Provision is made here for supplementary grants for reconstruction and improvement, and the making of such grants may be confined to a certain class or classes. Under previous legislation, an executive officer in the Civil Service or a young professional man earning up to £520 per year was excluded. I should like to have an assurance that, under this provision, these grants will be available to all sections of the community, including white collar workers —that the local authorities will apply the measure universally.
Housing (Loans and Grants) Bill, 1962 Committee Stage (Resumed).
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
The best I can do is put what is in the Bill to the Deputy rather than try to deal with his point. This section makes it clear that it will be open to the housing authority to exclude certain categories if the housing authority so desires, and to limit the scheme to certain types and categories, again if the housing authority desires. It is tied up with the matter of giving the local authorities sole discretion in respect to where they think their money will be best applied.
We are here giving freedom to the local authority to suit their own circumstances to the best possible purpose. The housing authority will have a very wide range of power under this Bill and particularly under this section so that they can make provision for certain types, classes and categories or, indeed, limit the operation of the supplementary scheme to certain classes. The only emphasis is on the discretionary power of the local authority to devise a scheme which will serve the interest of that particular authority best. We are not trying to generalise because what might suit one authority might be completely unsuitable to another. We are trying to give this freedom of action and of selection to the different local authorities in as broad a sense as possible.
This section has been in operation in the old Act for four years and there has been no income limit for supplementary grants. Could the Minister state how many housing authorities in the country provided supplementary grants and how many did not? I understand that, where a county council is the housing authority, almost all applications for supplementary grants are awarded up to the maximum level approved by the Department but that very few urban authorities provide such grants.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
Could the Minister say how many urban housing authorities provided supplementary grants? In this Bill, we should endeavour to help urban dwellers who require supplementary grants mainly because they are living in small housing areas where the income from local taxation is not sufficient to warrant payment of housing grants. It is a great disadvantage sometimes for a person to reside within an urban area. In Bandon and Dunmanway, people are paid reconstruction grants of up to £280 in most cases where the actual work costs £420, but a similar person doing that job in Clonakilty can qualify for only £140.
I am pleased to notice that the urban authorities in west Cork are taking active measures to provide partial supplementary grants but I think there should not be differentiation in housing authorities. I do not like the idea of this House telling local authorities how they should spend funds provided locally but it is not good enough that some local authorities pay these grants in full, others pay on a sliding scale or partially and still others do not pay grants at all.
Could the Minister, before Report Stage, devise some means of helping small housing authorities such as urban councils to pay grants similar to those provided by county councils? It may be some years before we have another opportunity of broaching this question as it is unlikely we will have another housing Bill. Each householder in the country should qualify for a supplementary grant. Could it be described as dictatorial on the part of this House if we make it imperative for housing authorities to pay supplementary grants up to the maximum of the scale set out here? I do not believe it would be an abuse of our powers even though the money is not provided by the Exchequer. We should have uniformity. The main difficulty so far as the Bill is concerned is that there is no uniformity of operation between different housing authorities. If possible, we should avail of this opportunity to secure uniformity and we should have some amendment of the section to that end prior to the Report Stage. I would go so far as to say it should be mandatory on local authorities to pay housing grants uniformly. I do not see why a person living in one town in the county council area should get £280 for reconstruction of a house while a man living in an urban area, where these grants are not provided, must do with £140.
It would not be disadvantageous for the housing authorities to give grants because supplementary grants would induce people to reconstruct houses and when houses are reconstructed in the course of time the rates will be increased after the specified period, seven years. The house will then yield additional revenue. In that way, I do not think it would be unjust for the Minister to send some directive to housing authorities to implement the scheme for supplementary grants even if he is not prepared to make it mandatory on housing authorities to provide grants.
In reply to the first question asked by Deputy Murphy, the number of urban councils paying supplementary grants at the moment is rather discouraging. Of 60 such councils only 32 pay supplementary grants in respect of new houses and only about 20 in respect of repair and reconstruction of houses. In regard to county councils, all counties except County Louth pay supplementary grants on new houses and all, with the exception of Kerry, pay supplementary grants for reconstruction and repair. There is one county missing in respect of reconstruction and repair grants and one county missing in respect of new house grants. That is a pretty good picture and represents an almost universal application of the benefits of supplementary grants.
For the urban bodies, the figures are relatively low and show far-from-universal application of the scheme. The cause, as I mentioned, is that on smaller urban councils in particular the impact of even a relatively small number of grants, either for new houses or for repair and reconstruction, in any one year can have quite a startling effect on the following year's rates in the case of a small valuation. Without doubt that is why the pattern, in the case of the urban areas, is so different from that in the counties.
The happy position in regard to county councils was not always so. In fact, it has taken quite a number of years for county councils to appreciate that payment of supplementary grants is not giving money away without a future return. In addition to increased rates where new houses are provided or reconstruction done and in addition to increased revenue resulting to the local authority, there is the much greater advantage that where Government and supplementary grants have been available quite a number of people have built their own houses and if they did not many of them would be eligible for rehousing by the local authority at much greater cost than the value of the capital grants provided by the local authority. County councils have come to appreciate that grants are not at all a loss and in some cases can be a gain.
The same thing would apply in urban areas but, unfortunately, the position seems to be that the prospect of immediately facing a steep increase for even a relatively small number of grants in any one year has been a sufficient deterrent to discourage all but some one-third of these bodies from giving grants. I can only say that I shall endeavour, as in the past, to induce by argument our local authorities, the urban authorities particularly, to pay these supplementary grants and point out to them the advantages of doing so and show that by doing this necessary job in that way they will obviate having to do it at their own cost and at greater cost.
I should pay tribute to members on all sides of the House who are members of local authorities. I think they have been largely instrumental in promoting this idea of paying supplementary grants in local authorities. I ask them to continue to use their good offices, particularly in regard to urban authorities, to try to have some form of supplementary grants introduced for new houses, or for repairs and reconstruction, either or both. It need not be the full scheme; it can be a partial scheme or a partial grant. If they start even in a small way, I think they will be ultimately convinced that it does not solely mean an imposition on the rates, that they will benefit from it not only through increased valuation of their urban property but by obviating the necessity to build more houses to house these people if they have not housed themselves.
In so far as dictating to local authorities is concerned and saying to them: "The vast majority of you are doing a good job and it is time the rest of you should be made do it," I do not think that is the answer. Such a solution, if it were feasible, would probably gratify me, because it would undoubtedly lead to increased activity in new house building, repair and reconstruction, which I very much desire, but I still would not go so far as to compel local authorities to provide the sizeable sums required for supplementary grants rather than continue the present permissive legislation. We have reached the point now where only one county council is not paying housing grants and only one is not paying repair and reconstruction supplementary grants.
Deputies who are members of county councils, in which there are urban areas which are poor from the point of view of revenue raising, should use their good offices to try and have discussions between the various urbans and the parent county council with a view to devising a scheme whereby the county council would contribute towards the pool of money from which supplementary grants might be made available by the urban councils. Deputy Hogan of South Tipperary mentioned an extreme example. He said he came from one of the best off counties, from the point of view of raising rates, but one of the worst off urbans from the same point of view. County councils are empowered to contribute to such a pool, if they so desire. Naturally, few of them wish to do so, because they have enough to do otherwise. However, in cases where an urban is lowly valued and the impact of supplementary grants would lead to a disastrous increase in rates and in cases where the county council is relatively well off, there is a great deal to be said for the county council coming to the aid of the urban council. In addition, where you have residents from the county, in respect of whom the county council would have had to pay grants, coming into the urbans, where no grant is paid, the county council should realise that it has some responsibility in the matter. That is another argument why the county council in conjunction with the urbans should at least discuss the establishment of such a scheme.
