We had a fairly long discussion on Sections 9 and 10 on the Committee Stage. The first two amendments on the Order Paper, though they are amendments to different sections, are co-related because in both of them it is proposed that the ceiling be raised and I am prepared to discuss them together if the Chair will permit.
Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1952—Report and Fifth Stages.
We can discuss them together if they deal with the same principle.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 5, Section 9, to delete "£12 10s., £20, £27 10s. and £35" wherever these figures appear and substitute, respectively, "£25, £40, £55 and £65".
We made it clear on the Committee Stage that we thought it unsatisfactory to have the same ceiling limit for the Leinster areas as for the West and the same figure for Kildare as for Kerry, for example. The Minister made it quite clear that, so far as he was concerned, he would insist on having a level figure all over the country. Bearing that in mind, the only way in which we could possibly find a solution to our problem is by extending the ceiling limit in Sections 9 and 10 in such a way as to bring them within the ambit of what might be considered reasonable in the Leinster counties. I have no experience of the other counties as to what would be a suitable valuation limit and, therefore, I do not propose to suggest a figure for them.
The Minister has suggested certain figures in his Bill. To limit the grant the county council may make to the full 100 per cent. figure of the departmental grant in the case of a farmer whose valuation does not exceed £12 10s. and in the case of a person who is being assessed on his income to a figure of £4 per week is altogether too low. Every house that is built by a private individual eases the burden placed on local authorities who are building houses for people who cannot build for themselves. For that reason, if for no other reason, everything that can be done to induce people who, while not at the lowest income are very near to it, to build houses for themselves should be done by this Bill.
I find it difficult to understand how farmers with a valuation of £12 10s. can face the problem of building a house and I feel that the effect of the section, limiting it as it does to the grant, is tantamount to saying that we do not want this scheme available at all in the Leinster area. The limits I have suggested are approximately double in the case of the valuation and increased by approximately 50 per cent. in the case of income. The reason why I did not double the income as compared with the valuation is because I feel there is a case such as the case made here by Deputy Allen on the Committee Stage, and that the income rates, as against the valuation rates, are unbalanced in the Bill as it stands. The proposal that is put to the Minister in these amendments is a very modest one. It is a proposal, in the case of farmers, to say that the local authority may, if it so wishes, pay a 100 per cent. housing grant if the valuation does not exceed £25, that the local authority can introduce a scheme which will provide that every farmer who is up to £25 valuation can get the same grant as the Government grant.
The section is permissive; it is not mandatory. Both sections say that the housing authority "may make." The sections do not make it mandatory on the housing authorities. In the circumstances, therefore, it is a matter for the housing authority to decide what it wants to do.
From the letter that I have received since the Committee Stage, it is clear that there are some housing authorities who are anxious to make more generous provision than is provided by these two sections. I have had letters, not merely from small farmers in Kildare who are over the minimum limit of £12 10s. provided in the Bill, but from people who had banded themselves together in the Newbridge Public Utility Society for the purpose of building houses outside Newbridge on the assumption that the scheme which the Kildare County Council had in operation under the 1950 Act could be permitted. These people tell me in these letters that they will not go ahead with the building of their houses because they feel that unless they would be able to get the facilities that would have been available to them up to the 31st March last, having regard to present costs and the prospect of mounting costs, the task and the burden of building houses for themselves would be entirely beyond their capacity.
The Minister and the House will agree that anything that tends to impede or even to discourage the building of a single house at the present time should be avoided. The limits provided in the sections as introduced by the Minister are altogether too low in many parts of the country. We have suggested, therefore, that in regard to valuation, the limit of £12 10s. for the payment of an equivalent 100 per cent. grant should be raised to £25; that the limit of £20 valuation for the payment of two-thirds of the appropriate departmental grant should be raised to £40; that the limit of £27 10s. for a 50 per cent. housing grant should be raised to £55; and that the top limit should be raised from £35 to £65, that is to say, that between £55 and £65, a person would get only one-third of the grant; that between £40 and £55 he would get half the grant; between £25 and £40, two-thirds of the grant; and below £25, the full grant.
The figures can be compared when one remembers that under the Minister's proposal, over £35, a person gets no grant at all from the local authority.
So far as income is concerned, the Minister's limit is £8 a week. It is not actually £8 a week because the Minister forgot that a year consists of 52 weeks and three days and that the three days cut out the man who is getting the even weekly wage. The Minister's figures provide that a county council cannot pay any grant at all to a man who is earning £8 a week. That is much too low. He provides that it is only in the case of a man who is earning £4 a week or less that the full 100 per cent. grant will be paid. I find it difficult to understand how a person earning only £4 a week could set out to build a house for himself.
We propose to raise the Minister's figure of £4 a week, by 50 per cent. to £6 and to put the range between £6 and £10. Even that is not a very high ceiling. When we were putting this amendment down we did not think that there was the slightest use in flying at any higher ceiling; we thought we would have to use all our powers of persuasion and all the powers of persuasion of the Deputies opposite, including Deputy Burke, to get the Minister to come even as far as we are asking him to come in this amendment.
On the Committee Stage there was a fairly long discussion of the principles involved here, and I do not propose to weary the House any further with them. I commend these extensions to the Minister and to the House as extensions in the ceilings in a permissive section which would in some way enable the various housing authorities to meet the needs of their own areas instead of having the position that might affect western seaboard areas imposed on, say, a Leinster county.
I appeal to the former Minister, and I appeal now to the present Minister, to reconsider the ceilings prescribed in the Bill. For once in my life I am in agreement with Deputy Sweetman. In County Dublin the ceilings prescribed will definitely cut out a number of applicants. The valuations in County Dublin are high. I know it is difficult from an administrative point of view to differentiate between one county and another and one province and another. I have had appeals similar to those that Deputy Sweetman has had, from people in my constituency who are taking a keen interest in this Bill. I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that the valuations in certain areas are higher than in others. I did speak on the Committee Stage with regard to the ceiling of £8 per week. In the suburbs of Dublin a salary of £8 a week possibly does not go as far as £5 in other areas down the country. For that reason I can definitely make a case for County Dublin, because conditions are completely different there from those in other areas in the country. The salary scales there cannot be compared with salary scales in rural Ireland, where it is much cheaper to live. Therefore, a flat rate for the whole country would not work out equitably. I can appreciate the Minister's difficulties in regard to that, but, in fairness to my constituents, I must voice my opinion as to what I believe to be the position.
I am at a loss to understand why the Minister introduced these restrictions in Sections 9 and 10 of the Bill because my experience, and I am sure it is the experience of most members of local authorities, is that the natural anxiety of local authorities to see that grants will not be made available to applicants whose means would not merit their being helped in that way is sufficient safeguard. The Minister has gone too far in these sections so far as restriction is concerned.
