Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Jul 1962

Vol. 196 No. 17

Committee on Finance. - Housing (Loans and Grants) Bill, 1962—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, subsection (3) to delete lines 16 to 39 and to insert the following paragraph:

"(a) In every case in which a grant is made under this section and a revision of the rateable valuation of the tenement consisting of or including the house to which the grant relates is made, such amount of the revised valuation as is attributable to the erection of the house shall, in each of the nine successive local financial years following the local financial year in which the house is completed, be deemed to be reduced for rating purposes by the proportion of such amount specified in the second column of the Table to this section opposite the number of the year in the first column of the Table."

This amendment is to provide that the period of rate remission commences in the financial year following the year in which the house is completed instead of the first year in which the occupier is rated, and to make it clear that the revised valuation of the tenement shall be deemed to be reduced for rating purposes, subject to the amount of the revised valuation which is attributable to the erection of the house which qualified for remission purposes.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, in the Table to section 2, to delete "Proportion of increase in valuation to be reduced" in both places where it occurs and to insert in both such places "Reduction in valuation of house".

This is consequential on the previous amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

I think the Minister ought to tell us what is the position about the grants which are payable in respect of housing in the country at large. This is the section which provides the scale of grants for the provision of houses. The section sets out:

(1) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and subject to regulations under this section, make, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, to a person or public utility society providing one or more than one house in respect of which a grant under this section has not been made a grant not exceeding the appropriate sum specified in the Second Schedule to this Act if, but only if—

and then proceeds to set out the conditions.

I do not know if complaints have reached the Minister in respect of the existing scale of grants. A very large number of grantees throughout the country are experiencing unprecedented delays in getting housing grants and I should be glad to know if the Minister has received representations on that point. I have received a good many from my own constituency but I am obliged to say that in respect of what I should imagine is one third of those, I believe that the fault lay with the grantee of the public utility society more than with the Department of Local Government. I have discovered on more than one occasion that the Department has replied to me that they are taking steps to expedite the examination of the house for the purpose of paying the grant but that they feel bound to add that my representation was the first intimation they had received that the work had been completed.

There remain quite a considerable number of persons who have complained to me of undue delay in the making of their grants and I have relayed these complaints individually to the Department. What causes me concern, however, is that in discussing this with my colleagues, I find a great many Deputies of the Party have had the same experience and some have had more comprehensive complaints. I have heard it suggested that this may be due to the situation that has arisen as a consequence of the present Minister's decision to abolish what were known as appointed officers and the substitution of inspectors from the Department to do the inspection locally. I do not know what the cause is but I should be interested to hear from the Minister if he has received many complaints of the kind I describe because, so far as my information goes, it would appear that a great many such complaints are extant and I think this is the appropriate time to clarify the position and let the House know whether there is substantial arrear of payments of housing grants in the various categories covered by Section 2 of this Bill.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The general tendency in housing legislation is to improve grants as new Bills come along but this seems to be the exception so far as the provision of new houses is concerned. There is no upward tendency in the scale of grants while everybody knows that building costs increase week by week. It was always the policy of this House to encourage people as far as possible to provide their own houses and to encourage people in, say, low or middle income groups to provide their own accommodation where the local authority might otherwise be obliged to do so. A maximum grant of £300 for a five-room house where no facilities are available is not more than one-sixth of the total cost of building the house at present in a rural area. It is rather peculiar that the Minister did not follow precedent by increasing the grants. Is there any possibility now that he would consider changing the figures on the Report Stage? What advantage is this Bill in regard to the provision of new houses from the point of view of State grants? No advantage accrues. The figures are the same as in the 1958 Act while costs since 1958 have increased sharply.

I am sure that a house that could be built four years ago for £1,500 would cost £1,800 today and it is odd that the Minister has not given some encouragement to people to build their own houses by providing increased grants in this Bill. I know that a number of people in my constituency anxiously awaited this Bill because they felt there would be a substantial increase in the grants and that with these grants and the loans they could possibly raise from the local authority they could build their own houses. The Minister has sadly disappointed such people. I regret very much that he has not increased the grants.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am disappointed, and I have already said so, that the State grants remain at the existing level. Many who wished to provide their own houses looked forward to this Bill, not people in the upper income bracket, not poor people, but artisans, tradesmen and factory workers. They are now alarmed. I received a large deputation before I left my constituency today expressing alarm and asking me to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter of State grants.

I know the Minister wants to build more houses, get on with the housing programme in various parts of the country and that he wants to solve the housing problem, especially in regard to young people just married or about to be married. I am not referring now to the backlog of people married some years ago and inadequately housed in flats. If this Bill goes through with the grants maintained at the present level I believe it will bring housing activities to a standstill all over the country because, as many Deputies have said, costs have increased by nearly 25 per cent. in the past three or four years. I strongly exhort the Minister to do as Deputy Murphy suggested and consider, between now and the Report Stage, increasing the grants for building houses.

Mr. Blaney

As regards the query by the Leader of the Opposition as to delay in the outpayment of grants and related matters, while what he said would be a true reflection of the situation some six, eight or 12 months ago, it is not so now. We have no backlog in the Department and, judging from the manner in which the staff are now coping with the ever-increasing number of applications, it does not appear as if any real hold-up would arise in the foreseeable future. Twelve months ago, due to a shortage of inspectors and a rising rate of applications, we were in a bad way. That is now changed but if there are cases of delay arising, particularly in any one constituency or area, I would be very anxious to get details of them. The general information in the Department is that there is no such backlog or undue delay and that there should not be any. I would be obliged to any Deputy who finds such is the case to let me know so that we can see what is the matter. We are not aware that it is the case throughout the country as a whole.

As I explained on Second Reading, a very sizeable amount of money is being provided by the State for these very desirable grants. Provision is also being made, as has been the case for some years past, for a system of supplementary grants, complementary to the Local Government grants. Depending on the type of scheme adopted, these may run as high as the total grant received from the Department. In respect of many new houses grants totalling £550 or £600 are paid out by the local authority and the Department, free, non-repayable grants. I assert that is a very considerable and pretty generous contribution towards the erection of new houses, no matter by whom.

The evidence that the grants are of considerable attraction is provided by the increasing number of people coming forward to build their own houses. I take it from the manner in which we heard two Deputies speak a few minutes ago that they were referring to those in the middle income group or those slightly below. They are the people about whom they are concerned and not the better-off people. Although there is no increase in grants in this Bill, there is a new provision in which the income ceiling has been raised in respect of supplementary grants. In addition, for the first time local authorities will not have to adhere to a table of grants laid down by the Department. Where the local authority so desires, they can pay the full supplementary grant to any group of people provided their income does not exceed £832 per year. Where the local authority feel any group needs a little more help than they received in the past—the lack of which may have been decried by local authorities — they may now pay the full supplementary grant to each applicant, even in cases where the income is £830 per annum.

Local authorities are in the best position to decide in these matters. Where they are aware that certain classes in their area need added help, they are much more free to direct supplementary grants to them. The only control on them is that the applicant must not have more than £832 per annum income. That change will, I feel, work to the advantage of the type of people Deputies are concerned with — those for whom the local authorities are not building and are not likely to build, those who wish to build for themselves but whose financial position is not strong enough. That provision can be of substantial benefit in various cases.

