This is the section whereby local authorities may pay supplementary housing grants where a Gaeltacht grant is paid. Could the Minister do anything to speed up the payment of the supplementary grant? As the Minister knows, the supplementary grant is not paid until the Local Government or Gaeltacht Housing grant is paid. The Minister will appreciate it is a hardship on builders and people having their houses repaired because there is a considerable lapse between the payment of the first instalment of either the Gaeltacht or Local Government grant and the payment of the balance; and nothing can be got by way of supplementary until such time as the balance of the Gaeltacht or Local Government grant is paid. If the Minister could look into it and see if something could be done to speed it up, it would be very advantageous to builders. There may be some reason why it cannot be done.
Committee on Finance. - Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1958—Committee Stage (Resumed).
If the Deputy had any specific long delays in overdue payments in mind, it might be better to tackle them in that way.
What I was really getting at is this: when the first instalment of the Gaeltacht or Local Government grant is paid, if there could be a payment then of portion of the supplementary grant, it would be a great help to the builder. There may be a reason why it cannot be done. Perhaps the Minister would look into it?
The only thing I can say to the Deputy in that regard is that such payments have not been unknown in the past. As a general practice, instalments of supplementaries are not given. But it is not unknown; it has been done. I know of cases where instalments of supplementaries have been paid.
If it could be made general, it would be a very good thing.
I should say that the whole idea underlying the payment of supplementary grants by housing authorities is, as the Deputy is well aware, that the matter is left to their discretion. I suppose we could go even further and say that the rules and regulations governing the payment of these grants must also be left to them, unless in some instances it could be shown that the whole idea behind housing grants was being negatived.
There are cases where it is over 12 months before the supplementary is paid. In the meantime, very often loans have been got from banks and interest is mounting up. Perhaps the Minister would look into it and see if anything could be done?
This is one of the most important parts of this Bill, and if the Minister can devise some way of speeding up the payment of grants, he will make this Bill a great success. My experience, and I am sure it has been the experience of other Deputies, too, is that there is often great delay with the inspector. I put it to the Minister that these delays would not be necessary at all if the Department could see their way to take a certificate from the local engineers. The local engineers are appointed by the Appointments Commission and I respectfully submit that they are as well qualified as the Department's men.
The last Housing Act expired on 31st March last?
1st April.
With regard to subsection (4) of this section, there is a hiatus. Between 1st April and 1st July, where people may have begun the installation of water and sewerage, they would be cut out from the benefits of this section. Between now and the Report Stage, would the Minister consider amending that to make it retrospective to 1st April last? If that could be done, it might be of considerable advantage to those who have done what is usually done—made preparation for the improvement of their houses during spring or early summer, particularly the laying on of water and sanitary services. That might be of considerable advantage to the prospective builder.
In substance, what the Deputy says is true; on the other hand, we are taking power under various heads to continue the grants due to terminate on 1st April. Provision has now been made to bring those benefits up to date in a retrospective manner at the old rates. The new rates will commence as on and from 30th June. The Deputy is quite well aware that there has to be some date. The date we took was the date at which it became evident that changes were envisaged of a beneficial nature to the prospective builders of houses or improvers of houses for their own use. That is as far as I can go. If you go back another bit, you might as well say: "Why not go back to last Christmas?"
The other Act was in force until 1st April.
Yes, but we are taking power here to give the benefits as they existed up to 1st April last between 1st April and 30th June.
What section is that?
Section 6.
Might I be allowed to go back again? I mentioned to the Minister the importance of speeding up the payment of these grants and speeding up the inspection of the various works done under this Bill. It is one of the most important things facing the Minister.
There is a very easy way out of the difficulty mentioned by Deputy O'Donnell which we, as members of local authorities, are aware of. It is that the Government go back to where they were a few years ago before they succeeded, by way of supplementary grants, in shoving on to the shoulders of local authorities a burden previously borne by the State. That would be to increase the Government supplementary grant and not bother the local authorities at all. The particular section of the community on whom this burden is being placed at present is the section least able to bear it, the agricultural community.
In reply to Deputy O'Donnell and later Deputy Lynch in regard to fixing the date, the procedure in the past has been that the operative date was usually the date of the passing of the particular Act. In this case we have gone back a little further in an effort to obviate any possibility of injustice. Rather than take the 14th or 15th July, or whatever might be the date of the passing of the Act, we went back to the 30th June. It is a difficulty that faces everybody in such circumstances—to decide on the proper date. I feel, had I followed the procedure in the past, this would be dated not the 30th June but some date in July. To suggest we should go back raises the question that when you have gone back there may be a better case for going further back. I appreciate the point but I cannot see my way to agree to it.
In regard to the speeding-up mentioned by Deputy Lynch I can say that some steps have been and are being taken with a view to speeding-up by streamlining, to some extent, the method of inspection and other procedures that we have had to go through in the past. We hope that, while not using the method he has suggested, we will achieve the same effect.
I agree that the Minister is following precedent in fixing the date as in or about the time the Bill becomes an Act. But we can learn from experience. Most people who proposed laying on water or sanitary services or building or reconstructing houses knew the Act expired on the 1st April and endeavoured to complete the jobs before that in order to be eligible for the supplementary grant. But there are also people in between who knew a new Bill was about to be introduced and who had taken certain preliminary steps. These people were hanging on waiting for a new Bill and if we could do something to assist them by making the Bill retrospective to the 1st April I think it would be appreciated. However, the Minister is quite right in following precedent but if he could see his way, even now, to look into the matter it would be appreciated.
Those people who rushed to get the job completed before the expiry of the previous Act commenced the work this time last year or perhaps last winter so that they would be finished by the 1st April, but they will benefit whether they were finished on the 1st April or not. If we take the other people who had not got round to making a start before the expiry date and who, as the Deputy suggests, were aware that new legislation would be forthcoming and have taken certain preliminary steps since the 1st April, no matter what preliminary steps they have taken, provided they have not commenced the actual building operations they will come within the terms of the new grants and other provisions. They will not suffer in any way. When we talk about creating a hardship or say that people suffer because of precedents as regards commencement dates, I think it wrong to regard it in that light when the benefits are being increased.
If this Bill were reducing the benefit, I could see the point being made that people would suffer some hardship as a result of the date being fixed at a certain time after which any grants paid would be of lesser amount than those paid before that date. I could understand people caught in those circumstances being described as suffering but I cannot follow the line of argument that in this case any suffering or hardship is being imposed if they have already taken steps which they felt they were in a position to take. These additional grants are designed to encourage to a greater extent those who in the past were not sufficiently encouraged or did not have sufficient financial backing in their own right to go on, even with the encouragements that were there. But if we can bring within the ambit of reconstruction or new building or any other services mentioned in the Bill, people who could not last year see their way to do a job but are sufficiently encouraged, because of the increases in the grants, to commence this year I do not think any injustice can be said to have been done to those who did a job last year, any more than we could agree that it is an injustice to those who did a job 20 years ago, when grants were either non-existent or very small.
As far as I can gather, the grants mentioned in Section 16 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, refer to owner-occupiers, that is, a grant in the case of a new house for the person who is erecting it and is going to occupy it, or for some public utility society member. The Second Schedule of the Act specifies that the grants, which are now being increased, may be paid by the Minister to an agricultural labourer "or any other person who derives his livelihood solely or mainly from the pursuit of agriculture and is in occupation of land and buildings whose rateable value or the aggregate of whose rateable value does not exceed £35, reconstructing house in own occupation". I think that was increased to £50 valuation.
The point I want to make is that it is possible, and in fact quite usual, for a farmer to have on his land a derelict or semi-derelict house which he wishes to reconstruct for one of his workmen. As far as I understand, at present he cannot qualify for a grant when he does not intend to occupy the house. It would be a very good step to enable a farmer to qualify for a grant for a house or houses on his land so that his workmen could occupy them.
The 1948 Act should be read as amended. In regard to the case the Deputy has made, the provision concerning owner-occupier, where it is a case of a farmer building a new house, is not required.
It is reconstruction grants I am inquiring about.
While Section 16 does not alter the position so far as these grants are concerned, Section 12 is now widened to the extent that a farmer who might not qualify under Section 16 for the purposes which the Deputy has mentioned may now qualify under Section 12 and may get grants under that section for repair or improvement of houses on his holding for the occupation of his workmen.
Section 12 of the 1954 Act?
A widening of Section 12 of the 1954 Act.
I move amendment No. 1:—
To delete sub-section (3).
The reason this amendment is put down was indicated by Deputy O'Donnell and myself on the Second Reading. I believe—while I am quite conscious of the fact that sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the 1954 Act refers to the grant which can be given by the local authority rather than the grant given by the Department—that the inclusion of sub-section (3) in Section 11 has the effect of negativing to a very great extent the broadening of Section 12 of the 1954 Act which the Minister has set out to achieve by this section.