What I have in mind is this: if a person who lived in the county and was going to erect a new house moved into an urban in the same county and applied for a supplementary grant, it would be the duty of the county council, once that person was otherwise qualified, to provide the grant either in whole or in part. I throw that out as a suggestion, not without hope that some county council will lend a helping hand to their urbans. I know they have the interest of their urbans at heart. In fact, quite a sizeable proportion of the total rate collected or collectable in an urban area is paid over by way of contribution to the county council for various services said to be rendered. When you consider that, in addition to the other obligation I have referred to, there should at least be a basis for establishing discussions to see if some sort of a workable scheme could be devised so that the majority of our urbans would have some sort of supplementary grant scheme in operation.
I am not suggesting this is a complete solution, but it is the best suggestion I can make. Much though it might suit my own book as Minister, I am not in favour of introducing compulsion on local authorities to pay supplementary grants in place of the present permissive legislation. I know the argument can be made that that should be done and that there should be complete uniformity throughout the country. But, if we are to have compulsion, we have to throw overboard the principle of permissive legislation. I am not sufficiently convinced that that would be the right thing to do at this stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand Part of the Bill."
I wonder if the Minister would enlighten me as to the purpose of this section? I am not quite clear what it is.
It is really a repeat of what is already in existence. The net effect of it is that it enables local authorities to pay supplementary grants where Gaeltacht grants have been paid. In other words, the Department of the Gaeltacht is substituted for the Department of Local Government.
Does this enable extra grants to be paid?
No. What the Deputy has in mind, perhaps, is that the Gaeltacht grant is higher than the Local Government grant. It is not regarded as a supplementary addition. It is a special grant for Gaeltacht applicants. It has always been a higher grant than has been generally applied to the rest of the country.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Over the week-end, I made further inquiries regarding the position from officials of local authorities. I was anxious about the subsection which deals with the availability of loans for tenants of vested cottages. I know the Minister stated that receipt of the certificate would be sufficient. I wonder what can be done by the Minister and his Department to make sure that it will be sufficient. My information is that a large number of local authorities will not accept it. It is all very well to say that a circular will issue from the Department. A circular has not the effect of law. Circulars have issued from the Department in the past. I remember one famous one telling us we should use thatch for roofing. Local authorities do not have to accept circulars. Unless something better than a circular issues it will be useless.
The Minister stated on the Second Stage that there may be other ways of getting loans. I do not know of any other way whereby the tenant of a vested cottage can get a loan. Tenants of vested cottages will not get a loan from a bank or a building society even on a grant certificate. There is no way they can get a loan on a grant certificate except from the local authority. Unless this section is made watertight the whole thing will be a fiasco. It would have been easy for the Minister to repeal Section 21 of the 1936 Act. That has not been done. That would be a guarantee to these people that they could go into the local authority and ask for a loan and the local authority would be entitled to give it to them. As matters stand, the manager and the other officials will be confronted by the legal adviser pointing out that Section 21 of the 1936 Act is still in force. If the Minister wants to make this really successful from the point of view of tenants of vested cottages, and if he wants them to avail of loans for reconstruction and improvement from local authorities, he will have to repeal Section 21 of the 1936 Act. Otherwise, these people will not be able to bridge the gap between the grant and the ultimate cost of the work.
This matter was raised earlier. It was also raised on another Bill debated here. I have had the matter considered since then by my legal advisers. I am advised that Section 10 (2) (b) of the section, while it does not repeal Section 21 of the 1936 Act, does in fact have the same effect as if that section had been repealed and thereby provides an effective method for making and securing these loans. That is the advice I have been given after full investigation since the last discussion here. More than that I cannot say.
I hope the Minister is right. I hope time will not prove him wrong. So long as Section 21 of the 1936 Act stands, until the last penny is paid, nothing can be done. I hope the advice given to the Minister is correct and that we will not, on some future occasion, have to make all the same arguments as between the legal advice given to the Minister and that given to the managers of local authorities.
Is a local authority empowered under this section to give a loan to an applicant on the applicant's own personal guarantee or will it be necessary for him to have guarantors? It will be some years before a vested cottage becomes his absolute property. Will that cottage, under vesting, be sufficient guarantee for approval of a loan? This is a very important matter. Deputies will appreciate that it is very difficult for a man with a small income, who requires a loan of £200 or £300 to reconstruct his cottage, to go along to his neighbours and ask them to guarantee him for the next 35 years with the Cork County Council or the Dublin County Council, or any other housing authority.
Our aim under this Bill should be to encourage people to reconstruct their houses. We should make the regulations in relation to the granting of loans as easy as possible. It is some four or five years now since the Cork County Council amended their regulations for the granting of loans to applicants by giving the loans on their own surety or on the surety of the house for which the loan was being made available. That system has not been abused. It is working very smoothly. The returns from the borrowers in Cork are almost 100 per cent. The ceiling of this loan was £900. Any applicant would get up to £900 for the erection or purchase of his house from the Cork County Council on the security of the house itself without additional guarantors. We had several discussions before this motion was approved by the council. It was felt that, if loans were given without security, it might be very difficult for the council to collect its money if the borrower defaulted. We have had four or five years' experience now. The scheme is working very smoothly.
Prior to that time applicants who were anxious to build their own houses and to avail of loans found it very difficult to do so because they had to get two sureties. Mark you, it is very hard for a man borrowing up to £900 from a local authority to find these sureties even though he may be a man of the highest integrity and completely honest in every sense of the word. People are not anxious to go surety for a person for such an extended period. I should like the loans made available under this provision on the easiest possible terms from the point of view of sureties. If the county council or the lending authority are satisfied that the applicant is honest, is doing his best to provide a livelihood for himself and his family, and unlikely, unless in most unforeseen circumstances, to default on his instalments, then the man should get the loan, particularly under this section which deals with reconstruction work only.
If we make rigid regulations for lending this money, a number of deserving people will not be able to qualify under those regulations and the ultimate position may be that the housing authority will have to provide houses for them from public funds. Therefore, I should like to have complete clarification as to what are the qualifications for lending money under this section. Could we get that clarification now from the Minister? I am sure the Minister appreciates the difficulty persons have in getting guarantors for loans. Cork County Council have been endeavouring to make these loans available on the easiest possible terms so far as security is concerned. They have implemented that policy and it is working smoothly.
We do not envisage guarantors in this context at all. Rather are we relying on the deposit with the housing authority of the land certificate as being a simple, straightforward and effective procedure. The validity of doing that has been queried, not without some reason, I agree, but it was queried at an earlier stage. I have had it examined and reinvestigated and I have been advised by my legal advisers, not just as a halfhearted opinion, but emphatically, that in this section, particularly subsection (2) (b) there is power to accept the deposit of the land certificate as specified in subsection (2) (a) (ii) as adequate and sufficient security for the issue of these loans.
What about vested cottages?
That is what I am really talking about; that is the one I am on.
I am glad to hear the Minister make that statement but it would appear that some housing authorities are not conversant with the regulations. I had in mind the application forms of one housing authority as far as reconstruction grants are concerned. The applicant must submit two names of persons willing to act as surety for him. If the Minister's statement is correct there is no need for the local authority to ask an applicant for a loan to submit the names of two guarantors. If the Minister is correct, the local authority is not conversant with the regulations. If he is correct, the local authority can delete that question from the application form.
No. The Deputy is talking about the position as it is at the moment. I am talking about what we hope to have in future. There is the difference that we are inserting in Section 10 a simplified procedure for the securing of loans through the local authority by the lodgment of the land certificate if the local authority so wishes.
That will be sufficient, so, with no guarantee?
Yes. When the Deputy interjected the query: "What about vested cottages," I said I was talking about vested cottages. In fact, this procedure can be used not only for the advance of loans to owners and occupiers of vested cottages but may also be used, if the local authority thinks fit, for the issue of other loans. It can be used for all other purposes.
I am glad the Minister has made these points. There was a case in Kilkenny where a person looked for a loan for the reconstruction of a house. According to the local authority and their advisers the person could get a loan only on the value of the house before reconstruction and not on the value of the house when reconstructed. The value of the house before reconstruction would be about £300 or possibly a little more. The person intended to spend £500 or £600. He would probably get practically no loan on the basis of the value before reconstruction whereas he would get a reasonable loan, sufficient for his purposes, if the value were taken after reconstruction. I would ask the Minister to clarify the position. Must the local authority take the value before reconstruction or after reconstruction for the purposes of the loan?
