Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jun 1952

Vol. 132 No. 11

Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1952—Committee (Resumed).

SECTION 20.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 22a:—

Before paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

(b) where the grant is in respect of the erection of a house, a contract for the purchase of a site for such erection was completed before that date.

In amendment No. 22 the Minister has covered a great many cases, and I must pay a tribute to the fact that he did make an effort to meet them. Amendment No. 22a, however, is in respect of a further type of case of which I have some personal knowledge. I know of three cases in County Kildare where people bought sites in the belief that they would be able to get grants from the Kildare County Council under the 1950 Act. So far as I am aware, they are people who will be round about the limits in the section. I am not sufficiently acquainted with their exact means to know whether the three people would or would not come within Section 9 or Section 10. What I am trying to get at in this amendment and the next one is where a person had taken an irrecoverable step in the genuine and bona fide belief that the Kildare County Council would carry out what it was known they wished to carry out, namely, to give grants under that scheme, and had bought and paid for a site that he would not be put in an unfair and unfortunate position as a result of what we may do in this Bill.

The Minister, on Second Reading, made it clear that he would not throw the door open wide to everybody who of view. But here is a case where there was a specific step taken. The Minister is probably aware or, if he is not aware, he can ask his colleague, the Minister for Justice, that there is put in an application. If you accept the earlier sections, I can see his point a delay of about four months in the registration of title in the Land Registry for a new folio such as would be required for a site of this kind. In one of the cases I have in mind the purchase was completed last February and application had been duly made to the county council. The registration, although it was lodged last February, was only completed by the Land Registry in the beginning of the month of May. Until the registration is completed, the purchaser of the site who is going to erect a house would not be able to get a loan under the Small Dwellings Act. That person did not think it would be wise to start building until the Small Dwellings Act title had been proved, because, otherwise, he would be in the position of having his house put up and the builder looking for the first instalment and, because of the Land Registry's delay, would not be able to get the instalment from the county council under the Small Dwellings Act. Accordingly, he deemed it prudent not to start the house until the Land Registry had completed registration of the title. That seems very bad luck for him.

In the second case, a man paid £75 for a site. He took all the steps that were proper and reasonable for a prudent man to take. Now, because of the provisions of this Bill he will not be able to deal with this matter as he genuinely and bona fide believed he could. He cannot hand back the site to the persons from whom he bought it. It has been taken out of the title of the vendor and it has gone into the name of the purchaser. Unless he is protected in some way the position will be that he will have paid his £75 for a couple of roods of land that will be of no use to him. I do not think the Minister intended that to operate in introducing this Bill.

Mr. Smith

As I see them, the Deputy's amendments were designed to throw this matter wide open. In other words, they were designed to permit of a free-for-all scheme under Section 7 of the 1950 Act to run almost parallel with the schemes outlined in the measure which is now under discussion. I do not think there is any use in our arguing about this matter. I can quite see that some type of border-line case must exist, even if we were to reduce it to the point that a man had an idea in his mind to do something under a scheme that might operate in Kildare and which was drafted under Section 7 of the 1950 Act. If that man did nothing more than say to himself that it was his intention to build a house, if he did not acquire a site or dig a sod of earth on that site—the fact that he had a thought of doing it, while thousands of others had not—he could be said, to that extent, to be disappointed that something was changed which prevented him from continuing with his intention.

Mr. Sweetman

That is not suggested in any of these three amendments.

Mr. Smith

I am not saying that it goes as far as that but the three amendments go almost that far. If a man has it in his mind to erect a house, to acquire a site and to go through the legal difficulties that have to be contended with before actually becoming the owner of the site, and if he happens to be outside the class for whom we are providing, I suggest that that is a slim kind of case. With regard to amendment No. 22, which I propose here, I can genuinely say to all concerned that I have gone further than I would have gone if I were not afraid of doing something that might create a real hardship. I know that even in my amendment people will be able to secure the advantages of a free-for-all scheme which, if I could stop it, I would not permit.

Mr. Sweetman

Ours is not a free-for-all scheme.

Mr. Smith

It is next door to it. I asked the people who drafted amendment No. 22 to do the very best they could. When they had done their best I inserted the further provision that an appeal would lie to the Minister on the part of an aggrieved person. Having gone that distance, which was far in excess of what I had in my mind, I am afraid I will not be induced to take any further step in that direction.

