Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 15 Jul 1949

Vol. 117 No. 8

Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1949—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

As I was saying last night, in this measure it is proposed to modify two existing conditions governing the financial assistance afforded by the State towards the building of new houses by private persons for their own occupation; by public utility societies for their members; the building of new houses for letting and also the reconstruction of existing houses in rural areas.

The effective provisions of the Bill are contained in Section 1, which provides for two amendments of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, dealing with the qualifying conditions for grants for houses built or reconstructed by private persons or public utility societies.

The first amendment is contained in paragraph (a) of Section 1. It extends to the 1st April, 1952, the latest date for the completion of houses, the erection or reconstruction of which was begun on or after the 1st November, 1947, or on or after the 1st November, 1945, in the case of houses erected by persons for letting. The latest completion date at present is the 1st April, 1950.

The second amendment is contained in paragraph (b) of Section 1. It increases the aggregate of the grants which may be paid by the State towards private building operations under the 1948 Act from £580,000 to £1,750,000. The proposed increase in the aggregate amount does not of course involve any change in the amount of the grants allowable in individual cases. When the Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1947, was being discussed in the Seanad it was indicated that an exact measurement of the financial requirements under the Bill was not then possible, and that if the aggregate inserted in that Bill proved to be insufficient a short amending Bill to increase the amount would be introduced.

The position now is that up to the 30th June last a sum of approximately £487,000 has been spent out of the aggregate of £580,000 allowed under Section 26 of the 1948 Act. At the present rate of expenditure, the limit of £580,000 would be reached by the end of August. This is due to the rapid growth in the number of grants allocated and the exceptional acceleration of the administration of the grants in the past 12 months. Up to the 30th June last grants had been approved for 6,292 new houses. Of these, 867 grants had then been fully paid and instalments had been paid in 1,364 cases. As regards reconstruction in rural areas, grants had been approved in 4,247 cases of which 450 were fully paid and 601 had received instalments. The total expenditure under the several sections of the Act up to the 30th June, 1949, was as follows:—

Section 16—Grants for erection and reconstruction begun on or after the 1st November, 1947—approximately £425,000.

Section 17—Erection begun on or after 1st November, 1945—approximately £55,000.

Section 18—Extra £20 grants for reconstruction begun but not completed prior to 1st November, 1947—approximately £7,000.

Sections 19, 20 and 21—Recoupment of letting grants paid by local authorities—Nil.

(In the cases of letting grants applications for between 400 and 500 houses have been made to local authorities who are at present investigating these claims.)

Private enterprise can make a very valuable contribution to the solution of the housing problem and it is therefore desirable that any uncertainty as to future policy in the matter of grants should be removed so as to allow full scope to persons intending to plan for the building and reconstruction of houses within the next two or three years.

The provisions of the Bill are, as I have said, limited to the time programme and the financial mechanism governing grant allocations and payments. There can be no objection in principle to the proposals in this respect. I should have liked to include in the Bill various miscellaneous amendments of the law relating to housing which our experience of the administration of the 1948 Act and previous legislation has shown to be desirable, but the need for obtaining the approval of the Dáil to the provision of additional funds before the present session ends became apparent at only a comparatively recent date.

In the present pressure on Parliamentary time and in the short period available before the summer recess, it would not be practicable nor would it be fair to Deputies or to the other interests concerned to rush through an Amending Bill which might involve matters of major policy. Moreover, the Act of 1948 is not very much more than a year in effective operation and many people may consider that longer experience of its working is desirable before any radical amendments are proposed. I hope, however, that in due course I may be in a position to introduce a more comprehensive Bill reflecting our considered views on various aspects of housing policy.

I think that, on an occasion of this kind, the Minister might have favoured the House with a somewhat fuller review of the existing housing position, and have given more information regarding the progress that has been achieved. Housing is one of the big activities in which the Government is concerned. The Minister for Finance, in his Budget statement, called special attention to the very heavy expenditure the State was committed to in respect of the Government's housing programme. I think that, in view of its importance from the financial point of view, the House ought to take the opportunity of reviewing closely the progress that has been made and the obstacles that are in the way of securing more speedy results, as well as the reason why the costs of housing seem to be so exorbitant as they are at the present time. Housing is considered to be one of the prior necessities. It takes precedence, I think, of almost all the other services which come into the category of social or health work, and it is a question in which Deputies on all sides of the House are interested. In view of the fact that the Labour Party is strongly represented in the present Government and that a representative of the Labour Party is in charge of the Department of Local Government we naturally expect that the fullest possible co-operation will be secured from the labour and trade union organisations. After all, it is the working classes whom it is intended to benefit under the provision which the State is making for housing.

I would like to remind the Deputy that this Bill is very limited in scope. It does not extend to all housing, only to houses for which a grant is available for private building. It does not extend to other schemes, and so is very limited in scope. Apart from that, the Estimate for the Minister's Department was before the House a short time ago when the question of housing was fully discussed.

The Government has committed itself to the provision of houses for middle-class people at reasonable rents. Last year, the Minister for Finance told us that there was a very big increase in the amount of bank credits that was being made available for work in this country. This year, no reference was made by him as to whether he was satisfied that the withdrawal of credit for building work in particular—the withdrawal of credit or restriction in the provision of facilities by banks, that I think most of us feel—has operated against this important work of housing. It seems to me that, side by side with whatever is being done in respect of housing by local authorities with provision for the working classes, that the position of the ordinary white-collar or black-coated worker, of the ordinary mechanic or the artisan who is in more comfortable circumstances, of the civil servant or clerical worker who may not be entitled to a degree of priority under a working-class scheme, should not be ignored.

We have heard recently from the Minister for Health that the number of marriages has fallen very considerably since 1946, but I think that there has probably been an increase in the marriage rate here as compared with pre-war. I think that everyone must have the greatest sympathy with young people who are starting off married life in present circumstances. Everyone is aware of the difficulties these young people have in securing accommodation. Rents of flats seem to be extremely high—indeed, they are exorbitant—and, if we are to consider the rents which should normally be paid, we can reflect that in pre-war times it was considered that one-sixth or one-fourth of the person's earning's would be appropriate and would be the normal thing in respect of rent charges. That was a proportion which the ordinary worker of the type I am speaking of, and which this Bill particularly concerns, would have been able to shoulder. But in present circumstances, rents are out of all proportion, even if we have regard to the increased remuneration that young people are getting, where they are in steady employment, and even where they have fairly good positions, and one has the feeling that the optput has not kept pace with the increased cost.

Does the Deputy not consider that that would be more a matter for the Estimate which was considered a few weeks ago rather than discuss it on this Bill?

The Minister has given us certain information. He has told us that grants have been given in respect of 6,000 houses. Do I understand that all these will be houses to which the term "private building" applies? I understood the Minister to say that grants had been allocated, but the defect under which I suffer, amongst many others, is that I have not had from the Minister any account of the progress that has been made so far and the total provision that he feels will have to be made. I should like to know what progress he is making to achieve his target. There is also the question of skilled labour. I take it materials are no longer, so far as the actual physical requirements are concerned, the problem they used to be.

On a point of order. I understand that the Chair ruled twice that this was a very limited, a very restricted, measure. I want to know for my own information in the future if, when the Chair so rules against a Deputy, he will be allowed to carry on and to ignore the Chair? That information would be useful to me and perhaps to other Deputies.

If the Chair considers that I am trespassing, I am quite willing to obey the ruling of the Chair.

I said that this Bill has a limited scope. The Deputy on his point of order did not point out any offence.

The Minister referred to the letting of houses and I understood from the figures he gave that a certain number of houses were being erected for letting purposes under a new provision in the 1947 Act, which it was considered would help to meet this situation for young people who are not in a position, starting off in life, to purchase their houses and in whose circumstances there would be a letting. I would like the Minister to give us some further information as to the progress made in that connection. He might inform the House whether he is satisfied that this particular scheme affords a reasonable hope that it will make a considerable contribution to the solution of the housing problem. It was an effort to get over the difficulty that young people could not get houses to rent under any circumstances, even with the comparatively exorbitant rents which at present exist.

The Minister also referred to reconstruction grants down the country. This is a matter in which Deputies who represent rural constituencies will be interested. I would like to know if the work which rural dwellers have undertaken, and in respect of which grants were allocated, has been completed. We all have had experience of grave delays in dealing with the actual payment of a grant. I think allowance must be made for the very heavy burden of administrative work in connection with reconstruction grants. We know that an inspection has to be made and we know that dealing with reconstruction work probably occupies a greater amount of administrative time than the comparable work on new houses. It is of the greatest importance, however, to rural people. The general housing provisions are directed mainly towards the urban population, and the working classes in particular.

So far as I know, the Land Commission in whatever work they did were strictly limited to particular areas in the country. There are very large areas where nothing can be done through that Department, which deals more specifically with Land Commission tenants. It is a matter of importance, if we are interested in agricultural development and if we are spending and proposing to spend large sums on the improvement of agricultural amenities, that we should give special attention to dwelling-houses. I was interrupted when I was referring to skilled labour. Would I be in order in referring to that?

It would be a rather wide question to introduce on this Bill.

Then I do not propose to continue on that line. I would like an assurance from the Minister that if the reconstruction work which has been undertaken by rural dwellers, and in respect of which grants have not all been paid, has been completed, he will make every effort to speed up the outstanding payments. Will he give the House some indication of the amount of work which the reconstruction schemes will entail? Perhaps he can give us an assurance that reconstruction work in rural areas will secure a higher place on the list than has hitherto been the case. I can see no reason why, when urgent reconstruction is so necessary. It is probably more economical and cheaper from many points of view than some of the other work which is getting special attention. I can see no reason why rural housing should be relegated to a subordinate position. If the supplies position makes it possible, I urge the Minister to give priority to reconstruction work.

We are not at liberty to cover a very wide field under this Bill, but there are a few matters to which I want to refer. Any measure which is introduced for the purpose of solving the housing problem should gain a speedy passage through this House. I want to refer in particular to the housing grants available in relation to houses for the middle classes. Very long and very aggravating delays occur in the administration of these grants. In the city and county of Dublin thousands of people, particularly newly-married couples or young people about to get married, are anxious to build their own houses and to avail of the grants and loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. They are finding tremendous difficulty in this matter because of delay in administration. From my experience I think that a good deal of the delay is avoidable. A great part of it consists in the examination and re-examination of plans by Departments and by local authorities in relation to the valuation and revaluation of housing sites ad infinitum. The administration of one loan or grant for one house may take as long as six to eight months. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs. I ask the Minister to look into the matter and take any steps necessary to rectify the position by increasing the staffs of local authorities, or taking any other steps that may be necessary to secure that delays of this kind will not occur in the future. Such delays cannot be tolerated.