As the Minister indicated in reply to Deputy O'Malley a minute ago, the position is that, under Section 12 of the 1954 Act, the grants payable by the Department, on the one hand, and the local authority, on the other, were— I am talking broadly—roughly speaking, payable provided the house being extended or repaired was suitable for occupation by members of the working classes as defined in the Acts. Under Section 11 the Minister wants to expand that definition by providing that, so far as the Department is concerned, in any event, the grant will be payable in respect of houses of the type or within the definition set out by sub-section (2) of Section 11, which reads:—
"The following paragraph is hereby substituted for paragraph (I) of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act of 1954:
(I) (a) the house to be repaired or improved is certified by the housing authority (or, in the case of an appeal, by the Minister) to be suitable for repair or improvement, and
(b) the Minister is satisfied that the proposed works are essential for the purpose of providing suitable housing accommodation, and".
If the Minister rested there, it would be an amendment simply of Section 12 of the 1954 Act. Section 12 then goes on to authorise the local authority to make similar grants. The point is that if sub-section (3) of this section is deleted entirely, it will not detract from or add one whit to the authority of the local authority under Section 12 of the 1954 Act.
If my reading is correct, sub-section (3) of the 1954 Act is already a discretionary section. The local authority may give grants of an amount not exceeding the amount granted by the Department. There is no compulsion on the local authority to make that grant. They may or may not do it. If sub-section (3) of the section never appeared at all, the position would be that the amount of the grant would be increased. The definition of the type of house to which it applies would be expanded and broadened. The local authority would then be left in exactly the same position, that they may or may not, at their own discretion, give an equivalent grant or a grant not exceeding the amount given by the Department.
Consequently, I feel that the inclusion of sub-section (3) in Section 11 is unnecessary. It is unnecessary unless it will be regarded as a directive from this House to the local authority that the local authority, so far as their grants are concerned, should have regard to the old provision which existed in Section 12 of the 1954 Act. I do not believe that the Minister or the House intend giving that directive to the local authorities. I think the spirit in which this Bill was received by the House and as elucidated in the explanatory memorandum was that the Legislature is anxious that Section 12 of the 1954 Act should be broadened out in the manner provided here and that we do not want to encourage local authorities to apply any more narrow or restrictive definition so far as the operation of their grants is concerned.
If we allow this section to stand we are inviting, if not directing, local authorities not to broaden the section, as I think this House wants it broadened. For that reason, we urge the Minister to delete sub-section (3), conscious of the fact that, in doing that, having regard to sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the 1954 Act, he is still leaving it to the discretion of the local authority and is not detracting from their authority in the matter one whit.
I rise to suggest that the Minister might retain this sub-section. I think Deputy M.J. O'Higgins overlooked one vital and important matter. If the Minister takes away some discretion in that matter from the local authority, he then leaves the local authority in the position that they may adopt the provisions in the section and then, in every case, once they have adopted them in principle, they must make the grant. My fear is that the amount of money then required to pay these grants could conceivably create a situation under which a local authority, where there is likely to be very heavy expenditure under this heading, might say: "No, because, once we accept this sub-section in principle, we must apply it generally without any discretion whatever. We have not got the money." There is a possible danger there.
I am interested in this matter because I think everybody here is most anxious to see that repair and improvement work is carried out to the greatest degree possible. I think our immediate desire is to ensure, as far as possible, that those unable to meet the expense themselves will get assistance both from public funds and from the funds of the local authority.
I feel there would be this danger. I feel that local authority representatives might be placed in the position in which, because of the inability to get, through their local council, a decision to meet the whole problem, we might find that, say, we cannot restrict——
They can.
Possibly we shall be advised on that by the Minister.
In view of the fact that under sub-section (2) of Section 11 the scope of grants is being widened so much this sub-section (3) is put in in order to put beyond all doubt the discretion of the local authorities to limit the grants to persons or classes. Mind you, there has been a doubt in the past as to their discretionary power in regard to the making of these grants. That doubt has arisen in some cases and, as Deputy Larkin has very wisely said, take away this discretion and you may then discourage the local authority from operating this section altogether. That would be even much more of a disadvantage than the possible disadvantage that Deputy O'Higgins has mentioned, of not going the whole hog.
There is the overriding factor that the local authorities can be discouraged by leaving is so wide. In addition to that I think it would be wrong to take from the local authority until they prove that it should be taken from them—and I do not know that they have so proved that, by their operation, in all cases, of the various Acts put at their disposal—the discretion and vest it in the Minister for Local Government. So far as this section is concerned the amendment proposed to it would I think have the effect of bringing to the door of the Minister for Local Government every questionable case as to whether or not any person or class of persons would or would not be entitled to a grant. There could be a separate argument on each of these appeals, and I do not think that would be a good thing to start with.
Secondly, I should like to point out that the elected members of the local authorities, for whom I have the greatest respect, can operate by way of Section 4 of the Act; they can requisition their manager whose function this would be, to bring in or exclude some or other of these classes of people. That, I think, is as it should be, rather than that the Minister should be the deciding authority with regard to each case. Naturally he would be responsible by and large, for the admission or exclusion of the particular classes in each of the local authorities proposing to operate the terms of this Bill. The scope, as I said, has been widened considerably by sub-section (2) of Section 11 and it is, in fact, to make absolutely clear the discretion of the housing authority to limit the grants to persons or classes of a particular category that sub-section (3) is now before the House. I am commending it to the House in order that that discretion may be left with the local authority.
With regard to the point made by the Minister, surely he told us at the close of the Second Reading debate that ample money is now to be made available to all local authorities who wish to implement the supplementary grant scheme. If ample money is to be made available to them why should they hesitate to implement Section 2 of the Bill?
They will have to pay back the money.
There is the answer.
From the rates.
Yes, but the Minister, when closing the debate on the Second Stage, told us he was going to give a free gift of the money.
He did not.
All the Minister is going to do is to guarantee the banks, but the unfortunate ratepayer has to pay back the money. Is that not the position now?
It is Section 11 we are dealing with.
Sub-section (2) of Section 11. Ample money will not be provided. The ratepayer provides——
The Deputy must be harking back to his own time as Minister. The Government is to pay by way of loan.
The money was always provided by way of loan.
When it was available.
When it was available. It was never provided; it was merely guaranteed, but the Minister told us he was opening the purse and dishing it out wholesale to the local authorities. All that he is doing is merely signing a bank overdraft and the ratepayers must pay it back.
The Deputy must admit that the local authorities have been informed that the Local Loans Fund would be at their disposal for the purpose of Section 12 and that is the first time it was ever made available by any Government.
Yes, but they have to pay it back. We were led to believe by the Minister's statement that the purse was to be thrown open. We are throwing open the thing so wide that we shall frighten all local authorities from supplementary housing grants.
I should like to say that from experience I welcome this section and if Deputy O'Higgins were listening to Deputy Corry he would see the reason. Deputy Corry pointed out that certain local authorities, particularly the county councils, are of the opinion that they are overburdened with rates at the present time.
They have the remedy.
As far as I know, and I am speaking for the Limerick County Council, the position is that that county council has not adopted any scheme to pay supplementary grants, good, bad or indifferent. As the Minister has made provision here, half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. The local authority can say: "We shall give the supplementary grants in certain instances to certain specific classes", and I think that is reasonable. After all, the Minister said at the close of his speech on the Second Reading at column 466, Volume 170, for Thursday, July 10th last:—
"I wish to reiterate that we are not holding up unnecessarily or unduly for the want of money any worth-while scheme."
Certainly it ill becomes Deputy O'Donnell to make any criticism of the Minister or of the Government, in view of the fact that not only did Deputy O'Donnell, when Minister for Local Government, not have the money, but he misled every local authority in the State, and every builder in the State, into the belief that that money was there and would be forthcoming. The money never arrived and that was one of the main reasons why the last Coalition Government fell.
Give me the name of one local authority to whom that money was promised and who did not get it.
Dublin Corporation.
Donegal County Council.
Every local authority.
Leave out these omnibus gestures.
We were going to the Custom House every week.
None of these interruptions is directed to the amendment before the House.
Deputy Briscoe can go and start another chewing gum factory.
The Deputy never started anything.
Would Deputies allow Deputy O'Malley to discuss amendment No. 1?
Thank you, Sir. The position is as I say, but I will leave that question. Everyone in the House knows the calamitous position of housing loans, grants, supplementary grants, and everything else, during Deputy O'Donnell's term of office. Everything came to a standstill. There is one point in this section to which I would draw the Minister's attention.
It would be better to discuss amendment No. 1 and discuss the section later.
Yes, Sir, but in the amendment Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy O'Higgins want to delete sub-section (3) altogether. However, I will leave it until later.
Possibly Deputy O'Malley misunderstands the position with regard to the authority of the local authorities at the moment. He mentioned that heretofore the Limerick County Council have not provided this assistance sought by way of grant, for those desiring improvement grants from the local authority. He seemed to me, in any event, to forecast that, because the Minister is opening the door here, there would be a question of half a loaf being better than none and people seeking this grant from the housing authority in Limerick would expect it to be provided.