Mr. Sweetman

Without going back on Sections 9 and 10, I think the Minister will agree that this is the first time that grants which were given in respect of housing were ever cut down. Therefore, a person is fairly entitled to think that when a grant scheme operated, though it was limited in point of time it would be limited on the same line. The Minister circulated amendment No. 22 before the last day's sitting. When I handed in amendments Nos. 22a, 22b and 22c I thought the amendments would be discussed on that Friday morning and therefore I did not have as much time to consider them as I should have liked. I can see the Minister's point that he does not want to have the 1950 scheme running parallel with the 1952 scheme. The rest of the Minister's case consisted of the old trick of putting up a case that is not there for the purpose of knocking it down. It is good debating tactics but it is not too hot for the people being hit by it.

There are very definite cases of people who will suffer hardship under this amendment, if it is passed, but at the same time they are a very limited number of people. The number of people who bought a site before the 29th April last must be very small. The number of people—if I may discuss amendments Nos. 22a and 22b together, as they are on the same line— who actually redeemed their annuity for the purpose of taking the land out into a separate folio and in that way qualifying to borrow under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, and who actually did that before the 29th April last, must be very small. The Minister's case would be very much stronger if we were discussing this on the basis that the relevant date was to be the date on which the Bill would be signed and an Act. Then he would genuinely be entitled to say that people had got notice of this and were going to beat the Bill. We are going back to the date upon which the Bill itself was circulated. If people believed that they would get certain facilities if they expended their own money on the purchase of a site and on the redemption of an annuity, it is a genuine hardship if the Minister now wishes to have a different scheme in other areas.

I am prepared to see the Minister's point of view. If the Minister had come a little bit towards me in my amendments Nos. 22a and 22b, I should be prepared to come to him on his amendment No. 22. I can see that where a person had just merely written in an application, and nothing more, the Minister's point of view might have some force and some validity. If such a person had not taken any irrevocable step or suffered any financial loss, but had some hope shattered, I can see the Minister's point of view. At some time or other, all of us experience some hope or other being shattered. In that case it is hope that is gone, but in the other two cases hard cash is gone—hard cash which cannot be brought back.

I do not think the Minister, under the provision for an appeal, would have any power to allow a housing authority to give a grant on appeal where the erection did not commence Certainly, there would not be any difficulty with our authority. We would wish to try and cover the case where we were absolutely satisfied that a man had committed himself financially and spent money which he would not otherwise be able to recover. After all, no matter what the £ may be worth these days, to acquire a £75 site one must pay £75. I would suggest to the Minister, in all seriousness, that that man should not be put in the position in which he will be put if this amendment is not accepted. The amount that is paid in respect of the redemption of an annuity may not be an enormous sum, but it is a very substantial sum to the person in question. I know of one case where a sum has been paid on the redemption of an annuity by a man whose valuation is £36 and who, accordingly, under this Bill, will not get a grant. This man is a farmer. The fact is that the money he has paid in the redemption of the annuity is gone so far as he is concerned. Of course, he will pay slightly less on his annuity in future, but that is a different matter. He will be at the loss of the money he has paid.

It has been necessary for the county councils to await the passage of this Bill so that they can deal with the matter. In that respect, I would urge the Minister to go half-way towards me by accepting amendments Nos. 22a and 22b. Then, I will accept his view on amendment No. 22c. We had a very friendly discussion all the morning. Let us finish it in the same way.

Mr. Smith

My contention is that the man who acquires a site has got good value for his money.

Mr. Sweetman

Provided he is able to build on it.

Mr. Smith

Even if he were not able to build on it, he would have got good value for his money. We may take it that any man who purchases a site in Kildare, in Naas, or in any of the towns in the Deputy's constituency or in mine, will select a fairly good site, buy it as cheaply as possible and will not suffer any loss.

Mr. Sweetman

What is he to do with it?

Mr. Smith

He could sell it.

Mr. Sweetman

In a rural area? It is not so easy to get rid of a site in a rural area.

Mr. Smith

We know that, when local bodies look for sites in the most backward places in rural areas, the owners of the sites seek good prices for them, so that I cannot see where the hardship comes in.