The Dublin County Council has not yet adopted that section of the recent Act which enables local authorities to provide grants as well as the grants given by the State. But, so far as the valuations set out in Section 9, and the ceilings indicated are concerned, if the Bill is to be put into operation in that form it will mean that 99 per cent. of the farmers in County Dublin will be completely excluded from any possible benefit which might accrue to them should the Dublin County Council at any future date decide to adopt that section and put it into operation. A 25-acre farm in County Dublin would exceed in valuation the ceiling of £35 indicated in Section 9. Therefore, it will be seen that the great majority of these farmers would gain no benefit from the Bill. I do not think that legislation in this House should be so designed as to exclude so important a section of the community as the farmers of County Dublin, and indeed, as Deputy Sweetman pointed out, most of the farmers on the better land in the counties of Leinster.
In regard to Section 10, of course it is completely unreal and has no application whatever so far as my constituency is concerned. In order to avail of the maximum grant under that section the total family income would have to be as low as £4 per week. In fact, if what Deputy Sweetman says is correct in regard to the number of weeks plus days in the year, it would be a fraction less than £4 per week. The minimum wage of an agricultural worker in County Dublin at present is £4 5s. per week. It is inconceivable, of course, that he would want to build a house, as £4 5s. a week is not sufficient to enable him to put a suit on his back let alone a roof on a house. He must, however, have less than £4 a week under the Bill in order to avail of the grant. If, through some such eventuality as a relative dying and leaving him money, he wanted to build a house, he must have less than £4 a week. The maximum income per week is indicated at £8. The question of the family income, however, is the important thing. It is not just the income of the head of the household that is considered, but the family income. That means that if a father is a tradesman earning £7 a week and a son is working at some occupation and earning more than £1 per week, that particular family will be excluded from receiving the grant. That is most undesirable.
Whatever may be said for these sections in regard to the Midlands or the West of Ireland, where they may have occasional application, I doubt if they will have universal application. Where there are poverty-stricken areas these sections may have very occasional application, but the majority of the people of the country, by reason of these ceilings which are imposed in respect of valuation and family income, will gain no benefit whatever from this Bill. I therefore join with Deputy Sweetman in asking the Minister to reconsider these sections because they are unreal and will have a disastrous effect as far as the spirit of the Act of 1950 is concerned.
I am sorry that Deputy Dunne, in his contribution to this debate, widened the scope of the discussion by referring to the general principle of a statutory restriction on valuations and income. So far as the county councils are concerned, I am in favour of statutory restriction. I think it is desirable that the restriction should be imposed by statute so that county councils would not be put in the difficult position of having all kinds of pressure brought to bear upon them to change their ceilings from month to month or year to year. It is better that the matter should be dealt with in this Bill as it is proposed to do. On the Committee Stage, however, I did express the view that I was not quite satisfied with the limits fixed and I suggested that the Minister should reconsider this question. A reasonable case has been made for some increase in the limits both in regard to valuation and income. Our main desire should be to ensure that these grants which are being provided by the ratepaying community should be confined to those who are in need of them. There would not be any sense in imposing an increased rate on the ratepayers of a county in order to give the 100 per cent. grant of £275 to the wealthiest person in that county. There is a case for restriction. There is a case for a means test so far as the subsidising of houses is concerned.
If the Minister considers this question, however, I think he will see that a reasonable case can be made for increasing the limits both in regard to valuation and income. One of the ends sought to be achieved by the giving of this grant by local authorities is to ensure that private people will build houses and thereby save the local authorities from a certain amount of the expenditure in which they would be involved. It has happened that county councils have had to build houses over £20 valuation and it must happen that they will have to build houses for people with over £4 and £8 per week income. If we are to achieve what is set out to be achieved by these local authority grants, it is desirable that the Minister should raise the limit to a certain extent.
The limits provided in the Bill may be satisfactory enough in the West and in some other counties, but it will be generally accepted that they are scarcely sufficiently high to be of any use in the Leinster counties. I am in wholehearted agreement with the principle of having a limitation, a restriction, but it should be on a basis which would enable a certain number of people to benefit by it, and the number who will benefit by it in my constituency will be very small and the effect of the provision will be very small. On the other hand, I agree that there should be a limit, and I think that the limits set out in the amendment are not excessive.
When the Minister was speaking on an earlier stage, he indicated that he thought a conservative approach to this problem was the more prudent approach in present circumstances, but I am sure the Minister must by now be astonished by the standard of conservatism which is set in this Section 10, and, indeed, in Section 9 as well. So far as some counties are concerned, some of these provisions might as well be in the wastepaper basket as in this amending Bill. Look at what we propose to do in Section 10. We propose to give a 100 per cent. grant to a person whose family income does not exceed £4 per week. That means that we are saying to an agricultural worker, to a road worker and perhaps to a casually employed turf worker: "If you build a house for yourself, you can get from the local authority a 100 per cent. grant."
Read Section 11 then.
Section 11 provides for a 50 per cent. grant for people not covered by the previous section. What we are really doing is saying to a person who has not enough wages to buy clothes to cover himself and his family, and who is compelled to endure an appallingly low standard of living, that if he builds a house, he will get a 100 per cent. grant. The truth is that that man cannot buy clothes for himself and his children much less contemplate the gigantic task of building a house with materials and labour costing what they are costing to-day. Kildare County Council is paying £1,200 and £1,300 for building labourers' cottages. Let us assume a person has sufficient knowhow and skill to manage to build a house for himself, of the same proportions as a labourer's cottage. He might, by working hard and by working long hours, be able to build it 25 per cent. cheaper, but the net position is that he sets out to build a house which he knows will cost him, in the long run, £900.
Is he going to get £900? Do you imagine that the Kildare County Council will lend him money with an income of £4 a week to build a house costing £900 or £1,000? What resources has he to go to a builders' provider to get materials to build a house costing anything like that sum? Yet the Bill tells him that if he manages to do that, he will get the full grant from the local authority. The truth is that that poor devil is not able to provide food and clothes for his family, much less essay the task of building a house for himself to qualify for a grant under this section. If he is in that circumstance, he is the only person who will get a grant of 100 per cent. from the local authority. You might as well offer him £1,000,000 if he could manage to fly. He has as much chance of earning the £1,000,000 by being able to fly as he has of qualifying for a full grant from the local authority with a family income of £4 a week in 1952. Whoever drafted this Bill can be given a certificate immediately of not having the slightest tendency towards financial extravagance or financial indiscretion.
Let us pass on to the next person. If the family income exceeds £4 but does not exceed £6, he gets two-thirds of the relevant grant. If it exceeds £6, he does not get the 66 per cent., so that if a road worker has a family of four, five or six and happens to have one son working, perhaps helping a farmer or perhaps earning something on a bog, and the family income at the end of the week amounts to £6 or over, there is no 66 per cent. for him. These are unreasonable restrictions, and, as the local authority are being asked to pay, and in many cases where they are liberal minded local authorities, are willing to pay, because they think it is a good bargain, I utterly fail to see why the State should fix the statutory limit at such a low level as this. If there be a case for the fixation of a statutory limit, that could be examined, but it ought not to be fixed at so low a level that a local authority is denied the opportunity of giving grants to ratepayers in its area who desire to build houses for themselves and whose financial position is such that it is necessary that they should have financial aid from the local authority.