In addition, we have a similar position in regard to repair and reconstruction grants, which are also running at a very high level. If they were falling off, it would be a clear indication that we had either reached the end of the road or that our people could not afford to repair. Since we have the evidence that the allocation of grants is still running at a very high level, it is only fair to assume that the amount of the grants has been a sufficient inducement up to the present. The fact that the demand for grants is growing would seem to refute the idea that the amount paid is too small.

That is the background against which this matter should be examined. While quite a number of the Housing Bills introduced here in the past made provision for increased grants, that pattern was not followed in all cases. It is not true, as has been asserted, that a precedent has been established of increasing the grants every time a new Housing Bill is introduced.

This section contains another provision of value to our people. Every other Housing Bill introduced here over a considerable number of years had a terminal date attached to it. People have been assured of the continuance of State grants only for a limited time, usually for two years. Deputies will note in this section that no terminal date is included. Therefore, there is contained in the Bill an assurance of the continuation of grants rather than the two-yearly instalments that have been a feature of our housing legislation for many years past.

As Minister for Local Government, I naturally would be only too happy to give double the grants. But, having regard to all the other projects requiring money from the taxpayer and the ratepayer, I do not think in fairness that any worthwhile increase could be justified at present in this legislation. For that reason I have to tell the House that the grants are not being increased, but I point out to the House that any time an increase seems desirable, it can be brought about by way of a simple amendment. Indeed, that is the way the matter will be dealt with in the future.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

This Bill was announced by the Government Party 12 months before it was actually introduced. We had special boxes in the daily papers announcing that a new Housing Bill would be introduced. Many people intending to build new houses believed the grants would be increased. The Minister tells us now that the grants are sizeable. If they are sizeable in 1962 were they not much more sizeable in 1958? Instead of getting an improvement in this Bill we have got a reduction on a percentage basis. I am giving a figure of £1,800 to build a reasonable five roomed house with sewerage and water. The maximum grant for that is £300 which would be 16? per cent. of the total cost of the work. Four years ago £1,500 would build a similar house and the grant by the State towards the building of that house was 20 per cent. Instead of getting a larger grant the builder of the house must now provide a greater percentage of the outlay than formerly.

The Minister comes along to the House and deals with Section 2 and Section 12 together. He states that a person building a house enjoying an income of £600, £700 or £800 can qualify for a supplementary grant. He said that in the terms of Section 12 it was clearly implied that a housing authority may provide housing grants to applicants. However, it is only optional on them to provide grants and we all know that a considerable number of housing authorities do not provide supplementary grants. Of the big bulk of urban housing authorities not more than four or five of them give partial supplementary grants and it is only very recently that they have been doing it. If you take a person building in an urban town and another building in a non-urban town the man building a house within the prescribed limit of income in an urban area can only get £275 and in a town which has been de-urbanised, or which was never in that category, there is no grant available at all.

In any case, new house grants are not paid by the Minister. It is local revenue that must meet these supplementary grants. Is the Minister now endeavouring to throw over from the Exchequer further burdens on to local revenues? We hear a great deal of talk about the upward trend in rates but as a result of this Bill we will have a further upward trend in rates because the Exchequer and the Minister are passing on their obligations to the local authorities. When the Minister tells us that a person within a valuation limit of £50 or an income limit of £830 can avail of supplementary grants it means that these supplementary grants are payable from the local revenue and it is unfair at this time to be passing over more burdens on to the local authorities. They have sufficient burdens already.

Housing is a national problem and I do not see why the Exchequer should not contribute much more to the provision of houses. A decent house is the first essential for any man and his family and the local authorities are endeavouring to provide houses for people who cannot build them out of their own resources. It is desirable that they should be relieved to some extent of that obligation, that the grants should be made more attractive and that people who otherwise would not be able to provide a house for themselves would be put in a position to do so with the aid of increased grants. It is very disappointing to me that there is no increased contribution from the Exchequer in this regard.

The Minister has put in a section dealing with reconstruction grants where, again, there is no increase. He says that there is now no terminal date whereas formerly there was a terminal date of two years. Everybody knows that that provision of a terminal date of two years was not effective at all. It was only a formality. Was there ever a person who lost the grant by virtue of not having the work completed in the prescribed time? There was not. That provision in the Bill is of no advantage because several people who had not the work completed in the prescribed time had no difficulty in getting their money later on.

From whatever point of view we examine this on behalf of people who are building new houses we must feel very disappointed. The Minister says that the Bill will allow local authorities to give grants to people with higher incomes but there are not so many people who will benefit in that respect. A man who was earning £500 in 1958 would now be earning £650 taking everything into account such as general wage increases since then and others matters. The value of money has declined and is declining from month to month and the wage level must, therefore, be increased to offset the diminishing value of money. However, so far as the grants are concerned they are going to remain the same as they were four years ago. I am terribly disappointed that there is no improvement in these matters.

Mr. T. Lynch

I welcome the information contained in the Minister's reply, because he has given us the opportunity of speaking now not only about the transfer of new houses but also about the supplementary grants given by the local authority. It is in the Minister's power now to confer a great and lasting benefit on all the young people who want to build their own homes or who will be going into new council houses, because, when a grant is given, that reflects itself every Monday morning when the rent collector calls. This grant confers the most lasting benefit of any grant given out of Government funds. I do not think there is any more important duty on the Government and this House than to make provision for the building of houses for those who need them. The Minister says there are a great many claims on the Exchequer. I submit there are very few more important claims than the claim that can be made for increased grants for housing.

I want to point out to the Minister that, when the grants were £500 to £600 in the past four or five years, they must have been excessive; if they are sufficient now, they must have been excessive then. I consider they were never excessive and they are not sufficient now. I suggest to the Minister he should indicate to the House that he will consider between now and Report Stage the giving of some increase.

In my constituency, a great many young people applied to the council for building sites. They wanted to build houses under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. The Waterford Corporation said they would consider only applicants who had more than £12 per week. Now the Minister has fixed a ceiling of £16 per week. A State grant cannot be given to people with more than £16 per week. In the past few months, a 40-hour week has been obtained by trade unions in various industries, plus a substantial increase in pay. That has put up the cost of housing. It has put up the wages of a great many young men who have only recently married or who are about to be married. None of these young men with over £16 a week will qualify for a grant. Since the money for the supplementary grant must be provided by the local authority I submit the matter should be left to the discretion of the local authority where a man is earning more than £16 per week, or £832 per year, as the Minister says.

It used to be said at housing conferences all over the country that a day's pay was a fair week's rent for a house in urban areas. Waterford city council are prepared to accept applications from young men, if their pay is over £12 per week, that is, £2 per day. That should be the standard for the week's rent — £2 per week. That is a big rent. But we cannot build houses at £2 per week under present conditions. It is impossible to build them. I have been making inquiries. I have been getting costings not only in my own constituency but elsewhere. I have gone out to see the houses advertised in Dublin, houses built by societies and private enterprise. The houses are very nice houses, but the rents are colossal. The rents are up to £15 per month.

We will be facing a very serious situation I think if it goes out now from this House that there is no increase in the grants for new houses. Housing will inevitably slow down. The young people whom I mentioned earlier may have one child or may have just got married; they are anxious to get a house. As it is, they have to go into flats. They were hoping that the grants would be increased and that they would be able to build houses for themselves. I am sure that is not just my experience but that it is the experience of many of my colleagues on both sides of this House.

There are then the houses built under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. They would be houses built in order to clear slums or for the benefit of people in the lower income groups or those who have no fixed incomes at all. The costings of these houses have soared also. The best money this Government could lay out — and the Minister should put this to his colleagues in the Government — is money provided to offset substantial increases in rents. That would be the most lasting benefit the Minister could confer on the people concerned.