I wonder if Deputy O'Malley appreciates what is happening? The Minister is endeavouring under Section 11 of this Bill to extend the scope of the repair and improvement grants and he is saying so; but if local authorities wish to keep the position as it is under Section 12 of the 1954 Act, they may do so.
That is not what he says.
That is what the Bill says. I do not know what the Minister says.
The Bill does not even say that.
Has Deputy O'Malley read the Bill?
This means he is extending it.
Section 11 seeks to extend the type of houses that will be covered, as compared with those covered under Section 12 of the 1954 Act. Deputy O'Malley says that, so far as those seeking assistance from the Limerick County Council were concerned, as things stand at the moment, the council were not giving the grants. I may have misinterpreted that. I took him to mean that, because of the new Bill, the Limerick County Council would be in a position now to give these grants. In fact, what is happening in the Bill is that in so far as what I will call the "Department grants" are concerned, there is a widening out of the definition of houses that will be eligible. So far as the county council is concerned, there is a similar widening out of the definition, with this proviso, that if the county council think fit, they may go back to the existing position, the old position, so that, from the point of view of those seeking grants from the Limerick County Council, they will not be in any different position, if the council decide they will not implement this section. What the Minister is doing by sub-section (3) is telling them: "If you want to go by the old definition, which is there under Section 12 of the 1954 Act, you may." I really do not follow Deputy O'Malley's reasoning.
Or Deputy Larkin's, so.
Deputy Larkin's contribution was precisely what I feared would happen, if this direction were allowed to continue in this Bill. I believe that the section is a good section, if sub-section (3) is left out. I believe it is a worth-while effort to broaden the scope of the grants, which will be available to those repairing their houses, from the Department, on the one hand, and local authorities, on the other. The fear which I expressed on the Second Reading, and when I was arguing this amendment, was that if sub-section (3) were allowed to remain, local authorities would adopt the attitude: "Here is an opportunity for us, here is a direction to us, from the Legislature, that we may disregard the progress which it is sought to achieve by Section 11 and we may go back and rely on Section 12 of the 1954 Act."
The Minister said that there was some doubt as to whether or not the local authorities had discretion in this matter. I will accept his word that there was doubt, if he says so, but for the life of me, I cannot see how sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the 1954 Act could be regarded as anything but discretionary. It may be well to refer to the exact wording of it. It says:—
"Where a grant is made to a person under sub-section (1) of this section, the housing authority may make to that person a grant of an amount not exceeding the grant made under that sub-section."
It is clear there, to my mind that the power given to the local authority is discretionary. It does not say that the local authority "shall" make the grant: it says the local authority "may" make a grant. That is the discretionary word, as far as legislation goes.
The discretion is even greater than that, because it does not tie them to make a grant of an amount equivalent to that of the Department. What it says is that the local authority may make a grant "not exceeding" the amount given by the Department. If the Department grant was £80, the local authority could make a grant of any sum not exceeding £80. They could grant £5 or £10, or anything up to the amount given by the Department. I think that should answer the difficulty envisaged by Deputy Larkin. There is the discretion as to whether a grant will be given at all; that discretion remains whether or not sub-section (3) remains. There is also discretion as to the amount of the grant which will be given; that discretion also remains whether or not sub-section (3) remains.
It is quite clear that the discretion has been there for a long time. As an example of that discretion, County Limerick is not paying any grant but County Cork is. That is the difference. What I want to get down to here is this: where does anyone think the money is to come from? The ratepayers, as far as these grant jobs are concerned, are being cut down in their income and cut down very considerably. As chairman of one board of health, I will have to think very seriously about reconsidering our attitude as regards giving grants at all.
This game of supplementary grants originated here during the first régime of the inter-Party Government. It was originated by a team who had an extreme anxiety to be generous to someone else, generous to everyone, out of another persons's pocket.
And you are going to extend it now.
I could not find out which leg Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy O'Higgins are standing on, whether they want to be more generous or whether they do not want to give anything at all.
What does the Deputy want?
Left to the discretion of the local authority.
Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Sweetman met in the Department of Local Government, when they were Ministers, and they decided that no money was left for grants and that building in general could be held up.
It is going on well now.
The unfortunate county managers were brought up and given a lecture by the Department's officials on that matter.
That does not arise on amendment No. 1.
It certainly does, Sir. We are coming to a period when we are finding money.
Where is the building taking place?
Order!
That will come after. It would be a very easy remedy for the State to come back again. After all, it is only fair to a fellow living outside Charleville——
Rathluirc.
——just because he is beyond the County Cork border——
Charleville is in County Cork.
If that man builds a house, he will get no supplementary grant just because he happens to be across the border in Limerick. If he were in County Cork, he could get up to £275.
He has other compensations.
He has surely. He has Deputy O'Malley to look after him.
We are not talking about those grants at all in this section.
It is a fault in the Bill that just because a man happens to be living across the county border, he gets no grant. There are enough borders in this country already. If a man builds a house in a field just within the Cork boundary, he will get £275, but if he builds it in a field across the fence in Limerick, he gets nothing. That is undoubtedly a grave defect in the Bill and I think it is something that should be rectified, and rectified before this Bill is passed.
We are discussing amendment No. 1.
I am alluding to the discretionary power given in sub-section (3), whereby a local authority may or may not give a grant. I say it is time that anomalies like this were ended. It is wrong that one local authority should give a grant and another should not. I have seen the unfortunate system in regard to those supplementary grants which has crept in through the idiotic action of the Department of Local Government. Take the case of the unfortunate man wishing to construct a house in Cobh. If he looks for a grant, the grant will probably be £100 and it will be paid by the ratepayers. We should withdraw the provision whereby supplementary grants are given by local authorities and let the State shoulder its obligations as it did until this situation arose. That is what is wrong with the whole issue.
We are legislating here to rob the local authorities and this Bill is giving licence to do that. The whole system is wrong as it creates differences between one town and another, between one county and another and between one health area and another. I believe the legislation will have to be rectified by somebody. Otherwise, we will have a man in Cork saying: "I saw in the paper yesterday that the County Limerick fellows are not paying this grant at all. You are representing me as a ratepayer and paying it out of my rates." That is what the reaction will be. The difference between the words, "The Minister may" and "The Minister shall" in Acts of Parliament has caused more trouble in this country than anything else.
Before the Minister replies, I should like to point out that Deputy Corry has a golden opportunity now of backing his views by his vote, if he wants to do it. He can oppose this section. He can oppose the entire Bill, if his view is that this type of legislation is not good and that a stop should be put to it. Deputy Corry seemed to be critical of the inter-Party Government for its legislation, as far as housing grants were concerned. Does Deputy Corry realise that this section—and I support it because of what it is trying to do—is a section designed to expand the application of these repairs and improvement grants, and also to increase the amounts to be paid? I think Deputy Corry should tell the House whether he is for that or against it. If he is against it, he will have an opportunity of voting on it.
I want to say to the Minister that as far as Deputy O'Donnell and myself are concerned, we do not propose to press this amendment unduly. We would urge that the Minister should accept it, but if he feels, supported by the views expressed by Deputy Larkin, that it should not be accepted, well and good. We will accept that position, but let us be clear on what we are doing.
Now we know where the power lies.
Bringing the two together.
The explanatory memorandum states in regard to what is proposed in Section 11: "The effect of these proposals would be that eligibility for repair and improvement grants would be tested by the type of works to be carried out and not by the suitability of the house for a limited class of occupants." I cannot find in it in reference to the proposals in Section 11, any suggestion that it is intended that this House should, at the same time, give a directive to local authorities to adhere to the old definition under the 1954 Act, and the Minister himself, concluding on the Second Reading, seemed to attach particular importance to the fact that we were going to test the eligibility of houses from the point of view of the suitability of the house rather than the class of occupants. At column 456 of the Official Report of the debate on 10th July, he said:
"Another change that has taken place in regard to repair and improvement grants is that in future the suitability of the dwelling for reconstruction and repair will be the deciding factor as to whether, in a particular case, a reconstruction or repair grant will be paid. In the past these houses had to meet certain requirements as to their being suitable for a particular class of person and also that they were of a certain type. The main point is that in future if a house requires repairs to provide suitable living accommodation, then that will be the test as to whether or not a repair or improvement grant will be paid. That then may have the effect of bringing into the scope of housing grant aids persons who in the past were left out, such as farmers whose valuations exceeded £50. Such people whose houses conform to the general conditions that I have already mentioned may in future get these grants."
I have no doubt that is the Minister's intention. I want to express the hope that in relation to this section, if passed unamended, that intention, as expressed by the Minister, will also be operated by the housing authorities throughout the country.
I think that Deputy O'Higgins, in regard to something I said earlier, was taking the opposite of what I had intended.
I am sorry if I did.
Possibly it was not the Deputy's fault; it may have been mine. I was trying to remove any doubt that there is discretion available to the local authority in regard to this matter. I want to make it quite clear that the local authority has discretion. When I said doubts existed as regards legislation in the past in regard to the application of Section 12, I meant there were doubts in the mind of some local authorities which were backed up in one instance I know of by legal advice that, if they operated the section at all, they had to pay indiscriminately the full grant to everybody who had succeeded in getting a grant under that section from the Department.
