Yes. These people would not describe themselves as the poor type of farmer to whose assistance the State should be asked to come. I do not know, if a scientific examination were made all over the country, how far one should go down in arriving at a limit where a farmer could be described as a poor farmer who was entitled to the aid of the State in building or reconstructing his house, but I would suggest that a valuation of £25 is a reasonable limit. I have heard of cases of persons, and I have had applications before me from persons, who regarded themselves at any rate as poor or as having poor holdings, the valuations of which were slightly over the maximum limit of £25. Of course, they were ruled out. We cannot consider the case of an individual farmer whose valuation is over £25. That is the law.
Another fact bearing on these cases is that a very small percentage of the total applications for reconstruction grants came from people whose valuations are between £20 and £25. Taking some counties as examples of the whole country, there are not 5 per cent. of the total applications from farmers with valuations between £20 and £25. If Deputies say so, I certainly accept their word that there are some hard cases here and there where there are people on individual holdings where the land is highly valued. I have heard of some such cases in Roscommon, and Deputy Victory mentioned some in County Longford, while Deputy Gibbons mentioned others, but it is not easy to legislate for hard cases. You have to legislate for the generality of the people. I do not think that, so far at any rate, a case has been made out for increasing the limit of the valuations especially as we are spending so much money on housing. We are spending an enormous amount of money. This is the second time since the Act of 1932 was passed that I have had to come to the House to ask for an additional £700,000. I must say that the House has granted it willingly, but it is a very big sum to ask for. It is a very big slice of the taxpayers' money. At any rate, until we have gone further, and have seen that all those with valuations under the present limit of £25 have been provided for, I do not think there is a strong case for raising the limit either to £30 or £35. There will be hard cases, of course, but there would also be cases such as Deputy McMenamin spoke of where, if we were to change now and go back, the people who have already reconstructed their houses would say: "Well, we have already reconstructed our houses, and why not pass along the grant to us?" I think it is just as well to let such people know that they were not eligible when they reconstructed their houses, and that they are not likely to get any cash from the State for that reconstruction. They were evidently well enough off to be able to reconstruct their houses without the Government's assistance.
As Deputy Brennan said, there are difficulties from time to time with regard to floor space, but it is extraordinary the ingenuity that people can display in getting around rules and regulations. Some have got around the rules and regulations by doing the reconstruction, if not exactly artistically, at any rate sufficiently to satisfy the law, and, so far as I know or can ascertain, the question of the floor space has not proved to be an insurmountable object in stopping people from reconstructing their houses with the aid of a Government grant, and afterwards reconstructing their houses to suit themselves.