Mr. A. Barry

There is one figure to which we must address ourselves, particularly in relation to those who want to build modest houses for themselves, that is, the figure of £2,200. You will not build a small house for less than that. Therefore, everything must be related to that figure. Is the Minister satisfied that the income level inside which he is permitting borrowing is high enough in relation to that figure? I do not think it is. In this inflationary period, a great many people are moving into that income bracket. The fact is £832 today represents only something like £280 pre-war. The house that costs £2,200 to-day cost only £650 to build pre-war. Nothing makes sense unless one looks at that fact. In the light of that, the whole conception of the present system of grants is wrong. We must keep our eye on the high cost of building to-day.

Mr. Dolan

With regard to the higher ceiling of £17 per week, I do not think it should be really necessary for the Government to come immediately to the rescue with the taxpayers' money of a person with such an income. There are many people who would be for years in Government jobs before reaching a maximum salary of £17 per week and they are fairly good risks for loans and are fairly well catered for by this ceiling.

A Deputy on the other side mentioned £2,200 or £2,600 as the cost of a house. Many local authorities build cottages at a cost of £900 to £1,100.

Mr. A. Barry

The Deputy is out of this world.

Mr. Dolan

People rear large families in these houses.

Mr. A. Barry

I saw a tender for 160 houses at £1,900, all built in the one area — working-class houses.

Mr. Dolan

That would be for an upper ten type of people.

Mr. A. Barry

No, working-class houses.

Mr. Dolan

We are trying to cater for the ordinary people who are not able from their own resources to provide decent dwellings for themselves. We are not worried about the elaborate type of home that people can build out of their own resources.

Mr. A. Barry

These are not elaborate.

Mr. Dolan

Our main concern, which has been the main concern of this Government, is to provide decent homes for the people to replace the hovels and shacks we inherited. We are trying to do that within the meagre resources we have. When building houses out of taxpayers' money, there must be some concern for the people who pay. I have listened very attentively to the many pleas made from the other side for an increase in the grants. The suggestion has been made that the people have been waiting for such increases. I do not know who told the people on the other side that, unless they spread these rumours themselves. I can speak for my own constituency. While we might all like to see grants increased, there is one thing that the majority of people who reconstruct an old house or build a new one would be greatly concerned about, that is, will they get the money when the house is finished. That is our primary concern. It has been our experience in the past that people were not able to get the grants; they were caught between two stools.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

That never happened.

Mr. Crotty

It is the same today.

Mr. Dolan

Whatever grant is being allowed, if we are sufficiently sure we will get it, we are quite satisfied. In Cavan, housing grants collapsed completely in 1956. No matter how people who may be far removed from that constituency may try to whitewash the position, there are many people in Cavan who have sad and bitter memories of the housing situation in 1956.

Mr. Dillon

Why?

Mr. Dolan

Because the housing grants collapsed completely for want of money from the Local Loans Fund. The Leader of the Opposition knows all about it.

Mr. Dillon

Go fish.

Mr. Dolan

The people whom I know know all about it. The people in Opposition ran out of office because they had not the money to meet their commitments.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy is rambling. There is a question I want to ask. It is a question that requires an answer. Deputy Anthony Barry dealt with it when he intervened. What does it cost today, approximately, to build a decent family house with three bedrooms, a parlour, a diningroom, a kitchen and a bathroom?

Mr. J. J. Collins

£1,500 in a rural area.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Collins says £1,500 and an equally knowledgeable man, Deputy Barry, says £2,200. It only shows you the necessity of asking this question because when we are talking about the appropriate level of grants——

Mr. P. Brennan

About 30/- a square foot.

Mr. T. Lynch

I must ask Deputy Brennan to come down to my constituency and I may give him a contract.

Mr. Norton

Labourers' cottages in Kildare are costing £1,150.

Mr. J.J. Collins

The Limerick quotation last Saturday was £990.

Mr. Sherwin

In Dublin, £1,500.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon is speaking.

Mr. N. Egan

In Cork, £2,200.

Mr. Dillon

Observe how difficult it is to conduct a debate on the equity of the grants provided, if no two Deputies can agree as to what it costs to build a house with three bedrooms, a diningroom, a parlour, a kitchen and a bathroom.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It would depend on the location of the house.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not necessary that we should arrive at some approximate figure? Of course, it would depend to some degree on the cost of the land on which the house is set but we need not take that figure in. Let us talk of what the contractor will charge for building the house. Then we can regard the location of the house as an ancillary matter. I am thinking primarily of the category of persons to whom Deputy Lynch referred, that is, the young married couple who want to build a house against their wedding day or, as he says, who having gone into a flat, when the family begins to come along, want to build a house in order to get a permanent home. I admit at once that it must depend in some degree on the cost of the site on which you are going to build it but leave that out because that is a matter about which they can make their own election. In any provincial city or town, if the land in the immediate vicinity of the city or town is too expensive, they can always move out a mile or two and they are in a rural area. With the exception of Dublin and Cork, the suburbs do not stretch that far. The suburbs are not so extensive around Limerick, Waterford, Clonmel, or the other provincial cities. But it is interesting to find that approximately six Deputies, all professing to have a fairly accurate knowledge of building costs, all declare a substantially different figure as being the cost of such a house as I have described. When Deputy Norton speaks of a £1,100 house, that would be something smaller than I have described?

Mr. Norton

An ordinary labourer's cottage.

Mr. Dillon

With three bedrooms?

Mr. Norton

No.

Mr. Dillon

Two bedrooms, two livingrooms and a kitchen — or one livingroom and a kitchen?

Mr. J. J. Collins

Three bedrooms.

Mr. Dillon

I am talking of an ordinary house that we would imagine a young couple borrowing money under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts to build for themselves. I envisage a house containing three bedrooms — one for the parents, one for the boys and one for the girls — and possibly two living rooms, a kitchen and bathroom. Deputy Barry says it would cost £2,200.

Mr. A. Barry

At least.

Mr. P. Brennan

That would work out at approximately 30/- a square foot.

Mr. Dillon

You would say that a house such as I have described works out at 30/- a square foot?

Mr. P. Brennan

Deputy Barry's figure.

Mr. Dillon

Is my figure the right figure?

Mr. P. Brennan

That would work out at 30/- a square foot.

Mr. A. Barry

The Deputy had better tell that to his colleague from Cavan.

Mr. P. Brennan

If you are going to have six rooms.

Mr. Dillon

You count a kitchen as a room?

Mr. P. Brennan

You have to build it in any case.

Mr. Dillon

I suppose you ought to count the bathroom also. That would make it seven rooms. I say deliberately that the ordinary house for a family of young people ordinarily should contain three bedrooms, two living-rooms, a modern kitchen, that is, a very small kitchen——

Mr. M.P. Murphy

A scullery.

Mr. Dillon

A small kitchen where you would not sit as you would in the kitchen in a country house, but a small kitchen with a cooker. If that costs £2,200 today, I think it is true to say that five years ago, it would probably have cost £1,800 to build that house. Is that not so? Very well. We were giving £300, which represented one-sixth of the cost five years ago and if we are still giving £300, we are giving only one-seventh of the cost.

