the decision will ultimately lie with the county manager and he will have to make up his mind whether a house is a necessity or not. He will have regard to the fact that an auditor will examine the accounts and if a minor were in default the auditor might say that the loan should not have been given and that a surcharge will be imposed. The county manager will err in many cases on the side of security and safety.

We should reframe this amendment and insert a simple section providing that a contract by an infant for the purchase or mortgage of a house shall be deemed a necessity. That would remove from the housing authority the possibility of surcharge but they would continue to act with prudence and treat each case on its merits. It would not oblige them to give a grant to a young person of 18 if he were not otherwise reasonably creditworthy and responsible. The Minister has said that one local authority have got over the difficulty by treating housing as a necessity and operating in that way. That is a precedent established by a broad-minded county manager who believes in giving as much as he can under the regulations. Some other believe in withholding as much as they can. If we free housing authorities from the possibility of surcharges it will operate perfectly. On Report Stage we should insert a provision such as I have outlined.

Mr. Barrett

Dublin County Council are the local authority who are making loans available. The same manager operates in the city and county areas.

Mr. F. O'Brien

The situation in the city is not the same.

Mr. Quinn

The city officials are more scared of the Custom House.

Mr. Barrett

We are not interfering in any way. I feel certain that Dublin County Council had the full weight of whatever legal advice was available before they embarked on this course. They are operating under the necessity of life clause. Certainly I will bring this to the attention of other local authorities. Deputy Fitzpatrick mentioned the auditor, but I would think that local authorities would depend most of all on legal advice as to whether the amount would be recoverable by law.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The legal advice is that it might be considered a necessity and it might not. They will not get positive advice on that point. It is not a question of law; it is a question of fact in each case. What might be a necessity for one infant might not be a necessity for another infant.

Mr. Barrett

I assume Dublin County Council examine each case individually and that is what any local authority would do. We will go as far as possible. I know this is a very worthy amendment but we received it only yesterday afternoon and it requires much consideration by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General because of other legislation we have mentioned. Certainly in the meantime we will go as far as possible in an effort to make these loans available. We will bring what has been said to the attention of the Law Reform Commission so that the legislation will not be unduly held up. It would take some time to tease out the legal implications of the amendment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The amendment suggested would not be confined to local authority houses. It would be an enabling measure and would not compel the making of loans.

Mr. Quinn

I appreciate that the Minister and his Department have only recently seen this amendment and I propose to withdraw it. I would ask the Minister to consider some form of piecemeal reform on Report Stage. We have already proceeded with piecemeal reform of the major legislation. It is conceivable that the legislation which has been mentioned might not be introduced for three or four years. I hope the Minister will have the opportunity between now and Report Stage to enter into the necessary consultations with a view to accepting an amendment along these lines.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Barrett

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, subsection (4), line 36, after "improvement works," to insert "and".

This is a minor technical amendment. It is desirable for the sake of having the terms of the subsection consistent with the drafting of other similar provisions in the Bill. Similar provisions are contained in section 4 (2), section 5 (2), section 10 (1) and section 18 (2).

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 may be discussed together. Amendment No. 13 is consequential on amendment No. 12.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 12:

In page 7, subsection (7), line 55, to delete "the sum of".

This amendment proposes to amend the definition of ownership in the section. Section 8 enables housing authorities to grant loans to householders for the improvement of their houses. The present level of the loan is only £2,500 and we will discuss that later. The loans are usually secured by a mortgage on the house which is being improved. It is stated that the housing authority may secure the loan on the ownership of the house or by vesting the ownership in the housing authority.

Section 8 (7) states:

In this section "ownership" means such interest or combination of interests in a house as constitutes either a fee simple interest in possession or a leasehold interest (including fee farm grant) in possession of such number of years unexpired at the date on which the loan under this section in respect of the house is authorised by the housing authority as is equal to or greater than the sum of the term fixed for the repayment of the loan and fifteen years.

In simple language this means that a person cannot get a loan on the ownership of a house if it is a leasehold unless, if the repayment is 25 years, he has a lease for 40 years, or, if the repayment period is 20 years, he has a lease unexpired for 35 years.

That is unreasonable in respect of an improvement loan. My amendment proposes that he should be entitled to a loan if the unexpired term of his lease equals the term of years over which the loan is to be repaid. If that man applies for a loan of £2,500 which is to be repaid over 20 years and he has an unexpired lease of 20 years or greater, he should get the loan. If he applies for a loan which is to be repaid over 25 years and he has an unexpired lease of 25 years or greater, he should get the loan. The term of years specified in section 8 (7) is too long and is not reasonable in the case of a loan for improvement works.

Surely the local authority would be adequately safeguarded with a lease which would extend over the term of the repayment of the loan? In most cases the lease would be renewed. If it was not renewed it would fall to the owner in fee simple, who would then have a very valuable asset. Perhaps liability could be placed on him. If that could not be done and if the applicant for the loan is otherwise creditworthy the amount could be recovered from him during his term of occupancy. I would like to hear the Minister on this because I believe that the added 15 years is unnecessary and far too long.

Mr. Barrett

I am prepared to accept these amendments from Deputies Fitzpatrick and O'Brien. It is a more flexible approach.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I move amendment No. 13:

In page 7, subsection (7), line 56, to delete "and fifteen years".

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The loan at the moment is £2,500. It can be changed by regulation. I hope the Minister intends increasing it considerably because £2,500 will go very little way at the moment towards repairing a house if the repairs are substantial. I know of a case at the moment where the applicant got a loan from the county council of £2,500 and he had to go to the bank to borrow more. It is in the national interest that houses should be repaired and that existing stocks are preserved as long as possible. The best way of ensuring that is to make money readily available for repairs at reasonable interest.

The means test is written into this. It is fairly rigid. The amount of the loan and the ceiling for the means test should be increased, because I cannot too strongly recommend the necessity for repairing houses. New houses are necessary because old houses are allowed to deteriorate long before the end of their expectation of life has been reached.

Mr. F. O'Brien

As Deputy Fitzpatrick said, the loans are totally inadequate. We must retain our housing stock. We should look at grants and loans for people who want to convert their houses. This will increase our housing stock. Substantial grants and loans should be given for this work. A sum of £2,500 is very little for repair work today and deters people from doing repairs and improvement work to their houses.

We should not have any means test in relation to loans for improvement work to houses. It is most important to encourage people to improve their property. We see property, particularly in cities and urban areas, becoming more and more dilapidated because there are not incentives for people to improve their property. The amount of the loan should at least be doubled and the means test should be abolished in relation to repairs to houses. It is in the interest of the Department that housing stock is kept in good order. On the Continent people get tax concessions for improving their property.

Mr. Barrett

They get them here.

Mr. F. O'Brien

If I point the front of my house what tax concession do I get?

Mr. Barrett

Under the new scheme introduced by a Revenue Commissioners which was announced in the budget.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Nobody seems to know about the tax concession.

Mr. Barrett

It was lost amid the other good news in the budget.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will not discuss the budget at this stage. Deputy O'Brien on the section.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The job must be done by a contractor who is brave enough to register himself with the inspector of taxes.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I am glad we are going in that direction. I have always been asking for some incentive to be given to people who improve their property. The loan incentive is not sufficient. I am sure the Minister will accept that £2,500 today is not sufficient. The means test makes it so prohibitive that people are not qualifying for the loan. The Minister should abolish the means test in this area and improve the loan by at least £5,000. This is not a substantial sum for any kind of home repairs or improvement works. The Minister has only to walk around the city to see the amount of dilapidation there is because his Department and local authorities are not prepared to face up to their responsibility of making it worthwhile for people to do the necessary improvements to their property.

Mr. Quinn

I am seeking some clarification on this amended section. Am I right in assuming that amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are being accepted?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 have been agreed.

Mr. Quinn

Does that now mean, in conjunction with section 5 and section 14, that the Minister can draw up a scheme to enable people who are tenants of a rent controlled property in the inner city area of Dublin and other cities to qualify for a loan, that under that rehabilitation scheme for certain inner city areas people who have an ownership, as defined in subsection (7), which gives them a leasehold would qualify for a loan plus whatever special rehabilitation grants there might be on the basis that their ownership of the property was sufficiently secure to get the loan? If it does not mean that, we can throw our hat at making loans available for inner city rehabilitation programmes. The Minister might have a look at this and, if it requires some detailed consideration, he might come back to the matter on Report Stage.