It is in order to remove the doubts that existed by reason of the wording of past legislation, and the legal advice tendered on at least one occasion I know of, that sub-section (3) was inserted to make it quite clear to the local authorities that they will have the discretion in future. The reason we want to make that clear is that we feel that if there was any doubt about the issue, that if they felt that once having started to operate this provision, they would have to pay indiscriminately to all comers to qualify for a similar grant, it would frighten them off to such an extent that they might not operate any part of the section or might not operate it in any way.
There may be local circumstances which vary from county to county which may make it incumbent on the local authority from year to year to be more conservative than they might have been the year before. It is to allow for such fluctuations of fortunes, so to speak, from local authority to local authority that we want to make sure they have the discretion, so that they may not be discouraged from operating the section, in some part at any rate, from going as far as they can in their circumstances, rather than frighten them off from not operating it at all.
The point was made in regard to different local authorities having different schemes of grants—some with the entire 100 per cent. grants being paid under the various Housing Acts provisions and others having none or only part. It was pointed out that the discrepancy from county to county should be done away with. I should be very glad if it could be done without, and if any Deputy has a method whereby we can do away with it and replace it by a better system, I shall be quite happy to do so.
It is not right to say that because one county does not give the grants, other counties should be prevented from giving grants. Neither do I believe because one county gives the grants, the neighbouring county should be compelled to give them. That is one of the things we are endeavouring to safeguard—the discretion of the local authorities who represent in the main, the ratepayers of their respective areas who have returned them to do a job and watch the ratepayers' money.
We want them to co-operate with us. We are encouraging them to come along with us. We believe that the overall argument favours their participation in operating the supplementary grant schemes; that, in the long run, every house that is either reconstructed or built is an additional dwelling in the area of that local authority and thereby lessens the demand on the local authority for further housing. I think that is the economics upon which the local authorities have been approached in this matter in the past and I trust that is the economics upon which they will be approached in the future.
The reaction on the ratepayers was mentioned by Deputy Corry. The ratepayers may feel that Deputy Corry and his colleagues are imposing a burden on them in Cork as opposed to the ratepayers in Limerick. That is one side of the story but might we not look at it in another way? The people in County Limerick who could possibly do very well with the additional supplementary grants that could be made available to them by their local authority may point to Cork and say to their local representatives that Cork residents can get double grants and why should they not get them? That is just as likely to happen as the case outlined by Deputy Corry. By and large, public opinion will make itself felt through the local representatives to give to the people of a particular local authority area the conditions permitted by law which the vast majority of the public require in that local authority or county.
I think that is how democracy works. If there is sufficient demand for the grants to be continued or discontinued, that in time will find expression through the representatives on the local authorities concerned. They will either adopt the supplementary grant provisions or throw them out.
By way of intervention, Deputy O'Donnell referred to the promises made in 1956 and said all these promises were kept. I agree with Deputy O'Donnell that there was not a promise made by the Coalition Government in 1956 that was not kept, but it was kept, not by the Coalition but by Fianna Fáil when they came into office in 1957.
It was not due before that.
I am not pressing the amendment, but before asking leave to withdraw it, I want to ask the Minister if there is any way of ensuring that, whatever the local authority do, it will be uniform over a period. It seems to me that sub-section (3) would enable a local authority to decide in respect of one applicant that his house should have to conform to the old Section 12. That position might be altered in a month's time. In other words, no one would know where he stood.
I do not think that would at all be the position. The usual practice—and I do not think it will be departed from—has been the adoption of a particular scheme for a period. The least period I have known of is 12 months. Very often in the past, many local authorities adopted a scheme for the term of life of the particular Act.
That is exactly what I had in mind. Perhaps the Minister would have a look at it. Does he consider that it would be necessary to put in some provision that the scheme be adopted or rejected, say, at the beginning of the year?
You could not have that.
That is what you have.
Surely Deputy O'Higgins must know that Dublin Corporation, in exercising its authority must consider from time to time the adoption of a scheme, the amendment of a scheme, and from experience gained in carrying it out, the varying of it within the life time, if you like, of the Act. A discretion is given here which is necessary and important. I cannot understand the approach of Deputy O'Higgins, if he thinks that a local authority will deliberately decide upon a particular house and having decided——
I am simply asking a question of the Minister. I did not make a statement about it at all.
The Deputy is asking questions which are going on record here and, if they are left unanswered, somebody at some time might think the question the Deputy asked was based on some knowledge he had of such a thing taking place. The Deputy was a member for a number of years of a local authority and he knows that no local authority can act in that way.
I do not know what Deputy O'Donnell interjected when he was referring to the financial side and the financial assistance from the Government to a local authority. I want to confirm what the Minister has said— and Deputy Larkin is here, and can confirm it—that for a period under the Government of which Deputy O'Donnell was Minister for Local Government local authorities could not get moneys. They had to borrow.
That goes outside amendment No. 1, which we are discussing.
Deputy O'Donnell was allowed.
The Dublin Corporation could not get it from the public, but I gave it to them out of the Local Loans Fund.
The amendment is to delete a certain sub-section.
Deputy O'Donnell owed the Cork County Council £500,000 when he ran out of it.
They have not spent it yet.
We will have an opportunity on the Estimate of referring to it, but the fact is that we now have——
This is what you were not going to refer to, is it?
What does the Deputy mean?
I am asking you are you going to refer to what you said you were not going to refer to until the Estimate?
I am not such a juggler as the Deputy is. I have not been trained in that juggling.
The Deputy has changed.
Let us keep to amendment No. 1.
The amendment seeks to delete sub-section (3) of Section 11, to deprive the local authorities of a new benefit. Deputy O'Higgins referred to Section 12 of the previous Act in great detail and did not seem to appreciate in reading it that under that sub-section of that Act, a local authority was limited to people rather than to the house to which this Bill and this sub-section refers. We are now able to extend our activities in the reconstruction and repair of houses. We are no longer confined to the qualification of the person who is to occupy the house. We are now concerned with the house itself and its becoming suitable for human habitation. That is the difference between this section and the section of the previous Act.
We are not objecting to this sub-section in our local authority; in fact, we want it. We believe a great deal of improvements can be made in the property of the city. We believe we can bring a great deal of comfort to a great number of people for whom housing to-day is difficult and so forth. Yet, the Deputy wants something taken out because he is afraid that, in the exercise of discretionary power, the local authority will operate against the interest of the people whom they represent. Surely to goodness, that is not to be taken as a satisfactory objection to the sub-section.
I would draw the Minister's attention to the words in sub-section (3):
"Notwithstanding the amendment effected by sub-section (2) of this section, grants by a housing authority under sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act of 1954 may, if the authority think fit, be confined to——
(a) persons of such class or classes, or
(b) persons executing works on houses of such type or types, as may be determined by the authority."
I would ask the Minister if he will consider putting in "and/or" before sub-paragraph (b) because, in my opinion, it clearly means that, if the authority think fit, they confine these grants to persons of a certain class or persons executing works but, if you execute a certain type of work, you cannot possibly be a member of a certain class. It could lead to difficulty. I would suggest the substitution of the words "and/or" for the word "or".
It will not lead to any difficulty for a local authority that does not operate it.
This is a question of interpretation.
If it makes the section any more clear and the House is agreeable, I have no objection.
On Deputy O'Malley's suggestion, it will enable a local authority to bracket (a) and (b) together, to have the double-barrel restriction instead of the single restriction.
Is it not obvious under this that a local authority has a choice of (a) or (b), whereas Deputy O'Malley suggests that it shall be "and/or".
We would have no objection.
If accepted, we can amend the sub-section now by inserting the word "and" before the word "or", line 33.
I accept.
Now that we are increasing the amounts a local authority can give from £80 to £100 and from £100 to £120 and £140, would the Minister tell me how under this Bill any urban authority can manage to pay a reconstruction grant? I am taking the largest urban authority that I know in my constituency, Cobh. A penny in the £ in Cobh brings in £80. Therefore, it would have to be 1½d. if you were to give a supplementary grant for the reconstruction of a house.
The interest on the loan charge.
That is what brought this unfortunate section in at all. I will be dealing with the loan charge again. It is impossible, in my opinion, to make this Bill apply to an urban area where there is any large amount of reconstruction required, which would be the case in any old town, because if you give a reconstruction grant to one person, it represents 1½d. in the £ straightway on the ratepayers. That is one of the reasons, I take it, why this sub-section reads: "The local authority may" instead of the usual thing from the Department of Local Government: "The local authority shall". They recognise that it is impossible to work it in the ordinary urban area.
Take a dozen houses requiring reconstruction in the town of Cobh. I have seen the local authority in Cobh having to refuse a supplementary grant for reconstruction, for the sole reason that they had no way of meeting it. If you want to provide for the reconstruction of 12 houses in the town of Cobh, you have to levy 1/6 on the ratepayers of the town. As regards the loans charges of which Deputy Briscoe spoke, you can do that for one year but no longer. When the 12 houses have been completed, you have to stop. In the town of Cobh, there are at least 500 houses requiring reconstruction.