Deputy Derrig referred to housing costs. Undoubtedly, housing costs are a scourge upon the ordinary people. The problem of housing costs is one that should be dealt with; it must be dealt with eventually, if it does not settle itself of its own accord, by legislation of one kind or another. Housing costs to-day, however, high though they may be, are considerably lower than they were 18 months ago.

In what way?

I will give the Deputy an instance. A five-roomed house can now be purchased for £1,700 or £1,800. Eighteen months ago one could not purchase a similar house for anything less than £3,000 and, in some instances, £5,000.

I do not know of any.

I certainly know of them. Some of those £5,000 and £6,000 monstrosities are still standing unpurchased on the Stillorgan road.

The Deputy is quite in order in referring to housing costs but not in having a discussion on them.

I am merely following——

The Deputy was quite right, but he should not be drawn by interruptions into a discussion on it. The Deputy is quite in order.

There is the problem, as I have said, that housing is still at a pretty high price. Housing costs still represent a great imposition on the ordinary people. In the speech made by Deputy Derrig there was an inference that these costs were attributable to the increased wages paid to labour. I do not agree with that.

I do not think the Deputy said that to-day.

There was an inference to that effect. He suggested that, because the present Minister is associated with the Labour Party, it should be possible to have certain steps taken with the trade unions in regard to costs. I do not accept the proposition that the increased cost of houses is due to the increased cost of wages.

I think the Deputy is endeavouring to reply to a point I did not make. I referred to the hope I had that with a Labour Minister in charge there would be full co-operation from the Labour organisations and the trade union movement. I did not go into the question of wages.

I am glad the point has been cleared up.

On another occasion, perhaps I may have.

I feel there is room for adjustment in the matter of housing costs. There is no room for adjustment downwards at any rate in so far as the wages paid to those engaged upon housing are concerned. I trust the Minister will take the opportunity, as he indicated in his opening remarks, of introducing a more comprehensive amending Act in order to meet the defects which now exist in the Housing Acts. Much more than is contained in the present Act can be done and must be done. I have no doubt that the Minister will bend his mind to that without delay.

One of the major problems besetting people at the present time is the problem of obtaining sites on which to build their own houses or have them built for them. I hope the Minister will give attention to this matter and consider it particularly in relation to the city and county of Dublin. At the present time advantage is being taken by unscrupulous interests to exploit the urgent needs of the young people and the newly-weds seeking to set up home. Advantage is being taken of them for the purpose of making what is nothing more than a black market profit on housing sites. If the Minister gives his attention to these matters and introduces a comprehensive measure at an early date we shall be assured that the problem of housing is being attacked in every possible direction.

This is merely a Bill to extend the period for the payment of grants for a few years longer. I cannot understand why when the 1948 Bill was being introduced a definite period of ten years was not laid down. If it had been, there would now be no necessity for these amending Bills every year. Perhaps the idea is to give the Minister and the Department something to do. I welcome the extension of the period during which the grants will be paid. Very beneficial work is being done in the matter of housing throughout the country. The country was sadly in need of houses. With a greater acceleration of the progress that is being made we hope that we shall reach a solution to this problem in at least ten years. The individual who sets out to build his own house by his own industry is a very useful type of citizen and every encouragement that can be given to him by way of grant and so on should be given. He is getting a certain amount of encouragement at the present time but it is still not sufficient because of the high cost of building. Perhaps there might be a possibility of a fall in the cost of building materials but if there is, that is offset by the increased cost of wages to tradesmen and builders. The person who sets out to erect a dwelling for himself, no matter how cautiously he moves with regard to his money, will find that the smallest, humblest dwelling will reach a very high figure by the time he has turned the key in the lock. However, I only hope that the Minister may find it possible to give better financial assistance. It is hopeful to notice that even when there is no change in the amount of grants payable, the number granted has almost doubled. That is something we like to see.

The real reason I rose to speak on this Bill is because of a section that was introduced in the Housing Bill last year with regard to the payment of grants to individuals who erect houses and let them to other people. In these cases, any person who decides that he has some capital to spare and sets out to erect four, five or six dwelling-houses which he in turn will let at a very good rent to tenants, can now be paid at the rate of £40 per year for ten years, a free grant. This money must be found from the rates of the local authority. That is something which was not brought to my attention until my eyes were opened very wide at a meeting of the Mayo County Council about six weeks or two months ago.

Does the Deputy want the law changed?

That Bill is dealing with grants——

I beg your pardon, you are quite right.

——paid to individuals. When it was brought to our notice that a number of people in the county decided to take advantage of this scheme we thought that it was very wrong—and I should like to bring it to the notice of the Minister—that any ratepayers in any county should be obliged to provide a free grant of £400 for an individual who has sufficient money to erect five or six houses and let them as a paying concern to other individuals. I can assure the Minister the sooner he deletes that from the Housing Acts the sooner they will be respected. I do not know whether recoupment will be given to the local authorities of this money. If there is, of course it is all right. But, as I have been given to understand it by the officials in the Mayo County Council, recoupment will not come. I can assure the Minister that we in the County Mayo will not provide this money if we can possibly get out of it because we feel it is grossly unfair that one individual, who can build houses and let them, can get a £400 grant and another individual who builds a house for his own use and benefit can only get £235 or whatever it is. That is my real reason in speaking on this Bill, to bring that to the notice of the Minister. It is grossly unfair and, as far as I am concerned, I have not the slightest intention of letting that pass. It is grossly unfair that the ratepayers should be fleeced to the extent of £400 per house in order to give free grants to people who have plenty of money to build houses and then let them at a very good rent. I hope the Minister will take notice of that and do something about it.

With reference to the grants for houses I have also had the experience in County Dublin of the slowness in the payment of grants. The ordinary struggling man who is anxious to build a house for himself finds it very hard to carry on with all the legal difficulties that are placed in his way; (1) when taking over a site from the Land Commission he has to wait ages for it and (2), he has to go through all the legal formalities possible. I know all these things have to be done, but the fact remains that it takes a long time to settle up a site when you are applying for a loan. When it comes to the free grants there is a big delay also. I am very delighted with the conversion of some members of the Labour Party who were so much against private enterprise; they now welcome private enterprise. Some of their utterances were that they were anxious that local authority housing should go ahead. The late Minister said he expected that private enterprise would fill the gap to the extent of 40 per cent. in the building of houses.

As far as some public utility societies are concerned, I think it is a big burden round the necks of private individuals to have to pay high rents. The ordinary citizen who is lucky enough to get one of those houses is all right for a few years. I know of four-roomed houses in my own constituency where tenants are paying £2 5s. 0d. a week, which are owned by a public utility society and private companies. That is far beyond the means of any ordinary man or woman, with average wages. These are economic matters which some Government will have to face because a man with a normal salary, although he may carry on all right when he first gets married, will find it a problem to pay such a high rent when he has to educate his children.

That is outside this Bill.

I am dealing with grants. These houses get grants.

Is the Deputy sure it is a utility society and not a private company?

They are entitled to grants.

I have met a case of a private company but not of a utility society.

They get the grants. Some of them are private companies and some are utility societies. I feel that, in a matter of this kind, we must try to protect our people as far as possible. Is there any possibility of reducing the costs? Deputy Dunne said, of course, that some houses in County Dublin were reduced now. Candidly I do not see any reduction at all in the houses that I want for the ordinary people. I am not so concerned with the other sections because they are able to pay and look after themselves.

I would ask the Minister to try and expedite the matter of grants, I wonder if it is possible for the Minister to set up some machinery to assist the people who are applying for grants to settle up at the one time for the site, the deeds and all the other matters concerned. At present they have to go to three or four Departments to get the work done. It is very discouraging to an ambitious individual, who is anxious to make a home for himself, to find that he is handicapped in this way from time to time.

With reference to reconstruction grants, I have applied from time to time on behalf of various people for these grants. So far as I understand, the grants are given only to people resident in rural Ireland who are making their living directly or indirectly from the land. I think there is an urgent necessity for extending the classes eligible for these grants because there are a number of people who are not making their living from the land but who are still living in rural Ireland and they find it impossible to qualify for these grants. I say that these people should be considered. I remember a few cases during the past few months of people who happened to be turned down just because they were border-line cases. They were living in rural Ireland but they were not agricultural labourers; they were general labourers working in other capacities. I feel that cases of that kind should be considered favourably and if they cannot be considered under present legislation, they should be considered when future legislation is being introduced.

There is considerable complaint in regard to delay in the payments of grants and in having work under the Acts carried out. I know that costs are high but the fact remains that it should be possible to expedite work of this kind much more speedily than at the moment. The housing position in this country, as a result of the war and of conditions which were the heritage of hundreds of years, is in a very bad way but we should be ready to make a bold effort to grapple with it now. The Fianna Fáil Government were in the height of a vigorous housing campaign when the emergency arose. The emergency inevitably had its reactions and the position has been worsened by the fact that a number of people have married since these days. I think that anything that can be done to encourage private persons to build houses for themselves should not be lacking and every encouragement should also be given to people who want to reconstruct houses. We should not be throwing the whole responsibility on a housing director. I hold that the Minister has a clear field now. Economic conditions have improved and he should set up some machinery to expedite the solution of the housing problem throughout the country.

I have only a few brief remarks to make on this question. The Minister has indicated that it is his intention to bring in a more comprehensive measure at an early stage. That does curtail the scope of this debate and encourages Deputies to withhold their observations until the new measure is introduced. There are certainly some grave anomalies in the present system of housing grants, particularly in so far as they affect rural areas. If a farmer of over £35 valuation wants to reconstruct his house, he is not eligible for a grant under the existing law because there is a maximum upper limit of £35, but, on the other hand, if he wishes to construct a new house, he is eligible for a grant. I do not see why there should be any differentiation between a man who wants to reconstruct an existing dwelling and a man who wants to build a new house. I think the grants should be equally available in both cases. It might be suggested that the country gentleman with a huge manor-house might wish to reconstruct that building and that it would not be fair to ask the taxpayer to provide grants in that particular case but I think there is a floor space regulation which cuts out the larger type of house. In view of that floor space limitation, I do not think there is any reason whatever for retaining the limitation in regard to poor law valuation.

