In discussing this Bill on the Second Stage many of us expressed the hope that it would be an advance on the existing legislation dealing with housing. Having raised various points and having seen that the Minister was prepared to introduce some amendments himself, we hoped that, while it could not possibly be expected that it would be an ideal Bill, it would at any rate be a progressive step in housing legislation. In view of the opinions expressed by the Minister on this particular section last night, it now strikes me that this Bill is not going to give us any of the advantages which we had hoped for.
In discussing this section, the Minister laid stress on the necessity for at least a certain amount of conservatism. I believe that as it stands this section is completely conservative and nothing more, and I further believe that it is a direction to local authorities to be conservative on the urgent problem of housing.
Doubt still exists about sub-section (2), the question of every member of a family. The Minister tried to convey that local authorities when considering the application of a single man may not consider the other members of the family with regard to wages or salary. On the other hand, when a single man applies for a vacant cottage or house, down the country at any rate, the county medical officer and housing superintendent are obliged to check on whether other members of the family are living with him. He cannot be considered suitable unless his father, mother, or other members of the family are living with him. If that is the case, surely the Minister cannot tell us that in investigating the financial position of a single man who applies for a reconstruction grant, the local authority officials must adopt a different system. If an applicant who is a single man has two or three brothers or sisters living with him, and they are earning, that fact will be considered in assessing the earnings coming to the family during the 12 months.
It is no use, perhaps, again to condemn the means test introduced in the section. Unfortunately the House has decided on it. Unfortunately the House has decided by a majority vote to take what is, in my opinion at any rate, a retrograde step. One advantage which we saw in the Bill when it was introduced was the increase in the reconstruction grant. We hoped that that would benefit rural Ireland, but what advantage will it be to an applicant for a reconstruction grant if a means test is to be adopted? What is the use of our saying that we will give more money when we are bringing into the Bill something which may prevent an applicant from getting not alone an increased grant but perhaps any grant at all?
We decided on that last night and I had thought that the Minister might have considered the views of the members of the Government Party who, from their own local knowledge, could see the difficulties but no, it is a question of take it or leave it. If that is the Minister's policy it will simply mean that people in the country will not get the advantages we had hoped for and we must face that fact. We must face the fact that the housing code is not what we should like it to be. We did not ask for any revolutionary changes in this Bill; we asked for advances which we thought would at least be helpful. When the Minister for Local Government himself tells us that local authorities should be conservative regarding housing what can we expect from them but conservatism? Surely the incentive should come from the Government and from the Minister. Surely they should encourage local authorities completely to abandon the old-fashioned idea of conservatism. Surely one of the outstanding complaints in this country was that in past years conservatism played too great a part in local affairs. The Minister's approach to this section will ultimately mean that local authorities will not advance one step regarding housing.
In his defence of that attitude he said that local authorities had not availed sufficiently of Section 7 of the 1950 Act. If that is so, should the Minister not try to encourage them and tell them that they were remiss in their duties as public representatives in not taking advantage of such an important measure? We realise the limitations of the 1950 Act but now we are faced with greater limitations and restrictions in this Bill. Surely we should advance, not go back in our housing policy. This section completely takes the good out of the Bill no matter what the Minister may say. It makes local authorities realise that they have the full support of the Minister in adopting a conservative policy on housing. I regret that we must now oppose a Bill which otherwise we would have had great pleasure in supporting, limited though it might be in its scope.
Last night, the Minister drifted into other sections and mentioned the advantages to be given to applicants for county council cottages. Of course, these grants have been given before whether the Minister wants to admit that or not. On no occasion am I prepared to drift from the matter under discussion to another matter to suit myself. We can discuss the other matter when we come to it. When, instead of encouraging local authorities to respond to the invitation offered in the 1950 Act, he has directed them to be conservative, he has come down to their level, to the level of those local authorities which refused to cooperate. It is a poor prospect for local authorities if their members do not realise that they are obliged as local representatives to advance even in a revolutionary manner with regard to housing the people.