Divide it by the number of years over which you have to repay it. You do not have to pay it in the one year.
Divide that by 12 and you will get what I am coming at. I defy the Minister to produce one case of an urban area where supplementary grants have been given. It is unworkable, as far as urban areas are concerned. Therefore, this Bill discriminates against the ordinary urban dweller who cannot get what his rural comrades are able to get.
I wish to reply to the suggestion made by Deputy Corry that the Urban Council of Cobh, in particular, would be unable to operate, for financial reasons, the payment of the supplementary grants as envisaged under this section, and the suggestion that in the past they were not able to do it and, therefore, will not be able to do it in the future. In the past, the local authorities did have the power of borrowing, but they did not have recourse, nor were they permitted to have recourse, to the Local Loans Fund. It is quite possible that the urban authority of Cobh, or any other urban authority for that matter, that failed to raise loans for this purpose in the past failed because they did not have available to them the source of loans that could do the job for them. Furthermore, while I appreciate Deputy Corry's plight in Cobh—which I have been in only a very few times unfortunately—I would say that Cobh is probably in a position where if they do not avail of these repair grants in order to encourage the repair of their 500 houses about which Deputy Corry speaks, they may be placed in the position that they will need 500 new houses. That possibly may be another day's work, but it is a day's work that is coming and it will probably be a much more costly day's work for the urban authority than if they made some effort to avail of the Local Loans Fund, now that it has been made available to them for the first time in this matter, and to encourage the repair and improvement of the undoubtedly large number of houses requiring such repair in Cobh. That would apply equally to many other urban authorities throughout the country.
The general purpose of the section is to ensure that there will be a widening of the scope of these grants. The Minister indicated that he was anxious that where the grants were payable, the machinery to deal with them should be speeded up and made more efficient. I do not see in the section where exactly he can provide for that, because in sub-section (2 (I) (a) it says: "the house to be repaired or improved is certified by the housing authority...". The experience under the previous Act was that an applicant for a housing grant made his application to the local authority for the purpose of getting certification. As far as certain local authorities, principally the local authority of which I am a member, are concerned, this involves inspection by at least three and possibly four different officials. You have an official from the sanitary service to ensure that certain work complied with the sanitary bye-laws; you have an inspector from the public health section; you have an inspector from the architect's department; and possibly an inspector from the engineer's department. All these inspections are carried out to ensure that the local authority can certify that the work was done properly.
There is nothing in this section to show how that can be overcome, but I mention it so that the Minister can see whether anything can be done. We accept, on all sides of the House, that the Minister is anxious to see the provisions of the Bill implemented, that there will be no real delay and that those who are desirous of benefiting from the various provisions of the Bill will have their applications dealt with speedily. Those of us who had occasion to raise these matters on behalf of constituents came across cases where months elapsed between the completion of the actual work and the payment of the grants.
One other matter to which I should like to refer is in relation to sub-section (2) (b), which states: "the Minister is satisfied that the proposed works are essential for the purpose of providing suitable housing accommodation..." I suggest that the word "essential" is a dangerous word in that section because it can be read—I do not say the Minister will read it in this way—as meaning that work that would be of particular value, the repair of a dwelling, might nevertheless not come into the category of essential work. Consequently, even though the local authority has given a certificate that the premises are suitable for improvement, basically, the matter still comes down to whether the Minister considers the particular work essential for providing housing accommodation.
Would the Deputy ask the Minister to clarify the position? Are the repairs essential or is the housing accommodation essential?
It is not "essential": the word "suitable" is being used very particularly, instead of "essential".
Deputy Larkin is referring to "essential".
The word is "suitable".
Paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) says:—
"The Minister is satisfied that the proposed works are essential for the purpose of providing suitable housing accommodation."
The emphasis is on the "suitable housing accommodation".
That is what I thought.
"Essential" is a rather dangerous word in that context. Perhaps the Minister might drop the word "essential" altogether? It would be a great relief.
In fact, I had the same fears as expressed by the Deputy. I also had other much greater fears that, if we took out the form of words being criticised here, we might find somebody coming along—as they would be well entitled to do—with a fine house and wanting to build a ballroom, billiard room or some such addition. Without these words, I am assured we would be compelled to give a reconstruction or repair grant in order to provide a ballroom or billiard room to existing houses, and that it would not be necessary for the house to qualify as suitable housing accommodation.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1), page 9, line 25, before "in" to insert "and the commissioners of a town".
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (a), page 12, line 60, before "Schedule" to insert "Third".
I move amendment No. 6:—
Before Section 26, but in Part IV, to insert the following new section:—
(1) Where a local authority are, by a compulsory purchase order made and confirmed under either Part II of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, or Part III of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, as amended by any subsequent enactment including this Act, authorised to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of such part the local authority may at any time after such order has become operative by order (in this Act referred to as a vesting order) acquire the land or such part thereof as is specified in the vesting order.
(2) A vesting order made by a local authority shall operate to vest the land to which it relates in such authority in fee simple free from incumbrances and all estates, rights, titles and interests of whatever kind.
(3) A vesting order shall be in the form specified by regulations of the Minister for Local Government (which he is hereby authorised to make) and shall contain a map or plan of the land acquired by such order.
On Second Reading, I indicated to the Minister and the House that I had handed in an amendment for a new section. It is obvious that, when the Minister was replying on Second Reading, he did not quite grasp what I had in mind. I now formally move this amendment for the purpose of getting complete elucidation and understanding from the Minister. I notice that Deputy O'Donnell put in a few "hear, hears" to what had been said by the Minister, because he obviously did not know what I had been talking about.
He seldom does and never did at any time understand what the Deputy was talking about.
I know that the Deputy certainly did not know that night, and probably he will not know to-night, either. I was making no complaint about the legislation which deals with compulsory acquisition in the City of Dublin or elsewhere, but I was trying to bring the Minister's attention to a very serious difficulty which I thought this amendment would cure. Having succeeded in compulsory acquisition, having it confirmed by the Minister and having taken every advantage of the Act, in order to get what is called physical possession of the acquired property within a reasonable number of weeks, we find ourselves in the difficulty that we have not got what is called title. Therefore, we cannot give, or vest in the Church authorities, property which we wish them to have for the purpose of building schools. We have had long experience of long hold-ups where we had in fact completed our schemes in the City of Dublin and yet were unable to give title, fee-simple, to the Church authorities to enable them to secure the necessary financial assistance from the Department of Education to proceed.
The amendment is drafted in order to cover the difficulty of securing the conveyance to the corporation of property authorised to be compulsorily acquired. I do not know what answer the Minister has or how he will be able to suggest we get over this difficulty. It is there. It is possible that, where we do not have to vest, if you like, a piece of compulsorily acquired property in another body, we can anticipate in due course to overcome the waiting period of having the title transferred to us in the legal way. I should like the Minister to give me some explanation as to how this business is to be met, so that we can be satisfied that, even if this amendment is not pressed, at least this difficulty will be overcome.
I certainly want to take the opportunity at this stage of saying that I do not think it is fair to suggest that there is:
"...some legal gentleman or genius who has instilled into the minds of the lay members of Dublin Corporation and members of this House interested in the welfare of central Dublin the idea that no matter what law there is it is not sufficient to enable the legal department to go on."
From what is the Deputy quoting?
The Second Reading— Volume 170, No. 3, columns 467-468.
And the speaker was?
The Minister. We all know we are looking for a method of vesting property authorised to be acquired by the local authority, without the possible delay that may arise in the investigation of title. It is something of this nature we want, or some other suggestion or direction as to how we are to overcome this problem. I formally move the amendment for the purpose of hearing what way out there is.
I suppose I might start where Deputy Briscoe left off. My remarks the other afternoon had to do with what has been presented to me as a sort of helpless attitude in regard to getting title to property in the centre of not only of the City of Dublin but of the cities of Limerick, Cork and elsewhere. There has been such an attitude and such an approach. I know it is not the members of the corporations who are building up that attitude. Many laymen like myself, of necessity, must have regard to the legal advice they undoubtedly get. It was from that point of view that I think four members of this House who are also members of the corporation spoke —whether on the Second Reading of the Housing Bill or on the Estimate—in terms similar to those used to convey to me what has been conveyed to me before this debate and before the Estimates debate—that there was some immovable obstacle in the way of acquiring building sites in the centre of Dublin particularly and other cities in general.
It was on that basis that I made the remarks I did make on the Estimate to the Members of the House who were also members of the corporations. I said I was satisfied from what I could gather from the legal experts who have examined this matter in every light that there is sufficient legal power vested in the local authorities to get on with the job of acquiring central city sites for building houses. Far from there being a question of five or seven years' delay, a figure of five to seven months, I am advised, would be a far more appropriate time. I repeat that, not as a criticism but as a guidance to members of the corporation who are interested in this to the extent of speaking on these matters in the House.