Then again there is a limitation in regard to reconstruction grants in rural areas, that is, the limitation in regard to the occupation of the applicant. Only a person who is engaged in agriculture, either as an agricultural labourer or a farmer, is eligible to receive a reconstruction grant. There are in addition to farmers and agricultural labourers quite a number of useful people living in rural areas — the man who works on the road, the forestry worker, the carpenter or the local craftsman. All such people should be entitled to receive a reconstruction grant because they are already entitled, if they wish to build a new house, to receive the full grant available for that purpose. There is an anomaly there which should be removed. I am not so sure about the law on this question, but I think there is available to people living in urban areas or at least in cities, grants for reconstruction, regardless of what their occupation may be. I am not quite so sure about that point, but I think my statement is true and if it is, it does strengthen the case for the removal of this anomaly.

I think that everything possible should be done to reduce housing costs. One thing that I think strikes every Deputy is that when people wish to save expense by providing a roof of asbestos sheeting or a similar type of roof, it should be sanctioned without any question by the Department. I think that asbestos sheeting is as good a roof as asbestos slates or tiles and that there should be no hesitation in giving a grant to a man who wishes to utilise that type of roofing.

I have just a few points to put to the Minister and I am sure he will be in a position to meet me on them. I do not make any complaint so far as payments of grants are concerned at all. I think it is a very nice experience at any time to call in to see the staff in the Department. One receives nothing but courtesy. Indeed that has been my experience in regard to the staffs of all Government Departments, no matter what Government was in power. Unless they put down the kettle and made tea they could not treat you with more courtesy. During the time that the former Minister, the late Deputy Murphy, was in office, I put down a question here asking if he would take into consideration the case of people living in towns who were owners of their own houses and who did not work for hire. Take, for instance, the case of a widow with a family. If she decided to improve her house under the terms of the old Act she would get no grant in any way. The late Minister's reply to me was that it would be a border-line case and if I put up the case to him he would meet it. But I know that if I put up one case he would have to meet 1,000. If it was embodied in this Bill it would be more useful. We know that the landlords in the towns were not too kind to the tenants. They did not improve the houses, or if they did repair a house the tenant was unable to pay the rent afterwards and these tenants might be poor people with large families. I would be pleased if the Minister would take that into consideration.

In the rural communities there was a type of small farmer who got a grant, say, in 1923. I had two or three of them with me last week. These people are debarred from getting an extension of the grant now. They did a good bit of work in 1923 and now in 1949 they could nearly have a new house. If a man who built a room in 1923 could build another now he would have a three-room house. With regard to asbestos, all the applicants get paid no matter what the roof is unless it is an iron roof which is impossible to get now. These are two things which I would be glad if the Minister would consider.

I was glad to hear the Minister say that he intended to introduce a comprehensive scheme in the near future and in that comprehensive scheme he should consider the housing inspectors. They have no fixity of tenure——

That is outside this Bill.

I will not speak on it any more. It is almost impossible, I dare say, to keep down housing costs. Labourers' cottages that used to cost £300 would cost £800 now and it is impossible for the Minister to get after that. I would like the Minister kindly to consider the two questions I have raised, the question of town dwellers, people who do not work for hire where the mother or father of the family may be unable to work or may be an invalid and the question of houses to which a new room was built when the family was big and which are now debarred. I would like him to consider the man who received a grant 15 or 20 years ago.

I am bound to say that I am very pleased with the way we have been met as far as housing is concerned. I have no complaint to make about payments. Any time I call or write to the Department in the Custom House I receive an answer and a cheque is sent out when the inspector's report is in. But there must be an inspection and people in the country must have a little patience. If you reconstruct your houses you must wait for the inspector and cannot expect a cheque for £80 next morning. With regard to the question of people not knowing exactly what to do, in a good many counties, in County Longford I know, a housing board has been set up with the sanction of the Minister to advise the people with regard to filling forms or anything else they want to know so they are quite well informed. They are able to tell me things that I do not know myself though I am here in the Dáil and think I know a lot.

This is a very short Bill but it is a necessary Bill. I am very surprised that it could not have been drafted in a more direct way. Probably I would be better advised not to read these Bills at all. We see two sub-sections. The purpose of the first sub-section is to extend the period to the 1st April, 1952 and that is done by saying that the reference to the 1st April, 1950, shall be construed as a reference to the 1st of April, 1952. I do not know who finds these roundabout ways of saying simple things. The second sub-section says that the reference to the sum of £580,000 shall be construed as a reference to the sum of £1,750,000. I cannot see for the life of me why that sort of legislation should be drafted. However, it is there and probably I am very foolish to bother reading it at all because if I did not read it I would be able to make a speech. When you read it you know what a Bill is about and you do not feel like going outside the limits of order. I only intend to make one point.

In the City of Dublin we have quite a number of houses built by private builders and those houses comply with the requirements of the Act with regard to size, floor space and area. Those houses built by the builders for sale do not come within the Act and as a result the builders decided that instead of building a house for sale they would look around for a prospective purchaser and say to him: "We will sell you the site and you will enter into a contract with us to build a house for you." It is exactly the same thing. The builder owns the site and assigns it. He contracts with an individual to build a house for him at the price at which he would have built a house for him anyway. He gets that individual to sign documents obliging the Minister to pay the grant to him. Those speculative builders, as they are called, those private builders who are doing a good job of work have to go this very roundabout way in order that grants will be available. But in the case of the honest man who went out and built a house for sale at a certain price, the purchaser may look at it and say that it is a good house, a much better house than he would get by the other procedure, but that he would not get the grant for it. I know that that point has been put up to the Minister on the Estimate for his Department and to the late Minister. I understand that the Minister is considering it and that it probably will be dealt with in the comprehensive scheme he mentioned.

The object of this Bill is to encourage house building and it is the policy of the Government and of this House to encourage people to own their own houses. There are hundreds of houses in Dublin lying unsold simply and solely because their purchaser will not get a grant. It would ease the housing situation considerably, if the Minister would agree to give the grant to the purchaser of these houses which are otherwise within the specifications and requirements of the Act in the same way as he would give it to that individual, if he had purchased the site and had gone through this fake procedure, because that is all it is, for the purpose of obtaining the grants that would not otherwise be payable under the Act. If the Minister does that, he will be helping to solve the problem and will be helping to make these houses which are now vacant all over the city available for the people who ought to be occupying them, and I strongly urge that upon the Minister.

There are a couple of points to which I wish to refer, arising out of the Minister's statement. Because of Deputy Commons's objection to the allocation of grants to private persons building houses for letting, I think it is desirable that the Minister should give an indication of Government policy. I understood him to say in his introductory remarks that, in fact, there has been no expenditure to date under the section of the Act which provides for the recoupment to local authorities of grants to private persons building houses for letting. I do not know whether that is a consequence of any policy, or just the inevitable outcome of a situation in which the building of houses for letting is discouraged by economic conditions. Before, it was, I think, agreed policy here that it was desirable that private persons should be encouraged to build houses for letting and many of the Housing Acts provided for higher grants for houses built for that purpose and other forms of encouragement. I think that all the considerations would justify a continuation of that policy.

There are, no doubt, as Deputy Cowan mentioned, social and other advantages in workers owning their own homes, but there are also disadvantages, and there are in any case practical reasons why it is necessary that there should be houses available for letting over and above those built by local authorities. One of the contributory causes of frictional unemployment is the immobility of labour and that immobility is enhanced when houses for letting are not available, or are available only from the limited pool of houses built by local authorities, which does not really solve any problem in that regard.

What I want to say in that connection is that we cannot have two conflicting policies running at the same time. The building of houses for letting by private persons ceased with the commencement of rent restrictions legislation during the first world war. Some years after the conclusion of that war, the Cumann na nGaedheal Government tried to revive it by modifying the rent restrictions legislation then in force, but had only limited success in that effort. There may have been some revival of private activity building houses for letting, but, to the extent to which there was, it was killed again by the outbreak of another war involving further rent restrictions legislation. The experience of two successive periods in which legislation of that kind has been in force will inevitably mean that private enterprise will not enter that field, unless some fairly clear indication of an agreed policy in the Dáil can be given.

Last week, I think the Minister for Justice foreshadowed further rent restrictions legislation, and, while it is, I think, necessary to recognise that, in the present period of housing scarcity, a continuation and possible extension of rent restrictions legislation may be necessary, we must recognise that, if we intend to proceed on that line, it will have an undesirable consequence upon the revival of the building of houses for letting by private persons. I think that consequence could be minimised if the position is not left as it is now, namely, a vague prospect of additional rent restrictions legislation coming in future, with no clear indication as to its scope or character. If the Minister is anxious to revive private enterprise in the building of houses for letting, anxious to implement that policy which is embodied in housing legislation, he should press upon the Minister for Justice the desirability of an early indication of the type of legislation in contemplation.

It may be that the Minister for Justice was dealing with the question asked of him as one anxious to avoid political pressure by merely giving a general indication that the matter about which he was being pressed was under consideration. It may be that he did not appreciate that his reply could have repercussions upon the housing policy of the Minister for Local Government. If that is so, if, in fact, the considered view of the Government is that an extension of the existing legislation is not necessary, the sooner it is said the better. If, on the other hand, they feel, and I know many people will share the opinion, that an extension of rent restrictions legislation is required, the sooner a clear indication of the nature and scope of that legislation is given, the better, because otherwise it is inevitable, and everybody will understand the reason, that the building of houses for letting by private persons will not in fact take place.

Was he not dealing with furnished lettings?

No; the reply given by the Minister did not relate to furnished lettings. There was another question relating to furnished lettings, but there was a specific query as to the application of further rent restrictions legislation to houses built since 1941. The Rent Restrictions Act was brought into force during the war and applied only to houses built before the passage of that Act. Houses have been built since which are not subject to that legislation, and I gather that there is some intention to apply legislation to these houses, or, at any rate, an indication was given in the Minister's reply that the matter was being considered. That may be necessary and may be desirable. Nobody will question the need for supervision over rents, so long as the present acute housing scarcity continues, but we cannot achieve that without consequences on the policy of the Minister for Local Government, unless we are clear and specific as to the extent to which we propose to go in enforcing rent restriction, and unless there can be put into the minds of the private builders concerned the idea that the rent restriction policy in force is an agreed policy and not likely to be changed with changes of Government or changes in the political situation.

