Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are out of order, so we now come to amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Gilmore.
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1992: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I have received a note stating that a number of my amendments are out of order. I have no difficulty in accepting that ruling in most cases; however, I ask the Chair to look again at the grounds on which amendment No. 2 was ruled out of order because I think that reason is hardly tenable. I believe that my amendment No. 2 will not put a charge on the Exchequer. That was the reason given, so I again ask that this be looked at.
It involves a potential charge.
I do not see how that can be sustained. It is not an important point but I wish to have it looked at again.
I will ask that the Deputy be advised of the grounds on which this could be sustained.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 88 form a composite proposal and it is proposed therefore for discussion purposes to take them together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, subsection (1), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
" `established purchase scheme' means a scheme under section 26 of this Act for the sale of houses by a housing authority which is ongoing and under which a purchaser may, at any time, make application for the purchase of a house;".
During the course of the Second Stage debate I made the point that there was a very strong case for having a permanent tenant purchase scheme in place so that as the tenant's circumstances changed he or she could apply to purchase the house in which he or she is living. In these amendments I seek to put in place an ongoing tenant purchase scheme so that a tenant could apply to the local authority at any time to purchase the house in which he or she is living.
All the statements made by the Minister for the Environment and his predecessors have put a strong emphasis on the desirability of people purchasing their own homes. That is something with which I concur. In the Plan for Social Housing there is a number of measures designed to attract tenants, and indeed tenant-purchasers, to surrender the houses in which they are living and instead to purchase houses in the private sector. I have reservations about that. The £5,000 surrender grant had a very bad effect on many local communities because in practice people who would otherwise have been quite happy to purchase the house in which they were living were forced to surrender their homes, because there was no tenant purchase scheme in operation at the time, and to purchase a house in the private sector.
The closing date for applications under the last tenant purchase scheme, where tenants had the opportunity to purchase their own homes on very attractive terms, was 31 December 1988. Many people missed the closing date for very valid reasons. For example, I know of cases where there were bereavements in the family, problems with literacy — when the applicant did not understand the documentation sent to him — or when misunderstandings and mistakes were made. If the application was not submitted by 31 December 1988, the application was not subsequently considered. The Department of the Environment instructed local authorities to take a very rigid position and not to permit anybody who had not met the deadline to purchase his or her own home. Therefore, a new tenant purchase scheme would be very attractive to the following categories: first, those who had considered purchasing their own home under the tenant purchase scheme but had failed to submit their application before 31 December 1988; second; and a more numerous group, people who since 31 December 1988 have now decided they would like to purchase the home in which they live — in some cases these people were allocated a local authority house subsequent to the end of December 1988; third, those whose circumstances have changed, perhaps their income has increased and they now feel they are in a position to purchase their own home. Indeed in many cases tenants now find that their rents are considerably in excess of what they would be paying if they were purchasing their homes and certainly if they were purchasing their homes under the terms of the 1988 purchase scheme. These people would now like to buy the home in which they live.
The Minister has been asked about the scheme on a number of occasions in the House but his reply has been to the effect that all outstanding applications from the 1988 scheme will have to be processed before a new scheme is introduced. In response to that let me say that many of the applications that have not yet been processed relate to applications where the local authority have put them to one side because of the families' income or circumstances and the fact that they are not in a position to proceed with the purchase of their home or in cases where the applicants themselves have decided not to pursue their application at this point in time. In any event it is unfair to those who want to purchase their home to be prevented from doing so by a backlog, however large.
The Minister has been asked on a number of occasions to introduce a new tenant purchase scheme and I regret very much that he has not done so up to now as this very much undermines the policy statements made by him and his predecessors emphasising the desirability of purchasing one's own home. Tenants who wish to purchase the house in which they are living are prevented from doing so because there is no scheme at present which allows them to do so. We must do something to get over the difficulty tenants may have in purchasing their house between the closing date of one scheme and the announcement of a new one.
A permanent tenant purchase scheme should be built into this Bill. I envisage simple arrangements whereby if at any time tenants, because of a change in financial circumstances, family circumstances or whatever, want to purchase their home, they would be able to go to their local authority and apply to do so. There should be in place a mechanism that would determine and agree the sale price. The current arrangement that stipulates an arbitrary cut-off date, with tenants falling either inside the scheme or outside its provisions, has to be abolished. If tenants found that because their rental payments have gone up they would be better off financially to purchase or if they were able to purchase because their income level had increased, they should be able to apply to the local authority and purchase their home in the normal way. Such a mechanism if put in place would also avoid the administrative clog-ups that occur after a scheme has been announced and a large number of people want to purchase all at once. Delays occur because it takes quite a while for a large number of applications to be processed. These two amendments seek a permanent, established tenant purchase scheme under which tenants may at any time go to their housing authority and apply to purchase their home.
There is a great deal of merit in the arguments put forward by Deputy Gilmore. I wish to add some additional arguments.
As I understand the position, the scheme was designed to encourage many tenants to purchase their own homes. However, by virtue of one provision of that scheme — namely that anyone who had applied to purchase would no longer qualify to have repair work done to his or her home — local authorities were able to shed responsibility for the repairs needed to be carried out on houses immediately on receipt of an application to purchase. I consider that provision to be hardly constitutional. People were told that once they had applied under the 1988 scheme they could not have repair work done to their homes, but at the same time many of those applicants were left waiting as long as four years — some of them are waiting still — for the completion of their tenant purchase application. In the meantime they paid rent which was not offset against the purchase price. It is my personal belief that if that issue were challenged in the courts the Government would have to repay a lot of money to many tenant purchasers. I do not understand the reason for that provision, but I do understand the reason for setting the deadline of 31 December in 1988. The announcement of the scheme led to a very considerable number of applications and it has taken several years to deal with the resultant backlog.
Has the Minister ever considered that local authorities themselves have a vested interest in drawing out the sale of houses in such circumstances, that local authorities have got out from under their repair obligations in relation to a particular house but have not assigned the house to the prospective purchaser? It is not satisfactory that in certain circumstances a local authority can have a vested interest in dragging out the completion of a sale. A delay in the completion means that the local authority get more revenue. If a person were buying a house over 20 years, with the sale period starting in 1988, he or she would finish buying the house in the year 2008; but if the sale period did not start until 1993 the local authority would have additional revenue for up to five years. That is what is happening and is not satisfactory; it is a bad side effect of the 1988 scheme and the way in which it was proposed. An analogy in the construction industry would be of a spurt and then a collapse in housing construction. The creation of a glut in demand results in an inevitable administrative choking. There is a great deal to be said for an ongoing tenant purchase scheme under which people could make application when they were in a position to do so.
In addition to the kind of cases cited by Deputy Gilmore, there have been many cases of which I am aware in which the Dublin local authority, Dublin Corpoation, have denied receipt of an application while tenants state with confidence that an application had been sent in. Although problems with mail may be unavoidable in any place that receives a large volume of mail every day, anyone who deals with Dublin Corporation knows that it is not infrequent for their mail to go astray. In the past four years I have had experience of perhaps as many as 20 or 25 cases of tenants who, after not hearing from the corporation for perhaps a year, went to the sales section to be told, without any other recourse, that their application had not been received. Those tenants firmly argue that their applications were posted in at the time. Because of another anomaly that has arisen people have been left ineligible under the 1988 scheme.
One also has to recognise that there are tenants who may have been unemployed at the time the scheme was announced and are now in employment, people who were not confident to apply within the prescribed time because they were not sure about the future. There are also families who were going through stress at the time of the scheme, perhaps because of a marital breakdown of either a temporary or a permanent nature, which has subsequently been resolved or developed into a situation in which the family could now make an application in the confidence that they will be able to meet repayments. Because of the deadline many people were and are excluded from eligibility to the scheme.
