It would be far easier for me and for everybody if I were to retain a section like Section 7 of the 1950 Act and meet the point of view expressed by Deputy Dockrell when, in criticising the limitations suggested here, he said it would be more just to leave this matter open to everybody. But I have to ask myself when a section of this nature is being framed what we are trying to achieve by it. Having answered that question, I have to ask myself if the section is likely to achieve that purpose. In fact I have to ask myself a lot of questions and these have relation to the experience we have had of the operation of Section 7 of the 1950 Act.
It has been suggested here that the valuation basis is faulty and unjust. It has been said that a man with a small valuation could be engaged in a number of other occupations, that he could be a cattle dealer or a horse dealer, that he could be dealing in eggs and many other things, and still be entitled to describe himself as a farmer with a valuation of under £12 10s. and, therefore, entitled under this scheme to receive the maximum grant if the local council were to adopt this scheme. I am well aware of all these snags. The Department and myself have examined the schemes which have been formulated from time to time by the local authorities who did adopt that Section 7. We have seen schemes coming up in which a means test applied. We have seen amendments proposed by local authorities widening the scope of these schemes. We have seen them changed and switched around from day to day. All these things demonstrated that local authorities were having great difficulties in operating schemes, at least a limited number out of the total number who adopted schemes under Section 7 of the 1950 Act.
It is all right for Deputy Crotty to talk as if there were no difficulties. Of course there were difficulties. Even in one of the local authorities of which he is a member such difficulties arose. As a matter of fact, it was only on the 3rd March, 1952, 28 days before the Act was about to expire, although Section 7 of the 1950 Act was in operation for nearly two years, that the Kilkenny Corporation adopted the scheme. Is it suggested, then, if this Section 7 of the Act of 1950 was embraced with the enthusiasm with which Deputy Crotty would have us believe to-day it was embraced that it would have taken the local body of which he is a member two years to make up its mind as to whether or not it should adopt it. In matters of this kind I think we should try to be reasonable. In the course of my contacts with local authorities I have been able to discover that in those counties where the scheme was not adopted—Clare, Wexford, Sligo, Louth and, I think, Dublin—they were able to put forward very excellent reasons for not adopting the scheme. They said that if they started to discuss the formulation of a scheme in which a means test would be stipulated, whether it was a means test designed to meet the position of farmers or of the position of those who worked for wages, some member of the county council would immediately argue, as has been argued by Deputies here to-day, that such a limitation was unjust. Members of the county council would raise specific cases and it would be pointed out that a farmer with a valuation of £45 was actually much poorer and found it more difficult to live and rear his family than others adjoining him with valuations of £25. These are cases that have arisen all down the years and will continue to arise in the future.
My idea in saying that it would be an easy matter for me to disregard all these considerations and agree with Deputy Dockrell to provide a section giving local authorities every freedom to adopt any scheme they liked would be that I could then wash my hands of the whole thing and tell the local bodies that if they did not adopt the scheme it would be their own fault. But I do not think that is the proper approach. I think the proper approach is to recognise the difficulties members of local authorities have. They are men who give their services voluntarily and they should not be asked to segregate their neighbours in the way in which it would be necessary to segregate them so that the local authority as a body would accept the idea that underlies this section.
I assume that the adoption of a scheme such as this is desirable. I believe it would be good for everybody. If we are satisfied that a scheme such as that proposed here is a good scheme and would serve the country, then with the co-operation of the House I must take on myself the undesirable, if you like, task of formulating for local bodies something that I regard it as fair to ask local bodies to do for themselves. If one asks local bodies they will probably say that, rather than have to carry out this task, they will wash their hands of it entirely.
I have a list of counties here in which schemes were adopted. In every case the local bodies made some effort—in many cases more than one effort—to limit the expenditure to which they were committed under Section 7. They stipulated a valuation limit. In the case of employees, they stipulated an income limit. Fearing that would not be sufficient, they actually tried to stipulate the amount of money they would borrow for that purpose. Some said £10,000, some said £15,000, some £20,000 and some £25,000. It is quite easy to see that these bodies had in mind in adopting a scheme under that section some danger and they took steps, however feeble they proved to be ultimately, to save themselves from the open free-for-all approach that was recommended to-day by Deputy M.E. Dockrell.
I have to ask myself where will these local authorities get the money to finance a scheme such as that outlined here. Section 7 of the Act of 1950 crept into that Act on the Committee Stage. I think it came in as an amendment by some members of the Labour Party. When a section such as that is inserted in a Bill it is the duty of somebody to follow up the effects of the section. Certainly I would consider it my duty to do so. If the Kildare County Council adopt a scheme it is sent to me for sanction. I then receive, following on my approval of the scheme, an application to borrow money in order to implement the scheme. Before sanctioning the scheme I would consider it my duty to consider what I could do in relation to that second request. I found that while 14 or 15 schemes were approved under Section 7 of the 1950 Act no provision was made at all as to where local authorities would get the money to finance these schemes. It was only when these bodies proceeded to look for the money that they discovered the Local Loans Fund would not be made available to them on this free-for-all basis. If I were asked to argue in favour of making the Local Loans Fund available for such a purpose I confess I could not make any argument for it.