That is a crucial figure. I should have thought most people looked forward to this Bill as one which would maintain approximately the same percentage of the total cost as obtained on the last occasion when we fixed the rates of grants. It is something the Minister must face if he is obliged to say that whereas we thought the State grant of one-sixth in the past was equitable, we now think a State grant of one-seventh is sufficient. Let Deputy Dolan dismiss from his mind the question of figures and ask himself that question. If he thought a sixth equitable five years ago, is it not still equitable? If that is correct, should we not have increased the grant by £50? The grant was approximately one-sixth five years ago. The amount of the grant is the same but the cost of house building has gone up by about £400.

Mr. Dolan

But there is also a supplementary grant.

Mr. Dillon

It was two-sixths or one-third.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

There is no change in the supplementary grant.

Mr. Dillon

Even if there were, it was two-sixths and it is now two-sevenths. I think the Minister will agree. Is there a flaw in the argument?

Mr. Blaney

There is.

Mr. Dillon

In the percentage?

Mr. Blaney

Not in the percentage. The Deputy is talking about people whose position in many cases has improved since then.

Mr. Dillon

Therefore, you advocate some fractional reduction in the percentage that ought to be given?

Mr. Blaney

No, not a reduction.

Mr. Dillon

But is it not a reduction? We were giving one-sixth.

Mr. Blaney

I shall come back to that.

Mr. Dillon

We were giving one-sixth; now we are giving a seventh. In the supplementary grant, we were giving one-third; now we are giving two-sevenths. In so far as people's incomes may have increased, they have had to meet an increase in the cost of living over the past five years of 17 per cent. and we must have regard to that if we think it equitable to give them a proportionately lower housing grant than we gave them in the past. However, the Minister says he sees some flaw in this argument, and if there is a flaw, I am anxious to hear it. Let justice be done though the heavens fall.

Mr. P. Brennan

I have always had the feeling that the allocation of supplementary grants is a very important factor in the building of private houses because it is the one thing that influences the person in going ahead, the difference between starting off with £300 or £600. Up to the introduction of this Bill, which I hope will take effect as from 1st April last, very few people qualified for a supplementary grant at all. For instance, the number of people in County Wicklow who qualified for a full supplementary grant as laid down in the Act of Parliament passed in 1953 was negligible. Any person in receipt of more than £416 did not qualify for a grant.

Mr. Blaney

The figure is £520.

Mr. P. Brennan

At one stage, it was £416.

Mr. Blaney

It may have been locally, but in the statute it was £520.

Mr. P. Brennan

I did not know that but as far as Wicklow is concerned, it was £416. That meant that tradesmen, people who are on £8 a week — and these were the people likely to build their own houses — could not take advantage of this provision. For the past four or five years, no one with an income in excess of £416 could get a supplementary grant. Now the Minister proposes to allow local authorities to introduce a supplementary grant scheme whereby people earning up to £16 a week can benefit. Naturally, that will bring in a very large number of people. That is the outstanding feature I see in this Bill and it is one thing which will, more than anything else, influence the building of houses.

There has been a great deal of talk about the cost of building. I am prepared to accept Deputy A. Barry's word for it that £2,200 is the price you will pay today for any sort of bungalow. As regards Deputy Dillon's reference to the number of rooms, I have some experience in this matter. Any person who decides to build a bungalow for himself tries to use the maximum floor space and the maximum floor space for a grant is 1,400 square feet. If we take the figure mentioned by Deputy A. Barry on that basis, it works out at 30s. per square foot.

Mr. McQuillan

Is the Deputy including the cost of the site?

Mr. P. Brennan

No; I am not including the cost of the site. I am speaking as a Deputy in a rural area where a site can be got for £50, £60 or £100. I think we can take it that a house can be built for 30/- per square foot. With regard to increasing the grant, if this were done, Deputy Murphy would be complaining about placing a further burden on the rate-payers. We would all like to see the grants increased but money is not so readily available. I have no doubt that if this money were raised by imposing extra taxation, there would be a protest from the people opposite.

Mr. Dillon

You are going to spend £8,000,000 on a nitrogenous fertiliser factory down there. That would build a lot of houses.

Mr. P. Brennan

In the meantime, I think that if this Bill allows a local authority to devise their own supplementary grants scheme, it will encourage people to build their own houses because it will bring in a far greater category of people than heretofore.

Mr. Gilhawley

This is a most unrealistic Bill. The Minister and the Government have not increased any Government grants but they have created machinery under which the local authorities may increase theirs, with a consequent increase in the rates. I do not think that that point has been stressed here. As I have said already on this Bill, the cost of materials has increased and the cost of labour has increased but the Government grant has not increased.

Various Deputies have mentioned different types of houses and how these grants operate in their counties. I shall tell you how they operate in my county in the west of Ireland. Take a five-apartment house, with water and sewerage laid on, not to the water main or to an existing sewerage scheme. You get £225 per house, plus £75 per water and sewerage, plus £10 if you put your application through a building society. Making in all £310 from the Government.

Now, from the local authority, if you are under £12 10s. valuation, you get £ for £. If you are between £12 10s. and £20 valuation, you will get two-thirds. If you are between £20 and £27 10s., you will get half and if you are between £27 10s. and £35, you will get one-third Government grant. If you are over £35 valuation, you will get nothing. That is how it works out in my county.

Mr. McQuillan

What about the income group?

Mr. Gilhawley

The income group starts at £312 and ends up at £520. I am coming to the income group. I think, again, this is where the Bill is unrealistic. So far as I am aware, the ceiling is £832. Now, did the Minister consider for one minute a single man with an income of £832 and perhaps with a nice little nest egg in the bank? The Minister has created machinery by which such a person can draw full grants. Did he think of the married man with perhaps seven, eight or ten children and make any allowance for him?

I would suggest that an effort be made to operate that section on the same lines as scholarship schemes are operated, namely that an allowance be made for each child. It would be a very fair way of dealing with the matter. I think it is rather arbitrary just to clap down on £832 and to say: "There you are: that is it."

I should like again to say that this Bill does not come up to what we expected in my constituency where there are 13,000 people under £20 valuation and where we expected quite a lot but have got nothing.

There may be a reduction instead of an increase in the supplementary grant. I shall explain to the House why. In my county, we have paid supplementary grants up to £35 valuation for new houses. When we meet again, due to the very high rates we are paying in my county, I can quite easily foresee the council saying: "We shall pay nothing over £20 valuation." I shall not subscribe to that myself but I can see it happening. Therefore, we shall be worse off after the Bill, if such an eventuality should occur, than we were before it was introduced. I know that an attempt has been made to better the position, but I foresee a position arising in the west of Ireland which will be worse instead of better.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Let me come back again to the grants for new houses. Assuming this Bill is passed without any changes, let us consider the position of a man with an annual income of £850. If he were to build a house costing about £2,000, or £1,800, or whatever it would take to build a five-roomed house fully equipped with water and sewerage facilities in a rural area, he would get £300 or roughly one-seventh of the cost of a £2,000 house. Assuming that the Minister himself, who has a salary far in excess of £850, decided to have some repairs carried out to his house and got an estimate for such repairs at £420, what would the position be? I assume, of course, which I believe to be correct, that his house is located in a housing area where supplementary grants are payable. It would mean that the man with £850 who is building a new house would have to be satisfied with £300 even though the cost of building it would be more than £2,000, while the Minister, with his greater income, would get £280, or only £20 less, for carrying out £420 worth of repairs to his dwelling.