Several underlying aspects make a tenant purchase scheme attractive. The fact that so many people in this country own their houses or have the potential to own their own houses is a great social stabiliser and offsets many of the strains that derive from poverty, and especially unemployment. From the State's point of view there is the additional benefit that the Government will not incur the very high administrative and maintenance costs associated with tenancy dwellings. That is an area of public expenditure that is a great scandal. The way in which we spend so much money on housing maintenance is one of the great unexplained mysteries. In fact, in Dublin city and county the money spent on maintenance is greater than the income received from rents. Only last week the Minister told the House that the subsidy per dwelling for the most recent year for which figures are available was a scandalous £85 a week.
I have raised this issue many times in my capacity as a member of Dublin Corporation. The figures are greatly debated and are disputed by some, but not all, corporation officials. While it may be that every dwelling is being subsidised at £85 a week on average — and one must remember that some of the dwellings in question are only one roomed — bedsitters — while others are dwellings of one, two, three or four bedrooms — no tenant is enjoying the advantage of a subsidy of £85 a week. Where is it going? It would nearly be better to say to tenants that we will give them their house for a nominal sum, please to take it, and look after their own repairs. I know it is not quite so easy because there are residual costs for which money has been borrowed and which will have to be serviced into the future. However, one of the advantages of the sale scheme is that there is less and less call on the local authorities, and therefore on the State, to foot the bill for repairs. That is another reason Deputy Gilmore's amendments are worthy and should commend themselves to the Minister for acceptance.
I hoped the Minister would take the opportunity of these two amendments in the name of Deputy Gilmore to tell us his attitude towards introducing a tenant purchase scheme. From what he has said up to now and in reply to questions from this side of the House asking him when he is going to bring in a tenant purchase scheme, he gave me the impression that he is not very keen on purchase schemes as such. Perhaps that is one reason he has not shown willingness to bring in a tenant purchase scheme.
Even Deputy Gilmore would not say that to me.
I hope the Minister will have something to say about all housing schemes that have been brought in over the years from 1966 and the idea that this last one has to be better than the previous one which had to be better than the previous Coalition's housing scheme. We had the sale of the century and so on. We were approaching the position where the Minister should hand the house over to the person with whatever legal expenses the transfer would entail.
The last housing scheme created an anomaly. To buy their houses young people had to get mortgages through building societies or wherever they could. In many cases they were sons and daughters of people who had availed of a purchase scheme and found themselves paying through the nose, having to get the site, planning permission and so on. Then they found their repayments were huge and put them to the pin of their collar, whereas somebody else got the benefit of a purchase scheme for buttons and a good, solid house. It left some people wondering whether they should apply for a local authority house because in a year or two there would be a tenant purchase scheme under which they might get the house for half its cost and could then perhaps dispose of it and trade off in the future. Housing schemes raise problems that have to be considered and that is one of them.
I think Deputy Gilmore is concerned mainly about people who, on the occasion of a tenant purchase scheme, could not afford to buy even at the cost of the house at that time. Perhaps they were living in the low cost houses built some years ago and did not think they were very good value to buy. In the last few years weekly rent differential soared because the rent is tied to social welfare increases and various wage increases. People in an area like mine, with a very high level of charges for all services to local authority tenants on a weekly basis, find their rent outgoings far higher than they would be if they had saved a few pounds to get a mortgage to buy the house under a tenant purchase scheme. Now there is no tenant purchase scheme that will relieve them of their heavy outgoings in rent. They missed the boat in the sense that at the time they could not afford to buy or did not think they would be getting a very good bargain. Under the 1966 scheme it was sufficient to say you wanted to purchase the house; you got a little docket indicating that you had applied; the council had to carry out various repairs before the tenant was committed to purchase and then the tenant had to wait for years because certain local authorities did not repair the houses, mend a cracked chimney or put in windows or floors that were necessary before the purchase could proceed.
All these anomalies in housing schemes deserve consideration. If the Minister announced he was going to bring in a purchase scheme in the next month or two perhaps these amendments would not be necessary. People who availed of the scheme prior to that of 1988 came to some of us and asked why we did not tell them to wait for the next one because that was by far the better scheme. Is the Minister going to bring in something on the same lines, something different, or is he going to bring in a scheme at all?
I join in the sentiments expressed by Deputies Gilmore, J. Mitchell and Kavanagh, to the effect that the amendments have a great deal to commend them. A lady who lives in Tallaght called to see me two weeks ago. Her rent is slightly over £40 a week and her house is pretty new. I did not go into the details of how that rent was assessed. It is not normal in some of the older houses to have rents as high as that. Given her tenancy over the years it is clear that she would be buying the house under any reasonable sales scheme for considerably less than that, bearing in mind that the interest on such purchase would be allowable against income tax, which rent is not.
A number of people, some very elderly, did not feel in the millenium year, the last year we had a housing purchase scheme, that they were in a position to make an application to buy their houses. Their circumstances have changed since then and now they feel, with the help of a son or daughter who perhaps, had emigrated and has now returned home, they can afford to purchase but they cannot apply to do so because there is no scheme. An elderly lady who died recently lived at Rathdrum Road in my constituency. I will give the address if the Minister wants to look into it. She had a very long tenancy, something like 40 years.
On several occasions I raised with the corporation, and here in the House with the Minister by way of Adjournment debates and at other times, the question of sales schemes to allow people like her to apply to purchase. During the millenium year this lady could not do so because she had nobody residing with her and she could not afford the extra rent. She was an old age pensioner living alone. By extra rent, of course she meant extra repayments. She died a few weeks ago and her daughter who has returned from Italy now cannot succeed to the tenancy because she has not had two years' continuous residence with her mother and was not there for ten of the last 15 years, nor can she apply to purchase. The mother's 40 years' tenancy counts for nothing and the corporation have repossessed the house and told the daughter she cannot have it. There are many people in such circumstances, old people who — not to be heartless about it — are waiting to pass on. They are frail, some in their eighties or maybe older, and as the biggest investment of their lifetime they want to purchase their rented house which has been their family home for all their married life but cannot do so because they could not apply during the millenium year. Some were in a position to do so but their better judgment told them not to take on the commitment. Old people can be very cautious and never get a second opportunity.
Since 1979, when I was first elected to this House, I do not recall such a long period being allowed to pass without the announcement of a tenant housing sales scheme. I have raised the matter here with the Minister. All sides of the House support this. I ask the Minister to announce a housing purchase scheme. I know the argument in the Department is that their housing stock will be depleted and so on. In any event, most houses pass on to a loved one or a family member living with the deceased tenant so very few of those houses come back to the local authority.
The sales scheme will have a negligible effect on the number of houses available for reletting. However, it has the effect of creating stability in a housing estate by allowing people to move into a bigger home. Many houses built years ago had only two bedrooms and some of them did not have a bathroom. People living in them now have stable jobs and can afford something better. If they owned the house they could sell it and use the money as a deposit on a bigger house and people who are in the market for a smaller house at a reasonable price would purchase it and come off the housing list. The Department's view in this regard is too narrow and I ask the Minister to re-examine it as it is causing hardship. This is exemplified by a case in my constituency of a lady who has lived 40 years in the same house. Justice demands that her application should at least be put on file. She should be told that she will be included in the scheme and that her family would have the right to succeed to the tenancy and be allowed to purchase it. However, that house has gone back to Dublin Corporation after 40 years of tenancy because that lady could not apply. There are others in the same category and I urge the Minister to take account of the strong feelings of Members in this regard.
Deputy Kavanagh seemed to doubt my general position in regard to tenant house purchase schemes. However, I agree that such schemes are fundamentally good and that, as Deputy Mitchell said, they lead to stability. All the evidence up to now in the Department of the Environment has demonstrated that that has been the solid course which successive Governments have sought to follow. Approximately 200,000 houses which were originally occupied by local authority tenants are now owner-occupied as a result of a variety of purchase schemes over the years. It is a very clear indication of the principle enshrined in the attitude of successive Governments to house purchase and of the response from tenants themselves in wanting to own their own houses. There are approximately 96,000 local authority houses which do not come under any of those schemes. Under the most recent scheme in 1988 there were 40,000 applications and about 30,000 have completed all the relevant legal matters consequent on their applications.