I also repeat the offer I already made that if they find, and if they can show me in the immediate, or even the distant future, that the laws are not sufficient and that there are immovable obstacles in their way then I shall be willing to go all the way with them to provide new laws to remove these obstacles. But I am convinced these obstacles do not now exist. If they can prove they do exist, that is another day's work.
Regarding the amendments moved by Deputy Briscoe, he mentioned that I did not seem to grasp—indeed other Deputies did not seem to grasp, either —the intent of the terms of the amendment suggested, and that, in fact, the difficulties that the amendment was about to meet all had to do with schools or school sites and the handing-over of proper title to the various church authorities who proposed to build. I do not feel that I was shortsighted or lacked vision in any way in that I did not see or could not read from these proposed amendments exactly what it now transpires is the real purport of the amendment, that is, that the Department of Education, in view of its own rules and regulations, has not sufficient confidence in the Dublin Corporation or any other local authority and will not accept their word that they may enter on to a site and get on with the job of building schools because of the fear that in the future somebody will come along and put both the corporation and the school authority off the site.
From the point of view of housing legislation, I am advised that the amendment, as here proposed, is not relevant to this type of legislation and that, in fact, it is of much wider impact than merely dealing with housing or, indeed, local government, and that it brings in many matters other than those coming under local government and that if such an amendment were desirable it would be appropriate for inclusion in legislation, not by the Minister for Local Government, but by the Minister for Finance.
Leaving that aside, I feel, on the advice received, that there is no need for this amendment either in this housing legislation or in any other legislation in order to make straight the crooked path that now exists between acquiring the site and handing over part of it to the school authority. I think the difficulty does not require legislation. It can be dealt with administratively by the Department of Education which is responsible for framing the regulations that are creating the difficulty and preventing the Department from getting on with the job of building much-needed schools.
If it is any consolation to Deputy Briscoe and others concerned, I shall certainly take up the matter with the Minister for Education on the ground that it seems strange that the Department of Education cannot accept title, cannot accept the word of the corporation that the title is good enough for their purposes, despite the fact that the corporation itself is going to build on the remainder of the site and the Department of Local Government is going to help them to build. The law is good enough for both of us but it does not seem to be good enough for the Department of Education.
Strictly speaking it is not one of our babies—if you like—to try by legislation to overcome the difficulties created by regulations made by another Department but I do intend to bring the matter to the notice of the Minister for Education in regard to the unravelling of these regulations and getting matters streamlined by the corporation and other local authorities, the Department and the Church authorities concerned so that the right to enter on the lands in question will be recognised as absolute and there will not be this undue delay in building schools in some of the big building schemes in the City of Dublin where, as Deputy Briscoe said the building scheme is completed long before the school is started and all because, apparently, the Department of Education does not trust any of us in this matter.
The Minister has referred to the Second Reading speeches made by some Deputies in regard to the delay and the difficulty in obtaining sites. As he rightly says, the question of actually carrying out the process of acquisition is basically a problem which should be, and I hope will be, ironed out between the Custom House and the local authority.
The general question of delay in building in some city areas does not arise from acquisition difficulties connected with the site alone. Many delays have arisen from difficulties of planning and getting approval for a particular type of building. I welcome the Minister's announcement that he will do all he can to accelerate the work and assist as far as he can in acquisition proposals.
On the Second Reading I referred to a matter which the Minister has not mentioned. It is a special type of problem which has resulted from the fact that a housing project sometimes becomes involved in proposals for road widening or city improvements. I ask the Minister to look into that and to see whether there is some way—by agreement with his Department and the local authority—of securing that the development and the acquisition might not be two separate acquisition procedures but a joint acquisition procedure.
A major question for many years is that of property which is acquired by the local authority and subsequently by agreement with the Church authorities and the Minister for Education, transferred for the purpose of building schools. I am very pleased to hear the Minister for Local Government say here to-night that this problem is one that can be handled by his colleague the Minister for Education. However, it is not very much of a solution to hear a Minister make that statement here to-night after the experience in this city of the past ten, 12 or 15 years. Year after year, thousands of children had to travel morning, afternoon and evening four or five miles from the outskirts to attend their own schools, some in over-crowed conditions, by reason of the fact that the housing development had outpaced the provision of schools by one, two, three and four years. This did not occur just in a period when this present Government was in office or when the inter-Party Government was in office: it occurred all the time.
With the development of building on the perimeter of the city, as soon as or even before the ground is acquired, discussions took place as to the amount of land that might be required for school building—the local authority indicating its willingness to facilitate the development by the school authorities in every way and setting aside whatever the agreed plot was. The Minister now says that this problem of the Department taking over the land and going on with the building and provision of schools for Dublin children could very easily have been settled administratively in the Department at any time within the past ten or 12 years. Frankly, speaking on behalf of Dublin citizens, it is a disgraceful situation that here, year after year, children of parents who could ill-afford it were compelled to travel back and forward to be exposed to additional risks of getting wet, of getting their inadequate clothing soaked wet and then having to go back into school.
We were told all the time that the difficulties arose because the Department of Education would not or could not take over a site and carry on in conjunction with the school authorities the building of these schools unless clear title was established. It is disgraceful that Deputies and our citizens should now be told that this matter could have been cured by arrangement between the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Education of this or any previous Government. If that is correct, certainly none of our Minister for Education in the past ten or 15 years was fit to hold his post because of the unnecessary suffering and hardship which was caused to so many children.
At the present day, something in the neighbourhood of 1,200 children have to travel back and forward to Ballyfermot. Even to-day in Coolock where the local authority, with the assistance of successive Governments, built an estate with 850 houses, the schools are not completed. Yet we are told that, in effect—and I accept the Minister's word and that he is making the statement with full knowledge of the facts— these schools could have been planned and constructed, could have started almost parallel with the occasion when the house-building started.
Instead of that, the roads were laid in, the houses were planned and constructed and occupied and still no schools. The Minister may rest assured that Deputies—particularly those connected with a local authority—will be glad to take him at his word and to request his assistance and efforts to speed up the procedure in respect of acquisition for the construction of flats, the procedure of rental and referencing and particularly the procedure of seeing that school sites are transferred and that schools are built on those sites. We shall be more than glad to take the Minister at his word and to come to him very quickly if there is any delay in the matter.
Do I understand from the Minister that he and his legal advisers are quite satisfied that Dublin Corporation has ample law to acquire sites in the centre of this city but that the Minister for Education is not satisfied to accept the title which Dublin Corporation can and will give him as a result of the acquisition which he advises? If that is so, it is a shocking attack on the Minister for Education and his legal advisers. It is something for which the Minister should come in here and answer.
I agree with the Minister for Local Government that there is ample law for the corporation to acquire sites in the centre of this city, if they wish. If the Department of Local Government are satisfied and if the Minister and his legal advisers are satisfied, then it is a shocking state of affairs that, as a result of their sanction, houses are built but schools are not being built in the same locality because the Minister for Education is not satisfied that Dublin Corporation have proper title to acquire such property.
Is that a matter for the Minister?
The Minister for Education has a right to come in here and explain the position not only to the House but to the populace of Dublin City.
The previous Minister would have to explain, too.
He was never accused of it by his colleagues.
Order!
Deputy Briscoe made the allegation.
I am very amused at Deputy O'Donnell who is recorded as saying that it was Deputy Briscoe and his pals who held it up. Now he knows what Dublin Corporation have been suffering for 20 odds years. He now knows that he did not know why this was going on. It took my amendment to elicit——
The Minister will show the same respect for the Deputy's amendment as I did. He will not accept it. He will have the same respect for the Deputy's opinions and amendment as I have.
The Deputy need not think I am as simple as all that or that he can behave like one of the hecklers he is used to at election meetings. I am quite satisfied with the Minister's explanation. He was more than generous in his approach and in his offer to try to help us out of this difficulty. Regulations in another Department which, for the first time I have heard to-night—I am sure my colleague, Deputy Larkin, has heard it for the first time to-night too—prevented them from allowing the development of schools until legal title had been properly established by transfer, and so on. However, I shall not waste the time of the House any further. I merely express my thanks to the Minister for the attention he has given this matter and for the assurances and explanation he has given, and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
I want to find out what is the purpose of this section. Is this the section which enables the local authority to take in the legal expenses as part of their valuation?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (1), page 14, line 18, to delete "nine" and substitute "twenty".
Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 are consequential and it might be possible to discuss amendments Nos. 7 to 12 together, if the Deputy wishes.
Yes. Last week on this Bill, I mentioned that tenants of houses by a remission of rates only benefited to the extent of one-third of a year's full remission of rates. I was wrong in that statement and, as a matter of fact, the tenants of new houses now will lose one-third of the remission of rates.
One-third of one year.