The Minister stated that the £580,000 provided for grants to private persons and public utility societies will be allocated in full before the end of August and he is proposing to increase that sum by roughly double the original amount to cover a period of approximately 30 months from now until April, 1952. A rough calculation would indicate, therefore, that the Minister contemplates that there will be no increased activity in that particular direction. The additional amounts he is proposing to provide correspond almost exactly with the amount already expended under the relevant provisions of the 1948 Act. I do not know if that is intended to be an indication of any desire on his part to limit activity in that field or whether it is merely an estimation of what he thinks is likely to happen.

I should like to follow Deputy Cowan in his audacious course of saying a few words in praise of speculative builders. They are not all the black sheep which they are sometimes represented to be and they can, as the Minister himself said, make a very useful contribution to the easement of the acute housing problem here. I was in charge of building restrictions as Minister for Industry and Commerce for a period. There came a stage after the war when it was possible to contemplate a large-scale revival of building activities and in order to ensure that the revival of activities would be along controlled lines a system of regulation was introduced which, in effect, provided that nobody could start any building activity without a licence from the Department of Industry and Commerce. In a White Paper which was circulated at that time it was indicated that the policy would be to ensure the maximum concentration of supplies and personnel upon the building activities of local authorities, and that only when the local authorities had been given all the facilities they required would private persons be allowed to enter the building field or would other building activities be sanctioned. The experience gained in the administration of that Order is interesting. The private builders were off their marks far in advance of the local authorities. I know that some Deputies have occasionally suggested that policy was directed towards encouraging private builders even to the extent of curtailing activities by the local authorities. That is not so.

They got the materials.

They did not, but, however, let me state the facts. From the date upon which the regulations came into force and applications for licences to engage in building activities became necessary, the experience showed that applications came in much more rapidly from private persons who, because of their character, were able to commence activities long before the slower machinery of local authorities could be brought into operation. That changed. In the second six-months' period the level of activities by local authorities had risen enormously and they had outpaced the activities of private builders. I think it is true to say that a large part of the revival of housing activity, when it became possible after the war, was done by these private builders. It became necessary to restrict their activities later as local authority demands increased, and even for a time it was contemplated they would have to be eliminated altogether until the supply of materials had become normal again.

It may be that some of these speculative builders, as they are called, were not wise in their speculation and have incurred or are likely to incur losses. They miscalculated the market available for houses of a particular type and their field was considerably limited by the tax upon the transfer of property, which was introduced in 1947. While it is clear that we must in present circumstances limit building licences to houses of the size to which the Housing Acts apply, nevertheless we can, I think, recognise that a substantial contribution to the housing needs of this country can be made by them and that it is rather hopeless to expect that the whole of that problem can be solved in any reasonable time by the activities of local authorities alone. Undoubtedly, the local authorities must get what they have always got— absolute priority. The particular class of the community for which they are authorised to provide houses at subsidised rents has a prior claim upon our resources. If we are to abolish the evil of slums which we have inherited in the past we can only do so in the main through the work of local authorities. But beyond that work there is another field which they are not likely to enter and in which there is need also. There is something to be said for what was the primary principle of the policy applied by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government before the first Fianna Fáil Housing Act, namely, that the building of any house, no matter of what type or where located, does ease the housing problem.

Hear, hear.

We did not contest the general truth of that principle when it was enunciated by the present Minister for Education when he was Minister for Local Government although we did argue that a more direct attack upon the slum problem was necessary and could only be directed through local authorities carrying out slum clearance schemes and building decent dwellings for those who were then and who are still in large numbers condemned to live in slums. But if we are to measure the extent to which it is contemplated that private persons and utility societies can contribute to the solution of our housing problem by the amount provided in this Bill then we must assume that the Minister does not expect that it will be any greater than at present.

I am anxious that the Minister will clarify that point in his reply. Are we to assume from the figures stated here that he thinks that activity has now reached its maximum and that, therefore, it is not necessary to provide more for the period until 1952 than has been provided up to the present? I am anxious to know personally whether that is due to any policy decision or whether it is merely based on expectation in regard to the course of events. I think myself that if we are to secure that very great expansion in housing activity which is very necessary and which must come mainly through the work of local authorities we should be able to contemplate a corresponding expansion proceeding pari passu through the work of private persons and of utility societies and, on that basis, the money provided for grants until 1952 is probably inadequate.

I think this is a very essential Bill but I should like to point out to the Minister certain hardships. What, for instance, is to happen an applicant for a grant who suffers a financial collapse and is unable to comply with the terms of his contract? In order to qualify for a grant a person must build or cause his house to be built. Generally, a person signs a contract to have his house erected for him by a builder. If, say, when the house is partially completed, that applicant for a grant suffers a financial collapse, no other person is entitled to the payment of that grant except the man who made application for it. The result is that the builder or contractor has to resort to a procedure of taking that person to court—taking a person who has no money at all to court—and the builder, if he does take over the house, will have to put it on the open market and sell it less the grant of £275.

There is also the question of an applicant for a grant who dies before the grant can be made payable. I do not think there is any provision available in the Act for people placed in such circumstances. The Minister should consider these two points very carefully because they put a lot of hardship on the people who are trying to relieve the housing problem.

I think it was Deputy Burke who complained about the slowness of paying the grants on subsidy houses. I agree with him that that position existed up to about-three or four months ago but grants are being made available to the applicants at a fairly speedy rate at the moment. I would point out to a lot of people who bring these complaints from the applicants that the applicants themselves are often more responsible than anybody else for the delay in their payments. However, there is a certain serious delay in the payment of Small Dwellings loans both in the city and in the county of Dublin. People who are engaged in building these subsidy houses could, without the slightest shadow of doubt, double their output if money were made available more quickly. The Minister and members of the Government have stated that there is an unlimited supply of money for the building of houses for white-collared workers, but they are wasting their time if they do not make that money available quickly. With the present position of supplies and the present high wages that builders and contractors have to meet, their outgoings and overheads are considerably in excess of what they were pre-war. Builders' providers also require their money as quickly as they can get it. I know of certain cases where Small Dwellings loans payable to some of these applicants took five, six and seven months to be paid. I suggest to the Minister that he try to improve the present speed of payment of grants and certainly increase the speed of payment of Small Dwellings loans.

I wish to intervene for a minute or two to draw the Minister's attention to a rather peculiar situation that has arisen in Donegal in connection with the payment of housing grants to applicants. My attention has been drawn by two applicants in the last couple of weeks to the fact that, although they paid the requisite fees to the appointed officer—both parties are living in the houses that were erected in accordance with the specifications for a grant—during all the time the houses were being built, the appointed officer did not visit the site and did not visit the houses at any time during their construction. These people say they are living in these houses now, and when repeated applications had been made to the appointed officer to know what was their position with regard to the grants, the latest information they got from him was that he regretted that he had not been able to make the inspection of the houses —"I have written to the Housing Department and asked them to deal with your case direct, and I trust you will have the matter dealt with by the housing inspector."

I have been asked by these people to inquire what the position is, or when they may hope to get the grant. I think it is a very lax system, that an officer appointed by the Department to facilitate applicants and see that dwellings are erected in accordance with the Housing Acts, can act in the fashion that this particular officer has acted. I would ask the Minister to go into this matter and expedite the payments of grants to people such as I have mentioned. There must be several others who have suffered from the laxity of this particular officer. These are two cases in which the Department cannot be blamed for the slowness in payment of the grant. I believe non-payment in these particular cases is due to the laxity of the appointed officer. That is a matter, in connection with the grants for houses generally in County Donegal, that the Minister should investigate, to see that if this officer is not going to carry out his duties some steps will be taken to deal with him.

That is purely a question of administration.

Mr. A. Byrne

I know there is keen interest in this matter of housing. I notice that most of my colleagues here have attributed the delay in payment of the grants, without saying so, to the Minister or the Government Department. That is not correct. All the local authorities have power to make the grants when their officer makes the report. I would suggest that those of us who are members of local boards should press upon our own local authority, who are the cause of the delay, to speed up the machinery they have in order to make valuations and make awards. It is not the Government's fault or the Minister's fault if there is any delay in the payment of moneys under the Small Dwellings Act.

It may be that the cumbersome machinery they have to put into operation is responsible for a lot of the delay. I asked the Minister several times about it and spoke of my own council, the Dublin Corporation; and I protested strongly against the delays in making payments. It is a matter of the method of valuation. There are two unfortunate words in the Small Dwellings Act that must be removed, the words "market value"—the corporation shall advance to the applicant 90 per cent. of the market value of the house. An auctioneer is appointed to do the valuation of a newly-built house and he values it at a couple of hundred pounds less than it cost. Then the authority proceeds to give, in the county council 80 per cent. and in Dublin Corporation 90 per cent., of the reduced value as stated by the auctioneer, thereby leaving the unfortunate young applicant in difficulty. We have all spoken of the white-collared or black-coated worker, the clerical worker who wants to build for himself and whom we are anxious to get off our ordinary housing application list. We encourage him to go ahead. First, he acquires the site, then he gets his builder; and then the valuer comes along and values the house at probably £200 less than what it is going to cost him. He instantly has to make a rush to raise a second mortgage on the house, to raise £90 or £100 in some cases. I put to the Minister or his Department dozens of cases where these persons are left £90 or £100 short of completing their contract. In 30 cases, it was a question of £60 apiece being short. Why should we embarrass that number of people for the sake of £60 per house? The fact that they put down a £100 or £120 deposit and have undertaken the responsibility of 36/- to 40/- per week, means that the municipality is saving, even by giving the full value of the house. In the first place, it means taking his name off the subsidy list, where houses are let at uneconomic rents, in some cases at a little over half the economic rent. Why not go the whole hog? Where the man is buying a £2,000 house, that is, a house being obtained through a builder at a certified cost of £2,000, and where he is putting down £150, why not give him the balance, instead of embarrassing him because an auctioneer, who is in the habit of selling second-hand instead of new houses, says that on the open market, on a depressed market, he will get only £1,800 instead of £2,000.

Is not the Deputy referring to the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, not to this?

Mr. A. Byrne

The Minister, in his opening statement, referred to the Small Dwellings Act.

He may have referred to it but the Deputy is going into it in detail and ignoring this Bill. The Deputy is speaking exclusively about the Small Dwellings Act without any reference to this Bill whatever.

Mr. A. Byrne

Most Deputies had to bring in the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act in reference to the advances made under the housing grants which the Minister is providing. I will get away from that. I have put it to the Minister often that it is we, public representatives, who are the cause of the delay in the payment of grants from municipalities. The last speaker spoke about a Donegal official not making his report to the Government. He meant to convey that he was not making his report to the local authority, which makes the recommendation. I suggest to representatives of local authorities that they should do something more to speed up their authorities in making recommendations in regard to advances.