This section seems to me to kill almost stone dead any notion of craftsmen of unskilled workers ever attempting to build houses for themselves, because the amount of the grant they will get from the local authority will be scaled down so much, under the rigid conditions imposed by Section 10, that they will not be able to raise the wherewithal between grants and loans from local authorities to enable them to undertake a task of the magnitude of building a house to-day. When we look at these figures and construe them against the background of a reply given by the Taoiseach recently that the £ in July, 1952, now buys only what 9/- bought in 1939, their absurdity becomes obvious. We are now told by no less an authority than the Taoiseach fortified by information from the Central Statistics Office that a £ to-day will buy only 9/- worth of goods in terms of 1939 purchasing power. It would probably buy less as far as building materials are concerned. In view of that shrunken value of money, to fix a family income as low as £4 per week before a person can get a full grant from a local authority is not to be conservative but to go back to a period long before that phrase was coined as a description of people who were politically prudent.
I do not suppose that there is any use in appealing to the Minister to alter these figures because, during the discussion on the sections, he played the rôle of Pharaoh and every time anybody suggested moving away from these figures his heart grew harder and harder. Knowing him, I think that he probably has no disposition at this stage to change his mind.
Section 10, as far as the ordinary working people are concerned, is a waste of paper because they will not be enabled to build houses. Twelve months hence a parliamentary question will elicit the number of people who honestly complied with these conditions and availed of the full grant from the local authority. Deputy Sweetman, I think, has the same question in mind as I have—the Newbridge Public Utility Society. People were locally encouraged to become members in the belief that they would get the full grant from the local authority. I certainly encouraged them to get sites from the local authority and they got them. Everybody was encouraged to join the society with a view to building houses. They satisfied the planning requirements and now they get the smack of this Bill which tells the local authority: "Do not give them the full grant if they have more than £4 per week." I would like the Housing Section of the Department to go to Newbridge for a weekend and then come back and tell us how a man with £4 a week can build a house with this restricted aid from the local authority. No man with £8 a week could do it if he had a wife and children to maintain and yet these miserable limits are put into the Bill in such a way as if they were conferring a benefit.
The only person who can attempt to do anything under the section—and even he is in a bad position, too—is the man who has £416—£8 per week. What anyone with £8 per week with a wife and children to maintain, especially if he lives in an urban area, can do passes my comprehension. Anybody who knows a way of living tolerably decently on £8 per week, maintaining a wife and children, and who can yet build a house with only a 33 per cent. grant from the local authority should reveal to the community how it is possible. He will be publicly rewarded if he can show the community how to live on £8 per week, keep a wife and family and build a house at the same time. It just cannot be done and anybody who imagines it can is living in the clouds.
This is a vain appeal, I know, to the Minister. He will do nothing. He will preserve the prudent and conservative line of which he spoke at an earlier stage, but this section is a dead-letter, and he should know it.
Deputies who discussed Section 10 showed no inclination to have any regard at all to the provisions of Section 11. Section 10 is a very narrow section. In reply to a question by Deputy McGrath on the Committee Stage as to the classes of persons covered by Section 11, I gave information which brought the remark from Deputy McGrath reported at column 1541 of Volume 132, No. 11:—
"Then the cases we were talking about under Section 10 would be covered by this?"
The report goes on:—
"Mr. Smith: That is so, provided they were people for whom the local authority would have to provide houses in the ordinary way. That is what I meant, in fact, in my reference to the narrow class that would be covered under Section 10.
Mr. McGrath: In that case I am quite satisfied.
Mr. Sweetman: Had we understood that we might not have been so long on Section 10. Perhaps we have learned something in the process."
That was the result of our discussions on Sections 10 and 11 on the Committee Stage, but let me deal with the broader aspects of the case with regard to Sections 9, 10 and 11. These three sections contain the entire scheme presented to the House for its approval. As Deputy Sweetman stated—this is an important factor— these three sections are permissive sections. The local authority can adopt them if it so desires, but if it does not like the scheme it need not have any scheme.
Why did we in the Department, when drafting these three sections, decide upon these limits which, I admit and made clear on the Second Reading and Committee Stage, were limits? Deputy Dunne has made his contribution regarding these sections. He has castigated them because of the income limits which are specially prescribed in Section 10. Deputy Burke from the same constituency has appealed to me to raise these limits. Is it not peculiar, however, that those two Deputies representing the same county—and mind you, it is not one of our poorest counties—did not have any scheme at all under Section 7 of the Act of 1950? When we get to our feet here to attack the scheme provided in this Bill, could we not try to understand and, to some extent at least, sympathise with the idea I had in my mind in imposing these limitations? This was my idea: If Dublin County Council and other county councils all over the country would not give grants wholesale to all and sundry, farmers, labourers, artisans and professional men, as they could have done—in some cases they did—if they would not give grants widespread and accept the responsibility of imposing limits as to the valuation of the farmers and the wage of the workers, why then should not I as Minister ask this House to provide in this Bill a scheme which would relieve those local authorities of the responsibility of providing a scheme themselves?
It was our experience that local bodies, although admitting that it was desirable to have limitations, could not agree amongst themselves as to where these limits should be set. In some cases, because of their failure to agree, they refused to adopt these schemes, and where they adopted a scheme that was free for all, we knew for the last 12 months that it was not their intention to go ahead. They had met their responsibilities under the scheme adopted by them under the Act of 1950, but it was not their intention to operate another scheme. You would then have the position that a number of people in counties where you had Section 7 schemes, would have obtained grants under such schemes, and because of the onerous condition that the continuance of these grants would impose on the ratepayers, the local authority would drop the scheme entirely. You would then have the injustice of a number of people getting away with the grants from the previous scheme while no grants of any kind were being made available in future for other deserving people.
Deputy Sweetman mentioned the fact that the country should be zoned, but I shall not be responsible for another effort at zoning. The country has been zoned once, and we shall not zone it again. I do not think he has given very much thought to the effect of the valuation limits that are provided for here. I do not believe he can be so lacking in knowledge of local conditions as to believe that a very considerable number of small farmers, even in County Kildare and County Dublin, will not come within the £35 valuation limit. The £35 valuation will cover 80 per cent. of the holdings in Connacht, Munster, Leinster and Ulster.
The £35 limit I agree will rule out a number of people who might be deserving applicants. I am not contending that there are not people whose valuation would be in excess of £35 who would not be in need of these grants but we had the very same case made here in one of the Housing Acts which provided for reconstruction and in which a valuation limit was inserted. We had the same discussion then and it was pointed out that the valuation limit was not high enough. Deputy Norton tried to convey the impression that I was being generous to the applicant, but remember these sections are permissive. It is not the Minister, or it is not this House that will give the applicant anything under these three sections. It is the people who are the local representatives who will have to decide whether or not such a scheme will be operated in the respective areas, and, therefore, they will have to provide the money.