I will now deal with the other claim that was made, that this is the first occasion on which grants were reduced. I am not admitting that, taking it all in all, the scheme that is outlined here effects any reduction inasmuch as provision is being made for the payment of grants in certain cases where no grants were previously paid. Under Section 7 of this Bill increased grants will be paid for reconstruction. Supplementary grants can be paid to people who wish to provide themselves with amenities such as water and sewerage or to reconstruct their premises. Even if there is a limit both in regard to payment and earning capacity, there is compensation on the other side. Even if a reduction were effected in the grant, the Deputy is not correct in saying that it would be the first time it was ever effected. Grants provided under the Housing Act of 1925 effected a reduction upon the grants that were payable under the Housing Act of the previous year. If I were to admit, which I do not, that the Deputy's charge was correct and that this scheme effected a reduction, I would have introduced a precedent.

Mr. Sweetman

I am afraid my housing memory does not go back as far as 1925.

Mr. Smith

Neither would mine, if I did not get assistance from other people.

Mr. Sweetman

I am not very happy about the wording of this amendment, and I am asking that it should be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 22b and 22c not moved.

Amendment No. 22 agreed to.

Amendment Nos. 22d and 22e not moved.

Sections 20, as amended, and 21 and 22, agreed to.

SECTION 23.

Question proposed: "That Section 23 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

Does this cover the case where a mistake was made before the passing of the Act, as well as the case where a mistake was made after the passing of the Act?

Mr. Smith

It goes back, I understand, to 1948.

Mr. Sweetman

That is to say in respect of any work that was first commenced on the 1st November, 1947?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 24 and 25 agreed to.

SECTION 26.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 23:—

In sub-section (1), line 27, immediately after "dwellings" to insert "where one or more than one member of the family is suffering from tuberculosis or".

This amendment is designed to cover tuberculosis cases where there is no overcrowding.

Amendment No. 23 agreed to.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 24:—

In sub-section (1), line 32, immediately after "housing authority" to insert "and the commissioners of a town".

This is a drafting amendment also.

Mr. Sweetman

How does this arise? I thought the town commissioners had not got housing authority responsibilities. In so far as Droichead Nua Housing Commission is concerned, it is the county council that deals with housing, not the town commissioners.

Mr. Smith

I am told that they do not come under the definition of a housing authority.

Mr. Sweetman

Why are we bringing them into this measure then?

Mr. Smith

They can let houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts.

Mr. Sweetman

How can they if they are not a housing authority?

Mr. Smith

They are not a housing authority for the purposes of this Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

If they are not housing authorities for the purposes of any housing Acts, why are they introduced here? In Kildare the county council seems to have the job of dealing with the functions of the Droichead Nua Housing Commissioners.

Mr. Smith

The housing authority was introduced into that town only a few years ago.

Mr. Sweetman

I agree, but they are not a housing authority. Why bring them in here if they have no power as a housing authority?

Mr. Smith

A housing authority for the purpose of this Bill means in the case of:—

(a) a county health district, the council of the county in which such county health district is situate;

(b) a county or other borough, the corporation of such county or other borough, and,

(c) an urban district, the council of such urban district.

Mr. Sweetman

I agree. I appreciate the definition in this Bill but I do not understand why the Minister is introducing town commissioners into Section 26. I understand that town commissioners have no functions in regard to the letting of new houses.

Mr. Smith

They have no functions in regard to this Bill but they have functions as an authority under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts.

Mr. Sweetman

Surely they have no functions in respect of lettings of houses to which the subsidy regulation attaches.

Mr. Smith

Of course, they have.

Mr. Sweetman

For subsidy houses?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Mr. Burke

They have where they accept the responsibility.

Mr. Smith

The commissioners have a right to the houses. Take the amendment I have just proposed which deals with tuberculosis cases. If the commissioners are a housing authority is it not necessary that this provision should apply in their case just the same as in the case of any other authority?

Mr. Sweetman

Is this provision to apply in respect of houses already erected and occupied?

Mr. Smith

When they come for reletting.

Mr. Sweetman

Oh, yes. I thought it was only for new houses.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 26, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECTION 27.