I think we had better deal with that point on the next section.
This section deals with loans. Section 10 deals with reconstruction. Section 11 deals with acquisition or construction of houses. I am talking about reconstruction. Section 10 deals with what I am talking about, not the next section. I should like to get clarification, if it is possible.
Without being dogmatic about it, I think that to a large degree there is latitude in the Bill enabling local authorities to read it as either the value before or the value after reconstruction. I think there is sufficient latitude there to allow them to take one or the other.
I have known of a special case which came before Kilkenny Corporation and the town clerk stated that he was prohibited. It say:
Under Section 13 (2) of the Housing Amendment Act, 1958, the Corporation may make an advance but the advance shall not exceed 75 per cent. of the amount which in the opinion of the housing authority the house, if sold in the open market on the day on which the advance is authorised by the housing authority, might reasonably be expected to realise.
That is the day on which the advance is authorised.
But it is not in this Bill. It is being left out.
(South Tipperary): Could the local body instruct the manager to interpret it as at the higher value under Section 4?
Nobody can instruct the manager.
(South Tipperary): You can instruct him about anything legal under Section 4.
That provision is not only not in now, it has, in fact, been left out, so that this whole argument does not arise.
That is all I wanted to hear from the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 9:
In subsection (2), page 12, line 49, at the end of paragraph (iv) to add "providing in particular that the period of repayment shall extend to fifty years at the option of the person to whom the loan is made,".
No loss would be involved if the amendment were accepted. The difficulty, if any, would be that the person securing the loan would have to pay more, I suppose, naturally enough, but at least it would give the applicant an opportunity of spreading the repayments over a longer period.
One of the difficulties that make acceptance of the amendment practically impossible, apart from any merit it may have or otherwise, is the fact that the period of repayment could not be left to the choice of the borrower as would be inherent in the amendment, in that it would be at the option of the person to whom the loan is made.
Secondly, in respect of the Local Loans Fund moneys from which I take it all these advances will be made and funded, the period of repayment is fixed by the Minister for Finance. That is a control which all Ministers for Finance have retained over the years and I am not aware that any Minister for Finance would lightly give up that control which he has by tradition exercised in the disbursement of moneys from the Local Loans Fund. Those are the two points which make it almost impossible for me to consider the acceptance of this amendment at all. I say that without any regard to its merits or demerits.
I appreciate the Minister's views but the wording of the amendment would enable the local authority to permit a person to repay over a shorter period or over 50 years. In case the Minister might be taking it from the amendment, not for a moment would we suggest that the borrower should go in and simply say to the local authority: "I want the 50 years basis." It is only for cases where the local authority may be able to make that arrangement that we seek it. In the light of the second point raised by the Minister this proposal may be considered premature, but we have already come up against a big problem because of this 35-year repayment period. It is about time the Minister for Finance did something about it or else that the Minister for Local Government would draw his attention to it. It is particularly necessary in regard to the non-municipal type of house with a high rent; in the case of the vesting of this type of house the annuity is very high. On many occasions the manager and members of the Cork County Council drew attention to the fact that they were anxious that the tenant would be able in these cases to avail of a scheme of vesting at a reasonable charge. However, under the local loans arrangements we were confined within the 35 yearperiod and had to charge higher rates. It would be more satisfactory if it were left optional to the local authority to suggest, when a scheme is being prepared, that permission may be given for repayment over a period of 35 years or, alternatively, 50 years. Then perhaps, with the co-operation expected between the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance, something could be done which undoubtedly would help the applicant for the vested cottage or the vested house where the rent over a 35-year repayment period would be a heavy financial burden on the people concerned.
What I should have pointed out to the Deputy straight away was that the consideration of such a change as is suggested in the amendment can, in fact, be undertaken under the law as it is and as it is proposed in this Bill without amendment. This matter could be changed by regulation from 35 years to 50 years at any time it was thought fit to do so. That is not at the same time to say that I am agreeing with it but it is possible to do it without amending the law.
We can attempt it then at some other time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."
The availability of loans is a reserved function of the manager of each county and I regret that very much because if it were the function of the members it would be to the advantage of all concerned. Can the Minister say on what grounds a manager may refuse a loan? Must he say a man has not sufficient guarantee, that he is unreliable, that he has not a secure job or that he is unlikely to repay the loan? I regret to find that in our County of Cork it has recently become more difficult to get loans. A scheme was working very smoothly but I can instance a case to show that is no longer so. One of our emigrants who returned from England wished to buy a house in County Cork and asked for a 50 per cent. loan on the cost of the house. Fifty per cent. of the cost of the house was £750. The manager offered him £450 but after some huckstering, which is most undesirable, he agreed to make it £600. That would not buy the house. He has made a down payment of £350. He is in the £10 a week income group and there was no justification for refusing him the loan. He is a newly married man and the local authority would be obliged to provide a house for him if he sought one, but having gone to England and earned some money he was anxious to provide his own accommodation. While in England he also availed of a loan for building a house from the local housing authority from whom he got a loan of £1,600. He has documentary evidence that the instalments were paid back satisfactorily and that the council got its money in full before he left England. He was refused a 50 per cent. loan from the local authority here although I understand under existing regulations a man who would qualify would be entitled to a loan of 85 per cent. of the estimated cost of the house. This man did not want 85 per cent., only 50 per cent.
How can the Minister overcome injustices like that? I do not know on what grounds this policy was adopted but it is rather unusual as far as we are concerned in Cork. The trend has become noticeable only recently and I hope it will be discontinued. However, I feel it incumbent on me as a member of this House to refer to this instance because others may arise. I should like to hear the Minister's view on such a position.
This section provides for the making of loans by local authorities for the buying or building of new houses and for the making of regulations with regard to the classes of persons who may get these loans and the minimum contribution. These regulations ought to be so framed as to embrace as many as possible within the scope of this housing authority loans scheme. It is very desirable that the minimum deposit required for the purchase of a house should be as low as possible. It ought not to be more difficult for a person to embark on the purchase of a house than it is for him to buy a motor car, a television set or anything else that is bought on hire purchase.
These regulations ought to be framed so as to encourage people to acquire and build their own houses and the amount of the deposit required in these cases is often too high. It should be kept as low as possible so as to encourage people to go ahead and acquire their homes. There has often been postponement of marriages in this country because the purchase of a house is put beyond the reach of the young people by reason of the minimum deposit required. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind when he comes to make these regulations. I consider this section one of the vital sections of this piece of legislation.
The question posed by Deputy Murphy is one which it would be impossible to answer fully, that is, whether I could cite the cases that are not entitled to get grants under these general powers in the Bill. Rather is it a case where one can specify broadly the people to whom grants may be made. That is the only possible approach to this matter and to try to specify those to whom it would be right not to give loans might be a dangerous procedure, dangerous in a legal manner, and it would take a great deal more time than is necessary. Let me assure Deputy Murphy, at the same time, that there will arise, as he has outlined, cases where any of us would find it difficult to delineate. While these may be relatively isolated cases, there is not very much that any of us could do about them.
If the situation should arise that a general trend of a restrictive nature becomes evident in the operation of these loan facilities by any manager of a local authority, all I can say to the members of that local authority is that if they feel they want the loans operated on a particular basis and are satisfied that they are within the law, they should requisition the manager to do it in that particular way. If he still refuses to operate it in that way, then the best course for the members is to submit the matter to the Minister for Local Government of the day for a decision one way or the other.
That is the best approach to a situation which might arise where a manager, from his own particular viewpoint, may have strong views to the point at which he suppresses his council's wishes to the extent that they may feel irked and frustrated about it. They can then requisition the manager to operate the loans in their way and, if he refuses to do so and if the law is on the side of the local authority, in 99 cases out of 100, the Minister for Local Government would be in favour of the expressed opinion of the elected members of the council rather than in favour of the manager. That is the best I can say to the Deputy.