It is also fair to point out that there was a sale of the century scheme which was intensely advertised up to 31 December 1988 and the response was fantastic throughout the country. It would not be fair to imply that people did not have a reasonable opportunity to avail themselves of the scheme, because it was discussed by public representatives, local authorities and tenants' associations and the response was enormous over a couple of years. We should not decry the efforts of the Department of the Environment in the first instance or the response from the housing executives, county councils, legal sections and so on who came together to make the scheme an undoubted success.
This section amends section 90 of the Housing Act. It streamlines local authority procedures for disposing of houses; it increases the options of housing authorities for disposals and provides especially for the sale of flats. The outstanding applications under house purchase schemes are largely dependent on the necessary provisions in the Bill being put on the Statute Book to enable the remainder of them to go through. The Bill also amends the conditions under which dwellings are sold. Therefore, there is no real, fundamental disagreement between us on the principle of making sure that we have the best possible tenant purchase schemes available. All the evidence up to now sustains that belief.
However, these amendments oblige the Minister to introduce a purchase scheme which should be permanently available. I do not favour writing mandatory requirements of this kind into the primary legislation. It has always been the accepted practice that primary enabling legislation would leave it to the Government of the day to decide whether and on what terms a purchase scheme should be introduced, having regard to all the relevant circumstances at that time. This has worked well overall and I do not think that a radical departure from this legislative approach, which would be required by these amendments, would be desirable. The section as currently drafted would permit the making of a permanent purchase scheme — for example, a scheme without a time limit on applications to purchase — if that was what the Minister and the Government of the day decided. While one can see merit in such an approach I would not like to rule out completely the option of having a time limited scheme, particularly for certain categories of dwellings. In short, the amendments run counter to the flexibility which is the hallmark of the section and I do not consider they would make good legislation. As I said, there is not strong disagreement between us. I indicated to the House on a number of occasions my special interest in house purchase schemes. The present effort of the housing authorities was to be geared to try to take on board a variety of new schemes in the social housing plan. I want as far as possible to concentrate the abilities of local authorities on getting the maximum response to this change and the implementation of these schemes, bearing in mind that in particular the shared housing scheme requires a lot of concentrated attention and contact between individual applicants and housing authorities to make a success of it. The picture in many of the authorities where the shared housing scheme is developing apace shows that this concentrated effort is required. As soon as those schemes are up and running I will give very careful consideration to the introduction of a new house purchase scheme.
Salient and important points have been made in relation to whether the house purchase scheme should continue. Obviously, we may differ in regard to certain areas; but when considering the introduction in due course of a new purchase scheme I will give an undertaking to take account of the various opinions advanced in the House on the question of whether the scheme will be open-ended. I have already said that I would not like to enshrine this matter in primary legislation, although primary legislation gives the flexibility to do so. If it is considered on that basis it is far better to have that flexibility and, in terms of whatever new scheme is available, to take into account as far as possible the points which have been made here. In that way Deputies will have the best of all worlds.
In the past I have always given an unqualified welcome to house purchase schemes. Unfortunately, I can only give a qualified welcome to any further house purchase schemes. The Minister rightly indicated that this Bill also provides for the sale of flats. Dublin Corporation can now sell their flats stock to their tenants who are very anxious to purchase them. The reason I can only give a qualified welcome is this. The local authorities at present are selling off their housing stock, both houses and flats, which at any given time is limited. If they do not add to the housing stock through the purchase of new houses, the sale of houses and flats will only result — this has been shown to be the case in Dublin already — in those on the housing and transfer lists being imprisoned for a lifetime because there will be no alternative accommodation on offer. The Minister must bear this in mind when he comes to introduce new tenant purchase schemes. He must try to ensure that an equal number of houses and flats is both sold and built.
Before I deal with the points raised by Deputy Doyle I should say that I neglected to deal with a point raised by Deputy Jim Mitchell. He mentioned that a subsidy of £85 per week is payable in respect of each local authority house. The impression might be given that this figure is based only on the cost of maintenance because, at that stage, we were referring to the maintenance of houses. I should make the point however that it also covers the capital cost, what it would cost to build a house at current prices. I take the Deputy's point in relation to maintenance in that problems are being experienced with regard to the cost of maintenance, its effectiveness and the question of whether the taxpayers are getting a good return on their investment. All these matters are under consideration and have no effect on the amendments we are discussing.
I have to disagree with Deputy Doyle. It should be remembered in relation to the sale of houses that first and foremost those who have a legitimate right to own their own houses are being given that right. Second, once they take over ownership they will be required to maintain the house, with the result that resources will be released to the local authority for other housing purposes. Third, the sale of houses in the past produced an annual annuity to the local authorities which they used to purchase or build new accommodation. This means in effect that they do not have to resort directly to the taxpayer for resources for that purpose. One could make the point that if all of the 96,000 houses which are at present occupied by tenants under the differential rents schemes were to be taken off the books of the local authorities, in a short space of time some of the problems to which the Deputy referred would most definitely emerge.
That is what is happening at present.
It is unlikely that this will happen, however, bearing in mind the circumstances of different categories. One way or another the majority of Deputies in this House, myself included, are of the opinion that in the long run it would be better if people were in a position to purchase and to own outright the houses in which they are living. That is the way we intend to proceed in the future.
I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's response on these amendments. He has made a theoretical case in support of the idea of tenant purchase schemes and is correct when he states that the vast majority of the Members of this House support that concept. Over 80 per cent of houses in this country are either occupied by owner occupiers or by those who are in the process of purchasing their house, be it privately or from a local authority. All the evidence suggests that when tenant purchase schemes are offered they receive a favourable response from tenants. Anybody who is in a position to buy attempts to do so.
I, too, support that principle. If somebody is in a position to purchase their home they should be enabled to do so. Unfortunately, what we are getting from the Minister is a policy under which local authority tenants are able to buy any house except the one in which they are living. He is saying to them that, if they wish to do so, under the Plan for Social Housing they can buy a house in the private sector under the shared ownership scheme. He is saying to them also that they can avail of the mortgage subsidy scheme, which involves a payment of £3,300, buy a house in the private sector and surrender their own house; but unless they made an application under one of the previous schemes they cannot buy the house in which they are living.
I do not accept the argument the Minister has made that the reason for this is that there is a backlog of applications in the local authorities. If the Minister is concerned about the workload in the housing departments of local authorities he could make the same argument in relation to each of the schemes mentioned in the Plan for Social Housing. Now that he has reminded us of it, I might as well make that case anyway because it is very much the case that the implementation of the Plan for Social Housing will depend on the housing departments of the local authorities having the staff and resources to implement it.
It does not make sense for the Minister, on the one hand, to say to the housing departments of local authorities that they will have to function, effectvely, as auctioneers and estate agents to operate the shared ownership scheme and, on the other, to say to them that they cannot accept new applications from their tenants to purchase the houses in which they are living. I have to ask the question: why is this the case? Is the Minister contemplating introducing a tenant purchase scheme that would be radically different from the tenant purchase scheme which existed in 1988 and is he concerned that tenants would make an unfavourable comparison between any new scheme introduced and that already in place?
Deputy Kavanagh is correct when he states that there are many anomalies in the system in relation to those who are renting and purchasing their houses. There are also anomalies in relation to those who are purchasing their houses under different tenant purchase schemes. I know of cases, for example, where, side by side with each other, tenant purchasers are paying £50 per week under a previous tenant purchase scheme while their neighbours next door are paying £25 per week to purchase their house under the 1988 scheme and side by side with this again there are tenants who are paying up to £40 per week in rent. It is clear therefore that there are anomalies.
The arguments that the Minister makes against the amendments I have tabled are not convincing. He makes the point that section 90 of the Principal Act, as amended, will enable him to introduce a new tenant purchase scheme which might or might not be implemented on an ongoing basis. He also makes the point that it would not be appropriate to incorporate it in the primary legislation. In drafting the amendments I have put forward I did not set down the conditions under which a sales scheme might be operated; I simply wanted to establish the principle that there would be an ongoing tenant purchase scheme. I believe that such a principle should be set down in the primary legislation while the various conditions under which it might be applied, including the price at which houses would be sold and the people to whom they would be sold, could be the subject matter of regulations. However, I would have to argue that those types of areas should be subject to some debate or scrutiny by this House or by a committee of the House.