I do agree with the other points that have been made by Deputies that we are not using the small builder who can erect 20 to 50 houses. The plant that is at his disposal is lying idle because, as Deputy Belton and another Deputy said, the builder has to find the person who is eligible for the grant before he goes on with the building. A number of builders in the city and county own certain sites on which they could erect 30 or 40 houses. It is not fair that the municipality should step-in and take the site from them if these people are capable of building the houses if they get the grants and can then find a customer who has £100 or £200 to put down.

There has been a slight improvement in the building of houses within the last year and the municipality of Dublin hopes this year to achieve the building of 2,000 to 2,500 houses or flats. That is a big advance. I want to assure the House that there is now no doubt or trouble about finding the money. The late Minister said that he would set out to break down all the red tape or green tape. He did so. Now I understand that there is plenty of money available from the various banks, Guinness' Brewery, Church funds and insurance funds.

It is true that we are short of a certain type of skilled labour but that difficulty is being slowly overcome. It would be overcome completely if we could guarantee to the skilled workers whom we are asking to return constant and unbroken employment. In some cases there is a loss of four or five weeks' employment while a skilled carpenter or bricklayer is being transferred from one job to another. There should not be such a hiatus especially in view of the great clamour for skilled labour. There is hardly a skilled man in this country who has not found himself unemployed for five or six weeks every year due to the fact that those responsible for building schemes are not ready to transfer the skilled man on completion of one job to another job. That causes discontent.

I congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill. I hope he will go further. I hope the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will not mind my saying that I do earnestly hope that the Minister will take note of all the points I have mentioned in regard to the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act and make it more easy for those who are urgently in need of houses and who are prepared to put down a substantial deposit to get advances.

I am one who complained here in the past about the delay in the payment of grants. I must say, in all fairness to the Minister, that from my recent experience, I cannot say there has been any undue delay in the last few months. It is only fair that I should say that here and now having complained on a few occasions in the past.

I would like to point out to the Minister that a big difficulty is being experienced by several young people of my acquaintance who have tried to build houses for themselves under this Act. It is the difficulty that has been mentioned by Deputy Byrne, the difference in the price fixed for the purposes of the loan and the actual cash price that has to be paid which, to my mind, is the actual market value. To my mind, the price that must be paid is the real market value and not the price the valuer puts on it. That represents a big difficulty and the result is that these young people have to provide an extra £150 or £200 before embarking on the scheme. That ties them up to the last penny and when they try to finance the building they find they cannot get the first instalment of the loan until the house is more than one-third advanced. That causes delay. They cannot get the first instalment of the grant until the house is roofed. In very many cases it transpires that the builder, especially in the case of the small builder who is not financially, strong and who is very often prepared to do the job at a more reasonable figure than the bigger man, finds himself in financial difficulties and there is no more money to carry on. As Deputy Belton pointed out, builders do not get the same credit now as they used to get from the providers. That represents a problem. I suggest to the Minister that he should find some way of getting over that difficulty. I have known of cases where building had to be stopped because wages could not be paid, until certain people stepped in to finance the building. I know that that happened in the past as a result of delay in the payment of grants but I understand that that is not happening now, as I have said.

I put it to the Minister that there is a big point in what Deputy Byrne said, that if those people knew they could get the actual cash price it would enable them to finance the building in the early stages until the instalments of the grants and loans were paid.

This is to my mind a very important Act. Under it a very substantial contribution is made to the housing problem, particularly in Dublin City. It caters for the class who have to ferret out for themselves in every respect and who for years have had no opportunity of doing that work themselves. Under the corporation regulations, unfortunately, nobody is provided with a house at the moment, unless those living in one room.

I think it is a very good thing for us to help in every way the young man who is prepared to put down a deposit towards procuring his own house. It is a good thing for us to encourage such men to own their own houses. It makes for a good sense of civic responsibility and will have good effects in that respect in the future. The Minister, therefore, should get every help in this matter, as he is undoubtedly getting it from all Deputies. I should like him to look into the point I mentioned and see if something cannot be done, because I believe that if that could be got over we would be making a greater effort towards the solution of the housing problem. Personally, I am not aware of any houses being built in Dublin for renting, in spite of the provisions in the Act. I have not met anybody prepared to speculate money in the building of houses for renting. I may be wrong in that, but I have not met them.

Mr. A. Byrne

Messrs. Guinness have done so.

I am talking of the ordinary people who have not the financial backing of Messrs. Guinness who are prepared to do such things for their employees. Because of that, I suggest to the Minister that he should look into the point further. There are still a very large number of people who can never find the necessary capital to start on the building of houses even under the Act. From some information which I got recently, I find that some young men started out to try and build houses for themselves. They are mostly tradesmen but they are fortunate enough to have an architect amongst them. They saved money in every way they could and they actually work on the job themselves in the evening. I understand when it is done in that way the building of an ordinary three-bedroom house is going to work out at about £1,350 or £1,400. Therefore, I do not think that with the present prices, when full trade union wages have to be paid as well as supervision and other costs, one can say that there is a lot of profiteering.

It is certainly very heartening to see a different atmosphere prevailing in the House to-day from that of last night. Deputies on either side of the House are to-day carrying out the duties they were elected to do without criticism of each other and without being accused of not being prepared to stand by what they say when they give advice, even in a critical manner, to the Minister. Advice is given and criticism expressed without any challenges being issued from one side of the House to another. I take this opportunity to express the hope that that will continue and will be developed and expanded in this House from time to time. It would be much better for ourselves and the people we represent and the country generally if such an atmosphere generally prevailed.

Having said that, I should like to refer to a statement made by Deputy Cowan who said that he was sorry he had read the terms of the Bill, as he found they confined or limited the scope of the debate. I am glad that other Deputies did not find themselves confined or limited in the remarks which they had to make, because that gives people who are possibly not as well versed technically in the matter as Deputy Cowan an opportunity of expressing their views upon this all-important matter. With the indulgence of the Chair, we have possibly drifted occasionally outside the scope of the debate and from time to time brought matters into it that were not definitely laid down.

I should like to join with other Deputies in drawing attention to a number of difficulties in the way of people who are attempting to have houses built for themselves. I am one of those who are not satisfied with the activities of either the Department or the local authorities in trying to solve this problem. Over 12 months ago I stated that I felt we were only tickling the problem and not tackling it. Even though the housing programme has been speeded up considerably during the past 12 months, I still feel that we are only tickling the problem and that the methods we are adopting will not solve the housing problem in this country in our lifetime. We are told that the Dublin Corporation hope to build 2,000 houses this year. If they build 2,000 or 3,000 houses every year for the next 30 years, it may relieve some of the distress, but it will not fully cope with the appalling problem we have to solve.

It is encouraging to see the Minister taking such an interest in the matter and trying to facilitate and encourage people to build their own houses. Still I agree with other Deputies who have suggested to him that the amount of money that is given by way of grant is not sufficient. Young men may start out with £100 or £150 to get houses built for themselves by a contractor. When the houses are built, the valuer comes along and, eventually, they find that they have no money left to buy furniture because of the difference between the actual purchase value of the house and that of the official valuer. What I cannot understand is how competent people who are responsible for this will undervalue a house. If the market value of a house is £1,500, they value it at £300 less. I would not attribute any form of dishonesty to them, but it is something I cannot understand.

It hardly ever happens that the person sent by the Government or a local authority to value a house values it at the price at which the builder is prepared to sell it or the purchaser to pay for it. There is something there that needs consideration. On some other Estimate, I mentioned the fact that the officials of the Government and of the local authorities always feel it their duty to protect the finances of the body they represent. In that way citizens are delayed and impeded in getting what is their just right.

I could mention a case to the Minister that happened in Dublin City. The valuation officer went out to inspect a house that had been built. The owner of it and the contractor were satisfied that they had complied with all the regulations. In due course application was made for the grant. The valuation officer said the house was all right but that it had not been papered —if it were, of course, he could not have as good a look at it—and so he would not certify for the grant. The owner and his wife could not, in consequence, take possession of it. He went to see the local Deputy about the matter. In turn there was an application to the Department and, I suppose, in turn the Department tried to use its influence with the corporation to try and encourage the officer to go out and have another look at the house.

That is administration and does not arise on this Bill. It would be more appropriate to raise that on the Estimate.

I agree, but I am following the example set by other Deputies.

The Deputy should not follow bad example.

Well, with regard to that I would like to say that in the discussion on this Bill the example given to me by other Deputies was the best that I have seen since I became a member of the House, because all the Deputies who have spoken seemed to be terribly anxious to look after the interests of the people they represent. There was no attempt at trying to score Party political points. With regard to the speculative builder, I have never attempted to stand up for him, because I felt, especially in the period following the ending of the war, that these speculative builders earned the title that they got of building on speculation and getting rich quickly. At that period, white-collar workers, and others in a position to do so, could go to the banks and get facilities for the building of houses. The sky was the limit in the matter of credit. They were then in a position to go to the speculative builder and arrange for the building of a house at a fixed price. The builder had 100 per cent. profit— sometimes more—on what it actually cost him to build the house. Those speculative builders got away with that for a number of years. My principal complaint against them is not so much that they plucked the birds that fell so easily into their hands, but that they made the position so difficult for local authorities—the Dublin Corporation in particular—who were building houses for the working classes. They were in a position to go to the skilled workers employed on corporation schemes and offer them a higher wage than the standard laid down by the trade unions. The result was that big numbers of good tradesmen went to those speculative builders and made the position extremely difficult for contractors engaged on schemes for the corporation.

That position has been changed because the white-collar workers and others are not able to get credit facilities from the banks. The speculative builders therefore are gradually coming down in their prices. They are giving much greater service to the community in general. Instead of building houses for £4,000, £5,000 or £6,000 they are embarking on the building of houses that can be sold as grant houses. I do not think I am exposing the activities of private builders—whether it is actually within the law for them to do so or not I am not in a position to say —when I state that they are now providing what is known as a grant house. Quite a number of such houses are now available on the same property as the much more expensive type of house. You can purchase a grand house from those private builders at a price that entitles you to get the grant. I think that Deputy Cowan was rather unfortunate in his experience in looking for a house, and that, if he were better informed about what the actual position is, he could have discovered that it is not necessary to engage a contractor to build a house and so qualify for the grant. You have those private builders engaged on that class of activity at present. You can select your house from them, apply for the grant and there is a way of getting it. I hope that the Minister, even though those people may be stepping slightly outside the law in that respect, will not interfere with them in the facilities which they are providing for purchasers.

