asked the Minister for the Environment if he will extend the operation of the £5,000 grant scheme to allow tenants to apply for the grant for the purchase of their present homes.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - House Purchase Grants.
29.
I would refer the Deputy to the reply to Question No. 4 of 7 November 1985 which sets out the position in this regard.
While I have not that answer in front of me, would the Minister agree with the theory advanced in the question which is that there are now many areas under the aegis of Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council where people have taken advantage of the £5,000 grant and that such people have had to move out of their local authority home in order to buy a new home? Is the Minister aware that these houses, in particular in the Tallaght area, of which there are 50 to 60, are lying vacant and cannot be relet? Would it not be better that leaders of communities remain in their areas, if, for example, the £5,000 grant was available to them to buy their existing homes?
It is generally well known that one of the factors that facilitated the introduction of this scheme was the grant incentive of £5,000 to people to vacate their local authority houses. The resultant effect would be that they would purchase another house, very often a new home in the private sector, thereby helping to maintain private sector sales while freeing-up a dwelling unit which would be available to the local authority for reletting at a considerably lesser amount than replacement cost. The replacement cost of dwelling units in the Dublin area would vary from £30,000 upwards, as the Deputy will be aware. One of the main purposes of the scheme was the freeing-up of existing units, making them available for reletting, which would be absolutely defeated if the existing occupier of a home were to be given a grant in order to remain there.
Surely the Minister must be aware of the social effects of the scheme and that many of the applicants for this £5,000 grant are community leaders within their estates. They are leaving local authority estates, which can suffer badly from the loss of such community leaders. It means that the best of the tenants are leaving. Surely there is social merit in making this £5,000 grant available in order to retain such community leaders in their estates?
I would not necessarily accept that hypothesis. It is insulting, though I am sure not intentionally——
It was not intended.
——to those tenants who do not opt to avail of this grant to describe those who have opted to avail of its provisions as the best of the tenants and community leaders. I do not think that is necessarily the case at all. I would not like it to be interpreted in any way that there was a two-tier type of local authority tenant being implied here. The situation is as I have said. The only logical conclusion one could draw from the Deputy's remarks would be that he seems to be implying in some way that perhaps the scheme ought to be disbanded.
No, it is wrong to suggest that. I am not in any way suggesting that. I am merely suggesting an extension of the scheme. Is the Minister aware — if he is not as Minister for the Environment he should be — that because of the number of people taking advantage of the provisions of this scheme in the Tallaght area Dublin Corporation have on their hands 50 to 60 homes that they cannot relet in that area, whereas had these people been able to buy their existing homes they would have remained in their communities and be able to add to them? I want to make it absolutely clear that there was no intention of any slur being cast on those remaining on in local authority homes. The Minister knows it; he is playing the old soldier, as usual.
It is an extraordinary situation that Dublin Corporation, who had ostensibly 4,484 applicants on their housing waiting lists at the end of December last year have 50 or 60 houses in Tallaght which the Deputy tells us they cannot let. They also have upwards of several hundreds of flats in Ballymun and perhaps 100 dwelling units throughout the city which they have not let. They also managed to house 1,300 applicants last year who were not even on their approved waiting list. That is just an indication of the change there has been; that there is no longer any real waiting lists for local authority housing in this country, and certainly not in this city, when the local authority representing the capital city have dwelling units on their hands which they are unable to let or for which they cannot find tenants.
The Minister seems to be blinded by figures. Is he aware that in suburban areas, places like Tallaght, Blanchardstown and others, in the Minister's constituency — although he said earlier that he does not involve himself in local matters, a fact well known in the constituency — there is a social aspect to this scheme? What I am asking, and what those involved in local government will ask the Minister, is to extend the provisions of the scheme to allow people to remain in their homes, continuing to fulfil a role within their communities as settled members of those communities. That is what we are talking about, not just the figures or statistics with which the Minister seems to be blinded. I am talking about people, families and communities. That is what is important to me and the party I represent.
That concludes Question Time.