(South Tipperary): As regards the possibility of one local authority being more restrictive than another, does the Minister receive returns of the number of loans applied for, the numbers successful and the number refused?
I am afraid that we do not have that in our normal knowledge of the volume of operations under these schemes. Our knowledge is rather in the sense of knowing what money is applied for in bulk for a specific purpose. We would not normally know how long that money will last and how many would participate in it but we could get that information.
In regard to these loans which are to be advanced by the housing authorities, are they to be based on the same regulations as apply to SDA loans? Will they be confined to certain classes of people? Will people with incomes above a certain amount be precluded from getting loans under this section or will these loans be open to any type of applicant?
Without being specific in the matter, I would say that, broadly speaking, the regulations governing the operations in this case would be generally in tune with the SDA procedure and the wage limit and the salary limit applicable here would be the same as in SDA operations, but subject to revision and review, if necessary.
That would mean that certain classes of people would be precluded. Vocational teachers or young professional men of that type could not obtain a loan from the local authority to build their houses.
If such a person is over the figure of £1,040, as at present, he will not qualify for such a loan. That can be revised but at the moment the answer is that he will not be eligible for a loan, if his salary is over £1,040.
Does the Minister intend to make any change?
Not as I see it at the moment. I did make a change from £832 to £1,040 and for the moment I am not very disposed to make any further change.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 10:
In subsection (1), page 14, line 41, to delete "fifty" and substitute "eighty-five".
I think the amendment is self-explanatory.
As the House is aware, the proposal in this section increases the valuation limit for these supplementary new housing grants from the old established traditional limit of £35 to £50. Not only have we raised the valuation limit by £15 but there is now the advantage that a man with a valuation of £49 19s. can get a 100 per cent. supplementary grant as against the position in the past where, if a man had a valuation of £34 19s., by law he could not get more than one-third of the supplementary grant. Accordingly, this increase is not merely one of £15 in the valuation. We must bear in mind the other provisions which give such freedom to the local authorities. We must also bear in mind that the £50 valuation brings within its confines in so far as the agricultural community is concerned something like 85 per cent. of the farmers of this country. We have, therefore, come a considerable distance when we apply this change to the wide discretionary powers we have given the local authorities in relation to the making of these supplementary grants.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
Speaking earlier in this debate, the Minister stated that subsection (5) of this section empowers the local authority to give supplementary grants to persons who may have a valuation in excess of £50 or an income in excess of £832. I cannot see how that interpretation can be gleaned from that subsection as it appears in the Bill. Are we to assume this is to be taken definitely in conjunction with a previous section governing supplementary grants? Am I to assume from the Minister's statement that a man with a family of six or seven can have £100 deducted from his income in respect of each child, so that a person with an income of £1,200 or £1,300 can, by virtue of such deductions, have his income reduced to bring it within the range of the £832? The Minister should explain to the House his interpretation of subsection (5) of this section because it is not readily understandable by us. Are there some hidden provisions in the subsection which empower the local authority to waive certain incomes by virtue of a man having a big family, or to reduce a farmer's valuation because he is in poor circumstances?
If I have given the impression that the valuation ceiling was variable—I do not recall having done so—I should like to have that withdrawn.
That finishes the matter. I am satisfied.
That is not the intention where the valuation is concerned. In respect of income, however, there can be that variation under this subsection. It was put there deliberately so that it may be at the discretion of the local authority in their wisdom, and with their rates money, to devise a scheme which would have the effect of rebating or discounting the gross earnings of a husband and wife, as the case may be, resulting in a net income of some hundreds of pounds below the gross figure. That is without question the position in respect to income, but not to valuation.
I suggest the Minister should try to redraft this section before Report Stage in order to make that clear.
It is true to say that even if we agree with this amendment, we will get very few local authorities to accept it at its face value. Perhaps Dublin and Cork Corporations and certain other progressive local authorities may. While the Minister has mentioned here subsection (4) of Section 12, to me it means that the making of grants under this section may, "if the housing authority thinks fit, be confined to (a) persons of such class or classes". I can imagine members of Dublin Corporation or Cork Corporation being bogged down if it comes to a definition of the classes because surely even within the various professions there would be rather heated arguments if some were, as it were, promoted and others degraded?
Again, "persons providing houses of such type or types"—I do not think that would affect the individual case. Then we have "persons of such class or classes providing houses of such type or types". I do not think that covers an individual application in such areas as those of Cork or Dublin Corporation or County Council where an individual applicant's income, with that of his wife, may go over £832.
It may be said by the Minister that if they wish they may allow a higher ceiling for the supplementary grant than £832——
The Deputy will appreciate that the amendment relates to the valuation.
I understood we were discussing amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
We are discussing amendment No. 10.
I thought we were taking the two together. I was only trying to speed up matters.
Perhaps it would be as well to discuss them together.
By having what is proposed here inserted it would be an incentive to such local authorities as those in Cork and Dublin, and a few others, to be a little more generous when they are told they can approach applications in certain cases in this way.
Would the Minister consider re-drafting subsection (5)? It is by no means clear.
That deals with different classes of persons whereas the amendments deal with questions of income.
Between now and Report Stage, would the Minister consider this matter in respect of Dublin and Cork and the few other areas possibly concerned?
Possibly we could discuss that on the section where it would seem to be more relevant.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister re-draft the section? When the Act is circulated to housing authorities, if members at a housing authority meeting make recommendations that a certain person is entitled to a supplementary grant because he has a big family or for other reasons such as illness, the manager is likely to quote the Act. That is the usual procedure. He will ask: "What in subsection (5) (a) or in Section 12 governing the payment of supplementary grants empowers me to make this payment to such an applicant?" If the Minister really believes the section gives the authority, I think he should re-draft it, if I may say so, in more simple language, in language that can be readily understood. It is difficult to read into the section the wide powers which the Minister says will enable the manager to ignore the £832 limit in certain cases.
If I thought for a moment that what Deputy Murphy says would be the case, I should be quite ready to amend but subsection (4) and subsection (5) are as wide as the proverbial barn door——
Why not abolish it altogether, as I suggested?
We have abolished it to the extent that we have given a demarcation point above and below which and around and about which the local authority has complete freedom of determination as to what is the net income of a particular applicant or class of applicants for supplementary grants. Apart from this £832, which is a sort of a centre of gravity, there is no restriction on local authorities within the bounds of sanity and reason in making a determination on the process outlined in subsection (4), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), of Section 12, and in subsection (5) in the determination of the net income of the persons already mentioned in subsection (4). The lack of specific definition is of more use to Deputy Murphy's view of the matter than if we were to try to spell out specifically what may or may not be done.
It is by this freedom given in subsections (4) and (5) that the discretion of the local authority may be used to the greatest extent in the light of their experience and knowledge of the circumstances of the people in their own area so that they may devise a supplementary grant scheme that in their circumstances will give the best return and embrace the most deserving classes. It is for them and not us to decide. We could not be expected to be aware of the last detail of variation between the circumstances and housing conditions of one local authority and another. There can be no appeal from the authority's determination of the net income and no Minister or anybody can say that it is wrong. Even though it may seem to be too generous, it cannot be appealed against. Neither can it be appealed against if it appears somewhat niggardly
The local authority has the final determination in regard to the type of person and building in respect of which grants will be made and they also have the right of final determination without any appeal in regard to the net income of an applicant. How they arrive at it is their business. I think what Deputy Murphy fears is more than adequately covered and to try to be specific about his point would restrict the purposes of the section rather than secure them.