I am not accusing the Minister of generosity at all. I am accusing him of parsimony.
I am being neither generous nor niggardly.
I did not accuse you of being generous.
The only thing that it will cost the State is this, and, mind you, it is important that the Dáil and local authorities should know it. In these three sections I am endeavouring to say to them here and now that any money they provide to pay grants under these three sections will be provided for these local bodies from the Local Loans Fund.
It is the only place they can get it.
They could not get it from that source under Section 7 of the 1950 Act, and they did not know where to get it. There was no provision whatever made in that regard and the local bodies had to go around to their treasurer, to insurance companies or to other financial concerns to get these loans upon which they had to pay fairly high rates of interest. In these three sections not alone am I providing them with this scheme but I am saying to them: "If you decide to adopt the scheme outlined in the Bill, you will get the money required for the operation of that scheme through the Local Loans Fund." I know, because I have had contact with local bodies, that that is one assurance that local authorities do appreciate and that is one assurance that will encourage local authorities to adopt the scheme outlined here.
I could, as I said on the Committee Stage, with the greatest ease if I wanted to do so, allow a section slip into this measure as Section 7 was allowed to slip into the Act of 1950 on the Committee Stage, that would provide for more generous provisions in so far as valuations, wage conditions and earning capacity of the applicants are concerned. Having allowed these generous provisions to be inserted in the Bill, local bodies who would be notified of this, having regard to their experience under Section 7—those of them who adopted a scheme under Section 7 and those who were afraid to adopt it —would lie back and say: "Oh, it is all very fine for the Minister and the Dáil to give this council freedom to adopt a scheme of this nature but the Dáil is not dealing with the ratepayers."
As I said on the other stages, anything provided for in these three sections is, first of all, the result of a good deal of contact and discussion with members of county councils and others who were representatives of bodies that had adopted schemes under Section 7. These three sections are the result of a good deal of discussion with the representatives of a number of local bodies who adopted no scheme at all under Section 7 because they were afraid of it. These three sections are the result of conversations with all those people. I endeavoured on my part to provide local bodies with a scheme that will be accepted not only by one, two, three, four, five or six bodies, but a scheme that is complete in itself, a scheme that they will not be afraid of from the point of view of the financial obligations it may impose on them, and a scheme which shows them the way in which they will be able to finance it. That is why these three sections are couched in the language in which they are. I repeat that it would have been the easiest thing in the world for me, instead of arguing like people who want to pretend that they are generous with something that is not their own, to remove all limits from the section, but in doing that I am quite sure I would not be helping many of those who will build houses under the scheme outlined here. I realise quite as well as Deputy Norton the difficulties which the erection of houses will present to many married people, but there are families, families of numbers of small farmers and workers, to be found everywhere who can take advantage of a scheme of this nature. They may not be a high percentage, but there will be a considerable number.
Is it not better that, in this Bill, we should start off with a scheme that is fairly tightly drawn, and that, when a letter is drafted by my Department and this scheme is explained to local bodies, they will not be able to sit down and start fencing, one member saying, we will have a £25 valuation, another proposing a £30 valuation, another urging a £35 valuation, while some other member, who has a neighbour with a £40 valuation, will be asking to have the valuation fixed at £40 until, in the end, with all that kind of climbing up the ladder you will have what happened under Section 7 of the 1950 Act. As regards the latter, local bodies kept on amending schemes week after week and month after month until, in many cases, they reached the stage when they flung the gates open. When they did that, and then found themselves in a difficulty, they resolved that never again would they adopt such a scheme unless they did what I am doing in this Bill.
I am so confident that I am on the right road in what I am providing for in these three sections that no amount of argument is going to convince me otherwise. I want that to be understood in this way, that I am not arguing in the sense that I want to sustain my own point of view, but rather because I know that my approach to this problem is the right approach. This Act will only have a life of two years. If we could, as a result of the passage of these three sections, induce all local bodies outside of Dublin—I do not think that a scheme like this would be of very much value to Dublin City or perhaps a few other areas—if we could induce the majority of local bodies to whom this scheme would apply to adopt it, then, at the end of two years, whoever had responsibility for introducing amending legislation to extend it could do so. That has happened all down the years in connection with our housing legislation. When the first valuation limits were introduced in 1932 they were very low. The Housing Bills introduced subsequently provided for improvements where it was felt improvements were necessary so that we have kept on progressively increasing and improving the provisions in our housing legislation.
This is a new departure. This scheme that we are providing is not for operation by ourselves or by any State Department. We are providing a permissive scheme for local bodies, and, therefore, we must have regard to what they are likely to approve of and adopt. I am approaching it in that frame of mind, and so I am perfectly confident that the local bodies will approve of what I am providing for in this Bill.
May I ask the Minister a question? The Minister admits that this is a permissive scheme. He admits that he is putting no money in the kitty for the administration of the scheme. The most that he is doing is to allow the local bodies to borrow money—at a rate of interest which they will pay and not the Minister— from the Local Loans Fund for the purpose of making grants under Section 10. Will the Minister tell me why any efficiently and prudently administered local authority such as the Kildare County Council is cannot give a full grant from its funds to a carpenter with a wife and four or five children who wants to build a house, when the Kildare County Council knows well that, by giving him a full grant under Section 10, they will be encouraging him to provide a house for himself and his family at a rate substantially cheaper than it would cost the Kildare County Council to build a house for him if they had to house him?
I have already explained that, under these permissive sections, I have no power to oblige a local body to adopt them at all. I do know that local bodies which have had a type of free-for-all scheme over the last two years have clearly intimated to me that they would not adopt any such scheme in the future. I have also been told by these people that they would not be able to impose limitations which would be acceptable to all of them. Therefore, in this measure, I am imposing these limitations for them. I am doing that in the hope that they will be able to have a scheme that will apply to a considerable number of people, and I think it is better to have a scheme that will apply to a considerable number of people than to have no scheme at all.
Is not such a case as Deputy Norton has mentioned covered by paragraph (b) of Section 11?
What grant will they get?
Fifty per cent.
Why can they not get the 100 per cent.?
They get 50 per cent. and there is no ceiling at all.
The Kildare County Council has been giving the carpenter the full grant and wants to continue doing so. Now it is to be prevented from doing so by the Minister under this Bill.
The Minister made a case against this amendment——
A good one.
——in a way that was quite illogical. He put up an argument that was not made and then demolished it. He put up an argument against the amendment to that part of Section 10 by bringing in Section 11, completely ignoring the fact that any argument based on bringing in Section 11 can only operate at all as an argument once you come up, under the Minister's scheme, to the 50 per cent. level that he has suggested.