I would be anxious to know how it is done.

So would I.

Houses of the class that I speak of are advertised extensively in the papers. Quite a number of them have been built in County Dublin and are advertised for sale at £1,950, less the grant. Therefore, these are grant houses. If that could be held to be breaking the regulations, I hope the Minister will not interfere with it. Of course, in order to get the grant you cannot purchase a house that costs more than £2,000. If you get a grant house built, you have not to pay the purchase tax, but if you buy a house that is outside the limit you have to pay the purchase tax. In the case of nationals that is 5 per cent, and of non-nationals 25 per cent. I should like to know if it is correct to say that a non-national can secure a grant house, and that he has not to pay the 25 per cent. purchase tax. If there is such a loophole as that under the regulations I should like to draw the Minister's attention to it, and ask that he would look into it. It is, seemingly, possible for non-nationals to purchase houses here and not to have to pay the 25 per cent. purchase tax, and at the same time secure the grant that is provided for nationals.

I am satisfied that the whole system in regard to the building of houses will have to be tackled on a more progressive scale than at present. It is very encouraging to hear that there is no difficulty as far as money is concerned. When the Minister comes to the Dáil asking for money for housing Deputies on all sides are delighted to give it to him. In my opinion we should also give him advice as to how it should be spent.

What is responsible for the delay? The red tape we have been complaining of for the past couple of years is fast disappearing. The difficulty that Deputies felt was in the way of the Minister was that he was handling machinery set to work at a certain speed and in a certain direction and that he found it hard to put it into a more appropriate gear. He was promised here, and his predecessor was also promised, the support of every Deputy in any action he might take to alter that machinery so as to speed up matters. We have the money, and there is general agreement that we have sufficient material. Then comes the question of the skilled workers. It is being attributed to the trade unions that they are responsible for the control and the regulation of the number of people and the type of people employed in the building industry. To a certain extent they are responsible. The officials of different trade unions——

It does not seem to me that that is relevant. There has been a good deal of latitude allowed, but dragging in trade union conditions does seem to be somewhat irrelevant.

It is largely a question of how the money we are voting is to be expended. There has been a sort of general discussion on that.

A general discussion on that subject would be almost interminable.

I will not labour that point any further, then, beyond suggesting that if there is a general direction by the Government it would help to encourage the people. We should do all in our power to remove any obstacle that stands in the way of relieving distress amongst the people so far as lack of housing is concerned. We are all of the opinion that one of the greatest problems confronting the Government and the country is lack of housing for our people. If some general policy could be adopted by the Government that would convince the people concerned that for the next 25 years—and it would take at least 25 years at any speed—attention will be mainly devoted to the construction of houses and that nothing will stand in the way of a general building scheme, it would be a tremendous encouragement for our own nationals who have gone to England and elsewhere in order to earn a living. They would feel inclined to come back here and they would be confident of employment and of being housed under suitable conditions.

The only way we ever will solve the housing problem is by declaring housing as a national emergency, with the Government taking full responsibility for the erection of houses all over the country and also taking full control of supplies, directing as to when and where they should be used. There are several different categories of people looking for houses and we are drifting gradually to a position where the local councils, when they have priority, will build houses for families with four children or more. It is quite correct that they should be the first to be supplied with a house, but if we are allowed to drift to such an extent that there is not proper direction, we may find that the man who wants a house and who is in a position to build one for himself, but who has not a large family, will find himself in the next couple of years so placed that it will be impossible for him to secure a place in which to live.

I am glad the Minister has promised to bring in a more comprehensive scheme. I hope that it will go far beyond anything that has been suggested here. Everything seems to be carried on in a piecemeal fashion, while all the time our people are clamouring for houses. I do not believe that anything that has been suggested will remedy the appalling position of the people who so badly need houses now. I suggest that before the next session the Minister should consider the introduction of a measure which will declare housing a national emergency. It is the only remedy for the relief of the existing distress.

I do not want to hold up the housing programme by keeping the Minister and his officials here for any length of time. I think, however, it is only right for me to give my experience as regards the payment of grants by the Minister's Department. Up to four or five months ago there were undoubtedly great delays, but within the past three or four months there has not been much to complain about in the matter of how grants are dealt with in the Department. Any delays that I know of are local delays before schemes are sent up to the Department.

If the Chair will allow me. I would like to urge the Minister to keep up the pressure on local authorities to make sure that sites are developed and ready before the actual building schemes are started. I will also ask him to lay down some regulation for the allocation of houses to the people most in need of them. I am quite satisfied with the way grants are being paid in my locality.

As Deputy Fitzpatrick indicated, this debate has been conducted in an atmosphere somewhat foreign to the atmosphere in which debates have been conducted in recent times in the House. I agree almost entirely with the speech made by Deputy Lemass. When the Housing Act of 1948 was being put through by the then Minister for Local Government, I think there was too little thought given to the fact that no matter who builds houses, so long as a house is built, it will in some way relieve the housing shortage, not merely for the class for whom it is built, but for all classes.

There was a very proper and a very desirable restriction on the type of house that should be built when materials were scarce, but that was a restriction that was proper to be operated by the Department of Industry and Commerce and not by the Department of Local Government. It is regrettable that when the 1948 Housing Act was being put through provisions were included in it by virtue of which—notwithstanding what Deputy Fitzpatrick says, but as Deputy Cowan properly points out—it was illegal for a grant to be obtained by a speculative builder who had already built a house. If the speculative builder can build his houses in one lot that undoubtedly reduces the cost of erection. It is much cheaper to build four houses at a time than to build four houses singly and successively, one after the other. The existing method, by virtue of which the purchaser and the applicant for the grant must first be found before the house is built, has meant that the speculative builders have slowed up and have been forced to build for successive purchasers rather than to build in lots.

I ask the Minister also to refer to the operation of the two types of grant for houses built for letting to which Deputy Commons referred earlier. I think that Deputy Commons was entirely incorrect when he suggested that the grant that is payable for a period of ten years under. I think, Section 19 of the Housing Act, is a grant the cost of which falls on the local authority. The local authority is entitled under the Act to 100 per cent. recoupment from the Central Fund. The local authority is really only the administrative machine for the payment of such grants.

There is a very substantial difference in the Act between the manner in which the regulations for grants to private persons building houses for letting are dealt with as compared with the regulations for public utility societies. I think it was the intention of the Government of the day, when they were introducing those provisions, that the grant that was to be given would accomplish two things. In the first place, it would assist the house to be built and, in the second place, it would be an ease for the tenants of the rents they would have to pay. Because the builder and the renter would get these particular grants up to £40 per year for ten years, the rents that the occupants would have to pay would thereby be reduced. It was not at all intended to be merely a present for the builder who went in for that particular type of building. It was intended that these grants would make more houses available for letting and bring down the rents paid by the occupants.

In the section dealing with public utility societies there is a provision by virtue of which the Minister can control the rents at which the houses are let; but there is no such provision in the section dealing with private persons. I think the particular section is Section 19. There is no such provision at all in that section and I would ask the Minister to indicate that, where grants are given under that section to private persons or to public or private companies building houses to rent, the benefit of that grant paid out of the taxpayer's money—in some cases amounting to £40 per year— will be passed on to the occupier and will not be regarded by the recipient as a sort of extra divident. That was not the intention when the regulations under the Act were framed. When the Minister is considering his more comprehensive Act he should ensure that a situation like that cannot arise.

The Minister is to be congratulated on another matter. It is I think one of administration and detail. It has been referred to by other Deputies. He is to be congratulated on the fact that in the last three months the rate of payment of housing grants has been enormously accelerated. I think we all find now that there is no need for complaint in that regard and it should be a cause of gratification for the Minister to know that we appreciate that.

I support what has been said by many speakers here who complained of the limitation of the amount of grants. I think the Minister should utilise this extra money that is now available in order to increase the amount of the grant paid. As the law stands at present, the average young man about to marry has to find approximately £250 before he can attempt to build a house, because there or thereabouts represents the difference of what the grant is and what the house costs. He will have to find some manner of security for that £250 if he has not got the ready cash himself. If he goes to a bank, unless he can find a substantial man of credit to back him, he will have to take out some kind of insurance policy or endowment policy on which he will have to pay a premium of anything from £15 to £20 per year. When he marries he finds that his wages, since the general level of wages is now fairly high, enable him not only to repay his loan to the bank but also to repay his advances to the local authority. As time goes on his family will increase. His commitments in relation to his family will increase and his weekly bill for the repayment of his advances, the repayment of his loan and the maintenance of his family will increase. Sooner or later, that young man will be submerged. I know of cases where that is actually happening. In order to pay his way that young man will have to dissipate his security ultimately. He may have to realise whatever payments he has made on his insurance policy in order to tide him over. Eventually he will find himself up against the resources of the corporate bank in trying to repay his original loan. I appeal to the Minister to pay special attention to that aspect of the problem in so far as he has control over the distribution of the moneys now being made available to him under this particular Bill.

There is one other point to which I would like to refer. I may perhaps surprise the Minister to some extent. There is in the country a conservative opinion—it may be limited—which holds that the granting of money in this particular respect is quite an unjust form of taxation. I hold no brief whatever for that opinion and I am sure the Minister likewise does not hold any brief for it. I am sure that he is using and will continue to use all the moneys made available to him in the best possible way. Those who hold this opinion are already the owners of houses or the renters of houses. They say that in providing this extra money they are subsidising their neighbours who go out of small houses into bigger ones. I think that is a very shortsighted view, but it has been represented to me that that is the attitude of not a few people. I am sure the Minister will pay no attention to that opinion. I am sure that because of that he will not in any way curb the advances made to prospective builders of houses in the administration of either this Act or the parent Act.

I subscribe to the views of other Deputies who say that the payment of these grants has been speeded up considerably. I have felt the impact of that acceleration myself because of the manner in which my correspondence has dropped off on that particular subject in the past few months. For that reason alone, my thanks are due to the officials of the Department for accomplishing that feat.

