asked the Minister for the Environment the date of operation of a new tenant purchase scheme to replace the scheme which expired on 10 July 1983; and the conditions of this scheme.
27.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Local Authority Tenants.
16.
asked the Minister for the Environment the date of any new differential scheme which he intends to inaugurate.
36.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding any proposals there may be for a new sales scheme of local authority dwellings in the ownership of Dublin Corporation.
37.
asked the Minister for the Environment the reason he breached the agreement with the National Association of Tenant Organisations, which had been honoured by successive Governments since the early seventies, and which recognised NATO as the national negotiating body for local authority tenants, and if he will reopen negotiations with NATO, without precondition, on a review of the differential rents scheme.
40.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he will restore the recognition of the right of the National Association of Tennants' Organisation as a representative negotiating body for local authority tenants; and if he will agree to the continuation of a national differential rent scheme.
49.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he is aware of the widespread indignation which exists among local authority tenants concerning his proposal to increase differental rents and impose a new house purchase scheme, without the approval of NATO; if he will now withdraw such proposals, pending talks with the representatives of NATO; if he will restore the negotiating licence which this National Organisation of Tenants possessed in accordance with the 1974 agreement with his predecessor; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 27, 36, 37, 40 and 49 together.
Number 40 is one of the Priority Questions in relation to the operation of the differential rents scheme.
There is a rule about this. It is an order of the House.
Would it be in order for me to defer all of these questions? It is immaterial to me.
The House made an Order that in a situation like this the questions should be taken together.
I introduced a purchase scheme for local authority dwellings on 30 July 1986. The new scheme is generally similar to previous schemes but incorporates the new feature of allowing market value to be used in determining sale prices where this is more favourable to the tenants than the formula sale price. This change had been requested for some time by NATO.
On 14 August 1986 I notified housing authorities of the Government's decision to return to them the responsibility for rent schemes for their dwellings as a further stage in the devolution of a wider range of functions to local authorities. The determination of rents for their dwellings is a function which naturally complements the responsibility of local authorities for the maintenance and management of their housing stock. Any revised schemes introduced by housing authorities must be income related, with allowances for children, and special provision for hardship cases.
There is no change in the status of NATO as the national representative body for local authority tenants. Their views were expressed at the series of meetings held to discuss the tenant purchase and rent schemes and were taken into account in the decisions made.
I compliment the Minister on the decision to include market value for the operation of the purchase scheme. It was a major step forward. I will concentrate on the element of question No. 40. Is the Minister seriously suggesting to this House that devolution of powers could be the terms used to describe a situation where the Minister gives the power to city and county managers to review local authority rents where the local authority members have absolutely no say in the matter.
As the Deputy will know quite a number of the functions of local authorities are executed statutorily by the county manager. A minority of the functions are known to the elected members as reserved functions. One would expect, and I understand that it is happening in practice, that managers would discuss with their elected local authorities the provisions of any new rents scheme or any changes in the scheme so as to get the benefit of the advice, the experience and the understanding of the local authority members before any changes are brought about in rents schemes. I consider the decision which was taken by the Government to be totally in line with the Government's commitment towards devolution of functions generally.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment with the Minister for Energy the urgency of Bord na Móna proceeding with bog development at Derrydoo, County Galway.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
Would the Minister indicate to the House whether he has changed the percentage per annum of discount available to tenants who have been tenants over a long period. Is it 3 per cent, 2 per cent or 5 per cent?
The discount per annum based on each year of tenancy?
In the purchase scheme.
It is 3 per cent.
That is no change. Is it a question of no change?
That is right, yes.
Will the Minister not accept a situation that historically shows that NATO were given negotiating rights on behalf of local authority tenants nationwide in 1973 by the former Labour Party Minister, Deputy Tully, in that the then National Coalition in relation to the review of local authority rents and the Minister himself in June 1981 reconfirmed that if elected the Fine Gael Party would in Government stand by that commitment to NATO? Will the Minister accept also that his decision of 14 August or, as he nicely put it in his reply, the Government's decision of 14 August, has been a reneging on the previous commitments?
We are now on priority question time and supplementary questions on Question No. 40 are confined to Deputy Burke.
There were consultations with NATO regarding their views in connection with the tenant purchased schemes and rents schemes generally. As a result of those negotiations and having had the opportunity to have full consideration given to their views, the decision was then made in relation to the tenant purchase scheme and the new element in it in relation to market price. I thank the Deputy for his remarks on that. The decision was taken some time later to return to the local authorities the right to decide on the most appropriate rent scheme for their areas.
I should make the point that in the general circular sent out to local authorities certain stipulations were laid down such as that rent must be income related and a smaller proportion of income would be deducted from low income households, that allowance should be made for dependant children and that special provisions be made for hardship cases. Of course, it is totally open to the organisation, and it would be appropriate for them, to have discussions with individual local authorities where their organisation is represented and where they have particular views to express. More and more we hear at other times of the importance of giving to local authorities the greatest amount of discretion over their own spending and revenue collecting functions. The decision taken by Government in this respect was entirely consistent with that.
Is the Minister aware that the original intention of the 1973 decision was to remove the anomalies regarding one local rent being paid in one area for similar circumstances, similar type housing, similar family circumstances, income, etc? Will he not accept that he is returning to this anomalous situation whereby in the town of Lucan, for example, one local authority rent will apply and people in similar circumstances in the town of Leixlip which is just up the road in another county will have a different rent to pay? Surely it is in the national interest and fair play that there be a uniform rental policy which was the whole theory behind the decision.
That applies in many aspects. To say that there should be a national standardisation in relation to everything would seem to suggest that there is no need for individual local authorities and that all provisions would be operated on a national basis. I am quite sure that that is not what the Deputy has in mind. For example, he will be aware that the rate struck from one county to another varies and can vary quite considerably, so that ratepayers in what they would consider to be the same circumstances in two adjacent towns but in different local authority areas will be paying a different amount of rates. The service charges being imposed by local authorities in pursuit of increasing their revenue also vary as between different local authorities. Indeed, one of the consistent claims of local authorities is that they should be given more discretion to be able to decide on the appropriate level of local income commensurate with their demands and responsibilities. That is what this decision is doing.
Could I ask——
No, Deputy, we are in priority time. The Deputy will appreciate that supplementary questions are confined to the Deputy who asked the question.
We will have a further opportunity to discuss this question in the Dáil. Is the Minister aware that there is now a rent strike in operation in many of the local authorities because of his decision? In view of that, would he be prepared even at this late stage to reconsider the situation, go to his Government colleagues and ask them to reconsider it?
I have outlined the situation and the decision which was taken by the Government and which is being implemented, I understand, by local authorities across the country.