Question proposed: "That Section 27 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lehane

The present position with regard to the acquisition of land is very unsatisfactory. In Cork, a number of sites have been acquired. Some of them were acquired over 30 years ago, and the local authority has not paid for them yet. Some five or six years ago, thousands of sites were taken over, and the local authority has only paid for 77 in one area where there are over 500. Would the Minister consider introducing an amendment, on the Report Stage, that would enable the local authority to discharge its full legal responsibility by paying the registered land tenant and ensuring that that payment to the registered land tenant be deemed to be a complete discharge as far as the local authority is concerned? The position at the moment is that, when the local authority makes a compulsory purchase order, it gets an absolute title to the plots it acquires. There are hundreds, even thousands, of holdings that will never be paid for until some simple method of accepting title is arrived at. If the Minister could, on the Report Stage of the Bill, introduce an amendment to simplify the procedure, it would help very considerably.

Mr. McGrath

I am sure these questions deal with cases at Friar's Walk, in Cork, which is outside the Cork County Borough. There are other districts where the Cork Corporation acquired land for sites. According to the county solicitor, they have not the functional authority to do this. The authority has now been given to them in connection with these sites. The corporation leased those sites to people under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. In some cases, the houses are nearly completed and still the people cannot get loans from the Cork County Council because equities have not been discharged. In a couple of cases they are not likely to be discharged for a very long time as some of the former owners are in a mental hospital. There does not seem to be any inclination on the part of the solicitor engaged to push the case. I know of a few young men waiting to be married. They have houses practically completed but they cannot get a penny of the loan, not because the corporation has not the functional authority—that has been settled between the different councils—but because the corporation leased out those sites to those occupants without having a proper lease of the ground at all and without having a proper title. The county solicitor says he cannot give the loans as there is no proper title. I think something should be done to ensure that applicants building under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act should be protected against anything like that happening again.

Mr. MacCarthy

I wish to support the case made by Deputy Lehane. As one of the sites committee in Cork, I find it is rather embarrassing to go out selecting sites for cottages where payment has not been made for sites taken over three or four years ago and entering a man's land in order to get further facilities. Perhaps the Minister would ensure that the rated occupier should be entitled to payment, or perhaps he might make provision enabling the people who are occupying and working the land and from whom these sites have been taken to get payment for them. That might solve the difficulty.

Mr. Smith

I do not think there is any means available to me of finding a suitable solution to that problem. I know it is a problem which confronts us from place to place and from time to time. It is easy to see and recognise the hardships that are imposed, but I do not see how we could, in this Bill, provide, by way of an amendment, for what Deputy Lehane has drawn attention to. I received a note mentioning this matter from him yesterday evening. The note was not from himself and did not convey to me what he has stated in the House now.

I do not profess to have any knowledge of the legal difficulties that are involved. Speaking as a layman, I can see a great many obstacles to providing in this or, indeed, in any such measure for the sort of situation to which the Deputies have referred and which arises, unfortunately, in quite a number of places all over the country.

Mr. Lehane

Was it not the practice heretofore to accept the registered landowner? The position now seems to be much more complicated in certain cases to discharge equities. Letters of administration have been taken out in some cases, but the families have gone to America. The cost of discharging equities will prove in many cases to be more than the plot of land is worth. There are a large number of plots taken over and money lodged in court, and there are thousands of plots for which people will never be paid.

Mr. McGrath

Would the Minister make any provision in regard to the case of local authorities which I mentioned?

Mr. Smith

That is covered in the section.

Mr. McGrath

I am referring to the case where a local authority has to go outside its own area. It leases land, and because it has no proper title the county council will not give a loan.

Mr. Smith

I am told that this section meets the point you have raised.

Mr. McGrath

I am not questioning the right of a local authority to lease land outside its own area. This section gives it that right. What I am talking about is the right of that local authority to lease sites to applicants under the Small Dwellings Act when it has no proper title to the land. In such cases, when people want to build houses, they cannot get a loan.

Mr. Smith

I am told that, if the defect was that they had not the right to acquire land outside their area, this section makes provision for that.