Yes. I had stated they would benefit to the extent of one-third of a year's remission. It may sound a little complicated, but if you look at the table at the end of page 14, you will see that, on the first year, the tenant would benefit to the extent of nine-tenths; right down to the ninth year, he would benefit to the extent of one-tenth. That would total a sum of forty-five tenths of a year which would be four and a half full years of remission of rates. If he was getting two-thirds remission for seven years, which exists at the moment, he would get four and two-thirds remission, so by the introduction of this section, a tenant of a new house will in fact lose the benefit of one-third.
Over the whole period?
Yes.
How much will that be?
It would depend on the poor law valuation.
Take the highest poor law valuation.
On a house, say, of £30 poor law valuation, he would lose approximately £20 rates. I understood this Bill was to promote house building rather than to effect any reduction. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that instead of the ten years remission on a sliding scale, he might consider a 20 years remission of rates on a sliding scale.
I should like to support Deputy Belton on this amendment. There are rather similar amendments down in the name of Deputy O'Donnell and myself. Like Deputy Belton, I was under the wrong impression by reason of a miscalculation, when speaking on the Second Reading, that this new provision in the Table in Part VII of the Bill, would on the over-all mean an additional benefit of approximately one-third of a year's rates to ratepayers. In fact, it means no such thing.
As Deputy Belton pointed out, the position under Section 31 is that instead of the ratepayers getting a benefit, by reason of a remission, they will lose, as a result of the legislation which the Minister proposes, to the extent of one-third of a year's rates. I still think that the idea of a sliding scale, even over nine or ten years as proposed by the Minister, is a step which ratepayers in new houses will probably welcome, because it means that instead of having a sharp increase at the end of the seventh year, there will be a gradual increase over nine or ten years. Like Deputy Belton, however, I feel that when it is appreciated that what the Minister is doing will, in fact, deprive the ratepayers in new houses of one-third of a year's rates, the welcome which has been accorded to this departure will be somewhat soured.
I would urge the Minister, as Deputy Belton did, that instead of adopting the Table which is included in Section 31, he should adopt the Table proposed by Deputy Belton, which would enable this sliding scale of rates to be operated over 20 years rather than over nine years as proposed by the Minister.
I should like to support both Deputy O'Higgins and Deputy Belton. Speaking on the Second Reading, I was under the misapprehension that a ratepayer would save, or gain, to the extent of one-third year's rates. Actually, Deputy O'Malley interrupted me to say it would be one and one-third years. I asked him to check it but he did not come back to tell me if my calculation, or his, was correct. Actually, we are both incorrect. There will be a loss of one-third rates and I am sure Deputy Corry will agree with us, as we all agree with the Minister, that the aim is to promote housebuilding and house repairing, but now we are to add an additional one-third rates to the burden the ratepayer has to bear.
We do not mind which one of the amendments the Minister accepts, whether he accepts the amendment in the name of Deputy Belton, or in the name of Deputy O'Higgins, or my amendment. I understood that under one of the old Housing Acts in the time of the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, there was a sliding scale of 20 years.
I would not mention that.
There was such a scheme, but I know nothing about it, other than that I was told it was in existence in one of the early Housing Acts under the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government. Whether it was good or bad, I do not know, but the scale was there. All I would ask the Minister to do is to consider this matter and, if possible, bestow some benefit on the builder or repairer, instead of inflicting another blister on him; and Deputy Corry has pointed out what a blister the rates are. In my county, they are approximately £2 5s. in the £.
One knows that a year's rates on a valuation of £15 or £20 is a fairly heavy sum, although spread over the year; and if the Minister can see his way to accept either of these points of view, I think people would be encouraged to accept the benefits undoubtedly bestowed by the Bill.
I wonder what those people are aiming at, at all. They had great sympathy for the ratepayers a while ago. I come here as a representative of the local authority and the first argument I am told is to look at the extra rates it will bring in, when you come to argue on the supplementary grant to be given to those people. Number one, they get a grant from the State; number two, they get a supplementary grant paid for by the ratepayers, who in general will not benefit at all themselves. Then they are to get these two grants, plus, in my county, a loan of the balance of the money from the county council. They get all three.
The argument used up to the present to induce representatives of local authorities to pass this was: "Look at the extra rates which will come in under this scheme." Now, apparently, according to one angel over there, they are to get 20 years before they come up to full rates. We all know what modern houses are. Five years after the house is built, the repair bill comes in and comes in from then on. In the case of a modern house, at the end of 20 years, you can scrap it. That is my experience anyway.
Therefore, in addition to getting a grant from the State out of the taxpayers' money, a grant from the local authority from the ratepayers, and a loan guaranteed by the ratepayers, they are to get 20 years before they reach the full rateable burden. That is ridiculous on the face of it. It will remove one of the strongest arguments I know of to induce the local authorities to give supplementary grants. I could understand it, in regard to reconstruction of houses, if a step were taken by some of those Deputies to prevent the valuation officer coming on them for ten years. I cannot understand, however, a man being put in the position that he gets the full amount of his house, the full profit, two grants and a loan, and in addition is relieved of these rates. Of course, he has to repay the loan charges, but even so, he gets the two grants. Some sections of the community want all jam.
I am very interested in this amendment. The case being made for it is that, under the Minister's proposal, the householder would stand to lose over a period of seven years the equivalent of one-third of a year's rates. I agree he should not lose that, but I think it is a mistake that the Minister should bring in any burden, no matter how small, on those who have taken on themselves the burden of providing houses in the last ten or 20 years.
May I interrupt? It is one-sixth.
Whether one-third or one-sixth, I wonder whether the proposers of the amendment would indicate the estimated financial effect and what would be the gain if, instead of the ten years, the rates remission period were extended to 20 years. I made a very rough calculation on the basis of the rates in the City of Dublin at 37/5 in the £ and, taking a valuation of £20, I think the gain estimated —I may be wrong—is between £170 and £200 over that period. I would be interested to know—when there is relief from rates, somebody has to pay for it—from the proposers of the amendment, how they think the easement they suggest could operate as far as the local authority is concerned.
At the present moment, the rates in Dublin are 37/5 in the £ and the ratepayers are crying out that the burden is very heavy. If, to give the relief to a certain section, there is an additional burden thrown on the remainder of the citizens and ratepayers, I wonder what increase there will be in the rates. I wonder if the proposers have considered that angle.
Secondly, I think they have not made the case for the amendment. There is a case one can argue, aside from the financial burden that may be cast on the rate-paying community, and that case is this. To-day, as opposed to, say, the period before the emergency, the valuation of new houses, houses built with the aid of Small Dwelling Act loans and grants, has increased considerably. The 37/5 in the £ on a house built since 1948 which is coming under a valuation of perhaps £27, is a completely different thing from 37/5 in Dublin from a house built when the valuation for a larger house, possibly a better built house, with more accommodation, was £15 or £18.
I will give a simple example of that. In 1939, I think, a four-roomed dwelling constructed by a local authority had a valuation of £8. In the 1950s, the same dwelling had a valuation of over £14. Therefore, the movers can make the case that, where people have been encouraged to enter into a very substantial commitment to provide themselves with homes, the increased valuation, plus the fairly heavy rates at present, imposes a very severe burden, to such an extent that one wonders whether, in these times, the occupiers, the purchasers or would-be owners of these houses in many cases are doing any other than working for the purpose of repaying loans advanced to them under S. D. A. and by public utility societies.
Years ago, the statement used to be made, with some truth, that too many people were working for the landlord. Certainly if the situation gets any more difficult than it is in the case of people in the middle income groups, and of many in the lower income groups, who have been forced to provide themselves with decent accommodation at what, in the beginning, appears to be a reasonable cost but, over a short period of years, becomes a very serious financial burden, one wonders whether or not we are substituting the State and the local authority for the landlord. In other words these people whom the local authorities are alleged to be assisting are working for a joint landlord.
As regards the proposal itself I should like the proposer of the amendment to help us here. Regard should be had to the manner in which this additional finance might be provided without casting a heavier burden on the very people whom the amendment proposes to assist. I would suggest to the Minister that even one-sixth should not be persisted in. Perhaps he might take an off-the-cuff suggestion from me that some additional cost might be gladly borne to ease the lot of those who entered into these commitments years ago, without upsetting the scale one way or another, by writing in, in front of that, his own suggestion that the first year of occupancy should be free of rates in respect of nine-tenths of the valuation.
This section of the Bill relating to the proposed new scale shows that instead of meeting the case which was made very vigorously, A.C.R.A., the combined residents' association, for the adoption of a new scale which would make things easier for the occupants of new dwelling-houses, it has made the position worse for them. Taking a flat figure of £30 valuation and comparing it with ten years' rates paid under the existing system and ten years' rates to be paid under the new scale, we see that, in fact, under the new scale an occupant will be at a loss of £5.
At least there is one mathematician on the other side of the House.
He had not to send out for a ready reckoner as Deputy Briscoe did.
I got the corporation year book to see how many houses Cumann na nGaedheal built before 1932.
I am glad the Deputy had to get a book to tell him.
I found a blank.
We had something else to do besides building houses.
We know what they did.