I will not keep the House very long on this matter. I think we are all very glad to hear that money is being put into the housing grants and I, personally, am glad to hear that the process is being speeded up. I would just like to say to the Minister that any slowing down of payments of grants has an effect on the whole building industry. It is not just a question of one man being affected. It affects the whole, rather delicate, mechanism of the building industry and eventually affects the banks and so on. It is like throwing a stone into a pool, the ripples go out and out and very many classes of the community are affected by any hold-up in payments. Therefore, I am very glad to see that this process of paying out is being speeded up. It is of even more importance than it appears to be after a casual glance at the matter.

I really rose to my feet to mention what I have mentioned many times before in this House and which I am glad to hear all Parties are mentioning, namely, the effect on building of Section 16 of the 1948 Housing Act and Section 19, too. Section 16 is the particular part of the Act which deals with grants and ordering a house in advance—that is what it comes to. Under the present situation a man or woman must buy his or her house before the foundations are laid. That, of course, was brought in in an effort to see that the private individual got the benefit of the grant and not the builder. I can say that I was one of the people who pointed out, when the Bill was going through, that whilst that was a very praiseworthy idea it would not work but would only slow down building; that we should be able to provide some means which would not slow down building and, if necessary, protect the private individual as much as possible. As a matter of fact, in the sale of houses and the building of them for sale the law of supply and demand protects the individual. The law of supply and demand is a very difficult thing to cut across. If there are plenty of houses available no Act passed by this House can put any extra money into the builder's pocket. That, fortunately, is the situation which we are in now; it is a buyer's market.

I would urge the Minister to look very carefully at Section 16 and see how it can be altered because it is only having a deterring effect on building generally and it is not necessary now to have elaborate precautions to protect private individuals because, as I say, fortunately, it is a buyers' market at the present time. I think other speakers have mentioned the effect of this slowing down on building. As the House is aware, most of the suburbs of Dublin were built by speculative builders. They had a habit of putting up three, four, five or maybe a dozen houses, getting advances from the bank or by any other method they could, and then selling those houses to various purchasers. That suited people because most private individuals are not really capable of looking at a plan and seeing the finished house before them. Now, of course, the builder dare not start to build a house unless somebody has already ordered it and that means that men have to be taken on for one house, dismissed and so on. If by any chance they want to sell the house, if the purchaser dies or is unable to complete the purchase, a most difficult and chaotic state ensues in which the builder does not know what to do. Not being a lawyer, I cannot say what he can do but, at any rate, it means all work must stop on that house, workers must be dismissed and the house is left in an unfinished state. Those, briefly, are the arguments against Section 16. They have been clearly put by other people to-day and I have mentioned them myself on other occasions.

The other section of that Act which I should like to see altered is the one dealing with the renting of houses. Many years ago I think the majority of the people in this country lived in houses of which they were only tenants. As we come closer to the present day we find more and more of those houses being sold and occupied by the owners. I think that is very good. But now the pendulum has swung so far to the other extreme that it is almost impossible to get a rented house. For one reason or another, there are certain people to whom it is a great benefit to be able to rent a house.

There are people in certain types of jobs where they are liable to be moved —at the moment I can think of bank officials—where buying a house and then perhaps being moved to a different part of the country is a great hardship to them. There are other sections of the community to whom rented houses are a benefit. That was recognised in the Act of 1948 to a certain extent, because this provision was put in to encourage the building of houses for renting. But the whole matter of renting houses is so tied up that it makes it impossible for anybody but the corporations to build houses for renting. I submit that we should go into that question very thoroughly. It is highly advisable that in this State there should be some method by which people can rent houses. At the present moment nobody, practically speaking, can find a rented house. I think it is advisable that we should go into it. The fact that under Section 19 a house for ever and ever must remain a rented house is something that, in effect, is hindering the building of houses for renting and, I think, hindering it, too, from the point of view of corporations. Even they, I think, would baulk in most cases at the for ever and ever clause which exists in that section. I once again submit these suggestions to the Minister and trust that he and his Department will consider them and see what they can do to remove some of the shackles from the building industry.

I was interested to hear Deputy Sweetman say something which, I indeed, have said myself—that the building of any house is a help towards the solution of the housing problem. Anybody connected with the Dublin Corporation, as I am, sees that very clearly because when you take a family out of a slum house you put them into another house—call it No. 2 house. The people out of No. 2 house must go to a third house, and so on. Any house that is built, especially a house coming within the scheme of the grants is, therefore, a real contribution towards easing the housing shortage. We wish to see that shortage reduced as quickly as possible, so from that point of view, if from no other, it is important that the building of the grant type of house should be encouraged as far as possible. In conclusion I should like to say that I am glad that this extra money is being provided and I am also delighted to hear that the paying out of the grants has been speeded up.

I wish to join briefly with other Deputies who have extended congratulations to the Minister and his Department on the progress that has been made in regard to this very vital national problem of housing. While everything possible seems to have been done, I should like to call the attention of the Minister to an aspect of the Act which appears to me to require review. I have already made representations to, and discussed it with, officials of his Department. It is well known to the Minister and every member of the House that Kilkenny, and in particular the City of Kilkenny, has had to endure terrific hardships owing to the abnormal flooding of the Nore in the year 1947. I do not think anybody who was alive in the city at that time is ever likely to forget that visitation. As one who endured a certain amount of suffering myself, I have a very full knowledge of the situation as it then existed.

The local authority, with the permission of the Minister for Defence, rehoused a large number of people who were driven from their homes by the floods, in the married quarters of the military barracks. One case that is affected by the Act as it stands is that of a wage earner who instead of waiting for the local authority to provide a house for him proceeded to have a house built under the Small Dwellings Act, but because he went into occupation as quickly as possible, in order to ensure that he would not have to undergo a similar ordeal the following winter, he was deprived of a grant under the Act. He went into occupation a few weeks before the 1st November.

Would that matter arise under this Bill?

This is the only opportunity I have had to raise it.

Is it an opportunity? That is the question.

I felt that there was a doubt before I rose. However, if the Chair will pardon me, as I have already approached the Department, I should like to have it put on record, if it is not too disorderly in the circumstances, that this man could easily have waited for a month or a fortnight and could have qualified for the grant, but just because he thought of his life first he is deprived of the grant. I should like to know if anything can be done in that case. I do not know whether it is strictly in accordance with the principle of the Bill.

Reference has been made to the development of sites. I have vigorously advocated that everything possible should be done to reduce the cost of houses to the lowest possible figure because it is the all-in cost, including the repayment of loans and matters of that kind, that is going ultimately to determine what the weekly rent will be. Financial assistance on the widest possible scale should be granted so that the ultimate cost of the house will be reduced to the lowest figure. I am sure the Minister will continue on progressive lines to have houses erected either by private enterprise or in other ways at the lowest possible cost. My main purpose in intervening in the debate was to raise this unfortunately disorderly point in regard to the case of the man who built his own house and, even though it has been ruled out of order, I hope the Minister will bear the circumstances in mind.

Before the Minister concludes, I should like to point out that when these grants were first introduced, I understood they were intended to enable people to provide houses for themselves up to a certain valuation. I cannot understand why people should get grants and loans from Government sources to enable them to become landlords, to build houses which are to be set at high rents to other people. The big snag in the housing regulations at present is that if a working man wants to build a house he is first confronted with the necessity of acquiring a bit of land for a site. Land suitable for housing sites has become very valuable and when the price of the site is taken out of the grant, if a man has not some money at his back he is up against a difficulty. There was a scheme operated through the county councils for many years which eased that problem, but in Wexford this year, if you look for a grant and then apply for a loan to the county council, you must get two securities. This is a new procedure which the county manager has introduced and it is actually preventing the average working man from attempting to build a house himself. I have made inquiries and I have been told that other county councils are willing to accept the house itself when built as a security. It is nearly impossible to get two personal securities. Very few people will go security nowadays for anything, owing to the uncertainty of the times. I think the Minister should see that that regulation is altered because it is stopping the average man from building a house.

We advertised in Enniscorthy for developing a site by contract and the tender we got was for £45,000. We considered that——

What has that to do with the grants?

The developing of sites has been referred to. Even Deputy McGrath asked the Minister to see about the matter.

Quite, but I do not think he discussed the position in Cork.

He spoke of local areas. To develop a site for £45,000 and have no house would not be the best way, I think. We decided to step in and develop the site by direct labour and put in as many houses as we could get tradesmen and skilled labour for.

I would like the Minister to make a statement about the necessity for a man getting securities for the county council if the Minister or the late Minister made that ruling because it did not happen heretofore. I was approached by workers who were anxious to build houses but could not go ahead simply because they could not get securities.

Is that not a matter for local authorities? It is not under this Bill or the grants.

Previously they could go ahead but now they have to get securities for the county council.

I do not want to delay the House and I will not be more than a minute or two. One point I want to refer to is the fact that the grant for the reconstruction of houses is limited to a valuation of £35. In my constituency certain people who have a valuation of £35 are entitled to an £80 reconstruction grant while other people beside them who have a valuation of £35 5s. are not entitled to any grant for reconstruction, good, bad or indifferent. I think there should be some sort of scaling system from £35 to £45 valuation. The grant should be graduated and a certain amount given in proportion to the valuation between £35 and £45.

The other matter I want to mention is that numbers of people get grants of £250 or £275 for houses. They occupy the houses for a certain period and then they let them. I think that the State and the taxpayers who contribute a sum like that for the building of houses should at least be entitled to ask that a fair rents tribunal be established here, as has been established in Great Britain, to see that those people who have got such considerable grants do not exploit their tenants.

When this question was raised I did not intend to say anything, but I would like to support the plea made by Deputy Lehane in connection with the £35 valuation. The Minister must realise that farmers with a £35 valuation have a lower income to-day than people who work as tradesmen. The income of the farmer with a £35 valuation is very restricted, and no matter how you will consider it you will find that £3 per week is as much as that farmer can have to support himself and his family. It has come to my notice that in many cases when even people with a valuation very near the £35 mark have applied for a reconstruction grant they find that the hovels in which many of them live—old thatched cabins—are in such a bad condition that the inspector estimates that their reconstruction would cost £200 or £300.

These farmers, small or otherwise, depending on how you consider a £35 valuation, are unable to meet the cost of the reconstruction of their houses. The plea I want to make is that the £35 valuation be extended to at least £50. There are many cases where the Department of Agriculture makes a differentiation between a valuation of under £50 and a valuation of over £50. The Minister should consider increasing the valuation from £35 to £50 in order that a great number of farmers who live in very bad houses should come under the scope of the grants. There are bad houses all over the country, whether the valuation is over £50 or under it, and if you increased the valuation to £50 for this scheme you would be doing a good day's work for a number of very deserving people.