Mr. McGrath

What I am talking about is the case of the Cork Corporation acquiring land outside its own area and leasing sites to people to build houses under the Small Dwellings Act. When those people want to get a loan from the county council, the legal adviser to the county council tells them that, in some cases, the equities have not been discharged, and that the corporation had not proper title. This is not a question of giving them functional rights at all.

Mr. Smith

That is a different matter.

Mr. McGrath

It is a difficult matter for people building houses who cannot get any loan.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 28.

Question proposed: "That Section 28 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

Why is Section 28 necessary?

Mr. Smith

It clarifies Section 23 of the 1950 Act.

Mr. Sweetman

How?

Mr. Smith

It is designed to include agricultural labourers under Section 23 of the 1950 Act. It has been considered desirable to make it clear that the preference may be construed as having application to agricultural labourers in rural areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 25 to 29, inclusive, not moved.

Section 29 agreed to.

SECTION 30.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 30:—

Before Section 30, but in Part IV, to insert a new section as follows:—

Where a determination has been made by a housing authority under Article 3 of the Emergency Powers (No. 277) Order, 1943 (S.R. & O., No. 184 of 1943), in relation to a dwelling-house, the following provisions shall have effect—

(a) notwithstanding the revocation of the said Order, any such determination shall continue in force until revoked by the housing authority;

(b) so long as such determination remains in force—

(i) the dwelling-house shall be deemed to have been acquired by the housing authority for the purposes of Part III of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, and

(ii) the requirements imposed on the housing authority by Part II of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931 (No. 50 of 1931), in regard to securing the vacation and demolition of the dwelling-house shall be suspended;

(c) sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of this section shall not confer any power to sell the relevant dwelling-house.

A local authority acquiring property in a clearance area under Part II of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, is required by that Act to cause every building in the property to be vacated and demolished. During the early years of the war the Dublin Corporation had several properties in hands for demolition under these provisions. As they were unable to rehouse all the families that would have been displaced by the demolitions, an Emergency Powers Order was made enabling them to determine that it was necessary to maintain a dwelling-house which had been acquired under Part II of the 1931 Act for the accommodation of the working classes. The Order provided that a determination might be revoked by the local authority by whom it was made. The Order is about to be revoked, but we are continuing that power in this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 30, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 31.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 31:—

In sub-section (1), line 20, immediately after "dwellings" to insert "where one or more than one member of the family is suffering from tuberculosis or".

This amendment is similar to amendment No. 23 to Section 26.

Mr. Sweetman

It is consequential on the other one?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 32 to 36, inclusive, not moved.

Section 32 agreed to.

SECTION 33.

Mr. Sweetman

Amendment No. 37 to this section is in the names of Deputy Spring and Deputy Hickey. I discussed it with Deputy Hickey, but I did not ask for his permission to move it. Neither of the two Deputies is here. If I am entitled to move it, I will do so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may move the amendment.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 37:—

Before Section 33, but in Part V, to insert a new section as follows:—

Where labourers' cottages have been erected on lands in the possession of the State, the Minister for Finance may, on behalf of the State, sell the lands to the local authority concerned to enable that authority to sell such lands and cottages to the occupiers by means of a tenant purchase scheme.

I think that, as far as this amendment is concerned, it really affects the State Lands Act, 1924, more than this Bill. It is our old friend of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Beegan. There have been questions from time to time in the House about it. As I understand the position it is that the Minister may not sell State lands to a housing authority for the purpose of house building. I think he can give a lease of them for 99 years or for some specified term. If that is so, it would be fairly satisfactory if we could get that august body in St. Stephen's Green to consider the matter in a more friendly light. At Ballyfair, in the County Kildare, the county council has a site for labourers' cottages, but so far as I can understand the Commissioners of Publice Works have taken refuge behind the 1924 Act. If this amendment would mean that the commissioners could not take similar refuge in the future under the State Lands Act, I would like to see it accepted. I know that this matter of the State Lands Act was put on the long finger by the last Government and by this Government, and I fear it will be put on the long finger by any future Government. Until something is done we will continue to be told "we have no power". If the effect of this amendment would be to give the housing authority power to deal with State lands, even to get a lease for 99 years, let us hope that before the 99 years are up some Government will have dealt with the problem and that the reversion expected at the end of the 99 years will have been sold or bought. Perhaps 99 years is too short a time for the Board of Works to deal with it.