If the Minister had made the case that, so far as my amendment is concerned, it was unreasonable in the second half of it to raise the limit in regard to those people who are unable to get the one-third grants because they had the provisions in Section 11 to fall back on, then the Minister might have had some validity in his argument. What the Minister said is quite simple. He has taken the line that a man with the income that is provided in this section who wants to get married, to start out on a new life of his own would not be eligible under paragraph (b) of Section 11, and is preventing him, unless he has less than £4 a week, of getting the equivalent council grant. I cannot see the sense of it.
The Minister, in the first part of his reply, ignored the case of the farmer altogether. The farmer does not come in under Section 11 at all. The Minister's case is that the £35 limit of valuation will cover a large proportion of farmers. Of course it will, but the Minister was talking as if the farmer under £35 valuation were going to get the full grant. He is not. The Minister's proposal is that if the farmer's valuation is up to £35 and over £27 10s., he will only get the one-third grant. With that provision before him, how can the Minister get up and say that the limit of the £35 valuation covers practically all farmers in the country, knowing full well, as he must know, that if their valuations are over £27 10s. and up to £35, they are going to get only the one-third grant and that if their valuations are over £20 and up to £27 10s. they will only get the 50 per cent. grant, while if their valuations are over £12 10s. and up to £20 they will get the two-thirds grant, and that in order to get the full grant the farmer's valuation has to be under £12 10s.? I cannot see any farmer under £12 10s. being able to take advantage of this section. In the county I have the honour to represent, this section—unless the limits are amended, at least as I suggest—might be written off as a complete dead letter and it would be much better to wipe out this power altogether instead of deluding the people. In County Kildare one could count on one's two hands the number of people whom it would benefit.
As far as I could understand the Minister's case about the provision of the money, it was that but for Section 12 there was no statutory power to grant a loan from the Local Loans Fund for a grant such as this. I do not know whether I am unfairly interpreting the Minister.
The Deputy is.
They will not need money under it now.
No. The Minister tried to make the House think that it was only the provisions of Section 12 that gave the Minister power to give local authorities money under the Local Loans Fund. I do not think that is true. Certainly the Minister did not make that case to the Kildare County Council when it asked for money from the Local Loans Fund. The person who refused the money was not, as the Minister would like us to believe, his predecessor: it was the Minister himself. We asked him for the moneys from the Local Loans Fund and he refused.
No scheme should be approved until it is made clear to a local body where they would get the money. That was my complaint. That was not done, but it is being done now.
It was perfectly clear before the Minister went into the Custom House where the money was coming from.
It was not.
Then when the Minister turned us down flat we wrote and asked him to see us to explain and he would not even see us and said it was no use. The Minister says that the statutory power was there before Section 12 was introduced. If it was, it must be on his own head for the refusal. I think the limits I have proposed in this amendment are reasonable limits. It is a permissive section. I think these limits are fair for that part of the country which I know, but if the Kerry County Council or the Donegal County Council consider that the figures suitable for us in Leinster are too high for them, surely they need not go as high. This is not a zoning problem, as the Minister suggests it is: this is a suggestion to raise the limit and if there is any county that does not want to go as high, it need not go as high.
If there is not in the section the permissive power to enable a county council to restrict it below those limits, when the Minister takes the Bill to another House he can make that more clear in the drafting, wherever necessary.
Amendment put and negatived.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 6, Section 10 (2), line 7, after "year" to add "and who may reasonably be expected to reside with him in the house".
I gave an undertaking on the Committee Stage that I would re-examine this section. This amendment is designed to assist in the determination of the family income and to loosen it as widely as possible.
It is an improvement. It makes it more clear.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 8, Section 21 (2), before paragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(b) where the grant is in respect of the erection of a house, a contract for the building of such house was completed before that date or.
Section 21 was inserted by the Minister on Committee in view of the representations made to him on the Second Stage against Section 5 as it appeared in the original draft. The purpose of this amendment is to provide that where a person has actually completed a contract for the building of a house and where there was a scheme under Section 7 of the 1950 Act in operation, that person would not lose—by reason of the introduction of this Bill—the grant which he thought he was going to get at the time he signed the contract.
Representations have been made to me in respect of two cases in Kildare, and I have seen representations made to Deputy Fagan in respect of cases in Westmeath. In those cases, before 29th April—the date taken by the Minister as the operative date because that was the date on which this Bill was published—these people believed that the existing scheme that was operative in their county would be continued by the Housing Act that was about to be introduced.
Technically, previous Housing Acts, as the Minister said to-day, last for two years, and technically it ended on the 31st March last. They believed, however, that the powers already in existence on the 31st March would be renewed and in that belief they set out and entered into a contract with a builder for the purpose of putting up their houses. They did that in the belief that they were going to get grants under the schemes operative in Kildare and Westmeath. Having done that, we are presented with this Bill and we find that they are not eligible for the grant. They cannot go back to where they were before, because they have entered into a contract and they have paid, probably, under that building contract a portion of the contract price. There cannot be very many of these cases and my amendment suggests that, so far as they are concerned, the obvious injustice that would be caused to them by a change, after they had irretrievably committed themselves, should be avoided by ensuring that the repeal of the earlier section does not exclude them from the benefit of their applications under the local housing authority.
This amendment contains a very different point from the following amendments. If a limitation in point of time for the completion of a house were, in the view of the Minister, desirable, I should be quite prepared to agree to it. I do not, however, think it is necessary, because where the building contract has already been entered into then the house has been started and obviously it will be completed within a very short time. The section includes a provision that where a contract for the purchase of a house was completed before the 29th April then that contract is permitted to get the benefit of the 1950 Act.
If a man, instead of buying a house sitting on a site, had his own site and entered into a contract for the building of the house, he is not covered under the section as it stands. I suggest to the Minister that when there is included in the section a very proper provision to cover the purchase of a house, as such, there should be a similar provision in respect of a contract with a builder.
I have made every effort that I believed could reasonably be expected from me to meet the many views expressed by Deputies here and in the many letters which I received from Deputies from both sides of the House as to the injustices that would result from the section in the Bill as drafted and circulated to the members of the House.
I believe that Section 21 makes provision for every type of case that is at all reasonable. It gives the local body power to pay the grant where there is evidence that the applicant had started the house before the 29th April and, on the other hand, where there is evidence that a contract of purchase was entered into before the 29th April. We must remember that Section 7 of the 1950 Act and the Act itself was intended to run to the 31st March, 1952. It was only because the Bill to replace it was circulated on the 29th April that the 29th April is now taken as the date. With regard to all the schemes that were provided under Section 7 of the 1950 Act, emphasis was laid in every one of these schemes on the fact that the work of building the house would have to be completed by the 31st March, 1952. I have personal knowledge of the fact that much publicity was given in all cases that the work would have to be in that advanced stage if the councils were to pay these grants to the applicants. Now, in order not to do an injustice, we are going further than that.