If the man with £850 had a water supply available in his house it would mean his grant would be still further reduced. If water and sewerage facilities were available, his grant would be only £275. The Minister with his salary, or if we take the man about whom we were talking so much not long ago, the person with the income of the Chief Justice, say, £6,000, could get his £280 for the £420 estimated repairs. Surely that position should not be——

Mr. Cunningham

That is not right.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Of course it is right. There is no level for supplementary grants for reconstruction work.

Mr. MacCarthy

It is at the discretion of the local authority.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The local authority with which I am associated has no income level, so that a man——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. M.P. Murphy

A man with not only the Minister's salary but five times his salary, if there is such a man, would get his £280 for the £420 repairs. He would get £140 from the Custom House and £140 from the local authority.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are on Section 2. Section 3 provides——

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am dealing with new house grants. I am dealing with Section 2. The Minister dealt with Section 2 and Section 3, and even Section 12.

Mr. Blaney

If the Deputy checks up on that, he will find he has been misled, to be fair about it.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

As I mentioned a while ago, a large number of housing authorities are not paying supplementary housing grants, particularly in urban areas. I am sure that if we had a report of the number of urban local authorities paying supplementary grants we would find — as I found recently through some inquiries I made—that not more than 10 per cent. are paying them so that if a man is building a house in any of these areas he does not get a grant at all and it does not matter to him whether the income limit is £416 or £832 because, if I may refer to Section 12, it is optional on local authorities whether or not a housing grant is to be made available. There is a good case for doing away with the income level so far as new house grants are concerned and I believe there is no justification for retaining an income level for new house grants when we abolished it some years ago for reconstruction grants. If we take Deputy Gilhawley's case of a man with a family of six, seven or eight, the local authority is left with no power at all to deal with the special circumstances arising in such a case.

I am making a plea that on the Report Stage we should abolish this income level. I do not see any reason why we should retain it if people can get reconstruction grants without any qualification as to income limits or valuation. I can see no reason why we should impose special limits in so far as new house grants are concerned. It gives rise to difficulty and hardship. If this Bill is passed, I can visualise people with large families who are just a little over the income level or, perhaps, a little over the valuation level whom the local authorities cannot help. Between now and the next Stage the Minister and his advisers should consider the suggestions made on the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage and bring in some amendments.

I asked a while ago when was the increase in the grants provided by the State going to come into line with the percentage that was given four years ago. As a result of increased building costs there is a good case for increasing the grants and I refer again to the disappointment among applicants that the grants were not increased. I think the income and valuation limit should be abolished and let every person qualify. Some might say that person with £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000 a year could then get a new house grant but there are certain limits on the size of the house. I am sure that well-to-do people would not be availing of the grants because their houses would exceed the maximum specifications to qualify for grants. These grants are confined to houses of a specified floor area and anyone building a family house within that specification should qualify not only for the State grant but for a supplementary grant without an income level.

Mr. J. J. Collins

Listening to this debate, I was struck by the fact that the general tenor of the speeches from the opposite side was mainly that there had not been any increase in the grants, to meet, as they said, increased building costs. We had Deputy Barry from rCork telling us that a house cost £2,220 and from him we switched to Deputy Norton who told us that a labourer's cottage in Kildare cost from £1,100 to £1,200, and then Deputy Murphy of Cork made a very serious complaint that local authorities were now being allowed a free hand and greater scope to increase the supplementary grants and he went on to deplore the fact that the Minister is passing on to local authorities——

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Of course, he is.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. J. J. Collins

——a part of the cost which should be provided by the Central Fund. The one point which, to my mind, Deputy Murphy missed is that every house that is built in any county is a national asset and it is being relieved of rates for a period of seven years in order to offset building costs. After seven years, it is reversed and there is an annual charge.

To my mind, we should not be interested in this Parliament in the type of house mentioned by Deputy Barry, the six-roomed house with a kitchenette. I was surprised that he did not say there should be a billiard room. The type of house we are interested in primarily is a house for the worker, the small farmer, the tradesman and the artisan.

Mr. A. Barry

Any tradesman will want a six-roomed house.

Mr. J.J. Collins

I do not know what type of tradesman Deputy Barry can find in Cork——

Mr. McQuillan

The Deputy wants a henhouse.

Mr. J. J. Collins

The tradesman in Limerick would be well satisfied with a five-roomed bungalow: three bedrooms, sittingrooms, kitchen and bathroom.

Mr. A. Barry

That is six rooms.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy should get a ball frame.

Mr. J. J. Collins

There is the question of costings. During the past two years, the utility society in West Limerick built over 40 houses for farmers and labourers who availed of the grants provided under the 1958 Act.

Mr. McQuillan

Farmers of what valuation?

Mr. J. J. Collins

Any valuation from £1 to £20 or £30. In the utility society, we provided five-roomed houses for small farmers. In my own parish of Abbeyfeale, we turned the key in the door for £1,485. I do not know where Deputy Barry's figures fit in. Deputy Murphy talked of a cost of £1,800 and Deputy Barry mentioned a figure of £2,200. It is no wonder that the contractors can have a good time, and I do not begrudge it to them, if they can get away with it. As I say, I know from my own experience that our utility society built over 40 houses within the past two years. They are three-roomed, four-roomed and five-roomed houses. Since the 1958 Act was passed, we have tried in a very energetic way to get the labouring man to build his own home, with the aid of grants from the central authority, the local authority and the £ for £ supplement. He can do that even on his weekly wage. We have explained to him that if the local authority provided him with a cottage, his rent and rates would amount to over £25 a year, and that the cost of paying back the advances over the years would not be anything like that.

I am satisfied that the Minister has given sufficient money by way of grants. Deputies who have spoken here and who are members of local authorities should be consistent. If the Deputy from Sligo really felt that the Minister had not given sufficient money for housing, it would be his duty, as I would feel it to be mine, to ensure that we will give £ for £ to everyone who qualifies for a housing grant, whether there is a ceiling of £832 or a valuation ceiling of £49 19s.

The Minister has done a good job in this Bill and I do not believe that the criticism which has been levelled from the Opposition benches is in any way deserved.

Mr. Desmond

Every member of the House seems to take a different costings figure. The Minister has the answer and he must have the answer for Deputy Collins as well, because in the Department, the cost of any local authority house is known because it has to be submitted for sanction. If there is any dispute about costings, the Minister has the answer. He has the answer in connection with Limerick, Sligo, Cork and everywhere else.

Back in 1948, a Labour Minister fixed a ceiling of £600. It was a Fianna Fáil Minister, Deputy Smith, who introduced the new system in 1952. The Minister can check that, if he wishes. I remember putting down an amendment and I think it was in 1952 that a Fianna Fáil Minister introduced the means test. If we are getting away from the means test, Fianna Fáil probably realise that it was a bad system.

When we speak of these grants, whether we like it or not, we are speaking of the middle income group, the white collar workers, who will not qualify for local authority houses. Deputy Barry and Deputy MacCarthy know that there are a large number of those people in the suburbs of Cork who must try to build, or purchase from a builder. They got the grants and the loans but how many of them had to give up their houses? In every issue of the Cork Examiner we see advertisements for the sale of these houses in surburban areas setting out the rates of interest payable. That happened in the past, irrespective of whether Fianna Fáil or an inter-Party Government were in office.

Mr. MacCarthy

Some of these people were being transferred to other parts of the country.

Mr. Desmond

The people I am speaking about were unable to meet the commitments. I am not trying to score points for one Government as against the other. The difference between the grants they were able to get and the amount they had to borrow was too great and they were unable to carry on paying. The Minister knows that costs have gone up during the past three or four years by upwards of £300 or £400, and that this will nullify any increase in grants. He knows also it will be very hard to convince local authorities that they should avail of the powers given to them here to give the full supplementary grant as allowed in this Bill.