Despite what the Minister has said, I think we are making a big mistake in this section. The Minister says it is a matter for the housing authority, that is, the manager, to say what classes will benefit or otherwise. I can visualise that there will be a lack of uniformity. One manager may say "I will not bother with any person except those under £832 per annum. I cannot understand that section. If I bring in a person with £900 I must bring in the person with £950 or £1,000 a year." There is no appeal. The Minister says that is a good thing. It may or it may not be. Suppose an applicant applies to the local authority for a supplementary grant and his income is £1,100 a year. He receives an answer that in the opinion of the local authority he is not entitled to the grant. He can do nothing about it. But should a neighbour in similar circumstances make an application and be approved, he can do nothing about it either. According to the Minister, the Department cannot enter into the picture at all. The Minister is delegating his entire functions to the housing authority and the manager. The manager is to be the sole judge and jury and, into the bargain, he is fortified by the knowledge that his activities cannot be questioned.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
This section will give rise to endless trouble. Since the Minister has refused to accede to the request made to abolish the limit altogether, he should lay down some definite figure and say that, if a man's income is less than that, he will get the grant but, if it is more, he will not get the grant. That would be of immense advantage to us. If he thinks fit, the Minister should raise the figure on Report Stage; but in any event he should lay down a definite figure the same as is done in regard to farm valuations. If the figure is a flexible one, which can be moved up and down according as the manager so decides, it will give rise to many rows at housing authority meetings and you may have allegations of victimisation and discrimination.
I do not believe in the type of flexibility the Minister is giving in subsection (5) because I believe it will give rise to a good deal of trouble. The Minister should lay down a figure and say "That is the law and nothing can be done about it." The figure of £520 in country districts has been adhered to rigidly up to now. If a man had an income more than that, he could be told there was nothing the local authority could do in the matter because they had no discriminatory powers. The Minister is now giving them power to vary that figure. When he is going that far, he should think about abolishing the income limit and valuation limit altogether.
I have a definite suspicion that Deputy Murphy can see what is in this Bill but is deliberately refusing to do so for some purpose best known to himself. Let that be as it may. It is only a remark made in passing and based on observation. In one breath he wants a definite figure fixed and in the next breath he wants the figures abolished altogether.
One or the other.
He cannot have it both ways. He is vacillating between one section and another like the pendulum of a clock. In one section he asks for compulsion to be used against local authorities and in another he is accusing me of not giving them sufficient freedom. That is the reason I doubt the conviction of his utterances and his apparent failure to see what is in the Bill. We are making progress, even if slowly. I want to make it clear I have not delegated to any local authority any powers vested in me and I do not propose in this Bill to delegate any powers which I already hold in regard to grants. The suggestion that I have so delegated my powers to the county managers is complete and utter nonsense.
There is no appeal from them. The Minister will not come into the picture at all when this Bill has been passed.
If that is so, why is the Deputy so worried about my delegating my powers to county managers? The Department has nothing whatever to do with the determination of the county manager. Only in the local housing authority, by virtue of the powers given to that authority under this Bill, do any of the operations here arise in relation to a scheme of supplementary grants drawn up and adopted by the council. It is only when that scheme has been adopted and accepted that the provisions of Section 12 apply.
It is nonsense to talk about delegation. I am absolutely satisfied that this wide discretion under this section is in keeping with the wide discretion given in the Bill in regard to a number of other matters. That wide discretion is in the interests of flexibility. It is designed so that local authorities may apply whatever amount of money they put aside for this purpose in what they regard as the best possible way. Is there anything wrong with that? Members of local authorities are experienced people. By a combination of their experience and the wisdom of their officials, a scheme will be drawn up and adopted. I cannot see where the pitfalls will arise. I cannot see what objection can be raised to giving these wide discretionary powers to a local authority to spend its own money as it thinks best in the interests of housing its people or encouraging them to house themselves. I do not believe that Deputy Murphy does not, in fact, see what is in the Bill rather than what he alleges may arise if the Bill is passed in its present form.
Why in this particular section is the matter one for the executive, when in the next section it is a reserved function? Why the difference between the two sections?
We have not reached Section 13 yet, but I think Deputies will appreciate there is a fairly substantial difference between Section 12 and Section 13. This section deals with the securing and guaranteeing of the repayment of the moneys raised from external institutions by the local authority. It is quite a different matter from that referred to in the other section. There is good reason for making that difference. As to why one should be executive and one reserved, we could have quite a long discussion here, and perhaps a very useful one, in the light of all the legislation passed. There is a difference in the type of functions which are reserved and those which are designated executive. That is the answer to the Deputy's question.
I do not want to discuss a section we have not yet reached, but the making of a scheme will be a reserved function. If the making of the scheme were an executive function, it might be all right. From start to finish of the section, it is a reserved function, and I am afraid we shall find ourselves in the same position as we do now in regard to medical cards, faced with complete disorganisation and nobody satisfied.
It may be that this section will be utilised to the best advantage. There are a good many county managers; there are two in one county, in case one is not enough. "Doctors differ and patients die" and, while the section may appear to be a good one, I am afraid that its full value may not be gained because of this being made a reserved function. It will end up, like the medical cards, with nobody satisfied with what was meant to satisfy everyone at the outset.
The making of a scheme and the bringing of it before the council will be a matter for the manager. It will then be considered by the council. They are in full control after all because, if they are not prepared to provide the money, the scheme brought in by the manager cannot be put into operation. The scheme, as introduced, will probably have flaws in it. It will be discussed. The council may eventually divide, and the scheme will finally be determined by the council, having hammered out the details. If, at that point, the manager refuses to accept the scheme, a requisition can be made that the manager implement the wishes of the council. If he refuses again, then the matter comes to the Minister for determination.
There is no comparison between the medical card system and what is proposed here. The comparison ends at the point that the manager determines who is entitled to a medical card, the money for which must be raised, and half of which is recoupable from the Department of Health. In this case, the council has the entire control, a discretionary control, as to whether they will provide money for any scheme. If they do not like the scheme, they throw it out, unless the manager is prepared to amend it. If they want a scheme and the manager is not prepared to give it to them, they requisition the manager and, in the last analysis, if there is still a dispute and he refuses, the council refer the matter to the Minister for Local Government. So that, while the manager is left to prepare the scheme, the ultimate control and discretion are in the hands of the elected body of the council and not in the hands of the manager.
That summarises more or less the point I had in mind earlier today when I asked the Minister if the scheme would be submitted to him in the final analysis. I take it from what the Minister has now said that the elected representatives will have the determination of the final details of the scheme and that if the local representatives feel the scheme prepared by the manager is not what they want, the matter comes before the Minister for decision. That would preserve the right of the local representatives to their judgement as to whether the scheme was one which suited local needs or not. I am satisfied, if that is so.
That is absolutely the case. There is no question whatever that the ultimate control is with the majority of the council—not the whole council—the majority of the elected representatives.
Before the section goes through, I should like to know if it is a fact now that the county council cannot make a scheme for a person over £50 valuation, irrespective of the number in family or anything else, that they are limited to £50 without giving any supplementary grant?
That is correct.
Up to this, in Kilkenny, we had supplementary grants on a graded scale. A person could get a supplementary grant of 50 per cent. or 100 per cent. where the valuation was £50 and in respect of each child, £5 was allowed, so that a man with four children would get a supplementary grant. In Kilkenny, there are farmers with £50 valuation who are regarded as very small farmers. If the valuation were anything less than that, we would be building a labourer's cottage for the person. Some of the land is very highly valued. Is it a fact that we have no choice any longer?
In Kilkenny, can a person with £70 valuation get a supplementary grant?
Yes.
There must be something wrong. That is not provided for by legislation.
Provided he has four children—£5 for each child.
The Minister has lectured the House on the advantages of flexibility, so far as the income limit is concerned. He has also lectured some of us on our alleged inconsistency on this Bill. If there is any person inconsistent in his statements to the House, it is the Minister. While he praised the value of flexibility of the income limit and said the figure can be juggled around as the local authority so decide, he has made it quite clear that the valuation limit cannot be interfered with. In all fairness, he should be consistent. If a local authority is empowered to vary the income limit stated in the Bill as £832, it should, likewise, have power to vary the valuation limit of £50. We must be consistent. I would ask the Minister to be consistent. Deputy Crotty has given me some news this evening in the House.
I referred to reconstruction grants.
Oh—reconstruction grants—there is no limit in valuation. I thought he was referring to new house grants. Would the Minister be consistent now? If he is so fond of flexibility and is anxious that the £832 should be flexible, in fairness, this House should ask him to do the same in relation to the valuation limit.