My amendment is confined solely to the principle of having a permanent tenant purchase scheme. When replying the Minister did not respond to the invitation offered him by Deputy Kavanagh to indicate when or whether he intends introducing a new tenant purchase scheme. He appeared to say that at some stage a new tenant purchase scheme would be introduced. He did not say when it would be introduced; neither did he say there was no time scale involved. The people who approach me about a tenant purchase scheme and who, as previous speakers have said, now pay £39 or £40 per week to purchase a house they could buy for £25 per week, want to know when they can buy. They are not interested in some future promise on the part of the Minister. They want to know whether they can go to their local authority and apply to purchase their houses.
It is time the Minister made a statement in relation to that matter. Had the Minister given the House a clear indication that he would introduce a new tenant purchase scheme and when it would become operational — I would have hoped that he would have indicated the terms of such a scheme, but even if he had not gone that far but said that on a specific date he would introduce a new tenant purchase scheme — I would not have been disposed to press this amendment. But he has not given the House any such indication. He spoke in general terms about the desirability of the principle of tenant purchase schemes. He spoke about its theory, which is all very fine, but has not committed himself. In the absence of any such comment, given that there are many people out there who either missed participating in the last scheme, who have now reconsidered their position or whose circumstances have changed and who, for whatever reason, want to purchase a house in which they live, certainly I will be pressing this amendment. We now have a Housing Bill the provisions of which have all to do with encouraging people to purchase houses.
It does not.
It is backed up by a large policy document. The Government state they want people to go into the private sector and purchase houses, they want local authorities to go out into the private sector and purchase houses and that they are giving people mortgage subsidies to allow them purchase houses. People can purchase half a house under the shared ownership scheme. One can buy any type of house except the one in which one lives. That makes no sense at all.
I am very disappointed that the Minister has not made a clear statement on that today. I hope, as the debate proceeds, that the Minister will consider his position but, if he does not, certainly I will be pressing my amendments.
I might deal with a few points before coming to the generality of what I want to say to Deputy Gilmore. He referred to some areas I mentioned which the provisions of this Bill loosen up in terms of options available to tenants of local authority houses to do a variety of things. I am quite sure the Deputy accepts that that broad range of choice is a very good thing. He also indicated that I had made the point that one of the reasons a new tenant purchase scheme was not being introduced at this time was because there was a backlog. I made no such point. I said there were 30,000 applicants, whose applications have now been approved. That was the phenomenal success of the 1988 tenant purchase scheme. I said there were applicants remaining who primarily were accommodated in flats and who required the passage of this Bill to enable their proceedings be developed. In no way should that be interpreted as advancing a reason for the non-introduction of a tenant purchase scheme. It was not advanced as a reason and I am not doing so now. I said I wanted to release local authority resources as much as possible to deal with and put this social housing plan in place.
Members should bear in mind that there is a huge difference, nationwide, in the application of the provisions of the social housing plan. There are areas in which its provisions work like a dream but there are others where they do not.
That is what local government is all about.
I said I wanted to concentrate these resources on the fullest possible implementation of these provisions. I said that as soon as that was out of the way I would consider the introduction of a new housing scheme. I said I would take on board points made here, which are possible of implementation within the present legislative provisions, that is the option of whether the scheme would be a continuing one. I did not want to take from the right of a future Government or Minister for the Environment, or bind them, in all circumstances, no matter what the conditions, to having to continue a tenant purchase scheme. I will endeavour to bear in mind to a certain extent the point made by Deputy Doyle. He has a different view about it. My primary responsibility is to endeavour to put in place the best possible legislation and not bind a future Government or Minister to something which might not necessarily be the best order of the day for that time, depending on the prevailing circumstances.
I am able, within the provisions of this Bill, to have a scheme which would continue or, alternatively, one which might have a time limit in respect of certain dwellings. I have not been convinced by the arguments advanced that I should insert in primary legislation an obligation, for all time, on future Ministers to have a continuous scheme.
Much ground has been covered on this issue in relation to these amendments. Obviously the Minister feels he has a good reason, but it has escaped me, for his reluctance to introduce another tenant purchase scheme since there appears to be so much pressure on the part of so many Members for such a scheme. Is the reason for such reluctance an administrative one or has it to do with the belief that, if such schemes are introduced frequently, they might affect their ongoing success? In any future tenant purchase scheme would the Minister consider inserting a proviso that would allow local authorities enter into tenant purchase arrangements with new tenants from the commencement of their tenancy, if they so wish, so that people would take up occupation of houses as tenant-purchasers rather than tenants from the beginning?
To answer the second question first, certainly that is my very strong view, that we could move to the point at which from the very time approved applicants would take up occupation of a house they could have that option. There are many sound reasons that should be the case.
I am not reluctant to introduce a new tenant purchase scheme. I have given the House a very clear indication of where my mind rests in relation to when I would propose to do so but I am unable to give a date. People who have served in Government before, like Deputy Jim Mitchell, will understand that it is not a matter solely for the Minister for the Environment; it will have to be a Government decision. Various aspects have to be considered and this will be done in due course. There is no point in getting into a knot here, in primary legislation, about the date on which such a scheme might be introduced or the different aspects that might have to be considered.
May I suggest two reasons it appears to me we do not have a tenant purchase scheme and why the Minister is delaying the introduction of one? The first is that those people most likely to apply to purchase their homes now pay high rents under the differential rents scheme. This means many local authorities now collect more in rent from those tenants than they would from repayments under a tenant purchase scheme. Therefore, I suggest the first reason is a financial one. The second reason is that the Minister has a very embarrassing problem on his plate, which is a housing waiting list approaching 30,000 applicants.
It appears to me that what is happening here is that the Minister is using the plan for social housing to attract a number of tenants out of the public housing system who would otherwise purchase their houses. They cannot purchase the house in which they live; therefore, they will apply for the £3,300 grant, for the shared ownership scheme or whatever, and surrender the house. In that way, the Minister gets extra houses he can then allocate. He is depriving tenants of the right to purchase their homes, forcing them to purchase elsewhere if they want to do so. What this comes down to is that these amendments would not be on this Order Paper at all today if we had a tenant purchase scheme. I would withdraw these amendments if the Minister gave a commitment and a date for a tenant purchase scheme. In the absence of that, I wish to have the amendments put.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by the last speaker. It is the lack of ability to buy their houses that forces tenants to go elsewhere even though their income might not necessarily justify such a move. This has the effect of providing extra housing stock for the Department on the cheap, with no regard for the welfare of people who are forced to move.
Would it not be a good time for the Minister to set out a framework for a new tenant purchase scheme which could be updated as the need arose, as was the case up to about 1977? The lack of such a scheme results in great inconsistency and is unfair to people who are not, so to speak, in the right place at the right time. Some people have repayments of perhaps £50 or £60 a week while others, because they happened to be in the right place at the right time, have qualified under a scheme that is very beneficial to them. That is totally unfair. It may be of benefit to the Government to capitalise on housing but it is of no benefit to the people themselves. All it does is create a feeling of victimisation among people.
I am puzzled by the Minister's reluctance to introduce a new tenant purchase scheme or accept the idea of an ongoing scheme. Could this have anything to do with the possible privatisation of existing tenant purchase mortgages or future tenant purchase mortgages? Would that be a factor in any future scheme?
No matter how often I say it, it does not seem to sink in. The scheme is not being delayed. There is no hidden agenda. Nothing about the provisions of the social housing plan is deterring me from coming forward with a tenant house purchase scheme. I said I would give due consideration to that and I can say no more about it. Deputy Gilmore has, from time to time, made rather wild statements and has suggested that delaying this scheme results in a gain for the local authority. The fact is that rental income from local authority houses is about £46 million; the cost of repairs to houses is approaching £70 million and this is balanced by a percentage of the receipts from the sales of houses through an annuity purchase. These schemes are not capitalised. Allegations that house purchase schemes are being delayed because local authorities are gaining simply do not stand up.