Many of us on local councils would like to do that but it is the majority vote that counts. Deputy J. J. Collins told us about the difficulties in Limerick. We have them in Cork, too. It is not enough for us to say we hope the local authorities will put the Bill into operation in this respect to its fullest extent. The increased cost will make it impossible for the white collar worker to build a house even with the aid of increased grants from the Exchequer. We must be able to tell such a worker that he will get the increase also from the local authority. How many authorities in urban areas will be able to finance supplementary grants? The money must come from the rates. I would ask the Minister that between this and Report Stage he would consider giving a little more help to the local authorities by increasing the State grant.

Mr. Jones

I was interested to hear what my colleague from Limerick, Deputy J. J. Collins, had to say on the housing question. As I understand the position in Limerick, there is in addition to the supplementary grant a means test in operation in respect to the amount of such a grant. Subject to correction, the £1 for £1 grant is only payable to people with an income of £6 a week or a £35 valuation and that when these figures are exceeded there is a scaled down grant as the applicant moves up in income or valuation. There is a £1 for £1 grant in respect to those below the £6 and after that it is scaled down. As a matter of fact, I think that once an applicant passed the £10 a week figure, no matter who the applicant was or what his circumstances were, no grant was payable.

There is another factor in respect to the housing of the working classes. The Limerick County Council have been having a difficult time in providing houses, in getting contractors to build serviced houses at the £1,000 limit. We have had to seek from the Minister approval for sums of over £1,000 and £1,500 for serviced houses. At the present time, a scheme of houses proposed for Askeaton will cost in the region of £2,000 per house. Another factor, which Deputy J. J. Collins mentioned, is the question of the utility societies. I have been told that some people working through such societies have been contributing something in kind by way of labour in the matter of house construction. The problem there is to estimate the cash value to be put on that labour.

If you take a person of moderate income who obtains a State grant of, say, £300 and a scaled-down local authority grant of half that amount towards the building of a house, you will find he must borrow something in the region of £1,000 and the rate of interest which is being charged by the local authority on that loan is approximately £7 1s. 9d. per £100 over a period of 35 years. That would mean a person would have to carry a burden of approximately £70, or over 25/- a week.

In the new legislation aimed at the provision of sanitary services, the Minister envisages house building in the future without the addition of the ordinary sanitary facilities. Another thing to be aimed at, of course, is the provision in every house of sufficient bedroom accommodation for growing families. That is something we should not skimp on. If you take the normal rural family in this country and you confine yourself to a three-bedroomed house, irrespective of the size of the family to be housed, you will be up against social difficulties. You will have the father and the mother seeing children of different sexes, perhaps, having to occupy either the same room or be bedded in overcrowded conditions. We should not confine ourselves to building that type of house exclusively for that type of family.

Another consideration that I think is necessary in that case is to have a minimum of three bedrooms, a kitchen or living room and surely one other room with normal toilet and wash-up facilities. It is essential that whatever water supply is available should be installed and there should be a bathroom in the houses we build in future.

This Bill is a step in the right direction but I wonder — possibly time will show this — if the limits we are introducing at present will be effective. In the schemes we have had, everybody knows that people seeking loans and grants have been trying in every way possible to get around the regulations. We should not put them in that position. We should leave the legislation flexible enough to ensure that there will first be an inducement to people to build houses for themselves as this is very necessary. I agree with other Deputies in that respect, that every house properly built and every family properly housed is an addition to the nation from the social and financial points of view. In relation to the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. and local authority housing, we should not be hamstrung by legislation which at the moment circumvents building the type of houses we would like to provide.

The amount the State is making available is normally an inducement to people to build houses but the local authorities—and there is no use in closing our eyes to it—have a problem of rates. That is the factor that decides what amount of money will be made available locally. If they feel they will run into difficulties through not having sufficient money available to implement these £ for £ grants, you will find the regulations will be changed to scale down these grants. In passing this legislation, I think we should see to it that we do not circumvent our good intentions in any way in regard to housing.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not want to repeat what I said on the Second Reading. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Lands is here to give us the benefit of his wisdom concerning the constituency which he and I have the honour to represent. A survey of housing conditions in rural Ireland has been carried out in the past 18 months by the local authorities on behalf of the Department of Local Government and the report is now available to the Minister. As Deputies from various parts of rural Ireland are aware, housing needs vary considerably in different counties. Without knowing the contents of the report going to the Minister, I can imagine that as regards some of the western counties, the analysis available in that report shows that the group who need rehousing are within the category already covered by the full State grant, plus the full supplementary grant, but in spite of the fact that they have available to them £275-£300 and a similar supplementary grant from the local authority, these people are not able to build their own houses.

The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister must admit that this big element in the western counties is not catered for in this Bill. I am not taking away from the value of what is given in the Bill in saying that. Undoubtedly the increased supplementary grants will help a certain percentage of those who want to build their own houses, but, speaking from what I know of my own constituency, there is not the slightest doubt that people who are in the category of the £6 to £20 valuation are not going to build houses as a result of any incentive in this measure.

I know that Roscommon County Council on numerous occasions in the past 12 months requested its officials to emphasise to the Department that in any legislation introduced it was imperative that serious consideration be given to a plan to solve the problem of the small farmer in the valuation group ranging from £10 to £20. There must be at least 200 small farmers in County Roscommon at present who have not made application to the county council for housing grants because they feel that the housing grant and the supplementary grant leave a gap too wide for them to bridge. If they apply for the loan, they need two sureties. Very often, they have great difficulty in getting a guarantor in order to get a council loan but they are afraid to take on the burden of the loan at all on account of the repayment charges and the low income which they receive through carrying out the wrong type of farming.

Most Deputies here realise that small farmers in the west want to go in for store cattle. That is not their fault and I do not want to discuss that now; the point is that they have not the income to enable them to repay the interest on the loan. What has happened is that Roscommon County Council is assuming responsibility at the moment for the housing of people who should be in a position to take on the job themselves and employ a contractor to do the work. That is wrong. As I explained before, it leads to a very roundabout procedure before the council can do that. They must acquire the plot from the small farmer, buy it from him with all the legal formalities involved. Then they build and rent the house back to him.

There is nothing in the Bill to solve that problem and, as the Minister knows, quite a large number of applications are awaiting sanction in Roscommon at present. They are no better off as a result of this Bill. There is nothing better than the idea of the farmers having their own houses under their own control, making them independent, but we all know the position today is that there is gradual moving away from the land off small holdings. I do not like to make it a charge against the Government, but if the Minister reads the inter-Departmental report on conditions in the West of Ireland, he will find housing mentioned as one of the things needing attention. This Bill does not meet those recommendations in any way.

In today's Irish Times, the leading article stated that further ruthless depopulation of rural Ireland is necessary if we are to compete in agriculture on the Common Market. Is it not a fact that this Bill is making no provision to improve building facilities for the small farmer — a sign that the Government is preparing the ground for wiping out the small farmers of rural Ireland? If the Government were really serious about consolidating the position of the small farmer, this is not the type of Bill they would have introduced. I am afraid the leading article in the Irish Times was much nearer the truth than its author realised.

