Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Mar 1992

Vol. 417 No. 6

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Local Authority Tenant Purchase Schemes.

Jim Mitchell

Ceist:

4 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for the Environment the reason for the delay since 1988 in proceeding with a purchase scheme for local authority flat tenants; and if he will now confirm that the rights of families of tenants will not be affected by the delay.

The forthcoming Housing Bill will include provisions to overcome legislative difficulties which have arisen in relation to common areas in flat complexes in which individual flats are to be sold. Valid applications from tenants of flats under the terms of the 1988 and 1989 tenant purchase schemes will continue to hold good.

While I acknowledge that the Bill will almost certainly address the problems of common areas within flat complexes, there are other issues that I should like to be certain will be addressed by the Bill. For instance, does the Minister know of the difficulty relating to deceased tenants who applied to purchase in 1988, made up a will and left property to relatives who looked after them? Will the Bill cover the position of those relatives? Another problem relates to the payment of rent since 1988. Will the Bill provide for rent paid since 1988 to be offset against the purchase price of property?

Tenant succession rights, the position of local authorities and their long-established authority in dealing with those issues are not now in question and therefore there is no provision needed in the Housing Bill. As to whether a local authority would be obliged to make expenditure for repair work that might be necessary in the context of a tenant purchase scheme, the Deputy would not dispute that the 1988 and 1989 schemes were regarded as extremely generous.

They were the sales of the century.

That was quite obvious from the manner in which the schemes were taken up and accepted all over the country. I do not accept that it is necessary for the taxpayer to now undertake additional cost, as suggested by Deputy Mitchell, under a purchase scheme that allows for a 40 per cent discount on houses built after 1960 and a 50 per cent discount on houses built before then. That would be asking for over the odds. From our experience of the application of this scheme nationwide we have not encountered any real difficulty in that regard.

The Minister appeared to be answering a question I did not ask. I did not ask about repairs. It is clear the Minister has come in briefed on certain questions, and is giving those replies rather than replying to the question I asked. I repeat my question: will the Minister accept that people who paid rent over four years — due to a delay on the part of his Department, not theirs — should have that rent offset against the purchase price? Had there been no delay on the part of his Department those people would be four years nearer completion of repayment of their mortgages. Will the Minister accept, in natural justice, that any rent paid on account of a delay on the part of his Department should be offset against the purchase price?

I am very sorry if I misunderstood the Deputy's question. I thought it related more to how one could offset costs for repairs and so on. To deal with the question Deputy Jim Mitchell has posed, I should say the tenant purchase scheme of 1988 was not notified by Dublin Corporation to their tenants in that year. The then Minister for the Environment introduced a new scheme in April 1989. It was not until November 1991 that Dublin Corporation returned to the Department of the Environment with any difficulties in regard to that scheme. The difficulties brought to the attention of my Department will be dealt with in the context of the new housing Bill.

Will the Minister please note the problem I have raised? I know the Housing Bill is due to be circulated within the next few days and if that provision is not incorporated in it it would be my hope, on Committee Stage, to table amendments to eliminate this injustice against flat tenants as compared with house tenants. Will the Minister say whether the provisions of that Bill will provide for the succession rights of people who might have succeeded to ownership of their flats had there been no delay on the part of his Department but who have been so deprived because of that delay?

As I understand it, no basic problems have been brought to the attention of my Department in relation to that matter. I might add that from my experience in that area any problems as far as tenants' succession rights are concerned should not present any great difficulty

Barr
Roinn