They do.
There is not a shred of evidence to support that. The 1988 scheme was a phenomenal success, as a result of which over 30,000 people now own their houses. I have gone as far as I can to meet Deputies' wishes on these amendments. I will take on board the possibility of a continuing scheme in the context of my examination of a new tenant house purchase scheme. There is that flexibility in this Bill but I will not tie all future Governments in primary legislation to the obligation to have a permanent scheme from day one.
I asked the Minister a question which he did not answer. Is it intended under this Bill to transfer responsibility for some or all tenant purchase mortgages to the private sector?
I indicated on Second Stage that I would be entering into negotiations with the lending institutions with regard to the question of how these schemes will be financed. These will be ongoing and clearly I will be anxious to see what kind of response I get from that market. That is something that will require further teasing out, consideration and work on my part.
Would the Minister contemplate transferring some existing tenant purchase mortgages in that way, if possible by negotiation? To what extent will the Central Bank have a role in those discussions?
I have to react to the statement, which is obviously correct, that £70 million was paid out in repairs while there was only £46 million in rent. The Minister cannot have it both ways. The Minister believes that a tenant purchase scheme would alleviate that position but allows that haemorrhage of public moneys on repairs to continue. Would he not agree that far more tenant purchase schemes would get rid of this costly housing stock needing all these repairs?
Perhaps the Minister should look at the method of repairs by local authorities, how they are done, how engineers are sent out to the country to look at a back door to arrive back the next day in a lorry and find that some of the materials needed are not available? Some of these repairs could be far more cheaply done if the tenant were given a certain amount of money and told to do it himself rather than this business of sending out engineers to look at relatively minor repairs. If one had to pay a bill for repairs to one's own house at the rates paid by the local authorities one would certainly change one's builder. I suggest to the Minister that he should look at the method of charging for these repairs.
The Minister accuses me of making wild statements.
Knowingly.
I could make a few wild statements about local authority housing maintenance but I will resist the temptation.
It is too hot in here.
To return to the length of time the Minister is taking to make up his mind on the question of tenant purchase, I have a newsletter here which was issued by the National Association of Tenants' Organisations which states that in June 1990, two years ago, the Minister asked NATO for a submission on tenant purchase because apparently at that stage he was considering a new scheme. It also says that on 7 December 1990, a Fianna Fáil Senator issued a press release to the effect that the Minister was to announce a new tenant purchase scheme.
That was a wild statement.
It was a premature statement.
If for no other reason than to avoid possible embarrassment to his parliamentary colleagues, the Minister might take on board what we are saying here.
I have had responsibility for the Department of the Environment for the past few months and am dealing with this issue in my own way. When I reach a decision in regard to this matter I will break all records in getting the information to Deputy Gilmore as fast as I possibly can.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Kavanagh, it is not altogether as simple as the relationship between the cost of maintenance and the house purchase scheme. Having served in the Department, I am sure the Deputy is familiar with this matter. To put it another way, even if we were to dispose of all local authority houses today many services would still be in place. I do not want to go further than saying I am worried about the cost of maintenance, the systems which are in place and the fact that, despite much investment, the housing stock is considerably run down in various places. This matter requires new thinking and examination, and I am doing that. My concern at present is to ensure we have the best possible legislation which will give Ministers and Governments the flexibility in the future to do, or not to do, certain things. If, in the light of circumstances they believe there should be a continuous scheme, provision is made for that. If they decide, because of current circumstances or difficulties, that there should be a time limit on certain dwellings, provision is made for that too. I am leaving that flexibility in place for various reasons. I believe this is a more sensible approach than going down the road of absolutely providing in primary legislation that all future Governments will be bound by certain requirements regardless of the circumstances.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Connor, John.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Currie, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lee, Pat.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P.J.
- Noonan, Michael J.
- (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Sherlock and Byrne; Níl, Deputies Dempsey and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 4, subsection (1), line 21, after "dwelling" to insert "including any flat or apartment".
I propose this amendment to make clear beyond doubt that the definition of "house" includes a flat or an apartment. The Bill states: "`house' includes any building or part of a building used or suitable for use as a dwelling and any outoffice, yard, garden or other land appurtenant thereto or usually enjoyed therewith and `housing' shall be construed accordingly". That definition is loose and is open to different interpretations. I do not believe that the amendment we have tabled will tie up all the loose ends but at least it affords us an opportunity of raising the question whether the definition of "house" is a proper and complete definition.
Earlier I sought to define the word "dwelling" but I was ruled out of order. Is a dwelling a house? Later in the Bill there is a definition of "dwelling". Section 25 (a) states: "`dwelling' means a dwelling provided by a housing authority". Therefore, a dwelling is only a dwelling provided by a housing authority. My amendment proposing to define "dwelling" was ruled out of order and that was probably a mistake. This section gives a definition of "house". What is a house? While it may seem an esoteric question, the fact is that throughout the rest of this Bill and the Housing Acts generally, the word "house" is used. It is not always clear, for instance, that the word "house" refers to any dwelling place whether it is on wheels, a flat or an apartment. Is a normal house shared by two or more families to be three houses or one house? Proposing the amendment affords me an opportunity to raise the question as to what is a house and what is a dwelling, and when is a dwelling not a house? If the definition on page 29 is to stand, it would appear that a dwelling is only a dwelling owned by a housing authority or is that the case only in so far as the relevant Act is concerned?
A house is a building used as a dwelling. I am advised that this amendment is unnecessary. A flat or an apartment is part of a building and as such is already encompassed within the existing definition of a house and in that regard I do not believe Deputy Mitchell need have any great fears.
I think it would be a study in itself to go through the Housing Acts, including this one, and extract all the contexts in which the word "house" or "dwelling" is used, or the word "caravan" or "halting site" or the context in which the words "flat" and "apartment" are separately used. I am not convinced that we have got our act together and have a clear definition of these words for the purposes of legislation. We are inserting a definition of the word "house". Later we insert a definition of the word "dwelling" which certainly does not appear to me to be an all-embracing definition. Yet I believe most reasonable people would take a dwelling to mean a house in the sense of being living accommodation, whether it is a house, a flat, an apartment, a caravan, a mobile home or similar accommodation. It is not an idle point and it is on Committee Stage that we should be seeking to perfect legislation and to give it consistency.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following subsection:
"(4) Six months from the date of the enactment of this Act, the Minister shall lay before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas a report listing the sections of the Act which have been brought into operation and, shall at the end of each subsequent six month period, lay a similar report until such time as the entire Act has been implemented.".
In this amendment I am proposing an arrangement whereby a progress report would be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas giving some indication of the sections of legislation that have been brought into operation. One of the difficulties with much of the primary legislation that is going through this House is that the legislation has to be brought into operation by order or regulation of the Minister. Very often what has happened over a period of time is that legislation is enacted in this House but not brought into operation.
Recent examples of that would be the Child Care Act which has been raised by a number of Deputies. Even though it took many years for the legislation to be passed and the Bill was at one stage referred to a Special Committee, critical sections of that Act still have not been brought into operation.
Another example is that of the Local Government Act which was put through the House last year important sections of which are still not in operation. What I am proposing here is that, at six monthly intervals, a report should be given to the House after the legislation has been passed indicating what sections of the legislation have been brought into operation.
This amendment appears to arise from apprehensions that some provisions of the Bill may not be brought into effect or may even be delayed. I want to assure Deputies on all sides of the House that it is my intention to see that the provisions of this Bill are implemented without any delay. No part of this Bill, as far as I am concerned, is for the back burner. There is a huge corpus of legislation on housing and building societies, and every single provision has been implemented with the exception of section 8 of the 1988 Housing Act and section 115 of the 1966 Housing Act. In both cases practical issues arose which made it undesirable to bring them into force. Therefore, it has not been the practice to have reporting requirements of this kind in law. All of the evidence we have with regard to housing legislation is exactly contrary; the facts are as I have stated. Of the two provisions that have not been put into effect, one has actually operated on a non-statutory basis since its enactment and the other will be put into effect arising from another provision in this Bill. Clearly there is no substantial case that can be made against any Government in relation to the putting into effect of provisions in housing and building society laws. On that basis and on the previous housing legislation record I believe I can safely ask Deputy Gilmore to withdraw his amendment.