We are giving them this power of taking the 29th April in the first case and allowing them to pay if there is evidence that the applicant had started the work of construction or had completed the contract for purchase before the 29th April. Further, we are making it possible for the right of appeal to the Minister if the applicant should feel that the local authority had penalised him or her in any way. It was one of the things which I did not like to provide—I should prefer to leave it entirely to the local bodies— but I felt that no matter how wide one might try to make a section such as this, cases may arise where a certain amount of discretion might be desirable. It was because of my desire to ensure that there would be no cases of real hardship under this section that I made the addition of the right of appeal to the Minister. Having gone that far, I would not be prepared to accept the amendment moved by Deputy Sweetman. I do not think it would be just to accept some of the ideas that underlie these amendments.
We are discussing only one amendment at the moment. A very different point is contained in this amendment from the other amendments.
They all convey the same idea.
I am not going to withdraw the amendment, in view of the speech by the Minister. It is perfectly clear that the Minister either has not taken the trouble to understand it or is deliberately trying to mislead the House. The right of appeal which the Minister gives in the section is a right of appeal to the Minister to determine a dispute arising under the section. It does not give the Minister any power to go outside the section. It does not give the Minister any power to deal with border-line cases. It does not give the Minister any power to deal with cases of hardship, as he has tried to suggest to the House. The section, as it stands at present, is crystal clear. The grant can only be paid under the 1950 Act where work on the house had commenced before the 29th April, 1952, or where a contract for the purchase of the house had been completed before that date. No amount of appeal to the Minister can give the Minister any authority to extend these two provisions in the section.
The Minister does not want any power to extend them.
Why does the Minister then make the case that what the Minister will be enabled to do, under this right of appeal to him, is to exercise his discretion?
Not outside these limits.
Exactly. That is not the case which the Minister made a few minutes ago.
I am not asking that at all.
The Minister tried to put up an argument that was not relevant to the amendment. The position is perfectly clear. You have, under the section, a man who is building his house. Next door to him you have a speculative builder and next door to him you have a man who has his own site and who has entered into a contract with the builder to build a house for him. You are allowing the first two in and you are not allowing the third in. It is obviously unjust. There is no case whatever to be made for the restriction that has been suggested by the Minister. There cannot be a lot of cases in the country, but there are some. There is no reason whatever why the Minister should allow two of those sections through and not the third. The only reason why the Minister does not want to do it is because he will not reconsider anything in this Bill. He is throwing it at us and saying: "There is the Bill. Take it or leave it." We are getting a most intelligent interpretation.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 8, Section 21 (2), before paragraph (b) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
(b) where the grant is in respect of the erection of a house, the application to the appropriate housing authority was made before that date and the applicant had obtained a certificate of approval for the relevant grant and the plans had been approved under the Town Planning Acts and the house is completed before the 31st December, 1952, or.
This amendment was put down by me at the express request of the Newbridge Public Utility Society, by whom I am informed that there are cases which would require to be covered by amendments Nos. 5 or 6. Amendment No. 7 is on the same basis. I would suggest that it is unnecessary to debate amendments Nos. 5, 6 or 7 separately. I merely want to move these amendments formally.
You mean to take amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together?
The Minister, on the Committee Stage, made the case that he would not have two different schemes running contemporaneously, side by side. I have met the Minister's objection by providing that these houses must be completed by the 31st December. By the time new schemes are put into operation by the appropriate local authorities we will not have much time to spare up to the 31st December. Therefore, the limitation as to the point of time included in these amendments, that the house must be finished before the 31st December under any existing scheme, will effectively prevent any possibility of schemes running contemporaneously. If the Minister thinks the date I am suggesting is too far ahead, I am quite prepared to agree to the 31st October.
The position at the moment is that this Bill will now go to the Seanad, and it will not come out of the Seanad before the end of the month. County councils have then got to sit down and frame new schemes. Local government officials, like everybody else, will be going on their holidays during August, and you will not get much in the nature of a scheme framed during that month. If you get a scheme framed during September, you will be lucky enough. Even if you did get a scheme framed by the county council officials during August, and had it sent to the Department, the people in the Department will be very properly on their holidays too. You will not get schemes in operation in the various authorities until the end of October or the beginning of November at least. But by the time they become operative we will have reached Christmas. If the principle of a date was accepted it would inevitably mean that the case which the Minister made on Committee Stage against similar amendments, which had not got any closing date for the completion of the house, would be met by the inclusion of a date in these amendments by which the houses would be finished.
The contract to purchase a house is different from a contract to build a house. Rarely if ever is a contract to purchase completed unless and until the house is erected. I never heard of any case where a contract to purchase was completed until the house was erected. In the case of the construction of a house, the contract to erect could be entered into and for months and months no work need have been done. There is no analogy, therefore, between a contract to purchase and a contract to erect. What I think is reasonable is what has been provided in all the schemes that were approved under Section 7, including the Kildare scheme. What was provided in these schemes was that the completion of the erection of the house would have to be effected by the 31st March, 1952.
Of course, because we were not empowered to go any further.
That was what was contained in the scheme provided under Section 7 of the 1950 Act. We have extended that to the 29th April and we have still further extended it so that if a man has actually started the work the local authority can pay. Now I am being invited to say he can start any time he likes from now on if he ensures that the completion of the house will take place by the 31st December. I have repeatedly stated that I would not be prepared to accept the whole idea underlying these amendments. It would not be right if I did.
Amendment put and negatived.
I take it that that covers amendments Nos. 6 and 7.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, by leave, withdrawn.
I should like to point out that if amendment No. 8 is to be moved it will be necessary to recommit the Bill.
Recommit the section, you mean.
Are we recommitting the Bill or the section or are we dealing with the amendment on Report? I am quite agreeable to do anything as long as I know what we are doing.
In respect of the section the Bill will have to be recommitted.
Let us recommit it to see why.
You want to know the reason why?
I do. I want to know why we have to recommit it. I want to learn something.
The Dáil went into Committee.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 11, to delete Section 33, lines 44 to 47, and substitute the following:—
(1) The council of a county shall, as respects their functional area, have the like powers as are conferred on an urban authority by Section 5 of the Housing and Labourers Act, 1937 (No. 42 of 1937), as amended, and the purposes of that section shall be deemed to be purposes for which a council of a county may borrow under Section 37 of the Act of 1948, and the said Section 5 shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
(2) Where a notice has been served, whether before or after the passing of this Act, under Section 19 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931 (No. 50 of 1931), by a housing authority on a person having control of a house and the authority, in pursuance of Section 20 of the said Act, has executed the works specified in such notice, the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, to such authority a grant not exceeding whichever of the following amounts is the smaller, that is to say:—
(a) £80 for each separate dwelling forming part of such house after the execution of such works,
(b) one-third of the cost of such works.
(3) In calculating the expenses incurred by a housing authority under Section 20 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, the amount of any grant paid under sub-section (2) of this section to the authority shall be deducted by the authority.