Mr. Smith

I was wondering what cases Deputies had in mind in putting down this amendment. I took it that perhaps this amendment referred to cottages in Kilworth Camp. I do not know eactly the places the Deputies had in mind nor do I know the number of houses. If I had been supplied with these particulars I would have followed them up to see what the position was in regard to them. We could not do anything in this Bill, even if we were free to. We could not do more than make inquiries as a matter of interest, just to see what the position was.

Mr. Lehane

We have certain cases in Cork where you can go into an area and take an acre of agricultural land from a farmer whose holding adjoins certain State lands, some old Admiralty land or old Department of Defence lands, that would be quite suitable for houses and the acquisition of which would not cause any inconvenience to anybody.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McGrath

I move amendment No. 38:—

In paragraph (a), line 23, to insert before "or" where it secondly occurs "and the town planning area contiguous to the County Borough of Cork".

This amendment covers the case of Cork, where there is a very limited number of sites within the county borough and it would not be any advantage unless we agreed to extend the area to the town-planning area contiguous to the County Borough of Cork. I am sure the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Smith

I propose to bring in, on Report Stage, an amendment that will meet this position.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman

On behalf of Deputy Belton I move amendment No. 39:—

In paragraph (a), line 24, to delete "one thousand eight hundred" and substitute "two thousand two hundred".

We had some discussion on Second Stage about the actual increase in the limit that the provision in Section 33 would make. So far as rural areas are concerned, the limit provided in the Bill is adequate. I am using the word "rural" as including the smaller urban towns. So far as the City of Dublin is concerned, I think the Minister has flown a shade too low. I think the Minister could fairly say that Deputy Belton, perhaps, has flown a little too high. Perhaps if the Minister could agree to a half-way point between his original suggestion and the suggestion of Deputy Belton, everybody could go away happy.

The position used to be that the market value of the house in respect of which any small dwelling loan was being given was not to exceed £2,000. The provision in the 1950 Act meant that the person who was erecting his own house had to put up at least 5 per cent. of that market value. If one took the figure that 5 per cent. of the market value was £100 and the grant was £375 that would be the position as it arose under the existing legislation. This will increase it somewhat. It will increase it, however, in one way that I doubt is intended. Under this section, any person can buy a house for £4,000 and can go to the corporation and say that he wants £1,800 out of the small dwellings pool. The Minister will agree that that is not exactly what was intended and it would mean that the Small Dwellings Act was being utilised for a purpose for which it was never intended.

As I understand the position, the housing authority concerned must make up its mind as to whether the applicant is a person who is in need of a house. That is the overriding matter rather than the size or type of house being built. Is there any danger that the effect of this will be to draw off the amount available for small dwellings loans to larger types of houses instead of making sure that the whole amount is available for the medium type of house, up to £2,500, that we are all considering? That is the effect of the changed method.

On the other hand, there is this to be said, that the change in method will do away with some of the friction that there always was everywhere as to the manner in which market value was being computed. In the City of Dublin, having regard to the increase in the price of building that there is at present and with the increase in wages and salaries that there will be in view of the demands that are being made now, I think the increase the Minister has made will have the effect of merely putting things back part of the way to where they were and, £1,800 as the maximum advance when this increase will become operative, will not in fact be as good a proportion of the cost of the house that is being erected as the old proportion was with the limit of £2,000 market value.

I want to make it perfectly clear that, so far as I am concerned, I entirely agree with and endorse the viewpoint the Minister put forward on Second Stage, that it is the applicants that we must consider in this section and not the builders but, if there are no builders, then there will be no applicants. We have to ensure that the two will work together in a reasonable fashion and that in that way the scheme will be successful.

The Minister gave us some figures in his Second Reading speech as regards applications for housing grants. I must confess that the figures rather surprised me, but we will have an opportunity of considering them in greater detail on the Estimate for his Department. I am, however, inclined to the view from talking to people in Dublin that there will be a substantial diminution in private building in this city within the next six or nine months. If that is so, then we need to do something to offset that diminution, to offset the conditions which have created it, and something which will have the psychological effect of increasing demand and of increasing availability.