I did not wish to intervene in this debate until I heard Deputy Lehane. There are several cases where people are only 5/- or 10/- over the prescribed valuation, and I would appeal to the Minister, even if he cannot raise the valuation to £50, to have a graded scale as Deputy Lehane suggested. He could give the maximum grant up to a valuation of £35 and after that grade it down to two-thirds of the grant. There is no valuation limit in the case of building new houses, as far as I can see, so why is a limit put on with regard to reconstruction? I think a good case could be made and, with the other Deputies, I would appeal to the Minister to consider that point.

The discussion on this Bill has covered a very wide range of subjects concerning this very important housing question. I am very pleased to have got the various points suggested from every angle of the House which strengthens me in my intention, which I mentioned earlier on, to introduce further and more comprehensive legislation to deal with the housing question in the near future. It has been indicated by all Parties in the House in the course of the discussion to-day that there are certain anomalies and weaknesses in the 1948 Act that call for attention. We want to get the maximum speed and effect from the machine and if there have been creaks in its operation they want attention. The Department had already many of these points under consideration. Most of the old grievances and some new ones have been introduced from various points in the House. As I said earlier, this little measure does not attempt anything except to give the extra money and extend the time, but no time will be lost in introducing a further measure to give effect to many of the points we have heard to-day. Some of them may not be very wise in themselves, but the majority call for very serious consideration.

The point raised by Deputy O'Leary is not a matter for my Department but purely for the local authorities.

Deputy Lehane, Deputy Walsh and several other speakers referred to the question of the £35 valuation and the fact that farmers with such a valuation can get a grant to build new houses but not for reconstruction. When that item was before the House I remember distinctly that I was one of those who impressed upon the then Minister that the figure should be higher than £35. The figure had been £25 for many years and the Minister at that time did make an advance of £10, from £25 to £35. He stated that if he made it £40 somebody would want to make it £50. However, that is a matter for reconsideration. Certainly, there is an anomaly there and I know from my own experience that a great many hardships have been caused throughout the country. It would be of advantage to the housing situation if it were adjusted to a reasonable figure and, without making any definite promise, I can say that when the comprehensive Bill is introduced this matter will have to get serious consideration.

The question of the letting of houses has received a great deal of attention during the debate. It was suggested that it was a great imposition on local authorities. That is not so. Some Deputy said that the local authorities are recouped to the extent of 100 per cent. That is not correct. They are recouped to the extent of two-thirds of the total from central funds, but nevertheless it does not seem to have been a very popular section of the Act, judging by the numbers of people who have availed of it.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Lemass, in the case of letting grants, applications for between 400 and 500 houses have been made to local authorities who are at present investigating these claims. Furthermore, it has been very useful in the case of some firms—Messrs. Guinness and the New Ireland Assurance Company, for instance—who have availed of it to provide housing for their employees. In that way, it does serve a useful purpose. It also serves a useful purpose in the case of men who were builders and who had constructed houses, but who were not in a position to avail of the grants because they were not going to occupy the houses. It has eased that position. They were able to dispose of these houses and get the £400, and in that way what might have been to them a source of grievance was cleared away. It is felt that it may have a certain usefulness and we thought it would be more generally availed of. The Department prefers to see the people erecting the houses for themselves, if possible, but we cannot afford to neglect or ignore any item that will improve the housing conditions of the people in the emergency in which we find ourselves.

Deputy Carter spoke about a widow carrying out improvements on her house in a small town. I think there is a hardship there. The reconstruction grants are allowed if the applicant derives his livelihood mainly from agriculture, and the definition of an agricultural labourer has been very much widened in recent Acts. There are still anomalies, however, and it is a hardship that a man or woman in a small town or village who wants to do reconstruction work should be penalised and prevented from availing of the benefits of the Act because they cannot establish that their main source of livelihood is agriculture. A definition of the term "agriculture" involves people in all kinds of devices, and I had some very interesting experiences myself in that connection. We ought to simplify it, and I hope, in the new Bill, to broaden it and extend the classes to whom it would be available.

Deputy Cowan, of all men in the House, criticised the draughtsmanship of the Bill and spoke of the difficulty of interpreting it, but he completely forgot that there was a little memorandum with it that even he could follow. The Bill is very simple and is not at all roundabout. It is as simple as it could be made, even for me.

There is, then, the difficulty with regard to speculative builders. It has been stressed that, under the existing Act, there is a difficulty in these builders getting going at full pressure, because the application for the house must be made beforehand. It is perfectly clear that the intention of the legislation was that the grant was to go to the individual and not to the builder, and I do not think there has been any change, so far as the mind of the House is concerned, with regard to the rightness of that principle. I think we want the benefit to go to the applicant for the house. It is possible that certain dangers were present to the mind of the Legislature, dangers which might not be completely eliminated yet. Deputy Dockrell urged that safeguards ought to be provided, while removing some of the anomalies. If it is a fact that the speculative builders are not working at full pressure and not going at the work at as high a speed as they could, something must be done about it, but frankly I have not got sufficient evidence yet to show that they are restricted, or that there is any latent talent in the building world which is not being used. I have seen speculative builders able to pay rates in excess of the standard rates and attracting people from work on the housing schemes, which would not seem to indicate that there was any of this talent lying idle. I am satisfied that there is a case for adjustment and for easing off some of the anomalies in regard to an applicant conforming to certain requirements before qualifying for the grant.

The suggestion is not to give it to the builder but to the purchaser.

A point was raised as to a person who made an application dying before the grant comes through. It is possible for the next-of-kin to have the grant paid, but that is about the only case in which it is possible to have a grant made available to anybody other than the original applicant. There is a case there which could be eased without any hardship to any person or to the State and with advantage to the housing drive we are all interested in.

Deputy Lemass asked whether or not there was any indication, in the light of the amount of money being sought, of any slowing up or alteration of policy. There is definitely no slowing up, but it is not very easy to estimate the actual activities in any particular month. The Department is doing its best to estimate the amount required from month to month and we have the figures of previous months to go upon. The grants paid out in April this year amounted to £67,852; in May, to £79,397; and in June, to £52,750. We expected that the money would have been expended by the month of August, and, in asking for this money now, we want to assure the building public that the money will continue for them. We expect it to carry us on to the end of financial year 1950. If we want any more money, we will come back to the House for it, and, if necessary, we may ask to have the ceiling removed completely. I can assure Deputy Lemass, however, that there is no question of any slowing up and I want to give that assurance to the people building houses, that there will be no slackening off in that respect. If we require any more money, as I say, we will come back to the Dáil for it and I feel satisfied that the Dáil will give it to us.

With regard to the point raised by many Deputies as to the payment of the grants, there has been a very considerable speeding up in that respect, and I think there is little cause for complaint at the moment. In the case of current claims, three weeks or a month is not excessive, but we are practically on the current grants now, and we have sent additional inspectors to various parts of the country to try to speed up matters. In reply to Deputy Brady, I may say that there was some difficulty in Donegal and some delay took place. There was only one appointed officer there, but we have since appointed two more, so that there are three altogether there now. I think the matter will be more satisfactory down there in the future.

In a great deal of the complaints which were made in relation to slowness the question of grants was mixed up with the question of loans. While my Department are not directly responsible for loans I cannot ignore the fact that delays in their issue have a serious culminating effect on progress as a whole. There has been a good deal of delay, perhaps, in the payment of loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and Deputies have a right to complain about it. The Department has taken the matter up. Offers of assistance and co-operation were made in order that the arrears block would be cleared with the maximum of speed. I have very good reason to hope that within the next couple of weeks, the vast bulk—if not the entire bulk—of the arrears will be cleared off in that particular area. When that is done we shall have cleared the last hindrance to progress that could be said to exist. People waiting for their money could not be expected to go on with the same enthusiasm. On the other hand, we are getting a very fine return as far as the operatives are concerned.

The Deputies who said that we should try to prevail upon some of our skilled workers who are in Britain to return home will be gratified to hear that these skilled operatives are coming back in greater numbers than I had expected. We have an increase in the number of skilled men operating in Dublin City and County—which is the main receptacle for these craftsmen of ours—and that means a corresponding increase in the operations of unskilled men. We can do with more skilled operatives, and everything that can be done, within reason, to encourage them to come back is being done. However, some offers which we might make might do more harm than good in so far as other people in this country are concerned. Take, for instance, the question of guaranteeing housing accommodation to those skilled craftsmen who come back. Many people here who did not emigrate might turn up their noses at that suggestion and say: "I am here all the time and I am just as much entitled to housing accommodation as the craftsman who returns." We have to act with caution. The employing authorities are in a position to guarantee and secure that there will be no break in the employment of those people for years to come if they do come back. That offer has been accepted. A lot are coming back and we are hoping for more, although many of those people are now in permanent employment in firms over there and they are not inclined to come back. However, we still think we will get some more to help us with the drive and to solve the problem as quickly as possible.

We have direct labour schemes going on in this city and other cities. All the reports indicate that a magnificent return is being given. While we may not see full results at the moment, I am hopeful that within a few months we will see a very definite improvement. At the moment the work is in the embryo stage and does not show much result, but I think that we shall be able to see good results from the operatives in from about three to six months' time.

Deputy McGrath has asked that we keep the pressure on the housing authorities in connection with the development of sites. That is being done and I may say that it is a help to the various areas. The people themselves would not be in a position to get half of those sites which the local authorities are able to get. It is a good thing, in this programme, to have the local councils exert themselves in the matter of securing and developing sites for the building of houses.

Mr. A. Byrne

What about the question of market value? Will the Minister withdraw those two words from the Act, as it prevents people from getting a grant?

Give us a chance to get finished.

That is a matter which will be considered in the new Bill. I am not in a position to say at the moment what the final definition will be. Some people take market value to mean the builder's price and the market values that correspond. Whether or not the Deputy's definition will be the accepted one, I cannot say. I still have a feeling that we should have an arrangement between the valuing officer of the loaning authority who would be able to base his price on the plans, particulars and so forth of the houses.

Mr. A. Byrne

Get an engineer and an architect to prepare costings, and advance 90 per cent. of the cost.

The matter is under very serious consideration. It is being examined from every angle and I hope that there will be an improvement. Deputy Burke was asking about labour co-operation. I am glad to be able to say that the position is that we are getting a very good response. The reports I have been receiving from housing directors and people in charge of these schemes are to the effect that the return of output given by our workers is very reasonable and fair, and they deserve congratulations for the way in which they are co-operating with us in this drive.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share