In thinking in terms of a scheme in substitution for Section 7, therefore, I naturally not only thought of a scheme likely to be acceptable from the point of view of its conservatism but also of the availability of money to finance the scheme at a certain rate of interest so that local bodies would not have to travel from one insurance company to another or from one bank to another, all the time scraping the pot in order to provide the necessary finances.
I want Deputies to look upon this section as a piece of machinery that can be operated by the Department of Local Government. It is a piece of machinery designed for the use of local authorities, if they desire to use it. Having regard to the criticisms we have heard levelled against different schemes by local authorities we are substituting what we believe to be their objective under the previous method. Since all of us, apparently, have decided that it is desirable that a scheme of this nature should be operated by the local bodies, is it not better for us that we should go as far along the road as it is possible for us to go and bring with us those whom it is essential to take if we are to make any progress at all, and that is the local bodies? The limits may be low. They are £12 10s., £20 to £27 10s. and £35 10s. Deputy Sweetman has made the case that these valuations would rule out an enormous number of people in his constituency. I am sure Deputy Sweetman is better aware of it than I am that 50 per cent. of the holdings in County Kildare are under £10 valuation. I take it that the maximum limit prescribed here of £35 10s. will probably cover 70 to 75 per cent. of all the holdings in Kildare and will easily cover 85 per cent. of all the holdings in the country.
I know, of course, that one could talk about the niceties of valuation until the cows come home. But a valuation limit has been accepted in Housing Acts in this country over the past 20 years. There is such a limit in regard to reconstruction. There was a valuation limit in the 1932 Housing Act and in Housing Acts ever since. Under a recent piece of legislation dealing with a means test in regard to old age pensions, and in relation to a number of other matters, there are valuation limits. Deputies are talking to the converted when they try to prove to me how unjust a valuation limit can be in certain circumstances. I know all that as well as any other Deputy—perhaps even better than quite a few. The fact, however, is that talking about the niceties of valuation is not going to get us anywhere. Let us keep in the back of our minds this fact: that the machinery here is devised to be used by local authorities that are free. It may be that they will have their prejudices and, if you like, may be conservative. That, I suggest, is not an undesirable characteristic— a certain amount of it. I would ask Deputies to realise that.
I think it was Deputy McMenamin who suggested that this scheme was lightly thought of. That is not so. When I was appointed Minister for Local Government the first question I asked the secretary to my Department when I opened the door of my room was: "What provision has been made for financing the scheme that has been adopted under Section 7 of the 1950 Act?" That section was inserted when I was a member of the Opposition. I was aware, of course, of the discussions that had taken place on it here and of discussions at meetings of the county council in my own county and in other counties. I saw that the thing was altogether too loose, and that it was not fair to ask county councillors to do what I have already suggested, namely, to set themselves against their neighbour and segregate them, as it were, into categories, having regard to the valuations of their holdings. I felt that, if there was any unpopularity to be incurred, it is the Minister who is responsible for introducing legislation like this who should try and find out just what the limitations were which local bodies would like to impose and should set them out as I have set them out here. It should be his responsibility to say that is the maximum: that if they wanted to adopt a scheme, that was the maximum, but that they could make it less themselves. That is the mental approach of the person who is responsible for this amendment.
Deputy Murphy and Deputy McGrath suggested that I should make it £60. Of course, one could make it £60, £70 or even £100. It would be the simplest thing in the world for me to accede to any request of that nature, but that would be no answer to the question which I have posed: is it desirable that we should have a scheme of this nature generally applied? If it is, and if we think it is likely to be taken up by local bodies and if it is fairly conservative, is that not better than that we should say to the local bodies that we throw every door open to them to do what they like, and then find in a couple of years' time that only half of them or perhaps none of them had adopted a scheme. That might be the approach of some people to this problem, but it is not mine. I have discussed this with members of councils, and following my discussions I have no doubt at all that what I am proposing here, even with all the defects that there are undoubtedly in it, will be found to represent the majority view of members of local authorities in all parts of the country. With regard to the point that was raised by Deputy Corish, we could, of course, decide here to give any grant that we thought fit and proper, but we are not taking upon ourselves the responsibility of saying to local bodies: "You must do likewise".
I believe that Section 9 is an excellent section. If I were a member of a council I might, perhaps, feel inclined to be conservative. I think it might not be a bad investment, even from the point of view of a council, to borrow money for the purpose of enabling people who are covered by the section to build houses for themselves. Taking the long distance view, the council perhaps might not stand to lose anything by that. There are people who would contend that the council would benefit over, say, a period of 50 years. I must confess that I have not gone into that with anyone very seriously as to whether a council would or would not benefit. My inclination would be to think that a council would not benefit, but even if it did not benefit, I think that a scheme adopted by local bodies for the people who are covered here would be advantageous. I invite them to see the defects in this proposal as I see them, to have some regard to the realities of the situation and to see that it is better for us to go along in this conservative way and see how we do. After two years if somebody finds that we can go further it will be possible to improve upon this. It is much better, I would say, to start in this conservative way and advance from it than to throw the gates open and then find that you have to retreat from the whole position. I am recommending that course to the House and I believe it is a course that will be understood and accepted by the local bodies for whom we are trying to devise this scheme.