Sub-section (1) of the amendment replaces Section 33 of the Bill. It has been suggested that the existing Section 33 is not perfectly clear as respects the area in which the county council could operate under the section and that difficulty might possibly arise in regard to borrowing powers. To put the matter beyond doubt, the section has been redrafted. The redraft, which is contained in sub-section (1), involves no new principle whatever.
Sub-section (2) of the amendment repairs what was really an omission in Section 5 of the Housing and Labourers Act, 1937.
That section enables grants to be paid to a landlord who carries out repairs on an unfit house in accordance with a notice served upon him by the local authority under Section 19 of the 1931 Act. Section 20 of the 1931 Act provides that the local authority may, themselves, carry out the repairs if the landlord fails to do so in accordance with a notice. From the point of view of the national housing pool the unfit house has been made fit for human habitation and, accordingly, it is only reasonable that the State grant should be paid to the local authority. There is, however, no power in Section 5 of the 1937 Act to pay the grant where the local authority carries out repairs, and sub-section (2) of the amendment rectifies the position.
Sub-section (3) of the amendment is consequential on sub-section (2). Under Section 20 of the 1931 Act the local authority can recover, either from the landlord or from the occupier of the house, the expenses incurred by them in putting the house into repair. The amount of any grant paid by the State to the local authority should be deducted by them in calculating the recoverable expenses. The necessary provision in this respect is made by sub-section (3) of the amendment. I think that this is a very desirable amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Are we on the Committee Stage or on the Report Stage? I cannot understand what is happening.
Amendment No. 8 has been agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 13, Section 36, paragraph (a), line 15, immediately after "Dublin" to insert "or the district electoral divisions of St. Mary's, Bishopstown, Blackrock and Douglas in the County of Cork".
This amendment will meet the requirements of the Cork people.
Yes. This amendment is designed to meet your requirements.
We are grateful to the Minister, and we are quite satisfied that the area will be adequately covered.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 13, Section 36, line 17, to delete "one thousand, eight hundred" and substitute "two thousand".
The Minister has provided under this Bill that the limits provided under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts shall be treated in a new way. Instead of having the limitation there used to be on the size of the house for which the purchaser could be assisted to build under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts the Minister has now put a limit to the amount of the loan that can be made available. According to the provision made in the Bill, a loan of £1,600 can be got in any part of the country other than Dublin, Cork or Dún Laoghaire I hesitate to say anything about Cork, but it has been suggested to me that the limit of £1,800 is somewhat on the low side as regards Dublin and Dún Laoghaire. On the Committee Stage, Deputy Belton put down an amendment to increase the amount of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts loan to £2,200, but the Minister was not prepared to accept this amendment. I have put down an amendment to increase the amount of the loan to £2,000 as a sort of a half-way house. At a later stage to-day, on the Estimate for the Minister's Department, we will be discussing housing progress and so forth. I feel there is likely to be a substantial falling off on the type of building in the City of Dublin which is assisted by the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts loans. An extension of the amount of the loan would do a good deal to offset that anticipated decrease. It would make a valuable contribution to the purchaser and would provide a source of employment. With costs as they are at present, and as they are likely to be in the immediate future, the increase to £1,800 proposed by the Minister is very small.
On Second Reading, the Minister said that the maximum value of the house that would, in fact, be assisted under his proposal would be increased from £2,000 to about £2,185, but I speak subject to correction. There is a statutory provision that the person seeking to buy a house must put down at least 5 per cent. of the cost of the house by way of deposit over and above the grant which he receives. Five per cent. of £2,000 is £100, the grant is £275 and if he gets a loan of £1,800 that would bring the total cost of the house up to about £2,185. Under the new regulations the market value of a house will be about £2,185 where formerly it was £2,000. We feel that the Minister's method of fixing a loan rather than having a market value ceiling is the better method.
It is.
I agree, because I think it does away with all the friction as to what the market value is. At least, it does away with a certain percentage of the friction. I suggest to the Minister that the amount of the loan in Dublin and Dún Laoghaire, County Dublin, and the County Borough of Cork is not sufficient and that it should be extended by a small margin.
This is a matter also which has received an amount of attention. Our view is that £1,800, plus a grant of £275, plus a deposit of 5 per cent. of the cost price of the house will meet the reasonable needs of all those for whom the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts were intended. Deputy Sweetman has indicated his agreement to the fact that the fixing of a loan rather than having a market value ceiling is the better method. In times of rising costs, pressure was being brought to bear by builders to raise the limit, and one was always uncertain as to the advantages that might be taken as a result of any substantial increase. We were anxious to keep these costs down, as every Minister and every Department must, and we were always hesitant about increasing the limit very far. Therefore, I think that this new arrangement whereby £1,800 is given to applicants by way of loan in certain areas and £1,600 in other areas, plus a grant of £275, plus a deposit of 5 per cent. should meet the types of cases for whom we in this House must be most concerned. If there are people who want more costly and more expensive houses, then we will leave it to the local authority to deal with them.
If they so decide they can advance them £1,800 and if the persons concerned want a better type of house it will be up to them to seek the ways and means of providing it. We thought that this limit was fair and for that reason I do not feel that it should be increased.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill received for final consideration.
Agreed, to take the Fifth Stage to-day.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I want to raise this one small point which I understand can be dealt with administratively rather than by means of legislation. I am not quite clear, to be quite honest, whether I should raise it on the Bill or on the Estimate, but it will only take a second. There has been some reference in certain parts of the Press to the impossibility of the tenants of the Irish Sailors' and Soldiers' Trust houses being able to find the funds to purchase their houses when the present scheme goes through the British Houses of Parliament. I understood that an administrative promise was given by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Keyes, that the appropriate steps would be taken under the Small Dwellings Acts for local authorities to advance to such tenants when they are making such a purchase the appropriate funds. I understood that the position was that that could be done without legislation, that it is purely an administrative matter and, as we are amending the Small Dwellings Act under this Bill, I thought perhaps this was the more proper time to refer to it. I think the Minister would be in entire agreement that it would be absolutely desirable and absolutely essential, and I am sure the whole House will agree that it is absolutely essential that when these existing tenants get the opportunity of buying their houses, local authorities would be enabled to assist them to complete their purchase by making available to them the appropriate necessary funds under the Small Dwellings Acts.
The matter cannot be dealt with by purchase schemes as are there for our own local authority houses and it seems to me that, as was referred to on one occasion by Deputy Keyes when he was Minister, the provisions of the Small Dwellings Acts would be the appropriate provisions. One of the reasons I raise the matter now rather than on the Estimate is to give him the breathing space, if necessary, to go into the matter, so that he would give to the local authorities the assurance that they may within the Acts make the finances available and, going further, not only give them the assurance that they may but urge them that they should.