If a man is interested in building a house and buys a copy of this Bill, he will be unable to find this flexibility of income limit which is hidden in subsection (5) (a).
And in the county manager's office.
He would need some help to find it, possibly some Departmental help, but supposing he did find that this figure of £832 was not a fixed sum, that it could be varied as the housing authority decides, would it not be reasonable for him to make the case that the figure of £50 valuation limit should be variable also? If we are making the £832 figure for income limit flexible, we must in justice make the valuation limit flexible also.
It could happen that a man with a valuation of more than £50 might have a big family or would be in bad financial circumstances through misfortune, such as illness or loss of property, and would have a good case for the supplementary grant, but there is no power given to the housing authority to vary the £50 limit.
I am asking the Minister to review that position in the light of his statements on the income level and to bring back the Bill here again and make the £50 valuation variable, as well as the income limit. In so doing, he will be living up to his own standards of consistency that he was trying to establish here. The Minister has lectured the House on the value of consistency. The Minister is most inconsistent in his presentation of this section. I would ask him to be consistent. What is good for the wage earners should be good for the farmers.
The Deputy has missed the point. To be flexible in one's consistency is sometimes a very good thing. Let us look at this matter in this way —we raise the limit from £30 to £50, take off the lid in so far as a prescribed statutory table of percentages for the supplementary grant is concerned and, as I have already pointed out, instead of a one-third grant from the local authority being imposed in law in the case of a farmer with a valuation of £44 19s., as up to the end of last March, it is now possible for a farmer with a valuation of £49 19s. to get a 100 per cent. supplementary grant. That should satisfy Deputy Murphy if he is to be as consistent as he advocates the Minister should be because he has insisted that we should have a figure; in other words, we should have something to which to anchor ourselves. Well, here is the anchor on the one hand, and let us drift on the other hand.
The Minister would not accept that suggestion.
Let us put it this way. We are giving this flexibility to the local authorities. Let us see how well they use the flexibility. Let us see if they are flexible more in an expanding than in a contracting way. Let us see whether or not they will write off £200 or £300 of a man's salary in order to qualify him for the supplementary grant or diminish his net income to bring him under £832. Let us see how many of them will come and say: "We want to pay supplementary grants of 100 per cent. or 50 per cent. to all the applicants regardless of whether they have £100, £200 or £300 valuation." If there is any evidence from our local authorities that that is the way they are heading, I can assure the House I will advocate to my colleagues in the Government that we change this. I do not think there is any great danger of its being overstrained in that direction but if so I shall be one of the strongest advocates that the change will be made to allow them to go further and Deputy Murphy will find me most co-operative if that should turn out to be the case.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."
Is it intended that in respect of the allocation of money from the Local Loans Fund there will be a saving whereby instead of so much money coming by way of loans or grants the local authority will just act as guarantor for a person? In turn will such a system mean enhanced profits for some of these building societies and assurance companies? It may become a practice that the applicant for borrowing may be encouraged by the local authority to go to one of these bodies mentioned here, "a building society, an assurance company, a bank or other industrial or commercial organisation."
While I appreciate the full value of this section as a protection for the local authority and the fact that the Minister and the Minister for Finance come in in the case of any losses, on the other hand this is a change from the old system to a system whereby building societies can advance money without much hesitation because they have as guarantor the local authorities to make sure that the money comes back to them. Does that mean that at the end of the financial year these building societies, banks and assurance companies will find themselves in a stronger financial position than otherwise? I think it is inadvisable that we should transfer so much business to these concerns. I hope I am wrong.
The Deputy need have no fear in that direction. This section is a replacement for an old section that was tried out, Section 10 of the 1956 Act, which was amended to see if it might work but probably with not much more than a pious hope that it would work even in its amended form. We have had experience of Section 10 as it was in the 1956 Act being completely useless. It was hedged around in such a way as to make it useless. To give just an example, if a person proposing to build a new house—it was only a new house in that Act— wanted £1,200, he might go to the lending agency and find he could get £900 and no more. There was a difference of £300 that could not be made up. The idea was that the local authority could then, by operating Section 10 of the 1956 Act, guarantee one-third of the £300 if an assurance company or a building society were to advance that additional £300 over and above the £900 that was provided otherwise. If something went wrong it meant that the local authority carried a £100 loss, the assurance company or the building society would carry £100 loss and the Department would carry the other one-third loss but that was only £300 of a combination of loans amounting to £1,200. I think the House will readily appreciate that could not possibly and never did work. We have now come in with an extension of that section which is more of an experiment than anything else. The reason I say that is that instead of applying this only to part of the loan, in other words to that which could not be got otherwise under the guarantee, and instead of its applying to a new house only, we have widened the scope so that the whole advance required could be guaranteed, that is, one-third recoupable by the Minister for Local Government, one-third falling on the local authority and one-third being carried by a lending agency which could be not only a building society or an assurance company but could include, and is intended to include, the ordinary commercial banks and possibly even some H.P. companies but that is something that would have to be examined. Not only does it apply to new houses but to reconstruction and repair work as well.
I say "experiment" deliberately for the reason that the banks are brought into this for the first time. If we could engender some business in this way it could be a good feature of our house-building finances in the future. However, I have no great hopes of its success even in this new and amended form for the reason that I do not think it is likely to be availed of to any great degree. At any rate, if it should be, the power is there and it is an experiment that can be watched with interest. If it is found useful, it can be spurred along and, if necessary, made more workable.
Deputy Desmond's idea is quite an intriguing one, that there may be a boosting up of commercial lending agencies at the expense of the public purse but it is not inherent in the section. The lending agencies may have to bear the loss of one-third of whatever they advance and I think having to face one-third of a possible loss will be sufficient to make them prudent in the disbursement of their money for these purposes. There is no fear that they will throw this money around and risk losing one-third of it. This is an experiment in which we have more hope than faith. It may prove useful on an experimental basis. I have little faith in it but there is no danger of its costing public funds.
Give the experiment a trial.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 12:
"Before section 14 to insert a new section as follows:—
Before payment of the final instalment (which shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister) of any loan or grant under this Act, the Minister or the housing authority as the case may be shall satisfy himself or themselves that all necessary auxiliary works such as roads, footpaths, etc., have been completed to the standard prescribed by the local authority."
This amendment is intended to deal with what we call built-up areas or areas where builders rent or buy a certain amount of land and build on it. We have had it in Cork and I suppose we have had it in Dublin and other large centres. Notice is published in the Press and in posters on the site itself inviting purchasers to take advantage of the grants. We have found in the past that many people did avail of these and many of the builders were quick enough to clear out without providing the amenities. The onus was then placed on the purchaser of the house, and, to a certain degree, on the local authority, to provide the amenities the builder had not provided. We found, in many cases, that the builder had absconded with the profits he had made, that the purchaser was not in a position to meet the liability and that the local authority had to help out. In this amendment, we are suggesting that this should not happen in the future and that a strict grip be held of the builder to see that the amenities are provided before the transaction is finalised.
I should like to include in the amendment that the roads, footpaths, etc. should be provided but that also sufficient light should be provided by the ESB.
I am afraid the Deputy is tied to the terms of the amendment.
I want to take this opportunity of drawing the attention of the Minister to the fact that under "et cetera", we can include a body such as the ESB.
Acting Chairman
Not under this section.
Surely the lighting of a housing scheme is as important as the provision of roads and footpaths?
You might need a watch dog, too. That would also come under "et cetera" as well as the lighting.
I am surprised at the Minister's attitude in this matter. I am speaking from experience and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance will bear me out. We have had this experience in Limerick and I am just trying to be helpful.
Acting Chairman
I am trying to confine the Deputy to the terms of the amendment.
If a man is entitled to a road and a footpath outside his house, surely he is also entitled to lighting in the winter time?
That is not in the amendment.
Acting Chairman
The Chair has ruled that the amendment does not cover public lighting and the Deputy must accept that ruling.
I hope the Minister will consider the matter.
I shall consider it.
