I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
This is a simple Bill but, nevertheless, it is of vital importance to a large number of people throughout the country. We are all aware that at present and for many years past the people have had certain advantages by way of grants and loans in connection with the building of houses. Over the years these grants were increased by the various Governments. It is known to all that a person building a house can avail of a State grant and a supplementary local authority grant. Further, should he find himself financially unable to meet the balance required for the building of the house, he can avail of the Small Dwellings Acts and secure from a local authority a loan for this purpose. In recent years such facilities have been extended to include people buying houses and also people carrying out reconstruction work on houses.
The one section who are faced with the difficulty of meeting much more than they are ever likely to be able to provide by way of finances are those living in local authority cottages or houses which come under a vesting order made by the local authority in favour of the tenant. A tenant of a vested house—vested in him as tenant by the local authority—may in the case of reconstruction or addition avail of a Government grant and may be able to avail later of supplementary grants. That is undoubtedly a help to him, but the main problem in his case is meeting the balance between the grants and the total cost of reconstruction or addition. From my knowledge the tenant of a vested local authority house in a rural area is never in a position to provide from his own resources the balance between the cost of the work he carries out and the grants received from the Department and the local authority.
Taking into account the question of the cost of such reconstruction, we also know there is a big discrepancy between the cost estimated by the Department and the actual cost to be met by the tenant purchaser. That in itself extends the gap because the Government grant and the local authority grant are based on the cost as estimated by the Department. It all goes to show the awkard position the tenant is faced with in his efforts to bridge from some source the financial gap to which I have referred. Very often he finds it beyond his means.
This does not worry the man living in a house not the property of the local authority. Our concern should be, first of all, for tenants of vested cottages and houses in rural areas. We ask that the same provisions be extended to those tenants as are being given to people in other dwellings. I feel sure the Minister and the House will agree there is nothing revolutionary in asking for this. It is most difficult for a tenant to find himself faced with a bill for repairs to the cottage which should have been properly executed by the local authority at the time of vesting. In a short number of years he finds himself in the serious position of having to face further bills for necessary repair work.
It is no use for such a man to appeal to the local authority or to a bank or to a building society to help him to fill the gap between the cost of such repairs and the grants available to him because under the regulations, and under the law itself, the fact that the house is a local authority house vested in the tenant automatically carries with it a mortgage, and the local authority, even though anxious to help the tenant, finds itself stopped, prevented by law and unable to help with a loan. The bank manager and the manager of a housing society find themselves in a similar position. It is not a case of their refusing the tenant's application on its merits: it is not a question of the tenant's honesty in repaying the loan but simply because the law points out that while the cottage is in the process of being vested it carries a mortgage.
That is one point we are anxious to get over. That is why we say such a tenant should at least be given the same favourable conditions as apply to other occupiers of houses. Let us not forget that while a house may be vested in a tenant, so long as he is paying annuities and until he has paid the last penny, the local authority have a claim on that house. It would, therefore, be a sensible principle for the local authority to be allowed to help him by way of loan even though the local authority has a claim on the house.
There is another point in the matter of vested cottages which applies to rural and urban areas. A tenant of such a cottage or house may want to leave the district. There may be in the area a man with a young family living in very bad housing conditions and with very little hope of getting a new local authority house even though he qualifies for it under the Housing Acts. Naturally, such a man, seeing a cottage vacant nearby, feels he has a right to get it; but he, again, is caught. He finds, whether he approaches the county manager, the local authority, the secretary, his local Deputy, or local county councillor, that the answer is still the same. Because the House is vested he cannot get a loan for the purchase of the interest of the outgoing tenant.
It is only fair and proper to say that, if we were really interested in such a person and his housing needs, we would support this Bill. If we are interested in local authorities helping so far as possible to ensure that their property is improved by the tenant purchaser then we must appreciate that this Bill goes a long way towards helping in that direction. Perhaps the Minister, or other members of this House, may draw attention to the fact that there is provision in one section of this Bill to enable local authorities to provide these loans out of local rates. Some may hold that this would be an imposition on local rating authorities. I believe our answer should be sufficient to dispel any worry any Deputy may have on that score.
Deputies on both sides of the House who come from the same county as I do know, not just recently but for years back, that the local authority in providing assistance under the S.D.A. loans, in providing a large amount of money over the years, have never found themselves in the position of not getting back the capital plus the interest. I cannot speak for other counties but I am sure the same position obtains; we know that the Cork local authority in providing these loans have never been at a loss either in regard to capital or interest because, while the local authority must pay a certain interest rate raising the money themselves or providing it out of the rates, the experience has been—I am sure it will continue— that the local authority charges roughly ½ per cent. on the loans provided to protect the council in its administrative work and in the clerical and other work associated with the provision and collection of these loans. From every angle, therefore, this is a safe bet for the local authority and, perhaps, with the help of God, it will be a good bet for the vested tenant and the prospective tenant purchaser.
Despite the "yea" or "nay" of the provisions of the Housing Acts in force at the moment, irrespective of whether or not they are broad enough or elastic enough in their scope in the view of local authorities, in some areas people are purchasing the interest in these cottages. I do not propose to discuss whether that is wrong or whether it is right. We all have our own views. The matter is outside the scope of this Bill. But people are buying the interest of outgoing tenants and, in some cases, paying a great deal of money. They are people who could never get a cottage or a house if they were depending on the report of the local authority County M.O.H. and the other officials concerned. Under the terms of the Housing Acts a person working for hire in rural areas can get accommodation. I have seen some extraordinary cases. I have known of a case of a man living in a fashionable quarter in a city and, because his business may take him around the country as a traveller, or in some other capacity, he can be and is being considered as a person working for hire in the rural areas. There is a touch of irony about it. It is ironic to see people with bank balances able to buy the interest in a vested cottage; it is ironic that they should qualify while an unfortunate farm worker, road worker, or casual worker living near the cottage, with a young family, in bad housing conditions, will never be in a position to ask the vested tenant: "Are you selling? What are you asking? I am prepared to buy. I am prepared to make a bargain." He cannot say that because there is no way whereby he can get a loan as other people can get loans.
I do not want to delay the House on this. As I said at the outset it is a simple Bill. It is a commonsense Bill. All we ask is that these people, the people who wish to carry out improvements, be given the opportunity of getting a loan. All we ask is that the unfortunate person so anxious to buy the interest in a vested cottage for sale, and who has not got the wherewithal financially to do so, should be given the opportunity and the help to enable him to stay in his own area and secure for himself that little comfort that should be given to him and which has been given by successive Governments to other sections of the community under the Housing Acts.
Briefly, that is the idea behind this Bill and, in view of its importance, I would ask the House to give it full and sympathetic consideration.