It is rather disturbing that on the day on which the House is being asked to pass this Housing Bill for the purpose of chartering our housing course for the immediate and somewhat distant future, to see an announcement in the public Press to the effect that the largest housing authority in the country, the Dublin Corporation, which has the responsibility for building approximately 30,000 houses in the City of Dublin, has been notified by the Standing Committee of the Irish Banks that so far as that body is concerned, the Joint Stock Banks of this country, they can do nothing whatever for the Dublin Corporation in the way of providing money to enable the corporation to finance its house building activities. If the Press report is to be relied upon— and it looks to all appearances to be an inspired Press report coming from an authoritative source—then we find the banks in this position, that they have informed the Dublin Corporation that not even if they pay 5 per cent. on the loan will money be made available to that body for the purpose of building houses as part of its responsibility as the most important housing authority in this country.
I do not know where the Dublin Corporation is going to go from there. Quite obviously, it is an extremely serious matter. Everybody knows if the corporation were to go on the market to-morrow looking for money they would not get money. They would not get money because of the fact that certain people have spent the last 12 months telling the people of this country, particularly the moneyed people of this country, that we are heading for ruin and bankruptcy and that we have reached the point of desperation. In circumstances such as those, it is quite unlikely that a local authority like the Dublin Corporation could ever hope to get money on the open market to finance its house building activities. The fact that the Dublin Corporation went to the banks is an indication that they knew that resort to the public would not vield for them the moneys necessary to finance their housebuilding activities.
The Dublin Corporation has told the people it needs no less than £5,000,000 for house building—on the one hand for the building of houses directly by the corporation; on the other hand for the financing of house building by individuals through the medium of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. Yet this body, with its long record of fruitful house building, prudent administration of its housing affairs, and with the knowledge that it has not lost one penny under the administration of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, is told by the Joint Stock Banks in this country: "There is no money for you, even if you pay the ransom of 5 per cent. to the banks". It is clear the corporation cannot get that money on the open market, and the question arises, therefore: Where is the corporation going to get money to carry on its house building activities and avoid a sag in house building in Dublin which would be deplored by everybody irrespective of their political points of view?
The matter raised by the Deputy could be more relevantly raised on the Estimate for the Minister's Department.
I think it could be raised there again.
It does not arise on the Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1952.
I want to make this submission to you. This Housing Bill is for the purpose of doing a variety of things which are set out in the Long Title, including making provision for the building of houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, the Labourers Acts and the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. In so far as this Bill makes provision for the erection of houses under these Acts, which are the Acts under which the corporation are operating, and makes provision for the advancing of money under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, for which the corporation cannot now get money, I think it is relevant to this Bill. However, I do not want to delay unduly on the matter. I wanted to call the Minister's attention to the fact that a very serious situation has arisen. Whatever happens, the Dublin Corporation must get all the money it needs for the purpose of enabling it to continue its house building activities. A few years ago the banks adopted a somewhat similar attitude but, as the officials of the Department of Local Government and the officials of the Dublin Corporation know, on that occasion the Government in office at the time made sure that the Dublin Corporation got all the money they needed in order that there would be no interference with their house building activities.
A similar situation has now arisen with the exception that on this occasion the banks have been much more audacious. Money has been borrowed on the open market quite recently at 3½ per cent. and 3¾ per cent. Despite that the banks when approached by the corporation refused to lend money and said: "You will not even tempt us if you give us 5 per cent." The position has thereby been aggravated to the detriment of the corporation and to the detriment of thousands of our people who are living in filthy, ratinfested tenements. I want an assurance from the Minister now that this problem will be dealt with immediately, and that the corporation will get all the money they need to house our people properly. I want an assurance from the Minister that those who have the money will be required to play some public-spirited part in the provision of decent houses for our people. The situation would be quite intolerable were we to sit idly by pouring our investments into the British market.
The Deputy is now discussing something that is not contained in the Bill. The Deputy is aware that on the Report Stage only matters contained in the Bill may be discussed. The Deputy is raising a wider issue than anything contained in the Bill.
I am not raising issues that are not contained in the Bill. I am referring to the fact that the largest housing authority in the State with the heavy responsibility of providing 30,000 houses to satisfy the needs of our people, and which must borrow annually substantial sums, has been told by the banks that they will get no accommodation, not even if they offer to pay 5 per cent. for the use of the money.
I am now drawing the Minister's attention to that, and asking him to give the Dublin Corporation and the people living in the filthy tenements an assurance that shortage of money will not be permitted to impede the housing programme, that that money will be found for the corporation so that there will be no interruption in the excellent work of the corporation of endeavouring to house our people properly in the face of enormous difficulties, and in a city where the housing problem has been neglected for many generations, largely due to foreign misrule.
It would be a great pity if the corporation should at this stage have its housing programme seriously curtailed. I hope the Minister will be able to give the corporation and the people an assurance that the corporation will not be prevented from proceeding with its housing programme because of the reluctance of the banks to provide money. I hope the Government will indicate clearly that it intends to stand behind the corporation in getting for that body all the money it needs to continue its housing programme.
First of all, I have no record of any promise made or any undertaking given, as was mentioned by Deputy Sweetman, by my predecessor to the tenants of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Trust houses. The final clause in the agreement provides as follows:—
"A right of purchase will be offered by the Trust to any tenants who are qualified ex-servicemen of the 1914-18 war. A purchase price fixed on the basis that the purchaser is a sitting tenant will range from about £300 per house in rural areas to about £550 in urban areas. This purchase price must be paid outright. The tenants will be free to make their own arrangements for borrowing and, if necessary, the Trust will arrange to put them in contact with the building societies or other borrowing societies who provide the resources needed. The purchaser will himself be liable to the borrowing agency for the repayment of the loan."
That is the only condition I can find governing the point raised by Deputy Sweetman.
Am I correct in thinking that it is statutorily permissible for the local body to lend under the Small Dwellings Act?
It is not usually done. As a rule they do not lend for old houses, but I think it is permissible.
It is.
I think the Minister should urge them to do that.
With regard to the matter raised by Deputy Norton, the Dublin Corporation is not hindered in any way at the moment because of lack of finance. There is no question of their being in straitened circumstances. It is the business of the corporation when looking to the future to discover the places from which and the conditions under which money may be provided for the future. It is the business of those—it is certainly not my business—responsible for the running of the banks to look at things from their own point of view, having regard, of course, at the same time to other interest. All this is quite understandable.
The situation has arisen before, as Deputy Norton pointed out. As long as I can remember, since the housing problem of the Dublin Corporation has been pursued energetically, these difficulties have arisen from time to time over the last 30 years. I am quite prepared to examine the steps that should be taken by the corporation to provide themselves with the necessary finances. I am sure that all the institutions concerned are doing their business. The Government has not failed to do its part. There is no need to be alarmed. As the old saying goes, there is no need to shake hands with the devil until we meet him. The Dublin Corporation is in a position to continue for months. It will be the duty of the Government, as it has always been the duty of the Government to help local bodies in every way it possibly can to tackle these problems and to ensure that the wherewithal is provided. These problems have been met and solved in the past. I have no reason to think they will not be met and solved in the future.
Question put and agreed to.