When discussing the grants, the Minister very frankly said he would love to increase them but, notwithstanding his love, he was not able to do so. When he was not able to do that in regard to the grants, he should be able to do it to a larger extent in this section for the city, with the provision that it is being done in such a way that the Small Dwellings Act will be available for the type of case for which it was intended originally to provide loan finance.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

It is a great pity that the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, generally speaking, has failed to help a large section of the population which it really should have helped. It seems to me that a lot of people in income groups who really do not need it have been availing of it. I do not think that the way in which it is altered at present by the suggestion of £1,800 will improve that position very much. I feel that the figure is too low. Apart from that, I am sorry that something cannot be done to help a man in the smaller income group to build his own house under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. So far as the Dublin Corporation is concerned, I believe that 50 per cent. of the people who are waiting to be rehoused by the Dublin Corporation would be in a position to build their own houses if the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act had been scaled down to meet lower incomes instead of being availed of by people who can afford to go to a building society. The figure which Deputy Belton suggested is a bit high, but the Minister's figure of £1,800 is too low.

Mr. Smith

We think it is high enough.

Mr. Sweetman

When buying or selling a beast the usual thing is to split the difference. Will the Minister not split the difference in this case?

Mr. Smith

We not only think it, but we are sure of it. One of the reasons for deciding on this method, and it is a very excellent reason, is that, for many years, with building costs increasing, there was, from time to time, a demand that the limit should be raised. We know that every time you raise the limit it is the builder who, as Deputy Sweetman said, is a very useful citizen in regard to this business, who usually comes forward, putting on the pressure to raise the limit. But, in raising the limit, if you are satisfied that building costs warrant it, you naturally raise it very carefully, because you are afraid that, in a situation where there is a demand for houses, advantage could, in certain circumstances, be taken of your raising it to increase the cost of the house to the purchaser. That might mean that no sooner have you raised it than, if the upper tendency in prices were to continue, they should be back again asking for a further increase.

That is how I found things when I arrived in the Department of Local Government. It was only after a considerable discussion with my officials that we finally said: "Would it not be better, since the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts were intended to serve certain classes that could not be described as poor or as well-off, that we should decide upon a figure—the figure we decided upon is the figure here—and say to the local authorities: "You can advance that sum of money and that will cover the type of person which it was intended by the Acts to cover." If there are people outside that class who want to build more expensive houses there is no reason why we should push up the limits to cater for them, but if the local authorities are satisfied—and the local authorities are free to refuse or accept an application for an advance— that it is a case where an advance should be made they may say to the individual: "You can build a house costing £2,500 or £3,000, but so far as advances are concerned, we will only give £1,800."

That brought you the very awkward situation which I have described, where building costs were continuing to rise, where there was a continual urge on the part of those building houses to raise the valuation limit, and where there was an anxiety on our part not to raise it in any way which might tempt any person unnecessarily to force up the price of houses. We did not want to curtail their activities or to tempt them or anybody else still further to increase the price of houses. It was hard to arrive at and to maintain a valuation that will result in achieving these two aims. In fact, I imagine it is impossible to achieve these two aims. It is because of that I am satisfied, after discussion and examination with the people who have been administering these Acts for a very long time, that this is the best solution, and that it meets in a fairly reasonable way the people for whom the Acts were originally designed.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

What is the floor space required for a loan?

Mr. Smith

The by-laws provide something in the neighbourhood of 850 square feet for the maximum loan.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section put and agreed to.

Schedule and Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Mr. Smith

Next Thursday?

Mr. Sweetman

I suggest that the Minister should leave it until Tuesday week next.

Mr. Smith

It is not that I want to rush it, but the fact is that when this Bill becomes an Act it will have to go down to local bodies and they will have to adopt the scheme in substitution for Section 7. I suppose a week does not make a great difference, but I have been held up for a long time, not by the House but by other forces and factors over which I have no control. There has been so much delay already that I am anxious to get the Bill as soon as possible. That is why I ask for it next week.

Mr. Sweetman

I am anxious to read carefully some of the remarks made by the Minister on some amendments in the course of the debate on the Committee Stage, before I frame any amendment. I am afraid that the Official Report will not be available. If we take the Report Stage on Tuesday week next, we will undertake to give the Minister the Final Stage the same day.

Mr. Smith

That might do.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 1st July, 1952.