Mr. Barrett

A grant can be given to the owner of a house or to the tenant with the consent of the landlord. In addition to the £2,500 secured loan, there is an unsecured loan up to £600. I appreciate it would not do much, but it is there. With regard to the limitation of £2,500 and the income limit, it is only a coincidence that it happens to be the same income limit as for the SDA loan. It does not have to remain tied to this definitely.

This Bill makes it possible by regulation to change the amount of loan and the income limit from time to time. I appreciate the points made about the necessity to save the existing housing stock throughout the country, particularly in the larger towns and in the cities. This is under active review at the moment with a view to considering the possibility of improving the scheme.

Mr. Boland

There is one system that operated for some time which might be more acceptable to the Minister and to the Deputies who have spoken on this matter, namely, that, instead of an income limit being set, the loan or grant is payable on the basis of the rateable valuation of the house. The only reason for an income limit is to allow the Government to control the total amount of money drawn by way of loan. Nevertheless, the point made by Deputy O'Brien and others is a valid one. It might be more acceptable to the Minister if he would consider setting a limitation for loans for reconstruction purpose on houses with a rateable valuation of £40 or less. In that way the vast bulk of houses that people would seek to extend or improve would be covered irrespective of the income of the owner or tenant. It would be regarded as more equitable and designed to improve the housing stock in a sector where it is most needed.

Mr. Barrett

I appreciate the point made by Deputy Boland but since derating the valuation is not really as relevant as it was in the past. I agree there are still valuations but they have not the same relevance as in the past. However, the Deputy's suggestion is something that will be considered.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Section 8 (2) (b) provides that a form of security may be by way of a charging order, charging the house under the Registration of Title Act, 1964, with repayment of the loan together with the interest. The point I want to make is that there can be quite unreasonable delays in regard to this matter. Some law agents will not clear the title or authorise payment of the loan until registration has been completed in the Land Registry. I think that is unreasonable. Once the deed of charge is signed and is handed to the law agent, once he is satisfied it is in order and lodges it in the Land Registry, he should clear the loan for payment. Some law agents do this, but some do not. Where they do not, there can be a delay of up to six months.

The situation is even worse in the case of a new house. Very often the site has to be subdivided in the Land Commission, a new folio has to be opened in the Land Registry and this takes a long time. Once the documents are accepted in the Land Registry the law agent should be encouraged to clear the title. I suggest that the Minister and his Department take up this matter with the housing authorities in order to get some uniformity on the matter and to have it expedited.

In the recent past Deputies had an opportunity of inspecting nearly all the houses in the country. In some local authority housing estates some of the houses have been bought by the tenants, they have been reconstructed and they are like little palaces. There are other houses that are not reconstructed and one would not think the houses were in the same country never mind the same estate. Anything we can do to encourage local authorities or private individuals to reconstruct their houses should be done. It would be money well spent.

Mr. Barrett

With regard to the question of delays, I will bring this to the notice of the Minister for Justice. With regard to the question of law agents, this would depend on the particular law agent.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I agree entirely but some kid-glove handling might get some results.

Mr. Quinn

I am not sure if the Minister had an opportunity to reply to the question I raised with regard to inner city rehabilitation and actual ownership. With regard to grants, the Minister indicated something that perhaps is potentially disturbing in relation to people who own or occupy a house that has been in the family for one and a half generations, where the landlord derives less income from it than what used to be the cost of the rates and where the rent is infrequently collected. There are a number of such houses in my constituency. In those instances it is quite probable that the consent of the landlord for a grant would not be obtained.

We are talking now about the framework within which this Minister and any subsequent Minister can draw up a scheme for inner city rehabilitation which would be a combination of planning by the local authority and a scheme of grants and loans. Here we are dealing with loans. The Minister introduced the question of grants. I would be very concerned that the consent of the landlord would be required as a qualification by the tenant in respect of a grant application. We cannot realistically aim at financing inner city rehabilitation by direct grants exclusively. Some system of loan and repayment is required.

If, under subsection (7), the definition of ownership is constructed legally so as to exclude people who hold title to property on the basis that they have occupied it for many years, that it is a rent-controlled property and that their rights of succession are secure in the normal way, then these people may not qualify for a loan under this section, and a programme of inner city rehabilitation in the area that I am familiar with—Dublin south-east—will never get off the ground. The matter involved is legal and technical and may require certain consideration by the Minister and his officials but perhaps he would indicate whether he would be prepared to consider the point and to comment on it on Report Stage.

Mr. Boland

There is another point regarding the issuing of loans and that is that very often people extend their houses and either do not seek or are exempted from having to seek planning permission by virtue of the size of the extension but subsequently if they try to sell the house a potential purchaser's solicitor may seek evidence of the issuing of planning permission in respect of the extension. The person selling the house is then obliged to seek permission for the retention of the extension. In some local authority areas there is a system whereby building bye-laws permission is necessary for additions or extensions. This system operates in Dublin, in Cork and in one or two other local authority areas. While it is possible for a person to succeed in obtaining planning permission for the retention of an extension it is not possible for one to succeed regarding permission in respect of building bye-laws approval for a structure already completed. This is because of the condition whereby it is necessary in respect of bye-laws approval that building control inspections be carried out at the various stages of the construction work. This is to ensure that proper materials and standards are maintained. In these circumstances it would be useful if the Minister would include in any regulations a requirement to the effect that wherever necessary building bye-laws permission is issued in respect of any extension for which a loan application is being made.

On the more general basis it would be useful, too, if the Minister would draw the attention of the public to the fact that in those local authority areas where building bye-laws approval is necessary, approval should always be obtained even in respect of extensions that would be exempt.

Mr. Barrett

The question of bye-laws does not arise under this section. However, the point being made by the Deputy is made clearly in the Department booklet A Home of Your Own.

Mr. Boland

The question of bye-laws could arise and, therefore, in making any regulation under section 8 the Minister should indicate clearly that there is this question of bye-laws approval.

Mr. Barrett

My advice is that it would not be necessary to do that because bye-law permission would have to be obtained anyway.

Mr. Boland

Only if that is a condition regarding the loan.

Mr. Barrett

We are talking about a local authority loan. Surely, then, the local authority concerned would be familiar with the law. They are the ones who apply the bye-laws in this respect.

Mr. Boland

But the point is that this condition should be made clear from the moment of the issuing of the loan.

Mr. Barrett

Surely a local authority applying these bye-laws would ensure that they were complied with before issuing a loan.

Mr. Quinn

Are the national building regulations not in operation since 1 July?

Mr. Barrett

They are not yet in operation. Regarding the initial point raised regarding an extension which would be less than the required measurements in terms of planning permission and of the difficulty that might be experienced later in regard to a purchaser's solicitor seeking proof of planning permission, there should be no difficulty in obtaining confirmation from the planning authority or the local authority concerned that planning permission was not necessary for such an extension.

Mr. Boland

I am talking of cases in which bye-laws approval is sought after the work has been done, possibly many years afterwards, and when it would not be possible to have that approval because the necessary inspections had not been carried out at construction stage.

Mr. Barrett

I presume that in accordance with the building bye-laws, there are inspections.

Mr. Boland

If, say, a person wishes to build an extension that is less than 190 square feet in area, he would not have to apply for planning permission and, consequently, it might not occur to him that he should apply for building bye-laws approval. Consequently, the construction work is completed without any reference being made to the local authority but subsequently the person concerned may seek building bye-laws approval in order to be able to sell the house as reconstructed. The point is that the local authority are not then in a position to give their approval because the necessary inspections have not been carried out and one of these inspections takes place at the foundation stage. Obviously, it would not be possible to carry out that inspection after the building had been completed.

Mr. Barrett

As I have mentioned we are making a change in the booklet to include that point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are getting into a field that is not relevant to the section.

Mr. F. O'Brien

But it is relevant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter being raised might be relevant in terms of regulations but it does not arise on this section.

Mr. F. O'Brien

The difficulty arises when houses are being sold and when loans cannot be obtained by the buyers by reason of the fact that bye-law approval was not obtained for extensions.