I understand we have a very short time for Committee Stage and I do not wish to hold up the debate on this amendment. I accept the Minister's point that the record in relation to housing legislation is not as bad as that in other areas of legislation. It may well be that from time to time there are practical reasons a section of legislation cannot be brought into effect. In this amendment I am seeking that there would be a mechanism for reporting the matter to this House. As you will be aware, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there are those of us who would on occasion seek to raise the implementation of legislative measures on the Order of Business and they would find very little favour with you. Therefore, I consider we need some mechanism for the monitoring of legislation once it has been enacted. I do not propose to press the amendment at this stage, but I would indicate that my party colleagues and I intend to make amendments of this kind a regular feature of Committee Stage debates in the future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
A number of my amendments have been ruled out of order because they involve a charge on the Exchequer. Under section 1 I had proposed that the provisions of this Bill should apply to the travelling people and their problems. I understand the section dealing with them is section 10, which will be discussed later. This Bill is, obviously, very beneficial to the settled community but there is only a punitive reference to the travelling people. The distress is taken away from the settled community and the local authorities but members of the travelling community can be imprisoned for offences they may commit. Therefore, we are going to impose distress on the travelling people. I believe it is wrong to introduce such a concept into the Bill. It was my intention and that of the Opposition parties to use this Bill to improve their lot and to deal with the problems with which they are faced. Since I have been told that the simple amendment which would have introduced the idea of a caravan on a halting site being a dwelling has been ruled out of order because it would impose a potential cost on the Exchequer, I am afraid that I have to oppose this section.
I support what Deputy Kavanagh said. In this definition section the Minister would not have any great problem in accepting the amendments which merely seek to define the words in use in the Bill and to clarify what the Bill means. The amendments have been ruled out of order on the basis that they impose a potential charge on the Exchequer. That strains my credulity. The ruling may be wrong in the case of amendments Nos. 2 and 4. I would ask that that ruling be looked at again by the authorities of the House.
The amendments in question presume to extend the responsibilities on local authorities beyond what is provided for in the legislation. Therefore they are presumed to be a potential charge. The legislation does not provide for caravans or halting sites.
It does.
Perhaps the Minister is the better authority.
We are not presuming that any of us is an absolute authority on any of these matters. I reject out of hand Deputy Kavanagh's contention that these are punitive measures designed to inflict further problems on the travelling community. We are dealing here with what is a house. We provide halting sites for the travelling community at costs per unit which are generally above the cost of providing a local authority house, at the request of the travelling community. They prefer to have these type of units. What would arise from another interpretation is that these would be sold off. They are designed to create the type of mobility that the travelling community require. In essence, we would sell this halting site. Presumably the person who owned it would like to go somewhere else and I have no flexibility to use it for someone else who is on the roadside. That is the essence of what we are talking about.
The people involved with the travelling community have found this Bill to be offensive. The Minister must have had a huge volume of correspondence, like the rest of us, setting out their reasons. I hope the Minister will change section 10 without being pushed by us. The travelling community are entitled to the benefits of this Bill. The Minister may say that that would involve an additional cost to the Exchequer, but if that is so, so be it. It would be a great mistake to exclude the travelling community from the protection of this Bill.
I support what Deputy Kavanagh said. Deputies Kavanagh, Garland and I tabled virtually identical amendments arising from representations from the organisations representing travellers. They found section 10 and some sections of the Roads Bill to be quite offensive, to be anti-traveller and to put them at a disadvantage. What we are seeking to do in section 10 is to eliminate or at least limit this section and those aspects of the Bill which were found to be offensive by the travelling community and to widen the terms of the Bill by including traveller accommodation in the definition of "house".
While accepting the Chair's ruling on the amendments, the question of ruling amendments out of order on the grounds that they are a potential charge on the Exchequer is probably a very extensive way of dealing with this. It could be argued that any amendment put forward involves a potential charge on the revenue. That grounds should be looked at elsewhere. It very much restricts the kind of debate we can have here. A number of other definitions dealing with refurbishing of substandard accommodation and the shared ownership scheme were ruled out of order on that basis and therefore they will not be debated in the way in which I had intended. Perhaps we can deal with those areas when discussing the section but it would have focused our debate had we been able to debate specific amendments.
The Deputy may make passing comments on those matters. The Chair finds itself in the unenviable position of being obliged to carry out the rules of the House. Standing Orders say that if amendments represent a potential charge they are not acceptable.
The rules of the House should be changed.
Will the Deputy please apply himself to that with the means he has available?
Who interprets those rules? They are ridiculous rules.
Potential charges on the Exchequer have been dealt with in this way over the years. There is nothing different here. The problems with regard to the travelling community have nothing to do with this Bill. I met the local associations and received no request from the national association with regard to this Bill. If I do, I will be happy to meet them, because I was well able to allay the fears of the local associations with regard to aspects of this Bill where they had some wrong impressions. The problem with the travelling community has little or nothing to do with the powers in this Bill or any other Bill. It has to do with the resistance of communities in different parts of the country to have the problem resolved. Deputies can point to nothing in this Bill which interferes with the travelling community. When we reach section 10 I hope I will be able to explain that the reasons behind the thinking here are more in favour of the travelling community than has been credited. However, we will deal with that later.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, before section 2, to insert the following new section:
"2.—It shall be a principal objective of national housing policy that, before 31st December, 1999, all families be accommodated in spacious and comfortable housing at a cost they can afford, and be located in an external environment which is pleasant and wholesome.".
It is a good thing to make a mission statement on our national housing policy. Notwithstanding the present difficulties and drawbacks and without wishing to minimise the crisis in housing at present, the State has an enviable record since Independence in regard to housing. I contend that housing here is better than in any other country. That is not an exaggeration; it is a fact. The quality of our housing here is excellent and due to policies followed by most Governments since the foundation of the State, it is possible for the poorest family to live in comfortable and spacious housing with modern facilities at a cost they can afford. I do not think it is any harm to laud the achievements in regard to housing of past and present generations.
W.T. Cosgrave as Head of Government and Minister for Local Government from 1922 played a leading role in housing development, having previously been chairman of the corporation's housing committee prior to Independence. Every Government since have had a progressive housing policy. However, a proportion of our citizens have no indoor running water, toilets or bathrooms. The number is of the order of 20,000.
A significant number is housed in an external environment which does not reflect credit on the public authorities. Due to bad management or the lack of thought or money, the external areas surrounding some of the flat complexes and housing estates leave much to be desired. This creates an alienating environment for those who reside in them. That is a terrible pity because neglect of public areas leads to other problems. It may lead to attitudinal problems, crime, vandalism and other anti-social activities. People who live in such a bad environment often ask why local authorities allow such areas to be created and adopt the attitude, why should they be part of the system and why should they not rebel against it.
I urge the Minister to adopt this mission statement approach. In the amendment I deliberately set a date which is some years off so that there would be a reasonable timescale in which to fulfil it — in other words I hope we will implement this policy before the end of the century. A relatively small number of estates is affected and I do not wish to stigmatise any estate by naming it.
If we put in place new administrative arrangements and invested a small amount of money we could greatly improve the external environment and make living conditions much more wholesome.
We should take pride in the significant achievements we have made in housing without being complacent about it but we should go a step further by improving the external environment of all State housing so that people will be proud to live in such an environment. I do not think it is over-ambitious to adopt this mission statement as housing policy. If we succeed in implementing it we will have done a great deal to ease the pressures of living and make life happier for everybody.
No Member could be against this amendment and I will be interested in hearing the Minister's response to it.
The trouble with mission statement is that they depend on the commitment of the missionary to implement them. However, the Government missionaries in this sector leave much to be desired. The amendment tabled by Deputy Mitchell is very similar to the opening statement in A Plan for Social Housing, the Government document issued some 18 months ago. It states:
The Government are committed to pursuing housing policies with the broad objective of ensuring that every household has a dwelling suitable to its needs, located in an acceptable environment, at a price or rent it can afford.