I am sure that Mayo and Galway County Councils have done exactly the same as Roscommon County Council. For the past two years they have been urging the Department to bring in some new provision to enable the small farmer to build his house with the aid of grants and loans or, as other Deputies have mentioned, to allow him build on the same lines as the Land Commission have been building houses and allow the repayment charge to be part of the annuity. There is no sign of that so far. Is it the intention to wait until they are gone?

The Minister may give us all sorts of facts and figures that the cost of building houses has increased. We all know that the cost of materials has increased. But irrespective of any increase in costs that has taken place, there is no provision in this section for the large number of small farmers in my constituency waiting for years to build a house. This Bill is a danger signal. It would lend proof to the belief prevalent that there is no hope for the small man to hang on any longer and that the sooner he gets out, the bigger the relief will be to the Government to have him gone.

Mr. Crotty

The Minister must welcome the debate on the question of increasing the grants that has taken place for the past hour and a half because no one knows better than the Minister the necessity for increasing the grants because of the increased cost of building. The Minister has already pressed the Minister for Finance and the Government to give larger grants but has not been successful. Therefore, I imagine the Minister will welcome this debate because it will strengthen his hand in going back to the Government to look for increased grants. I firmly believe that the Minister, with his specialised knowledge of housing conditions and costs, will go back to the Government and get increased grants, as he has been urged to do.

Mr. Carroll

The Minister has now received the estimates from the various local authorities. I am sure he will agree that, in general, a fair ratio for labour and materials is 60-40. As a result of the last round of wage increases, there is 10 per cent. on labour. That is an incontrovertible fact and is mathematically correct. It eliminates immediately any suggestion that there has been no increase.

In the estimates received by the Minister's Department for the building in the metropolitan area of what are termed cottages, I think I am correct in saying the figure is around £2,000 or £1,900. I am sure the Minister is anxious to alleviate the housing position. I know nothing about the rural areas, but I am afraid the Minister is not aware of the awful situation existing in Dublin. I would suggest that apart entirely from this proposed increase in grants, which may help in its own way, local authorities should be able to take advantage themselves of the facilities available to private persons for building an additional room to existing three-roomed or two-roomed houses. Many of these tenants are anxious to do the work themselves with their own labour. I understand from a very high churchman in this city that on one occasion during the period of the Coalition Government a guarantee was given by the Department that nothing but three-roomed houses would be built in the Dublin area. This was to avoid undesirable overcrowding and avoid the necessity of children of different sexes having to occupy the same bedroom accommodation. The present situation is pathetic, and, indeed, that adjective is hardly adequate. The problem could be eased considerably if the local authority could get grants similar to those available to house owners for the erection of an extra room. Many people living for years in the one area now find that, with a growing family not yet working, the accommodation is entirely inadequate. That problem could be eased by the type of extension I have referred to if the grants were available to the local authority. Indeed, we might even go a step further. If the Minister wishes to help local authorities meet this problem, he might even introduce legislation providing for continuing subsidy but allowing the local authority to sell the houses to tenants who wish to purchase their own homes. In that way the maintenance cost to the local authority would be greatly reduced.

Any increase such as that suggested is to be welcomed, but it should not be stated that there have been no increased costs. A flat in Dublin costs over £2,000. Deputy Collins referred to utility societies, but that comparison cannot be made. A utility society works on a non-profit basis. Utility societies help meet a great need, but no quantity surveyor in the Department or anywhere else would suggest that a five-roomed house could be built at present for £1,400.

Mr. N. Lemass

Following Deputy Carroll's contribution, I should like to point out to the Minister how his efforts to improve the housing position can often be frustrated. The position in Dublin now is that Dublin Corporation will not do business with utility societies. Two years ago, a certain utility society applied for eight sites out of ten available in Captain's Lane. Two years later, two houses only are being built because the Corporation will not do business with the particular utility society because they are of the opinion that the utility society are making a profit. This has never been proved to my satisfaction but perhaps it is true. Since the principle of doing business with the utility society has been done away with, the building of private houses on Corporation sites has been slowed down. The period from the time a person applies to build his own house to the time he gets sanction is so long that they have either been housed under the Housing Acts or have got other accommodation.

That is bad policy on the part of the Corporation. I understand that in respect of the ten sites mentioned, the Corporation are now receiving applications up to next Friday at 12 o'clock. They were all to have been allocated when I was a member of the Housing Committee and that was a long time ago.

Mr. Barron

The last of them was allocated last Friday. The Deputy should have remained a member of the Housing Committee.

Mr. N. Lemass

I got fed up with it.

Mr. Gallagher

There has been a lot of talk here about the housing position generally and suggestions that the Minister should go on giving ever-increasing grants without any regard to the real needs of the country. When you consider the type of house Deputy Gilhawley has mentioned, I think the Minister has done a magnificent day's work. He said that heretofore you got a grant of £310 and an additional pound for pound for the valuation up to £12 10s. The Minister has now extended that to cover a number of people who felt they were not getting a fair deal. A wide category of people are brought up to an income level of £830 and a poor law valuation of £50. That will go a long way towards solving the problem that exists in my own constituency of Sligo and throughout the whole country.

Everybody will agree that, inasmuch as no two houses are alike, you can argue for a year and get no agreement as to the building costs in any particular area. It would be foolish to say that because of the recent increase in wages, there has been no increase in housing. Of course there has been an increase in housing, and to say that the percentage increase in wages warrants a like increase in grants is unreasonable. Deputy Gilhawley says the Bill is unreasonable because it will mean an impact on the rates if the local authorities use the powers being given to them but I would like to see the man anywhere in Ireland with eight or nine children who would take on the responsibility of providing a house for his family when they are at the stage when they are most costly, particularly from the point of view of their education.

When the Minister replies, I am sure that the figures will show that there has been a tremendous upsurge in the applications for grants. If the Deputies here who are county councillors go back to their councils and implement the provisions of this Bill, they can bring about a great increase in the number of houses being built in their areas. Deputy McQuillan makes an appeal for the people who are unable to bridge the gap between the two grants, but if you increased the grants by 50 per cent. there would still be people who would be unable to bridge the gap. We all know the countryman's disinclination to borrow money from any source because of his fear that somebody might, in some way or other, get a hold on his farm. I think that is a case where the local authority could go in and build a house and give it to him on a rental basis.

I have heard Deputies suggest that there should be a provision for the smaller house and another provision for the larger house. There is nothing to prevent a man starting off with three rooms and adding on two rooms to make it a five-roomed house, if he so wishes. There is provision in the Bill for reconstruction grants, provided a man increases the floor space of his house. There is something for everybody in this Bill, something for the newly-married man, something for the salaried man and something for the man with his family reared. I welcome the measure and there is nothing more I wish to say except to wish it all good luck.

Mr. Blaney

I do not think it has ever been my experience to listen to a more pleasant lot of complainants. They have complained for the past two and a half hours but in a most pleasant way, as if they enjoyed the whole position. That is not really an uncharitable view of the expressions from the far side of the House as to the inadequacy of many of the provisions of this Bill. I say that not only from the expressions visible on the faces of the people complaining but also from the facts that speak louder than any of the words that have been used here tonight. The fact is that, despite the alleged disappointment on the part of those people who are said to be standing around for the past three months awaiting improved grant facilities in this Bill, we have had in that period a new record level of applications for and allocations of grants. Can anybody reconcile that fact with the statement that there were disappointed queues waiting around for improved grant facilities? The increase over the past three months was a 25 per cent. increase over the same period last year, and the three-month period last year was also a record. If we add to that percentage increase the alleged queue, we should now be showing a 50 per cent. increase. I doubt if we could expect such a large percentage increase as that at any time in either local authority or private enterprise housing.