Mr. Barrett

We are making a change in that situation.

Mr. F. O'Brien

What is the change?

Mr. Barrett

The change will be made in the booklet I have mentioned.

Mr. F. O'Brien

But what will the change be?

Mr. Barrett

It will relate to the question raised by Deputy Boland.

Mr. Quinn

Is the Minister in a position to refer to my query about ownership under subsection (7)?

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy raised the question of landlords who might see their tenants only once or twice a year.

Mr. Quinn

There were two questions. The first related to the obtaining of the consent of a landlord before a tenant could obtain a grant and the second question was whether such a tenant would qualify for a loan for rehabilitation purposes within the definition of ownership here.

Mr. Barrett

Permission is not necessary in respect of the £600 unsecured loan but in respect of a local authority loan of up to £2,500, naturally some form of security would be sought regarding the recovery of the amount, should that be necessary. The question of the relationship between the tenant and the landlord would be a matter to be considered on the legislation governing private rented accommodation. This is being looked at.

Mr. Quinn

I am not talking about any existing scheme of grants. I am talking about a future scheme of grants to which a number of people in this House would be committed. Would the Minister look at this question and see if under subsection (2) of section 8 some future Minister or the present Minister could devise a scheme whereby people who have rent controlled properties would be able to get a mortgage from a local authority and the local authority would be able to take a lien on the property to secure the mortgage? I am not familiar with how this could be best done legally.

If the definition of ownership is not checked so as to secure a local authority in doing that, any subsequent strategy we may devise collectively for inner-city rehabilitation could fall flat on its face in large sections of Dublin city. The nature of occupancy of the houses which badly need repair is such that the landlord and the tenant are governed by rent control legislation.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Deputy Quinn has raised a very important point which needs attention. There are many houses in the city of Dublin and throughout the country which have been held by tenants for long numbers of years as weekly tenants. They have acquired the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts and they are controlled. The landlords cannot acquire possession of them. The rents are small. These people would not qualify for loans under this section other than the paltry £600 by way of an unsecured loan which, as the Minister says, would not do very much.

The securities outlined in subsection (2) on which a local authority can lend money are: (a) an instrument vesting the ownership of the house in the housing authority, (b) a charging order under the Registration of Title Act, (c) a deposit with the housing authority of the land certificate, and (d) a second mortgage. All those presuppose the ownership of at least an unexpired lease equal to the terms for the repayment of the loan. I thank the Minister for cutting out the 15 years. If a person has a weekly tenancy only, notwithstanding the fact that he has the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts and cannot be ejected from the house, he will not qualify for a loan other than an unsecured loan.

I note that there is no provision for a guarantee. The Minister might consider adding a qualifying paragraph (e) to subsection (2) and providing that the local authority could make a loan on a satisfactory guarantee by an acceptable guarantor. That is accepted in many other walks of life and I do not see why it could not be accepted here. Alternatively he could confer on the local authority the right to charge the fee simple interest in the house if they were satisfied the tenant had the benefit of the Rent Restrictions Acts and could not be evicted.

That was suggested by Deputy Quinn. It is a good suggestion. It could be operated if this Bill were suitably amended by giving the local authority the right to give the loan and they would see that the loan was applied to repairing or improving the house. That would be adequate security for the local authority because they could follow the fee simple interest in the house. Notice might have to be given to the landlord.

This amendment would take some thought and some consideration. It shows the inadvisability of rushing legislation through the House. When an amendment like this is proposed hands are thrown up and we are told this Department and that Department would have to be consulted and that would take far too long. Ultimately that leads to bad legislation. The houses Deputy Quinn is talking about are houses in which people have acquired the benefit of the Rent Restrictions Acts. They are also houses on which the landlords are not prepared to spend a penny. Because of the nature of the tenancy or the nature of the ownership the tenants are not prepared to spend a penny with the result that the houses deteriorate and run down until they are acquired by some enterprising building contractor in the hope that he may clear the site and build an office block or something else.

We should do everything we can in a Bill like this to preserve these houses. Unless something such as that suggested by Deputy Quinn is done, they will continue to deteriorate. The landlord does not think it is in his interest to improve them and the tenant has not the money or the security to improve them. This should be attended to when a Bill like this is going through the House. It will be years before another Bill like this is put through the House.

This shows all too clearly the inadvisability of bringing a Bill like this before the House at a time when it has to be rushed through it. If the Minister were to accept the amendment or the spirit of the amendment, he would have to get working on it, and it would have to go to the Attorney General or some other legal person for advice. I heard whispers around the House that the Minister might not complete this Bill now.

Mr. Barrett

I did not hear that.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not mind whether he does. It would be a pity if the Bill were to be less effective because it is being rushed through. We know that when it goes to the Seanad it will not be amended there because the golden rule at this time of the year is that the Seanad are wasting their time making amendments which must come back to the Dáil and the Dáil will not be recalled. That is the sort of farce we are engaged in at the moment. Whatever amendments are made here are all right because they can be cleared in the Seanad. If amendments were made in the Seanad the week after next when the Dáil will possibly have risen, it is unlikely that the Government would be anxious to recall the Dáil to ratify the Seanad amendments. That is not doing the country's business as it should be done. It is not good enough. It goes on at this time of the year, year after year. The suggestion made by Deputy Quinn is worthy of consideration. I hope the Minister will incorporate it in the Bill on Report Stage.

Mr. Barrett

I agree that Deputy Quinn's suggestion is worthy of consideration. The question of time comes into it. A more effective and quicker way of dealing with the type of problem Deputy Quinn mentioned would be by way of regulation—which can be done in this Bill—governing the increased amounts of unsecured loans for specific houses or areas perhaps. It could be done under this, and we would not have all this paraphernalia about charges and so forth. That would be far quicker and a more effective way to get over the problem for specific houses and areas. It is something I will consider when the legislation goes through. The other way would be far more complicated, because we would still have to put a charge on title and all that sort of thing.

Mr. F. O'Brien

The unsecured loan is a good way out of it. Where people are living in rent-restricted houses they are not always on good terms with the owner of the house who would want them out of it so as to be able to make more money. It is very hard to get agreement about the tenant getting some sort of security from the owner. It would be useless to talk about grants and loans here unless we could give an unsecured loan which would amount to what a secure loan would amount to. The unsecured loan should only be given in certain circumstances where the local authority or the Department are satisfied that the person in rented property cannot get the type of security required from the owner of the house. If that were the case, the property we are trying to preserve would be preserved. Deputy Fitzpatrick says that at present the unsecured loan amounts to about a quarter of the ordinary loan which makes it of no consequence. If we are giving it, it should be the same as the ordinary loan. That should not create any problem.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The object of this whole exercise is to make it possible for people either to build their own houses or to ensure that the local authority builds houses for them. Although section 9 is short it is one of the most important sections. It deals with the provision of sites for private houses by private people. It authorises the local authority to provide sites for private houses and to sell these sites to house builders, and it authorises the Minister to pay subsidies to housing authorities who engage in providing these sites. We all know that one of the major contributors to the increased price of houses is the cost of sites and until we do something to make sites available to house builders at reasonable prices the price of houses will continue to soar. It will be beyond the capacity of the ordinary householder to pay for them, and the dream enshrined in the Fianna Fáil manifesto of making it easier to own ones house will be gone, like the snow that fell last year.

In many parts of the country apart from Dublin sites are costing £6,000 and in many cases they have no sewerage or water facilities. If a person buys an unserviced site for £6,000 it would probably cost him another £2,000 to install water and sewerage facilities. It is not difficult to understand why house prices have reached such a height. When local authorities acquire from 20 to 100 acres of land it lies there for a number of years, they then develop the sites and proceed to sell them on a commercial basis. That does not solve any problem. This land should be made available to house builders at nothing more than the cost of the land and the cost of developing it by the local authority.

Mr. Barrett

The local authority do not have to sell the land on a commercial basis.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): They should not be allowed to do so. They should be told to sell it at no more than the cost of the land to them. In that way they could help to keep down the price of other sites in the locality and would be doing something to control house prices. As long as the price of sites continues to soar the price of houses will continue to soar. Agricultural land has become more valuable and land around towns becomes extremely expensive when sold out in single sites. If a local authority acquires farm land and develops sites and provides sewerage and water facilities, the sites should be sold at a reasonable price. In some cases sites are fetching £6,000 or more and that is inexcusable. Instead of helping to decrease inflation they are increasing it.