Coincidentally this is the same statement contained in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, which predates A Plan for Social Housing by some months.
The content of Deputy Mitchell's amendment is stated Government policy. Indeed, the stated Government policy is in many ways better than Deputy Mitchell's amendment because it does not put a finite date on its implementation. The problem, however, is that there is a big gap between stated Government policy and Government action. It may be stated Government policy that every household has a dwelling suitable to its needs located in an acceptable environment at a price or rent it can afford but the reality is different. There are 6,500 local authority houses which do not have a bathroom; a few thousand local authority houses do not have indoor toilet facilities and several thousand houses do not have a hot water supply and have to survive with only one tap. Many local authority houses are substandard and many are now seriously over-crowded. Many families have to live in cramped boxrooms with their in-laws because they are waiting to be rehoused by a local authority. At the present rate of progress they may be on the waiting list for several years. I came across a case today of a family taken off the waiting list because they had moved in with a brother. The local authority took the view that, because the family had not sought permission from them to move in with him, they were not entitled to be there and should be removed from the housing waiting list.
There are many people who simply cannot afford to buy a house. There is also a great variation in the price of housing between one part of the country and another. In my constituency it is becoming increasingly difficult for a young family to purchase a home of their own, many families are being forced out of the areas in which they grew up and have to buy a home sometimes far away from their own family or place of work because that is what the market dictates. At the same time there is a development that has resulted from the use of section 23 whereby people bought up houses, sometimes in large numbers, in housing estates for rental purposes in order to avail of favourable tax concessions. Some of the houses that were bought ten years ago under the provisions of that section are coming back on market because the ten year tax benefit has expired. The owners want to sell the houses on the open market and people who have rented them are being taken to court and are being evicted. There is increasing evidence of exploitation in the private rental sector. People are being rented the grottiest of accommodation for very high rentals.
We are a long way from the mission and objectives of either Deputy Mitchell's amendment or the Government's statement in relation to housing but have provided very little in the way of real action, certainly very little action in a form that would assist people in housing themselves at an affordable cost and in an acceptable environment.
I should not like Deputy Mitchell to think that I was not in wholehearted agreement with the purpose of his amendment; I certainly am. However, I do not consider that the Bill, when enacted, will go very far down the road towards solving the housing crisis in this country. The purposes of the legislation are set out in the explanatory memorandum. Basically, the Bill seeks to provide for shared ownership arrangements, for the carrying out of improvements and so on. The Bill is certainly not a blueprint for housing policy to the end of the decade. The aspiration expressed in the amendment would certainly be lost in this Bill. I should like the provision to be included in other legislation so that it would be able to bring about the change in the housing area that we all desire. Nevertheless, one can only be in favour of the aspiration contained in the amendment. I support it and hope that the Minister has the same high ideal for the end of this decade, providing he is in office that long.
My tenure of office has been extended fairly considerably any way.
I should first like to take on board the points made by Deputy Mitchell. It would be fair to say that a very considerable investment has been made in the provision of decent housing accommodation throughout the country for people who would not otherwise be in a position to rehouse themselves. Earlier on we talked about the relative costs and so on. Despite all efforts made in the past, however, the Government need to make ongoing and consistent efforts in devoting the maximum amount of resources available for this very essential purpose.
Deputy Mitchell also made the point that sometimes tenants are alienated. One of the best ways to approach that issue for the future is contained in this Bill, which provides the solid framework for new management systems that will allow for the involvement of tenants in the management and maintenance of their estates. I consider it very important that those developments take place and that tenants be encouraged by public representatives wherever possible.
In relation to the comments made by Deputy Gilmore, the housing stock analysis for the period 1980 to 1990 shows a substantial reduction in the number of houses in the country without baths or indoor toilet facilities. The number of houses without baths decreased from 19 per cent to 8 per cent and the number of houses without indoor toilet facilities decreased from 16 per cent to 6 per cent.
That is all houses.
On top of those improvements, there are the £2 million provision made specifically to supplement local authorities in the provision of bathrooms in local authority houses, the pre-1940 refurbishment scheme and the various developments for the refurbishment of flats that are taking place in the inner city of Dublin and in other cities and towns throughout the country. We should acknowledge that there has been a considerable investment on the part of the taxpayer, on the part of the community as a whole and on the part of individuals to arrive at the position at which the housing analysis was able to indicate very solid progress. That does not take us away from the fact that there are still individual problems that have to be addressed. The continuing commitment and provision of £2 million this year is an indication from the Government that we want to continue developments aimed at resolving those problems as quickly as we can consistent with the available resources.
There is no indication in any evidence available to me of an upward trend in the number of repossessions. I would not like such a trend to develop, but I do not think there is evidence to sustain that argument so far as local authorities are concerned. When there is a repossession the local authority involved is in a position to give further consideration to the way in which the person or family concerned may be rehoused. Building society repossessions constitute a very small number as compared with the number of repossessions in the UK and elsewhere. I would not like to make light of even one repossession. The repossession of a home is a traumatic event for any family and one should do all one can to avoid such a development. I think there are about 170,000 building society mortgages, with repossessions at an extremely low figure.
The amendment is basically a re-statement of housing policy objectives of successive Governments, this time with a time horizon of 31 December 1999. I referred to the general policy objectives in my Second Reading speech and outlined the broad strategy adopted to achieve those objectives. There is no fundamental disagreement about those aims but there is little to be gained from writing into legislation an aspirational statement such as that contained in the amendment. That in itself would not achieve anything. To what extent we as a nation achieve objectives in the housing area depends on a great number of variable factors that are difficult to predict —factors such as emigration, internal migration, economic growth, unemployment, interest rates and, critically, the amount of public resources that we can afford to devote to housing. When the amendment is considered in that context, one can recognise the futility of putting a time limit on such an objective. No sane or responsible Government would commit themselves in legislation to a time-bound objective. Has there been a costing of what would be involved in that proposal over the next eight years? Are we prepared to say exactly where the money will come from, bearing in mind that in an earlier contribution the Deputy mentioned that in the next 20 years the average cost of every new local authority house would be about £90,000.
As I said, we must try to improve housing conditions for our people where these are deficient. The plan for social housing in this Bill is about new ways of doing that. Success in housing will depend on the ongoing development of policies to take account of changing circumstances and the effective implementation and resourcing of these policies. Housing policy objectives have always been spelled out in policy documents. The specific policy measures to achieve these objectives have been provided for in legislation. I see no merit in departing from this sensible approach, as this amendment would suggest.
I want to make the point also that I will do everything I can to make as many changes, first, in getting this legislation passed and, second, in ensuring that all its various provisions are implemented as quickly as possible and that over the next couple of years we make a fairly dramatic improvement in the provision of local authority accommodation at all levels. I think that the ambition of all of us — and none of us can claim to be more missionary than the rest in terms of our aspirations — would be to achieve this before 1999 if resources were there and there were not other competing considerations.
I think Deputy Mitchell will appreciate, taking the house building sector and everything into consideration, that as long as this country is growing, as long as we have a new, growing population, there will always be a time when people are looking for housing and housing accommodation. That is part of an ongoing, developing country and I do not think it is possible even to spell out a specific date on which everybody's problems, educational or in the health area or housing area, have reached the point where there is nothing more to do. It is a continuing process of getting the maximum resources that the community can afford, the implementation of enlightened plans and provisions for new thinking, which allow for tenants to have a greater say themselves, where they are more involved in the management and where we can at the same time have a more efficient programme to make the kind of savings Deputies have referred to in the context of costs we are at present incurring and which certainly give ground for some questioning.
On the overall principle of what Deputy Mitchell wants to achieve, everybody in this House will agree with it. Many of us would like to think we can achieve these laudable aims in a shorter period but, to specify them in primary legislation without saying where resources are coming from or knowing exactly the kind of numbers that would be involved, would not be acceptable. For instance, in the last couple of years quite a number of families who have returned to this country are now on the housing list. If Deputy Mitchell or I were Minister here two years ago we might not have been able even to forecast that. There may not have been trends at that time that would have enabled us to do it.