Despite that fact, we had Deputies in this debate wailing and moaning, making all sorts of comparisons and dragging in all sorts of figures to prove that this Bill is fundamentally defective because grants have not kept pace with building costs and the increase in the cost of living. The same arguments have been advanced ten times over. The fairest way to approach this matter is to ask oneself the question as to what the response is from the public where these grants are concerned. The answer is that there has been a record response.

The argument was also advanced that the level of the grants would have a disastrous effect on house building. I come now to the real test as to whether or not the grant provisions provide sufficient encouragement to people to build their own houses. I should like this to sink in between now and the Report Stage because it is of the essence.

Mr. McQuillan

Does the Minister state there has been a record increase in the number of applications for housing grants in the past three months as compared with the same period in each of the past ten years?

Mr. Blaney

In the same three months last year, we had record allocations of grants. In the same three months this year, despite the waiting queue about which we were told, we have had a 25 per cent. increase on the record increase last year.

Mr. McQuillan

What about applications?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Would the Minister answer one question?

Mr. Blaney

No. I have listened patiently to everybody else. I think everybody will agree that is so.

Mr. Dillon

Column 1579 of volume 195 of the Official Report tells a different story.

Mr. Blaney

It depends on who told the story.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister did, clearly and precisely. I shall be glad to recite it at length tomorrow morning.

Mr. Blaney

I am sure the Deputy will. There were all sorts of arguments about building costs. Costs, as everybody should know, have increased under three heads and not under two heads as was asserted here. There has been an increase in the cost of materials, an increase in the cost of labour, and an inflationary increase due to lack of competition. The contractors have so much building work to do, and not enough operatives to do it, that they are naturally not anxious to seek more contracts. There is more work than the building industry can handle. That means that there is a lack of competition. That is noticeable in the few tenders that are now beginning to come in for the more recent contracts advertised. Are we to add to this inflationary tendency by increasing the grants?

Another matter mentioned here was that the person in the middle income group, or the person with £850 a year, is entitled only to the Local Government Grant. Nobody denies that that is true. There is another direction from which to approach the matter. An urban dweller with £625 is not entitled to a supplementary housing grant. Neither is the rural dweller with an income of £521. Now the complaint is that if a person has £850, he cannot get a supplementary grant. The fact is that everybody up to £832 not only can get a supplementary grant but, for the first time, can get a 100 per cent. supplementary grant if his local authority thinks fit. In the past it was a graded scale and if an applicant in a rural area had £10 a week he was entitled to only one-third of the amount paid by the Department of Local Government by way of supplementary grant. If he had £9 a week he was entitled to one-half; if he had £8 a week he was entitled to two-thirds but if he had not more than £7 per week then, and only then, could he get the full 100 per cent. supplementary grant.

Mr. Kyne

But he could not build a house at that rate, surely?

Mr. Blaney

That was the situation as we have known it up to the moment. That was the situation wherein during these recent months there has been a record allocation of grants for people building, repairing and reconstructing their houses throughout the country. That was achieved in that rather limited situation. Yet, although we have taken away many of the bars that existed in respect of local authorities using their discretion in paying supplementary grants——

Mr. M.P. Murphy

That has not cost the Exchequer anything.

Mr. Blaney

——in spite of that the complaint is made that we are not increasing the grants in this Bill, which is giving a higher amount from the local authority than we have been giving in the past. I do not agree with this sort of talk. If the only fault the Opposition can find with our housing legislation as now put forward is based solely on that aspect of the matter, I am quite happy. The argument is all in favour of this side of the House.

I should like for the benefit of Deputy McQuillan to repeat what I said at an early stage, that this grants and loans Bill is not even suggested as a remedy for the problem as he has outlined it as existing in the West and in rural Ireland generally. It is not even suggested as a remedy. I cannot yet indicate to the House what the remedy may be to eradicate what has become known as the rural slums. I do not know what the remedy will be, for two very good reasons. First of all, this Bill was prepared and was in draft before the report on the small farmers was received from the committee who studied that aspect of the situation of small farmers. Any suggestion that what is contained in the Bill is put forward as a remedy for the problems thrown up in that report is completely off the mark. I want again to emphasise that this is in no way being suggested as a remedy for any problem thrown up by the committee's report nor am I at this stage able to give any indication as to what may be the ultimate remedy for those problems nor will I be in a position to give full consideration to the problems as indicated in that report until I have got that which I have been begging and beseeching local authorities for the last two years to give me, that is, the full return of their unfit housing problem in each of their functional areas. That would appear to have been a not over heavy burden to ask local authorities and housing authorities whose members have at heart the welfare of people in bad houses to undertake.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

What about the local authorities who are giving no supplementary grants?

Mr. Blaney

What has kept these local authorities two years to bring to the Minister for Local Government a list of unfit houses in their functional area for which he has repeatedly asked them?

Mr. McQuillan

Where did the inter-departmental committee get the figures on which it was able to base its report?

Mr. Blaney

I will tell the Deputy something now. There are certain figures that I as an individual, not as Minister for Local Government, not as having access to any documents, have mentioned to certain people, not only in this House but outside it, a figure that I arrived at long ago, as to the extent of the problem of unfit houses that are unlikely to be repaired or are incapable of repair. Although I had that figure on the tip of my tongue purely as an assessment in my own personal way years ago, I think that figure will turn out to be very near the mark when we have the final returns from housing authorities. Nobody would suggest that such a figure arrived at by any individual should be the basis on which one would get down to cure the problem that figure might show. In regard to the figures the committee dealt with, quite a number of them could have been assessments rather than factual but those assessments have been near enough to the mark to give a fair picture so as to enable those people to come to the general conclusions they put before us in their report. That they are anything more than that I would not care to say but I do feel that the assessment is near enough to the mark so as not to confuse the issue. Most of the returns we now have from local authorities on unfit housing would seem to confirm that the figures that may have been used by the committee are not too far off the mark to be unreliable.

Mr. Carroll

Could I ask the Minister what is his figure?

Mr. Blaney

I am not giving it but I can get support for it after the other has emerged to show that the two will not be very far apart. However much I believe in the figure I have had in my mind for a number of years I could not go to work on it because it was not factual.

Mr. Barron

"Think of a number".

Mr. Blaney

It was not that.

Mr. Carroll

Of course, the Minister does not know Dublin very well.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister is not concluding to-night.

Mr. Blaney

The Minister is merely having a little say amongst all the says here to-night by various people who were not satisfied with having one say but had to talk two or three times and repeated the same thing for fear we might lose the point. The point generally made is one with which I entirely disagree, that the amount of grants being outlined for the future is too small. I am going on the very real figures of the record number of allocations taking place in the last three months compared with the record number that took place twelve months ago. That is the true test and a test to which we must give some credence and regard when we come to examine the matter as to whether or not the grants should be or require to be increased at this juncture.

One other thing that must be realised is that a large proportion of the people who would normally attempt to build their own houses are people who during the past few years, in their normal occupations, have enjoyed and are now enjoying an improved standard of living as a result of the rounds of wage increases which have taken place, the last one of which was not related in any way to an increase in the cost of living. That must be taken into account when we come to consider the ability of our people to build houses for themselves. Further, I can tell Deputies of the people whom I know who by their own self help and through co-operative organisation have in the very recent past succeeded in building houses with only the grant money at a cost to them of nothing but a bit of labour on their part.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 25th July, 1962.