This amendment is a most important one. We have had experience of this matter in Limerick and there was one area where there was what might be described as a semi-public road. That was left over for us. The Corporation refused to take it over as they said the owner would have to put it in a satisfactory position before they would accept the liability of maintaining it. The unfortunate 20 or 30 people whose houses were built on that road were wading up to their ankles in mud. Nothing could be done about it. There is no use giving a man a house in the middle of a bog. You must give him the means of coming and going. We have put down the amendment, which is very simple, for the purpose of providing these people who have gone to the trouble and expense of building their own houses with these necessary amenities.
What the amendment asks is something which is no longer necessary. It is true that the amendment arises out of past experience in various cites including Dublin, Cork and Limerick, where the situation as outlined by the Deputies has existed and was allowed to happen. Such a situation is no longer being allowed to occur because there is sufficient control in the hands of the local authorities to ensure that it does not happen, and the local authorities have been put in the position to ensure that this sort of thing will not happen again. The Deputy from Limerick will agree that local authorities have been taking good care to exercise those very wide controls to ensure that the rather difficult and awkward situations which arose in their areas some years ago are not allowed to arise again in any new estates.
The suggestion in the amendment would appear at first glance to cover this matter but when we go more deeply into it we will realise that the withholding of these final instalments could, indeed, cause hardship to the person waiting to go into occupation of a house as well as acting as a deterrent to a defaulting developer or contractor. I feel sure that will be given due weight by the sponsors of the amendment. This power is not required by the local authorities who already have sufficient powers at their disposal. Despite the fact that they may have operated these functions in the past rather badly with dire results, I think the experience of local authorities then will serve to ensure that there is no danger of a repetition.
Over and above all that, there is the imminence of the new Planning Bill which will be circulated to Deputies during the Recess — if there is to be a Recess at all— and that Bill will have provisions and proposals which will deal even more effectively with this problem, created by the failure to complete estate development. That Bill will certainly give the answers to many of the existing problems in relation to these estates in Dublin and elsewhere. It will place in the hands of local authorities not only adequate weapons to prevent any such thing as incomplete development in the future but will also contain proposals that will help to eliminate problems that were allowed to arise in the past, many of which have not yet been solved.
Considering the two arguments I have given and the fact that this Bill is being introduced, I think the House can rest assured that we are very conscious of this lack of development or this bad development of estates in the past and the dire consequences they had for people who went into houses in good faith only to find themselves faced with lack of roads and footpaths.
What about public lighting?
I should like to deal with the Minister's final point first. He said the withholding of the final instalment might be a burden on the prospective occupant of the House. I do not think it would. I know many families who moved into houses to find themselves faced with conditions which made it necessary for them each to pay up to £40 to try and provide decent footpaths and roads. These families should not have been let into the houses. It would have been much better to have kept them waiting rather than that they should have been allowed in and then found it necessary to pay up to £40 each out of their own pockets. I will take the Minister's word for it that in this new legislation which, I hope, will not be too long on the stocks, there will be provision to ensure that the same danger will not exist in the future, but there is still a danger that contractors or developers can go outside the belt of town planning and escape the provisions of the Bill in that way. It may be all right in Dublin and Cork but it may be difficult on other local authorities to build a town planning scheme in such a way that there will be no escape for such people. If we can get protection for the people I have been talking about I do not mind what the Bill is which provides such protection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 13:
Before section 14 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Before payment of the final instalment (which shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister) of any loan or grant under this Act, the Minister or the housing authority as the case may be shall satisfy himself or themselves that the contractor concerned has given prescribed guarantees that any defect in the work concerned brought to his notice within a prescribed period shall be remedied."
The Minister may say, and I do not blame him for it, that this amendment might also create hardship for the tenant if the final instalment is withheld. My reply to that is that something radical must be done in this respect because many people have been caught under the provisions of the 6 to 9 months period. The contractor could wait and see that the grants were paid first and then get out. Something must be done about extending the time for the withholding of the final payment. It would allow for a thorough inspection to be carried out. I use the word "thorough" knowing well that the Department's inspectors do their part in this matter. They inspect the work at the start and again at the finish to see if it is done according to specification. However, faults in the carrying out of the specification can be covered up by paint and so forth.
I am not pressing for anything very extreme on this amendment. If the Minister can suggest an alternative to it, I shall be satisfied, provided we ensure that the person paying so dearly for this type of house will not be left by the builder, after the short period of time until he has got his final instalment and disappears from the picture, with all the responsibility of paying for the house, looking after the loans and arranging the mortgage and also possibly paying for repairs found necessary in the case of defects arising after ten or twelve months after the final payment.
I think there is full appreciation of the difficulty of acceding to the type of amendment suggested by the Labour Deputies. The fact that it is put down gives us an opportunity of discussing what is a rather delicate problem, in the sense that I think nobody in his senses would suggest that the Local Government inspection should be regarded as a warranty. That would involve the Department in a matter in which they should not be involved. The logical conclusion of such thinking would be that no house eligible for a grant could be built unless it were built by the Department, who would have complete jurisdiction; they would give out the contracts, supervise the erection, inspect the house and so on. Nobody suggests that is necessary or desirable.
Payment of grants is some assurance to the prospective owner that a reasonable house is being built but it cannot be a guarantee of perfection or of the continued good condition of the house. Two inspections—one before the first instalment is paid, when the roof has been put on and another before the final instalment is paid after the house has been completed—are carried out by the Department's inspectors. The final instalment is not paid until any defects which come to light on the final inspection have been remedied to the satisfaction of the inspector.
What could be done in addition— and this might be of some interest— is that where loans are being made— and these are the cases we are concerned about here—the final payment is made after the payment of the Department's grant subsequent to our final inspection. Not always do local authorities make a final inspection before paying the final loan instalment. It could well be that an inspection might be arranged before that final instalment is made. That would be an additional check on the value of the house and the manner in which it is built, and how it looks a month or two after completion.
We cannot get away from the fact that a person getting a house built is embarking on possibly the biggest single purchase of his life, running into probably not less than £2,000. He is unlikely to enter into such a big commitment again. Prudence would, or should, dictate to such a person that he should have regard to the terms of the contract he is entering into. Yet it is surprising how casual people can be about the biggest deal of their lives, involving a considerable amount of money, although the same people would skin the proverbial flee for a halfpenny. Sometimes they walk backwards into contracts that leave an unscrupulous builder an opportunity to give them bad value for money.
That does happen. It is happening and, I suppose, will continue to happen but anything we can say here to bring home to the people that such contracts should be said. Not only are they seeking value for money but a sound home for themselves. That covers all sorts of repercussions, financial and sanitary, if it does not turn out well. Anything we can do here, or through local authorities, to bring to the notice of our people how careful they should be in this matter should be done. We should impress on them that we cannot, nor should they expect the Department to, look after every detail for them. They have a duty to themselves. They must be prudent and cautious.
The first thing they should do is to start off with a reputable builder. Even then, they should have regard to what is in the contract and what they propose to buy and what they expect to get for their money. I have suggested that the local authority before paying the final instalment of the loan would make a final inspection. That might lead to further consideration and it is open to the local authorities, in fact, to retain some money for a considerable period on foot of SDA loans or on foot of supplementary grants. Nothing prevents them doing that but the question of the repercussions it might have on prospective owners and builders is something they must take into consideration. Another inspection by local authorities would be no harm.
I should like to take the opportunity of saying, as Minister for Local Government, that the standard of building in my opinion at the moment is not as it should be and that the tendency that occurs in boom building periods is there—it is not very considerable as yet—the tendency to jerry-build when there is too much work in the trade. It is a natural thing. I want to warn those concerned with the building of grant-type houses that my inspectors will be notified to be on their guard to try to prevent any development of that nature. It is only fair to say that so that later on nobody can say there has been a change of practice and a tightening up of the inspections and that it is unfair. Whatever may have been got away with previously will not be allowed to happen in the future. Our inspectors will endeavour to find these flaws which have occurred in the past—perhaps, not purposely—and have led, I am afraid, to a decline in our building standards.