Deputy Lehane mentioned that it would be more advantageous to have one central grant. I do not propose to go into that now, further than to say that, while we would be very much in favour of a higher State grant, we realise that there is no use in local authorities trying to throw the burden completely on to the central authority, because, if the central authority were prepared to double the present grant, it would mean that the local authority would ultimately get more in the way of rates, would have its position eased in respect of the housing of the people and, at the same time, not be facing up to local responsibilities. That is why I believe it is imperative that local authorities should prepare the way for housing and should be ready to accept their responsibilities in the matter.
There are many who can never hope to get the benefits of this section. Those of us who are members of local authorities realise that only a small proportion of the people will be able to avail of the full grant and only a small number will be able to avail of even the second or third grade grants on the basis of incomes under £312 and £365 and also incomes under £416. We know that we will still have to continue to provide houses for people who always have been anxious to build for themselves, if they can get the necessary facilities. There is no use in arguing, no matter what Government may be in power, that everything must come from the Central Fund, that the central authority must do everything for local authorities, and I believe that the attitude adopted by the Minister is one which is relieving local authorities of their responsibilities and encouraging them not to provide for people who are anxious to build their own homes instead of being tenants of local authority houses. Deputy MacCarthy, Deputy McGrath and many other Deputies know that there are many such people. What are they to do? This Bill will not give them the protection they desire.
Deputy Cowan last night mentioned the Local Loans Fund and the securing of advantages under the Small Dwellings Act, but we are faced with the position that, unless these applicants get two sureties, they will not get such a loan. What are they to do? They will have to continue to apply for local authority houses, and local authorities for years to come will be compelled to provide in their rates for such housing because these houses cannot be let at an economic rent. Members of local authorities and managers know well that most successful applicants for tenancies of these houses are not in a position to pay the economic rent by reason of low wages and the general cost of living. That being so, a continuing burden is placed on the rates to make up the deficiency between the rent paid and the economic rent. I believe it would be more advantageous and much better policy if, instead of adopting a policy of limited conservatism, the Minister spoke out more boldly and freely to local authorities which have not co-operated in the past, and put it to them that it would ultimately be to their advantage and to the advantage of the people living within their administrative area to embark on a revolutionary policy in the matter of housing.
In addition to the lower income groups, we have the problem of the middle income group, the white-collar worker. Surely we have a responsibility to these people as well. We cannot expect the ordinary white-collar worker to be able to build his own house without financial help, and if he cannot avail of the Small Dwellings Act, where does he stand? Is it going to be suggested that if such a worker, rearing a young family, gets a full grant of £275, he will be able to carry all the burdens involved in providing that house for himself? Under existing laws, these people will be entitled to apply for the tenancy of what we call down the country non-municipal houses, village or town houses, if they are living in condemned houses. But we want to give these people that truer sense of individual independence which they are entitled to, and if they are anxious to build their own homes, surely our policy should be to help them to the very utmost to do so. What will the local authority lose by it? Will they not get the rates every year from that person, and will the advantages accruing to the local authority not completely outweigh any advance the local authority may give by way of grant? Yet these people are to be denied these advantages, and a person hoping for a reconstruction grant will now have to undergo the narrow and restricted means test embodied in the Bill.
It is hard enough for us to have to listen to some members of local authorities who are ready to put before us such a policy as is here in Section 10, and hard enough for us to combat such a narrow, restricted view as may be put forward by these people, but when persons with incomes over the figures set out here, persons a little better off than those specifically provided for in the section, are to be denied these rights which we were told were being offered to them under the Bill, then I believe this section damns the Bill. It prevents people who for the past month or so had hoped for advantages from the Bill which were not available in the past from securing these advantages.
It is essential for us to be honest in our outlook with regard to such measures as this and I believe that it is important that we should be prepared to take the matter of housing completely out of the realm of Party politics. In so doing we still have an obligation to the people we represent. If we are not prepared to condemn a measure which we believe is restrictive we are failing in our duty to these people. Unfortunately at this stage I am forced to speak in such a manner against this section because I believe that people down the country who had hoped they would get advantages from this measure will be disappointed, because I do not believe what has been published in the newspapers about the advantages given under this Bill, and because a large number of would-be applicants who thought they would get benefits under this particular section will find that they were under a misapprehension.