The Kenny Report has been lying in the Custom House since before the Coalition Government came to office and it is still there. I suppose it will be there when we come back. Even if something is not going to be done about the Kenny Report we have a golden opportunity on this section to do something if sites are subsidised by the Department. Local authorities should be given generous financial support. What have the Government been doing to bring down the price of houses since they took office? We had an argument yesterday as to whether the cost of houses went from £11,000 to £22,000 since the Government came into office or whether they went from £12,000 or £14,000 to £22,000, but does it matter a lot? Is the increase in either case not outrageous? Orders were made last August by the Minister to control building assets, and certificates of reasonable value were introduced. It all added up to nothing. Prices are still going up. They came down in the last quarter of last year but they rocketed in the first quarter of this year. The Government have done nothing to control them.

One of the major reasons for increased house prices is that the cost of building sites continues to go up. The only way this can be curtailed and avoided is by local authorities getting into the market and buying large tracts of land so that developed sites can be made available at a reasonable and subsidised cost. That would do a lot to curb the cost of house building. In my view, even after the passing of this Bill nothing will have been done to curb the rising price of houses if the Minister does not do something to curb the price of sites. The Minister has an opportunity to do something about those costs under this section. It is no use in having the section if local authorities are not told to acquire the land and develop it. They should be encouraged to do this. In this connection I am talking about county managers. The Minister should encourage local authorities by way of financial assistance or otherwise to do this work.

Mr. Barrett

I should like to tell the House that the subsidy to local authorities was increased from £300 to £500 by me and I vastly increased the amounts made available to them to make more serviced sites available in the last two years. With regard to the performance of local authorities in making sites available to people to build their own houses I should like to state that those authorities are only obliged to charge a price which is equivalent to the cost of the land, the cost of any development that takes place and administrative costs. They must also take into consideration the subsidy which is made available by my Department. A circular was issued to local authorities in 1972 advising them to adhere to this. Obviously, many of them have not acted on my advice. The performance of local authorities in making these sites available is an absolute disgrace. Since 1967 only 5,000 building sites were made available. There is no necessity whatever for local authorities to rush out frantically to buy more land—they can do so if they wish—because they have a total of 51,751 sites on hands. Many of them are serviced sites which could be sold on the basis I have already indicated, but local authorities insist on holding on to those sites.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): They are glorified speculators.

Mr. Barrett

Time and again local authorities have been asked to make such sites available to people and also to buy more land by way of overdraft with the cost being taken into consideration in due course. The fault with regard to sites lies with local authorities, who have been given every encouragement by the Department. They have been exhorted not to charge more than the cost I have indicated. In fairness, it must be said that a lot of land is in the hands of the local authorities in the Dublin area who have not been over-active in making sites available. I agree with the Deputy that more sites should be made available and that such action would reduce the cost of housing. We have repeatedly circularised local authorities with a view to getting more sites made available. They have also been told about the price they must charge.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Are they expected to charge the servicing of the debt involved?

Mr. Barrett

Yes.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Therefore, they can keep those sites for umpteen years and accumulate such costs.

Mr. Barrett

The cost is less than the market value.

Mr. Quinn

Would the Minister be prepared to pursue his objective of releasing serviced or unserviced land owned by local authorities by enabling such authorities to recover the cost of the site—the original cost of acquisition and the carrying charges plus development, if it has occurred—by charging that at a simple interest rate over a period of 25 years to the builder, the occupier or a voluntary housing association? It has been my experience that the capital cost of the site, which is a once-off payment, can be too expensive. On a number of occasions inquiries were made to know whether local authorities would accept phased payments of the cost of the site; it is not the cost which is at issue but the method of repayment. The method of repayment could take two forms. For example, if the site cost £4,000, the local authority could accept repayment on that sum over 25 years as an ordinary mortgage with compound interest or, alternatively, they could accept repayment over ten years without interest being charged. The practice seems to vary from local authority to local authority. It appears that, if one gets a local authority loan for housing, a loan will not be given for the site also. Will the Minister indicate whether he is prepared to make it clear if local authorities can subsidise the cost of housing sites to applicants, particularly to voluntary housing associations?

Mr. Barrett

Section 9 enables me to make arrangements with regard to repayment. I will have to examine the matter before making any changes, but I have the power under this section.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I accept that the section gives the Minister great scope. The Minister has indicated that local authorities are not doing enough in regard to providing serviced sites and I hope he uses his muscle to get local authorities to make more sites available. There is no doubt that a move in that direction would mean cheaper houses, but it would also mean that small building concerns would be kept in business. Such concerns, because they are in competition with big building industries, must pay huge sums of money for sites. If local authorities are not active in this regard, the Minister should pursue them. The Minister must also carry out an investigation to see if they are charging exorbitant prices for sites.

I am aware that such racketeering does not take place in the local authority of which I am a member. If that does operate in local authorities the Minister should take them by the scruff of the neck and tell them exactly where to get off. What we are endeavouring to do is to keep the cost of housing down. If local authorities are flouting the Minister's wishes here they should be taken to task very quickly, and I hope the Minister will do so. These sites for small builders have proved to be very successful. They have kept a number of houses within the reach of the type of people in that bracket. If we lose out on this aspect of housing development it will mean that house prices will go up and a lot of small builders will go to the wall because they will be unable to withstand the competition. If builders have to compete for sites on the open market it means they have to up the price of a house they are building in order to have money at the end of the day to buy more sites. It is a Catch 22 situation.

Obviously the Minister is not satisfied with what is happening in this area. He is now dealing with it by way of legislation and it is his duty now to use muscle on local authorities, giving them firm instructions, getting after them to ensure that they allocate as many sites as possible to small builders. I can assure him that if he does that there will be no need for him to talk about CRVs or anything else because it will act as a great restraint, keeping house prices down. While local authorities have a lot of land, the more they can buy the better because it will tend to keep house prices down. There was a time when labour and material accounted for 65 per cent of the price of a house; now that figure is 35 per cent. That illustrates that the cost element of housing is shifting from labour and materials to the other side, which is basically the cost of land and site development.

There is very little in this Bill about this aspect, which worries me when we talk about endeavouring to control house prices. In that respect it is high time we began examining the area of cost and took the matter seriously. If we are engaging in an exercise to keep house prices down then obviously one must start at the very foundations, the land. There is very little in this Bill that I can find in regard to controlling land prices. Rather it is generally a bricks and mortar situation, even with regard to the CRVs. We have put down an amendment on section 18 to which we will come later. Unless we occupy ourselves with the whole area of land, its control and price, then the exercise of keeping house prices down will have proved wasteful. Some large builders are not now interested in building. They are interested in buying tracts of land, selling them to small builders with a higher profit and no capital risk. They merely buy the tracts of land, hold them for a while and sell them to small builders who have to produce the CRVs and all the rest of it in order to reap their profit. The others are glorified speculators creaming off the real profit in housing. That is where housing profit is to be found, in land and land speculation. It is in this respect that this section is so important. I would fully support the Minister if he takes on these local authorities, ensuring that they make more serviced sites available to small builders which, in itself, would have a very beneficial effect. I believe we are not really tackling the overall problem but there are other sections on which we can discuss this further.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is section 9 agreed?

Mr. Boland

On this section——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry; the Deputy was not in the House to speak and he comes in now. He was not here when I put the section; he was outside the House and then rushed in to speak on it. The Chair must have some recognition. Does Deputy Boland wish to raise a point?

Mr. Boland

Yes, thank you, Sir. There are two different methods by which a subsidy can be paid on sites; it can be paid either to an individual who is building a house on the site provided by the local authority, or to the small builder, as has been outlined by other speakers here.

