We have spent a good deal of time on this section but I think it will be time well spent if we succeed in convincing the Minister that certain adjustments to this section are extremely desirable. Since we last discussed the section, I put down a Parliamentary Question and I have received a reply which is relevant to this section. The question was:
To ask the Minister for Local Government the number of dwelling-houses built during each of the ten years ended 31st December, 1964 in respect of which no grant was paid under the Housing Acts.
The reply to that was:
The precise information requested by the Deputy is not available in my Department. As indicated in the Housing White Paper, it is estimated that about 150 houses a year are erected without the aid of State grants.
I submit this number is extremely small and that it could be even further reduced if we take into the calculation the number of people who still shy away from looking for grants because they think it might involve them in very serious delay or because of certain unwarranted fears, shall we say, of too rigid inspection. I should say the number of 150 houses mentioned in the reply to this question are houses which, if measured, would in fact qualify for these grants. This is one more reason why the Minister should see that it is desirable that these rectrictions or limitations on planners should be removed. There should be more freedom for planning and imagination; otherwise, we shall get dull uniformity which nobody wants.
There is another aspect of the matter which should get some consideration, that is, the fact that many people still believe that when State grants are given, that fact carries an automatic guarantee of the quality of the house. They think that with the grant the degree of inspection is such that it will ensure that at least no major defects will appear within any fairly short period. Of course that is not so. This might be very desirable and the Minister should express his opinion in regard to the extent of the inspection that goes with the grant because many people have found after 12 months or two years that dry rot has completely destroyed their floors because the ventilation was faulty.
I give that as an instance. Many such defects have shown up and many purchasers think, in innocence or ignorance, that this should have been covered by the inspection the State makes to ensure that houses on which grants are paid are built to a certain standard of quality and specification. That deals with the area. It is most desirable that this upper limit of area restriction should be removed. Nothing can be gained by keeping it in the Bill and a good deal would be lost.
I hope that before Report Stage the Minister will reconsider his attitude to this aspect of the Bill. We have all tried, at some length, to get the Minister to change his mind in relation to the grants being provided for in this Bill but so far he has given no indication that he is prepared to give way, no indication that to any degree he will improve or extend the grants which have been at the same level during the past 17 years. It is deplorable that in the enacting of new legislation or the re-enacting of old, we should include grants of the same amounts as those provided in 1948.
I am afraid the Minister is allowing the present financial position, the credit squeeze and crisis, to affect his judgment and influence him in keeping these grants at their extraordinarily low level. There seems to be no other good reason for their retention. I hope the Minister will look beyond the present position and realise that this is legislation which will stand for years to come. I hope that in such a realisation he will agree to reconsider the matter and see what can be done to improve the grants provided for in this legislation.