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.