There is a third situation—the Minister and/or his officials may have some knowledge of it—that is, where a local authority not alone develop the site but decide to act as agents for the person to whom the site has been sold to build the house or houses. If I may give an example: in the local authority in which I am involved some years ago we developed approximately 60 sites. Those sites were then sold to individuals, mainly the people who qualified for the local authority housing list. Because the people themselves were slow to commence construction of the houses the council decided to design a standard-type house, inviting the 60 site holders to allow the council act as their agents, to advertise for tender and employ a contractor to build 60 houses to a good design. In that way the houses were efficiently constructed and much more cheaply than if all the persons involved had had to seek individual planning permission. The houses were occupied and about 60 people removed from the local authority housing list. The upshot of it was—and there might even be people who like myself, were technically outside the House, but listening to this debate, people somewhere within the confines of the Chamber this afternoon, who remember this very well—that the Department of Local Government, as it was then, refused point blank to pay a subsidy in that case. They contended that the houses had been built by the local authority and, consequently, did not qualify for subsidy purposes. That row raged on, there was blue murder in the Custom House because of that development, to such an extent——

Mr. Quinn

What year was that?

Mr. Boland

Early 1970s—that the local authority involved dropped the idea of pursuing similar projects in other locations. If one can find a council prepared not only to make sites available but to act as agents for the site holders and employ a contractor to build houses for them, that would constitute a project worthy of encouragement. I cannot remember the eventual outcome, whether or not the site subsidy was eventually paid; I have a suspicion it was not. Certainly it delayed the building of the houses and put off the council from carrying out similar projects at other locations. I invite the Minister to say whether or not he envisages allowing councils to act as agents in the construction of houses on these sites and still have subsidies paid. That would be a worth while project. The houses to which I am referring were sold at the time for £5,500, which was about £1,500 under the market level at the time. They are now being sold at more than three times their initial price. In the town in which they were built they are regarded as being some of the best houses available on the market. The Minister should give some consideration to encouraging councils to go to that stage if they see such need.

While I appreciate the remarks of the Minister and Deputy Fitzpatrick in relation to local authorities not engaging in this type of operation to a sufficient extent, I agree with them, but the figures given by the Minister paint a false picture to some extent. For instance, I can point to certain areas in County Dublin where there are a large number of sites available. But were they to be offered on the market at the same time to the small builder—because of the distance of the town from the city—it would be uneconomic for all of them to commence developing all of the sites at the same time. Over the past two years we have released sites to small builders in that town at the rate we felt the market would bear. Therefore, to some extent, the figure of 51,000 sites being available throughout the country may not paint an absolutely true picture. If all those sites were put on the market at the same time I do not believe the small builders would be capable of building and successfully selling all the houses. In the remote areas this would create particular difficulties.

Mr. Barrett

Even if there were 500 sites a year, it would be a big help. There would be no question of 51,000 sites coming on the market together because we could not get that many houses built in one year. The main point made by the Deputy dealt with the local authority acting as agent. There is nothing to stop a local authority acting as agent in the manner described by the Deputy, but the experience of some local authorities has been that the houses worked out more expensive. If it is established—and is easy to do—that the local authorities are acting as agent, there should be no difficulty. I do not know when or how that difficulty has occurred, but if it has not been resolved I will look into it. I would appreciate it if the Deputy in his capacity as chairman of Dublin County Council would make more sites available at this time.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Mr. Barrett

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 9, lines 16 and 17, to delete subsection (7).

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): This is a long and comprehensive section. I presume this is the machinery which gives the Minister power to provide money for local housing authorities for housing schemes. I would like the Minister to tell us briefly what is involved. There seem to be two periods mentioned.

Mr. Barrett

This section provides for the subsidy payable by the Minister in respect of the provision by housing authorities of houses for letting. That is what is generally described as the housing subsidy. Subsections (1) and (7) validate the subsidy system which applied during the period from 1 April 1973 to 31 December 1976. Subsection (2) provides a basis for the current subsidy.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Is there a different system in operation now?

Mr. Barrett

Yes.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): If the Minister has the information readily available, I would be glad to have it. I am not being awkward, but I do not clearly understand the section.

Mr. Barrett

Subsection (1) (a) provides that the Minister may, in respect of the period commencing on the 1st day of April 1973 and ending on the 31st day of December 1976, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, pay, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, a subsidy of such amount as he may determine towards the expenditure incurred by a housing authority in respect of moneys borrowed by the authority for the provision of a house for letting in respect of which a grant under section 15 of the Principal Act has not been paid, and the maintenance, management and improvement of such a house.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): That is verbatim from subsection (1) (a)?

Mr. Barrett

Yes. Section 15 of the Principal Act, which is being repealed, enables the Minister to pay a grant to a person, including a housing authority, for the provision of a house. Grants were paid under that section in respect of certain houses which were provided for sale by a housing authority. Grants were not paid, however, in respect of houses provided by a housing authority for letting, as subsidy was available in respect of such houses under section 44 of the 1966 Act. The expression "the provision by a housing authority of a house in respect of which a grant under section 15 of the Principal Act" is used in this paragraph and in section 44 of the 1966 Act to distinguish between houses provided for sale and houses provided for letting.

Whereas section 44 of the 1966 Act enables subsidy to be paid in relation to the annual loan charges incurred by a housing authority in respect of money borrowed for the provision of houses for letting, this paragraph would provide a basis for the subsidy arrangement which applied between 1 April 1973 and 31 December 1976 and which was based on the deficit on a local authority's housing revenue account. These latter arrangements took account not only of the annual loan charges incurred but also of current income and other expenditure in relation to local authority rented houses, that is, rents, maintenance and management costs, together with a proportion of the proceeds of sales of local authority houses. The deficit on local authorities' housing revenue accounts was being transferred to the Exchequer on a phased basis over the period 1 April 1973 to 31 December 1976.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): That was the transfer of the housing charges from the local authorities to the Exchequer?

Mr. Barrett

That is right. In the financial year 1973-74 the Exchequer generally recouped 25 per cent of the local authority housing deficit to local authorities, 62½ per cent in 1974, 75 per cent in 1975 and 87½ per cent in 1976. Recoupment of the housing deficit in 1975 and 1976 was, however, subject to limitations on certain categories of expenditure—maintenance and management expenditure. In 1977 and subsequent years the subsidy payable to housing authorities in relation to houses provided for letting relates to the annual loan charges only.

Paragraph (b) provides that a subsidy under this subsection shall be subject to such conditions, if any, as the Minister may specify and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the conditions may include conditions relating to rent, purchase of the house concerned, standards of construction, contributions from the housing authority concerned towards the expenditure on the volved and expenditure on the maintenance, management and improvement of the house concerned. In 1973 and 1976 the subsidy was based on a deficit. It is now based on 100 per cent of the loan charges on houses provided for letting.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister mentioned houses for sale. Do many local authorities provide houses and sell them straight away? The Minister tells me that the subsidy consists of 100 per cent of the loan charges. What is the present position in regard to housing repairs? Are the local authorities liable for them out of their revenue and rating system or do the Departments provide the money?

Mr. Barrett

That is correct.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Who paid for the repairs between 1973 and 1976?

Mr. Barrett

There were limits because they were based on a deficit.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Is it the position that between 1973 and 1976 the Department paid the cost of repairs subject to a limit but now the local authority are responsible for all repairs?

Mr. Barrett

Since 1977 there are no limits but they can use the rent receipts as part of the proceeds of sales.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Can they pay for repairs out of capital?

Mr. Barrett

Out of part of the proceeds of sales.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): That would be capital.

Mr. Barrett

It does not come under capital. It is treated as revenue.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I would regard money from the sale of a house as capital. I do not know how it can be treated as anything else.

Mr. Barrett

It is 50 per cent capital and 50 per cent revenue.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Between 1973 and 1976 the cost of repairs to local authority houses was paid or refunded by the Minister's Department subject to certain limits. Since 1977 the local authorities have again become responsible for the cost of repairing their houses but they may use their income from rents and half the proceeds of the sale of houses. Who makes up the balance?

Mr. Barrett

The local authority.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Out of rates?

Mr. Barrett

Yes.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): That means that portion of the housing charges which were removed between 1973 and 1976 have now been transferred back to the local authorities.

Mr. Barrett

This system was introduced by the last Government.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Anyhow, it has been done.

Mr. Barrett

It has.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): That is the position, and the rest of the section really provides for the financing of local authority housing schemes.

Mr. Barrett

That is correct.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): That is essential development. A certain part of this section deals with financing schemes for the sale of houses. Do some local authorities build houses and sell them straight away?

Mr. Barrett

When the house is built the local authority may ask the tenant if he wishes to buy it under the low-rise mortgage.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Straight away?