That does not take away from the fundamental question of trying to address the problems on the ground as quickly as we can. My ambition is to achieve that with the very positive support in this House and to continue to fight to make sure we have every possible resource available to us within the constraints of national finances to deal with these problems. To go further than that would be to spell an aim in legislation when you are not in a position to go beyond an aspiration. Nobody can argue the point that putting it into legislation actually builds a house or provides the resources. There are too many differing and potential types of situations out there which we will not be able to foresee. We try to be prophets, but we are not. Let us do the business of passing the legislation in the best way we can and take on board the main aims and aspirations that are there to be fulfilled at the earliest possible time.
I am disappointed at the Minister's reply, if not surprised by it. I will try to explain why I am disappointed and why the Minister could be more adventurous. For the elucidation of Deputy Gilmore, who is probably one of the better read Members of this House, this amendment is a direct quotation from the first paragraph of Fine Gael's housing policy statement published as part of local government policy generally last year. I will send him a copy of it. It is built on the very successful housing policies of successive Fine Gael Governments since 1921.
The Minister's reply is of an Augustinian nature: "We want good housing, but not yet, Lord". His reply has done credit to St. Augustine's attitude to sin. It seems to me there is value in enshrining objectives of this kind in legislation. As Deputy Gilmore has so properly demonstrated this quotation from the Fine Gael housing policy statement was part of our local government policy last year. It is not greatly different from the policy statement in two Government documents on housing. However, policy statements are one thing and clear objectives of statute are another. While they are objectives, they still have a great deal of influence on the attitudes adopted by decision makers. I will take two different levels to illustrate the point.
For instance, if the Maastricht Treaty had an aspiration to economic and monetary union without giving any date, I can well imagine that in 20 years' time we would still be talking about economic and monetary union. That Treaty specifies dates in respect of different phases of economic and monetary union as, indeed, it specifies dates for other areas of the Treaty like the Social Charter etc. That means all policy makers have at least to address that objective and try to achieve it so far as is possible. On the other hand, we have development plan objectives at local authority level. In the case of the Dublin City development plan, which was renewed a few months ago, I myself managed to get accepted the proposal which I tabled to have an objective for the city to double inner city population within ten years. Already the inference of that objective is manifest. The attitude of planners has changed to planning applications in respect of inner city sites. An objective has been set in a development plan. When we say we are trying to double the population of the inner city within ten years we are merely trying to restore the situation that existed ten years ago. Now planners are actively saying that this is policy and asking how we facilitate and help it. It is good policy because it is based on the belief that the inner city has been dying. Indeed, we have a number of redundant facilities there, including churches, schools, health centres, Garda stations etc. while there are huge demands for new schools, new churches, and similar facilities just a few miles up the road in the suburbs. There is utility and there is benefit in inserting in law objectives which are stated as party policy or even Government policy. When they are stated in law many people take them to be riding instructions and they seek to implement them.
The Minister said, rightly, that of course human society is a living organism and it does not always shape up as people forecast. Housing demand might be less next year than expected or it might be more. In five years' time it might be quite different from what is now felt to be the case. Of course it is a living thing and subject to change, but what is not subject to change is the sort of standards of living conditions people have come, rightly, to expect. This is not only in terms of the amount of floor space, bedrooms or basic facilities like running hot and cold water, bathroom, etc., but what is their vista when they go to the shop or to church? For many of our citizens it is an appalling vista and we should not baulk at setting an objective of ensuring that, before the end of this century, every citizen has running hot and cold water, a bathroom or shower and an indoor toilet and that their dwelling is located in an area which is not covered with graffiti or rat ridden or overgrown with weeds. That is the minimum objective. As the Minister and other speakers agree with this objective I ask him to be generous and to accept this amendment.
The Minister's response to this amendment has really angered me. Listening to him, one would think that he did not preside over one of the worst housing crises in the history of the State. The amendment contains an aspiration that every family in the State would be housed adequately and in an acceptable environment by the end of 1999, a policy objective which everybody in this House shares. The Minister in responding, by what he said and his tone, conveyed an impression that everything is fine, that the Government are investing in housing, the number of substandard houses is reducing and that we are moving merrily along the way to house families.
It is time that the degree of anger and frustration existing among people living in substandard housing and in overcrowded conditions was conveyed to the Minister and the Government. I deal daily with people who do not have proper housing, in some cases with people who live in sheds at the bottom of their family's garden. They do not have running water or electricity and they must trek to the family house to go to the toilet or to get water to boil a kettle. Families are living in overcrowded conditions. A case which comes to mind is of a woman who telephoned me to tell me that she lives with her husband and seven children in two bedroomed accommodation. I know of another case of a husband, wife and two children — one of whom suffers from asthma — living in one bedroomed accommodation. People live in the most appalling conditions in the private rented sector waiting for local authority housing.
The area which I represent — the Dún Laoghaire Corporation area — has 500 applicants on the housing waiting list but we are permitted to build only 25 houses this year. In the south County Dublin area 700 people are on the housing waiting list and slightly in excess of 20 houses will be built this year. There are 600 local authority dwellings in the area which I represent which do not have a bathroom; it will take 30 years for those houses to be refurbished at the rate at which we are getting finance from the local authority. Our biggest problem is to get the Minister and the Government to acknowledge that there is a problem. I know that the amendment we are debating seeks to insert in the Bill a general policy statement with which we all agree but it is time we heard from the Minister for the Environment or the Government some acknowledgement of the seriousness of our housing crisis and an acknowledgement of the frustration and anger felt by those on housing waiting lists and living in substandard accommodation. There should be some statement of intent or hope that something will be done about it because the half-way house measures in the Bill — and the way they are constructed and wrapped up — will not resolve the housing crisis. It will be a bit like the health crisis which the Government suddenly——
They did not know about it.
They did not know about the health crisis until they went on the hustings at the last general election. They will not know about the housing crisis until they once again go on the hustings. I assure you, a Cheann Comhairle, and the Minister, that the Government will know about the housing crisis when the next election is held because there is an enormous degree of anger, frustration and a feeling of being neglected throughout the country by people waiting to be housed.
I will give a final example in this regard. In the last 12 months Dublin County Council have not housed anybody in the normal way from their housing list, every single applicant who has been housed by Dublin County Council in the last 12 months has had an address at a hostel or a bed and breakfast — they were all officially homeless. I resent the Minister's blasé approach to this crisis and it would at least be reassuring if there was a semblance of urgency or acknowledgement of the extent of the crisis.
If the Minister for the Environment is not aware of the housing crisis he is out of touch with reality. At a meeting of the housing authorities in north Cork I said that the Minister is out of touch. Housing is an essential social need. Houses must be provided for people who cannot afford to purchase them or to build their own. The housing crisis in the rural area of north Cork, comprising the Mallow and Kanturk electoral areas, is contributing in no uncertain manner to marital breakdown because, as Deputy Gilmore said, people are living in overcrowded conditions in flats or with in-laws. These conditions are totally unsuitable for young couples bringing up their families. The various schemes which the Minister intends to introduce will not solve the problem. Adequate finance is required for housing to be built by the local authorities. If the Minister approved joint venture schemes people would be re-housed and eventually they would be appointed tenants. It would be a step forward. It is not good enough to leave unemployed people to their own devices. The Minister should face up to the fact that there is a housing crisis. He has been written to very often from the housing and sanitary division of which I am a member and he must be well aware of the problem.
The basic requirement for any family is the security of their own home. People must be housed by the local authority at a reasonable rent or, as I said, if schemes were introduced on a joint venture basis it would mean the local authority would join builders to provide houses and would allocate them to successful applicants.
In April 1991 there were 300 approved applicants in this small area, 150 of whom had been deemed to be in urgent need of housing by the housing officer for the area in Cork County Council. Despite this only 12 to 14 houses will be built this year. This is not good enough. The Minister must address this question and state that moneys will be provided to the local authority.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.