They had to rebuild O'Connell Street for a start. This will be a grave cause of disappointment to thousands of persons residing in modern dwelling-houses to which comparatively high valuations apply, especially in areas in proximity to the city. It will make the position worse for people, who will build that class of house, than it already is for people now residing in that class of house who find it almost impossible to pay full rates in the eighth year. In this case full rates will be payable in the tenth year, and I feel the Minister should either withdraw this section or agree to the amendment now proposed. There are very good reasons why he should agree to the amendment whereby the scale could be extended over a period of 20 years instead of the proposed ten years.
One of the main reasons is that valuations applied these days are related to modern conditions and modern facilities, and ratepayers who might be required to make up the difference are possibly residing in better premises which were valued at a much lower figure when money values were much higher. Money values were much higher then and these people now have the advantage of paying rates on a much lower valuation level. Similarly, residents of these houses have other fixed charges applied which are related to the level of valuations. For instance, the E. S. B. charge is related to the valuation level on certain premises so that the residents of houses, which have the modern valuations applied to them, have additional burdens to meet by reason of the high level of the valuations, though the premises in which they are living are not so good comparatively as older premises built of better materials and built in a better way.
Deputy Corry, in the course of his contribution, mentioned that he thinks some of these houses will hardly stand for the 20 years in respect of which this amendment seeks a rates abatement. I do not agree with him on that. I consider that in general the houses are of good modern construction, providing modern facilities, and I feel that people who had low valuations applied to their houses, at a time when money had a high value, should not grouse at being required to contribute in a very small way to the difference that will arise on a scale covering a period of 20 years in respect of new houses. I feel it would be fair and people who examine the position would not object to this arrangement.
This amending legislation, which is an improvement on the existing housing legislation, will not be a starting signal for a vigorous house building programme. I do not believe that the post-war housing drive will be equalled for many generations to come. I do not believe that in the next ten years, or even in the next century, we shall have the vigorous housing programme which we had during the past ten years.
That is nonsense.
I shall take it up with the Deputy.
We shall compare notes within the next century.
Yes, in the next century, and I challenge any Deputy who is prepared to take me up on that point. We shall not have the vigorous housing programme that we had in the past ten years. We shall not have the same number of houses provided or the same housing development within the next century.
Century?
Within the next century.
Which of us will be here to prove that?
I said I was prepared to forecast. I challenge any Deputy to put up any practical reason why my forecast is wrong.
It does not arise on the section, which deals with the relief of rates.
We are discussing the relief of rates and the relief which would be given by the proposed amendment. Houses built since 1st July last will be the houses affected by the scale in this Bill or affected by the amendment proposed now. If we consider the impact this levy may have on the existing ratepayers, I believe it will be negligible and that we need not be afraid at this stage to bring in a scale which will cover 20 years instead of ten years which would bring a loss. It brought so much hardships and burdens that even after seven years the people wanted an extension. There is nothing in this Bill to give those people any hope.
I feel that the present arrangement is quite generous. I was hoping that some provision might be made in the case of a local authority ratepayer who has received a State grant but did not receive a grant from the local authority. Under the provisions of the Bill, it is optional for the local authority to introduce a supplementary grant. Perhaps the Minister would do something about the matter I have mentioned.
I think the amendment is far too generous in its terms. A simple calculation would show that the proposal is too sweeping altogether. As certain Deputies said, the Minister's suggestion for an abatement for nine years would make a difference of one-sixth.
One-sixth of one year's rates.
That is what I am saying, based on a £20 valuation which, I think, is more realistic than £30.
The total of the rates.
I am talking about valuations. I would agree with Deputy Larkin's suggestion for a modest amendment in the Minister's Schedule. I think it would be of considerable benefit to the tenants if the Minister would agree to amend his table so that in the first year it would be ten-tenths instead of nine-tenths. I think the difference, although it is a modest one, would be welcomed very much by the tenants. That would spread it over ten years instead of nine years. If the amendment is accepted, it will mean that the tenant will benefit, again on a £20 valuation, to the extent of £127 which, I think, is far more than he has a right to expect. This is in addition to the reasons put up by Deputy Corry. The local authority has to provide services which the owners of these houses will enjoy over the period of ten years or longer, if the amendment is accepted.
It is a mistake to make things too easy for prospective house owners to borrow money and build their own houses. As a matter of fact, in Limerick City, the city manager at times has had to save people from entering into commitments which they were obviously not in a financial position to undertake. The Minister should accept the suggestion of Deputy Larkin which I support. I would suggest that he make a small amendment in his Table. It would be of considerable benefit to the people concerned. It is a reasonable suggestion. The whole idea of spreading out the abatements over a ten years' descending scale is an excellent one. Even if there were no improvement at all in their financial position, the mere fact of spreading out the abatements would be greatly appreciated by the tenants. The idea is a good one and I would ask the Minister to accept it as a modest suggestion.
As I see it, the proposal to spread the rates relief over a 19 or 20 year period is one which certainly would be popular with those who are able to build next year after we bring in this measure, but we must realise that if we are to encourage the local authorities to adopt supplementary grant schemes, then it is necessary I think, that in the foreseeable future some hope should be held out to those local authorities who, having spent the money on supplementary grants and encouraged the building of more houses, expect to get something additional back by way of return for the moneys spent.
It is absolutely essential that the local authorities should co-operate in this matter. I feel it is necessary not to go too far with rates remission in order to keep encouraging the local authorities to carry this burden of supplementary grants to the point at which they will make it workable and give us the increased building which we so much desire and also give us the increased houses, new and old, which we still need in this country.
Furthermore, to those calculators who have been operating very assiduously here to-night, I should like to say this. In the first nine years, on a valuation of £15 and at an assumed rate in the £1 of 40/-, it is quite true that over a period of nine years under the proposal contained in the Bill, we find that the ratepayer will have paid £5 more than his counterpart would have paid under the present rates remission in the same period. He would have paid £135 in that period. He will be relieved of £135 under the proposal of the sliding scale, whereas in the present situation and on the two-thirds remission for the first seven years, this person in similar circumstances will have paid £130 and will have been relieved to the extent of £140. How many have taken the first five years under the new proposal and under the present proposal? Taking the same valuation and the same rate in the £1 as I have used for the earlier calculation, you will find that the present proposal will favour the person concerned in the new house by £5 more than will the present remission of rates of two-thirds, as we now know it.
Is that not unreal? Must you not take the whole term?
Wait a minute. You cannot possibly have it both ways. The whole argument for, and the reason for this graduated scale, even though all Deputies may not agree with the term or the length of it, or the number of years over which it is spread, is that it does relieve and will relieve those people who build houses and who, after seven years, find the total rate coming on them out of the blue. That situation is being relieved and will be relieved in future under these proposals. That is what commends itself generally to practically all members of the House. It is the details of it to which some people take exception.
On the calculation I have given here —£15 at 40/- in the £ over nine years— under the new proposals, the ratepayer concerned in that new house will have paid in those nine years only £5 more than he would have paid in the first nine years were the two-thirds remission, which is the present remission, to obtain during that period, but he would, in fact, pay in the first five years £5 less under the new proposals than he would have had to pay in the first five years under the existing operation. If you take the first year after the completion of a house which I think is a very important year, the first year after it has been revalued or valued for the first time, at £15 valuation, with rates of £30 due at a rate of 40/-, under this proposition the tenant would pay quite a bit less—£3 as against £10. In other words, the advantage in the first year of paying rates would be £7 on that basis, in the next year somewhat less than £7 but still favourable.
If the Minister wants to get the Bill through before 10.30, we are prepared to facilitate him, but I do want to ask him, before he finishes, to deal with the point made by Deputy Larkin and Deputy Russell. If he is prepared to deal with that, we are not pressing too strongly here.
Very good. I am sure that on a later reading of the various calculations which I have given, if it is not evident now, it will become evident that the one-sixth of one year's rates that the two Deputies have been advocating the person should be relieved of, is no real disadvantage and, when read against the big advantage of the big reduction in the early years after occupation of a new house bears no comparison with the arrangement suggested and, if it were a case of a choice between one or the other, there is no doubt the person would opt for the present arrangement rather than for making any change. I feel that that is so. As I said at the start, regard must be had to the local authority members who, looking at a 20-year period for a return of the money they may expend on the ratepayers' behalf, would feel, as Deputies might feel, that they might not be in the council by the end of that time.
It would mean only a couple of score of houses. That is all it would mean.
There is no point in Deputy Rooney trying to put wooden legs on hens or talking about dual purpose hens on the subject of house-building. I think it will be a lot more than a couple of score of houses. The fact remains that we must strike a balance between the ratepayer's interest and the interests of the people whom the ratepayer will help by way of supplementary grant. It is on that basis, and that basis alone, that this proposal has come before the House in the terms in which it is rather than we should have remitted rates altogether for all time. We would all like to do that, but it just is not possible, as Deputies on all sides know, and I do not feel that we are justified in making this slight change that is being requested because we are going quite a way in making rates remission much more acceptable to future builders than it was to those who have had to build in the past.