Mr. Barrett

Straight away, yes.

Mr. Boland

This is a very complicated section. It is validating a date at the end of 1976. It has cost every local authority money because one local authority decided to be extra smart and tried to roll up all the charges and throw them back on to the Department. The change was made at the end of 1976 and every local authority in the country have suffered in their revenue account as a result ever since. In the interest of charity it might be better if we did not name the particular authority.

What is the situation now in relation to the senior administrative and technical staff employed in housing construction? At the time of this change an argument went on for quite some time as to whether the cost of their salaries and the expenses of the operation of their department should be included as part of the capital charge of housing construction or whether it should fall into the other category of being financed partially from rent and sale receipts.

Mr. Barrett

The senior technical staff are chargeable as part of the cost of the scheme.

Mr. Boland

I asked in relation to the senior administrative and technical staff and also, apart from their salaries, the administrative cost of the operation of their department.

Mr. Barrett

We will check on the administrative side of it and let the Deputy know.

Mr. Boland

I have a grave suspicion that the cost of the administrative staff —although they are virtually fully employed in the housing construction end of the housing department of the local authority—and especially the cost of operating the department, offices, stationery, telephones and so forth, are not allowed as a charge against the capital costs of construction and the local authority are being forced to put those costs as a charge on revenue. If that is the case it is most unfair. These are legitimate charges which should be included as part of the capital cost of housing construction and should be charged against housing construction. I ask the Minister to re-examine that position. It was a contentious issue at the beginning of 1977 and it was not resolved equitably from a local authority point of view at any rate.

Mr. Barrett

We will clarify that on Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Mr. Barrett

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 10, lines 28 and 29, to delete subsection (4).

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. F. O'Brien

Section 11 covers the subsidies particularly with regard to the low-rise mortgage. The low-rise mortgage is a first-class innovation which has helped a large number of people out of financial problems. However, these aids and the constraints placed on the people receiving them should be reviewed from time to time. There are a number of such restraints. People awaiting these loans must be on a waiting list for 12 months and must have a child for that period. We should limit to six months the period of time for people on the housing list and in overcrowded conditions it should not be necessary for them to have one child. If there is not a family the possibility of them being in overcrowded conditions perhaps would not exist but they may be living in very poor conditions. I ask the Minister to look at this. There are income restrictions and we are not talking about giving low-rise mortgages to people in the high income bracket. We are talking about helping people in need. This is an area in which we can encourage people to buy their own houses. Because of the high costs now that is important. People in receipt of £4,000 per annum or less cannot possibly meet high repayments initially and the only way to help them purchase their house is through the low-rise mortgage system. It is better to help people by giving them a low-rise mortgage as attractive as possible so that we can remove people from the housing lists. There is a very wide area of development here and commitment to it from the Minister can achieve very satisfactory results in the number of people coming off the list. A lot of people on the housing list are not there of their own volition. They are on it because they cannot meet rising costs and the repayments being asked of them. We should assist them in every way possible. This section can and will do that but it is an aid which we are trying to play down rather than play up. The Minister should cut out as many of the constraints as possible. We all want to see people being housed and it is all the better if they can house themselves with assistance from the Department.

There was some commitment from this Government to pay back money to people who bought houses between 1970 and 1972. I think the amount involved was one-quarter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is not relevant to the section.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I am asking if this provision is incorporated in the section. If it is not in this section, is it contained in another section?

Mr. Barrett

It was paid last year and the provision was made in last year's Estimate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not arise on the Bill.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It arises under section 12.

Mr. F. O'Brien

Would it not require some type of validating legislation?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): This Bill could be amended to deal with it.

Mr. Barrett

It is not necessary.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a matter which could be dealt with on the Estimate.

Mr. Barrett

It was validated in the Appropriation Act.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): There were some outstanding cases.

Mr. F. O'Brien

This Bill validates many actions which have taken place since 1970. The Minister says that this matter has been dealt with in the Appropriation Act but some people are not satisfied that the money was paid.

Mr. Barrett

As well as the provision in last year's Estimate, there is also provision in the Estimate for this year.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The matter can then be dealt with on the Estimate.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I am simply posing questions in an effort to elicit information.

Mr. Barrett

This matter is specifically mentioned in subhead E.2 of this year's Estimate.

Mr. F. O'Brien

It surprises me that provision is not made for this in the Bill because it deals with other matters which are along the same lines.

The Minister should examine the whole area of the low-rise mortgage scheme. It has worked well but could be improved by the removal of a number of constraints. A number of people are being forced on to the housing lists because they cannot afford mortgage repayments. Because of the restrictions many of these people cannot avail of the low-rise mortgage scheme and I would ask the Minister to lift these restrictions to ensure that the people who need housing can avail of the scheme. It should not be necessary for a couple to have children. They may have to pay very high rents for tenement rooms and they are condemned to this unless they have a child for a period of one year. The Minister should issue instructions to local authorities to be more liberal in this respect.

Mr. Barrett

I agree that this is a very worth-while scheme. To date it has worked very well. Up to 31 March 1979 a total of £8.77 million had been advanced in loans under this scheme and over 1,170 families were able to acquire their own private dwellings. In 1978 alone 427 families were accepted as eligible by the local authorities and were enabled to house themselves, while a further 291 families surrendered their local authority dwellings and received loans under the low-rise mortgage scheme for private houses. In the first quarter of this year 189 loans were approved to the value of £1.7 million.

This scheme is constantly under review. It was improved in February of this year when two-person families consisting of a parent and one child were brought into the scheme. The scheme has been very attractive and it will be reviewed constantly with a view to extending it to as many people as possible.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I join with Deputy O'Brien in making a special appeal on behalf of childless couples. I appealed on behalf of this category on another occasion when I pointed out that many housing authorities had a system of allocating houses which virtually denied them to childless couples. I said that was heartless and inhuman and I now understand that the terms of the low-rise mortgage scheme exclude childless couples. Very often these couples have personal problems arising out of the fact that they do not have children and these problems should not be added to by making it impossible for them to acquire houses. It is fundamentally wrong and socially bad to exclude them from this scheme. It is right to include the one-parent family—an unmarried mother and her child—but it is very difficult to see why a married couple who have no children should be excluded. I know of four childless couples who have been married for about seven years and they have been deprived of housing. One couple are now expecting their first child and the fact that they have not at present a child might have something to do with their living in unsatisfactory housing conditions. I give the strongest possible support to Deputy O'Brien's plea for the inclusion in the scheme of childless couples who are otherwise qualified. I would like an assurance from the Minister of State that they will be included.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. J. O'Leary)

Deputy Fitzpatrick made a very good point. As the House is aware this scheme was introduced by the previous Government and has been a success. It was improved in February 1979 when the Government approved the Minister's proposal to allow two-person families, which consisted of one parent and one child, who were otherwise eligible, to qualify under the scheme. The problem about accepting in full what Deputy Fitzpatrick has asked for is that if one includes every childless couple it would cost a lot of extra money. A good case could be made for childless couples in special circumstances who are otherwise qualified and who are married a few years. It may be necessary to have an application based on a medical certificate or something like that. The point the Deputy made will be taken into account when the scheme is being reviewed.

Mr. Quinn

I do not believe there is any argument about the section but it provides us with an opportunity to ask the Minister of State to indicate what the Government's thinking is in relation to the development of the low-rise mortgage scheme and when the process of review to which he referred will be completed.

Mr. J. O'Leary

There are no immediate proposals to amend the scheme but it is being reviewed from time to time. During the course of the next review the point made by Deputy Fitzpatrick will be taken into account.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 12.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 16 has already been discussed.

Mr. Barrett

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 10, lines 38 and 39, to delete subsection (2).

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. F. O'Brien

This section deals with people who could not get loans from local authorities and the local authorities went as guarantors to the building societies so that those people could get their loans. The Government are now honouring something they promised. Would the Minister consider people who went to local authorities at that time and were told they could not get loans and who then went and made their own arrangements with building societies? Those people would have qualified at that time for local authority loans if the local authorities had the money. They now appear to be penalised. It would be easy to check out if the people I am referring to were on a certain income at that time and fulfilled the necessary qualifications for local authority loans. I believe they should be covered under this section. As far as I can see, they would not be covered unless their loans from the building societies were guaranteed by the local authorities. Would the Minister comment on the case I have been talking about?

Mr. Barrett

There would be practical difficulties involved in establishing what the Deputy is looking for. The scheme received very wide publicity at that time. It was improved when we came into office. It would be impractical to revise the scheme now.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): As far as I can see it appears from the explanatory memorandum that this section is to indemnify borrowers who borrowed from building societies and who were qualified for local authority loans but did not get them because no local authority loans were available between 1969 and 1972. Those people then borrowed from building societies at much higher rates of interest. The Minister is now indemnifying the borrowers against the increased rate of interest they had to pay.

The Minister is inserting this section to implement a promise his party made to indemnify those people against their increasing interest. I ask him to avail of this section to include in it local authority tenants who bought their houses prior to 1973 on much less favourable terms than were afforded in the 1973 scheme. There are quite a number of those tenants in this city. They have an organisation known as PACT, Purchase Association Corporation Tenants, who, in June 1977, issued a circular to their members advising them to vote for Fianna Fáil candidates because the Fianna Fáil Party promised to introduce a scheme which would compensate them for the unfavourable terms on which they purchased their houses and would apply the 1973 scheme to them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair finds it difficult to understand how it arises on this section.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am asking the Minister to avail of this section——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot do that on Committee Stage. It is surely outside the purpose of this section. It is introducing a completely new matter and there is no amendment in relation to it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is not in the Bill because the long title of the Bill is an “Act to amend and extend the Housing Acts 1966 to 1970 and to provide for certain other matters in relation to housing”.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot raise it on this section. It is a completely new matter as far as this section is concerned.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not relevant to this section. From what I have heard of it up to now I cannot understand how the Deputy can make what he is saying now relevant to section 12.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The section enables the Minister to make a subsidy in respect of housing loans——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is a subsidy for certain loans guaranteed by housing authorities. The Deputy is introducing the sale of local authority houses which is a completely different matter.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am raising the matter now and I will put down a new section on Report Stage if I have to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot make it relevant to section 12 at this stage. He has the right to try to put down an amendment at a later stage—that is open to him—but the Chair cannot allow a matter that is so irrelevant to the section to be raised now.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It seems to be the only section under which I can raise it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is in no way relevant. We will have to stay on the section as it is.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Deputy O'Brien sought to raise it on section 11 but he was told it did not apply in that instance.

Mr. Barrett

For the same reason, that it is covered in the Estimates for 1978 and 1979.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to accept the ruling of the Chair. It is completely irrelevant.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Perhaps I could ask the Minister at this stage if he would be prepared to consider dealing favourably with tenants who bought their houses between 1968 and 1973. If the Minister is prepared to implement promises given by his party on a number of occasions to give these tenants the benefit of the 1973 scheme——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has allowed the Deputy to raise the question and he should leave it there.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): If I can get an answer from the Minister I do not care where it is raised.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not going to debate the matter now. It is not relevant to the section.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It was contained in the manifesto——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Matters contained in the manifesto cannot be raised on section 12. We can discuss only relevant matters.

Mr. Tully

I agree with the Chair that there was a lot of rubbish in the manifesto.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A lot of stuff in many manifestos cannot be raised now.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I have here a document which says, “Vote No. 1 Lemass”. The same promises were made there——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to stay on the section. The Chair must ask the Deputy to be relevant. The section deals only with one specific matter and the Deputy may not bring in another matter.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I sought to raise it here because this section seeks to compensate people who did not or could not avail of a particular loan scheme——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It has nothing to do with the sale of local authority houses.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is the most appropriate section I can find to include a provision that would compensate——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has ruled on the matter.

Mr. Barrett

The amendment the Deputy mentions is not necessary because provision for the refund was made in subhead (E) (2) in the Book of Estimates for this year and last year and the Appropriation Acts validate these payments. In fact, the payments amounted to a reduction in the purchase price.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Neither the Minister nor the Deputy is in order.

Mr. Barrett

What the Deputy is referring to has been implemented in full.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): It has not because these people were in with me——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy has any questions he can raise them on the Estimate.

Mr. Tully

The Minister and the Deputy are talking about two different things. The Minister is talking about people who are paying back loans——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

None of them was talking about the section before the House. That is all the Chair is interested in.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Will the Chair hold that I have raised this matter sufficiently on Committee Stage to put down an amendment?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have no power to give a ruling on that. That is out of my hands. The Deputy has raised the matter and it is up to him to do whatever he can later on. Certainly the Chair could not give any undertaking.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I want to give notice that I am raising the question of Dublin Corporation tenants who purchased under schemes between 1968 and 1973 and who were promised the benefit of the 1973 purchase scheme. I want a section put into the Bill some place that will assure them that they will get the benefit of the 1973 scheme.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy could have raised that matter in a relevant way on Second Stage but not on Committee Stage. We must get on with the section before the House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): That would not help me if I could not put down an amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has no power at this stage to say what amendment can or cannot be accepted.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I can only put down an amendment on Report Stage if I raise it on Committee Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It must be relevant.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am convinced that it should be put under section 12.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We will leave that to somebody else to decide.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): By leaving things aside one can get pushed off.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must point out if something is irrelevant.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Chair has a lot of power when the writes nice little letters stating one's amendment is out of order.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am glad to say I have nothing to do with that at the moment.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): We oppose this section. At the moment if a local authority sell their houses to occupying tenants there is an obligation on them to put the houses in a sound structural state of repair. I know that the term “structural state of repair” is often very narrowly interpreted to include walls and the roof. It does not include windows but it may include doors.

The completion of the sale of these local authority houses to tenants is sometimes held up for years because structural repairs are not carried out. That does not reflect great credit on the local authorities or the Department of the Environment. I would have thought the Minister would introduce some new machinery to speed up the repairs so that the sales could be completed but he is not doing that. He and the local authorities are doing a kind of Pontius Pilate act by washing their hands of the whole business, enabling the local authorities to enter into agreements with the tenants that they will carry out the repairs themselves.

I am fearful that if this amendment is allowed and if these schemes are entered into the repairs will not be carried out at all. Instead of improving the houses they will continue to deteriorate. There will be a file in county council offices on each case. After two years somebody will inquire if the repairs have been carried out, it will transpire they have not, a reminder will be sent to the tenant and the story will go on and on. If the repairs are carried out another wrangle will commence about the cost and that will go on and on. There is no merit whatever in the proposal. I know that there is provision for appeal to the Minister under section 13. It is a lengthy provision and what it is really dealing with is putting local authority houses into a proper state of repair before they are sold to the tenants.

The necessity for this amendment emphasises the length of time it takes to have a house built by a local authority for somebody badly in need of housing. I know of a family in which there are several children, one of whom is delicate. It is admitted that these people are living in housing conditions that are totally unsuitable and that they will never be able from their own resources even with the assistance of grants to build a house for themselves. It is accepted also that this family wish to continue to live on their ten or 15 acres of land but it is taking years to have a house built for them. However, I am not surprised at that situation when the Minister and the local authority are throwing up their hands hopelessly and saying, "we cannot have these houses that we are selling put in a structural state of repair within a reasonable time and because we are so helpless and have given up the attempt to put the houses into a proper state of repair, we will hand the matter over to the tenants in order to facilitate the completion of the purchase". This is really an example of the frustrating delays that occur in local authorities. I am opposing this section holus bolus because it is an attempt to avoid doing something whereas the Minister should give tenants some immediate rights against local authorities who do not put houses into repair.

The moment I read this section I realised that it was an instrument for further delay, an instrument for local authorities to wash their hands of this responsibility. It is evidence of the hopelessness of local authorities in this regard.

Mr. Barrett

The main purpose of this section is to provide a means for overcoming the long delays that can occur, delays of the kind that have occurred before a rented local authority house can be sold under the existing statutory arrangements. Section 13 re-enacts largely section 106 of the 1966 Act which requires a local authority to carry out all works necessary to put a house into good structural condition before it can be sold to the tenant, subject to a right of appeal to the Minister. In order to facilitate the sale of council houses the Bill provides for the introduction of a new optional arrangement whereby the local authority and the tenant could agree on the nature, the extent and the costs of the works. The tenant would carry out either some or all of the work or arrange to have the work done with the agreed costs being paid to him by the housing authority on the satisfactory completion of the work.

I should like to stress that the section is not intended in any way to relieve a housing authority of their responsibility to carry out all necessary pre-sale structural work. The optional alternative proposed in the Bill can operate only where the purchaser wishes to carry out the necessary work and the housing authority agree to allow him to do so. In such cases the work must be completed to the satisfaction of the housing authority and within a specified time. Where a purchaser fails to carry out the necessary work the housing authority is empowered to undertake the work. There is a further safeguard whereby a housing authority would be precluded from giving their consent to the alienation of the house until all necessary works had been completed to their satisfaction. Where a tenant purchases a council house the consent of the authority for resale is required within a period of 25 years of the date of purchase. The section provides also for rights of appeal to the Minister by the purchaser both under the existing procedures and under the proposed alternative arrangements.

It is very difficult to understand the reasons for the opposition to this section. The proposed alternative arrangements could be of particular benefit in the case of houses located in isolated areas where much money could be spent by a local authority in transporting men and material to such houses under present arrangements. The optional arrangement provided for in the Bill is based on a non-statutory arrangement which has been operating in limited cases in recent years in areas such as Sligo and Galway. That arrangement might suit also both a local authority and a prospective tenant purchaser where there was a serious backlog of unprocessed tenant purchase applications and where the necessary works had not been carried out.

I am anxious that sales of council houses be speeded up. Consequently, I would commend section 32 to the House. There is no reason for progress not being monitored under this arrangement. We could see how it worked but it is a genuine attempt to speed up the type of long delays that have occured in recent years. In some cases it has taken up to three years to complete a purchase. Such delays were being experienced long before we were returned to office. It is only with the consent of the tenant purchasers and of the local authority that the alternative arrangements could be utilised. It is an optional arrangement.

Mr. Tully

I agree to a large extent with the Minister on this matter because he is regularising a practice that has been in operation for the past five or six years and which was introduced while I was Minister.

Mr. Barrett

It operates in two areas.

Mr. Tully

It operates in two areas in particular but also in other areas where the sanction of the Department has not been sought. It began in Galway in a big way where for some extraordinary reason there was a scheme in respect of which there did not appear to be any desire on the part of the corporation to carry out the necessary repairs. It was in the area of the new road to Salthill. The Minister is right in stating that the long delays have been occurring for much longer than the past two years. One of the reasons for my introducing the practice that the Minister is now legislating for was that when I assumed office I found arrears dating back for many years. These applications to purchase had been lying in county council offices for a long time but could not be dealt with either because the repairs necessary would not or could not be carried out.

But I think the Minister has missed something there because he could have made two very important improvements. He could have improved on the definition of repairs to be carried out under the 1966 Act and he could have indicated that the repairs to be carried out in many cases are not necessarily structural repairs. He could have proposed that it is not structural repairs which are needed to be carried out. A round tower is structurally sound—I made this point on the 1966 Act—but nobody would suggest it is fit to live in. The Minister should have done something about the definition of the type of repairs to be carried out. In many cases old or handicapped people would like to have repairs carried out to their houses. They are not in a position to do them themselves and the local authority will not do them. In no time at all a fairly reasonable house becomes a hovel because repairs which should be carried out are not carried out. I suggest this is one mistake the Minister made in the Bill.

There is also the question of financing. We all know local authorities have always claimed they had not enough money to carry out repairs. The Department are now mainly responsible for the financing of housing. Why do they not do something about making the necessary money available? There is no point in the Minister saying he is very much in favour of the purchase of these houses, if the houses are withheld from purchase because repairs are not carried out. The local authorities say they cannot carry out the repairs because they have not got the money. We could go around in a circle. This matter could easily have been dealt with in this Bill. When it was being drafted I thought some change might be made, but it was not. The Minister must consider this whole problem.

Deputy Fitzpatrick is perfectly correct in saying there are far too many people who want to purchase a house and are not allowed to do so because, when they apply, they are asked to state whether or not the house is in good repair. Some people say the house is not in good repair. Recently people referred to small structural defects and the application was dumped in a file with other applications practically for a new house.

The scheme as recommended has been in operation but, with the exception of a couple of areas, it has not been a big success for two reasons. In some areas there are objections from trade unions. If craftsmen are unemployed they will resent the fact that the local authority decide to allow somebody who is not a craftsman to do repairs to a house. That is genuine enough. That has not been a big obstacle.

The big obstacle is the fact that because there was not legal backing, even though the Department said it could be done, the local authorities have not taken much interest in having it done. The Minister mentioned outlying houses and said the council would have to send people to do the job at big expense. There are what we call the flying squads, people who are employed by local authorities to do repairs to houses. In addition very often contractors are employed to carry out repairs. If a tenant is asked to do the repairs and if he cannot, he may employ a contractor. The intention of the section is to regularise what has been the practice, or what has been permissible over a number of years, but it has not quite covered the whole field. If the Minister is really serious about having these repairs carried out, the local authorities will have to get a pretty big shake up. They will have to be told it is their job to see to it that the houses are repaired so that the purchase can be completed.

The Minister made a reference to something which I did not quite catch. He referred to 25 years' permission——

Mr. Barrett

To sanction the sale.

Mr. Tully

But 25 years is not——

Mr. Barrett

It comes under the Ground Rents Acts.

Mr. Tully

Do not let us make it more complicated than it is. This is one of the reasons why I objected to racing this Bill through the House. As the law stands, if somebody wants to sell a vested council cottage, the cottage must be redeemed and the redemption may be less than 12 months away or a number of years up to 44 years.

Mr. Barrett

Where the order was not redeemed the council would have to sanction the sale.

Mr. Tully

They can only prevent the sale up to the period of the redemption, not for 25 years. People will not be allowed by the local authority to buy a house without restriction. They have the right to refuse permission for the sale of the house as long as there is an annuity payable. That annuity might be payable for less than a year or anything up to 44 years. If the annuity is payable for five or six years, the council have no right to say the house cannot be sold for 25 years.

The Minister referred to ground rent which is an entirely different matter. He and I have a difference of opinion on that subject. The Government ground rent on local authority houses should be purchasable. I felt that there was no reason why ground rent should be retained. It has a very slight effect and it would at least retain the sites. The property could only be used for housing. A whole row of houses could not be purchased and sold to a supermarket or something like that. I do not think the Minister was talking about that. If he was talking about the sale of the houses, he should be able to explain that. Either I misunderstood what he said, or something is being introduced in this Bill which is not in the existing legislation.

Mr. Barrett

The last point Deputy Tully made was about the resale of a purchased house. While it was still subject to repayments to the council, in other words, if the purchase period had not expired, the council had to sanction the sale of the house regardless of the number of years. Once the repayment had run out it became a freehold and the council had no say in the purchase. The 25 years provision I am speaking about was introduced in the Ground Rents Bill. The 25 years will date from the date of purchase. From now on it becomes effective from the date of purchase.

Mr. Tully

Is the Minister saying that, after the passing of this Bill, if a tenant wants to sell a house, he cannot sell it within 25 years without the consent of the local authority?

Mr. Barrett

That is already in operation.

Mr. Tully

No.

Mr. Barrett

It is.

Mr. Tully

Ground rents, yes.

Mr. Barrett

The 25-year clause is already in operation, dating from the time of purchase.

Mr. Tully

A person who has bought a house from a local authority cannot sell it to anybody for 25 years without the consent of the council?

Mr. Barrett

That is the present position. That is already in operation.

Mr. Tully

That does not operate.

Mr. Barrett

It is in operation.

Mr. Tully

I have never come across it.

Mr. Barrett

It is in the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) (No. 1) Act. It is already in operation. It is not all that different from the practice in the past. After all, most local authority houses were purchased over a 25- or 30-year period. While the annuity continued to be payable they had to be sanctioned by the council. This dates from the date of purchase.

Mr. Tully

It is adding another 25 years on to it.

Mr. Barrett

No, 25 years from the date of purchase.

Mr. Tully

If a person purchased over a 25-year period and paid his annuity, is the Minister suggesting he is to be bound for a further 25 years.

Mr. Barrett

I am not. I mentioned that it is covered under the Bill; 25 years from the date of purchase.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.