I am sure I have the support of the House in taking this line of action. It is in boom conditions we have this type of jerry-building, and it would be a pity if in five or ten years' time we were to reap the reward of badly-built houses. Taking all things into consideration, I think the Deputies who raised these points should be more satisfied than they were.
I appreciate the Minister's remarks about the possibility of having an improvement by having more inspectors and particularly by having greater control by local authorities. It might be no harm if local authorities were reminded of that.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to another point. Very often we see advertisements in the papers and on hoardings near housing sites announcing: "Houses for Sale" and giving the name of a builder or a solicitor. I have in mind builders building anything from 15 to 30 houses. In those cases a responsible architect should be employed by the builder, and before payment of the grant is made he should certify that the materials and construction are up to a certain standard. Again, before the final payment is made there should be a certificate from the architect on behalf of the speculative builder. No architect will jeopardise his good name by signing a certificate unless he is satisfied that the construction and materials are up to standard. If that were done, I believe it would help a lot. I would like to have the Minister's views on that.
We can have a look at it. One thing comes to mind immediately. In some cases the architect actually is the speculative builder himself while, on the other hand, the company may sort of "own" the architect. In those cases what the Deputy suggests would not be feasible, but I shall certainly examine it.
I am taking it for granted that the architect is a separate entity. From my experience of the officials of the Department of Local Government, God help the architect who would certify a house as being of a high standard when it is not. I would have full confidence in the officials of the Department to see to it that he would not try it a second time.
That is not quite the point. I am not suggesting that my officials will have the wool pulled over their eyes in cases where the architect is the builder. In that event the Deputy's suggestion would not be of much use. In the case where the builder and architect are part of the one group, there is not much sense in that either. In saying that I am not suggesting that anybody would try to put one over on us in this, but it is rather nebulous to suggest that if I were a building contractor and also happened to be an architect, I should give a certificate in order to keep my company straight. It might be suitable in other cases, however, and I shall examine it.
I wish to thank the Minister. We also have the profession of auditors in this country. Do they audit their accounts and, if so, are they accepted as the true value of the accounts? Surely, if an architect appreciates the importance of his profession, he would not certify a building to be of the proper standard unless that were the case? I would ask the Minister to further investigate this between now and Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 14 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill".
This section states:
Where a person who applies for a grant under this Act dies before the grant is paid, the grant may, subject to the provisions of this Act, be paid to his successor in title.
There is just one point I should like to put to the Minister. The personal representative of a deceased person may find himself with a house which is under construction and is not completed or which indeed has not been very long started. I should like, also, to inquire from the Minister whether a grant payable to an applicant who would build a house would be payable to his personal representative in case of death?
The kernel of the matter is that under this section—it is a section in operation for quite a number of years—the normal requirement is that letters of administration must be taken out. If, as often happens, that taking out of administration is a long drawn out and costly affair— a cost which the personal representative could not easily afford—we can accept a signed document by all the members of deceased's family saying that such and such a property belongs to such and such a member of the family and they have no claim on it. We have some procedure such as that. It operates in particular circumstances.
As to who would be entitled to the grant, it would be the legal personal representative. He would have to take out administration. He would then get the appropriate grant from the Department and presumably the grant from the local authority. After that he would be completely free to do what he wished with the property.
It is my duty, I think, to tell the House that I was concerned in a case like this not so long ago. I got the utmost co-operation from his officials. Thanks to their co-operation and advice, the case was fixed most satisfactorily from the point of view of all concerned. The officials should be given credit for that.
And, I hope, cheaply.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to raise again now a matter to which I drew the attention of the House on the Second Stage. Where a person gets the Government grant but, in some fashion, cuts across local regulations, may the local authority, the manager, or anyone else, withhold the supplementary grant because the applicant has broken some by-law? Is the local by-law paramount? Could the applicant be denied the supplementary grant for contravening the by-law? Would there be any appeal against such a decision? It seems to me not.
Where the Housing Acts, or the regulations made under them are, unwittingly, in conflict with a local building by-law, the Housing Acts take precedence over by-laws. The grant can be allocated even though the by-law is contravened. There is nothing in the law to prevent a supplementary grant being given to the applicant. If the local authority decide they will not pay, there is nothing in the Act empowering the Minister to make them pay. If, in the ordinary course, a grant is allocated and paid by the Minister, then the supplementary grant should also be paid even if it contravenes a local by-law.
Will the Minister make it clear, when making regulations, that housing law is superior to any local by-law in order to clear up the point he has now made clear to this House but which may not be clear to local managers.
The section we are discussing at the moment is pretty specific. It is designed to clarify the position.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 20 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 18, before section 24, to insert the following section:
Where expenses are incurred under this Act by the council of a county the expenses shall be charged equally over the whole of the county health district of the county.
This section replaces an old section. It deals with the chargeability of expenses of county councils arising out of the making of grants and loans to private persons.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 18, lines 25 to 28, to delete subsection (2) and to insert the following subsection:
"( ) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of section 16 of the Act of 1948 and section 12 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1954, grants under those sections may be paid after the passing of this Act in respect of works commenced before the 1st day of April, 1962."
This amendment is necessary to include grants under the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1954, which were inadvertently omitted from the section when it was drafted.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."
There is an amendment to the First Schedule.
Amendment No. 16 has been ruled out of order on the ground that it would impose a charge.
On local funds, is it not—not on public funds?
May I make this statement? It is in order to impose a charge on local funds on Committee Stage but not on Report Stage. Is that not the situation? This amendment as I understand it, imposes a charge on local funds and we are in Committee.
I am advised that it would impose a charge on central funds.
On central funds? Would it?
Yes.
I thought not.
(South Tipperary): I may not appreciate that aspect of things. It is merely an amendment— I do not know whether the Minister saw it or not—to increase the floor space from the figure of 500 to 600 and from 1,400 to 1,600. My view was that in so many of these cases, people will look for a grant and tend to build a certain size of house in order to qualify for the grant and then make provision to add a room later on. The result is that they get the grant but often they destroy the appearance of the house. If we are to try to improve living conditions, a small increase in the floor space on these lines might be accepted by the Minister. I am told that, for some reason I do not quite understand, the amendment is not in order. I should like the Minister to consider it.
A great deal of public money is probably spent in keeping a check on the present limit of floor space. Architects can do a lot of things to defeat the purpose of the area limit imposed in previous legislation. The net result is not good. Most of us know cases where after the final grant has been made, an extension takes place at some stage. Why not provide for an increase in floor space? A very small increase would probably save a lot of money for the State generally. I know of one case where it took a year and a half messing around between builders, architects and inspectors to get a grant which had not been finally paid but which after a great deal of difficulty was paid. The situation should be rationalised. If a man exceeds the floor space, I am not grumbling, if the limit is increased in a small way. If he exceeds the present floor space, it is going to cost a great deal more than he will get from the State to the State and the owner of the property for the sake of that extra few feet. The Minister should have a look at this whole thing again. It is too limiting.
In reply to the points made, the 1,400 square feet has been the upper limit for the past 30 years. Of course, that could be used and possibly would be used as an argument as to why it should be changed. It is not to me a convincing argument. The fact that a provision has existed for 30 years and has been, relatively speaking, successful is, in my estimation, a reason why it should remain.
When we consider that a 1,400 square feet area house will provide four bedrooms, two living rooms, a kitchen and bathroom, I do not think we are talking realistically in talking of grant-aided structures if we want to have them bigger than that. If people do spend a year and a half messing about and spending their money and taking up the time of the architect and builder to find ways and means to defeat the limitation of 1,400 square feet, it just shows the effectiveness of having some limit. If people who have money to waste try to evade the law, if we raised the limit to 1,600 or 1,800 square feet we would encourage people with even more money and less sense to mess around for two, three, four or five years and to engage two or three architects in order to find a way around the law to get something for nothing from the Department of Local Government. While there is some sense in the idea that we could have a somewhat bigger house——
Split the difference—1,450.
——1,400 square feet in so far as State assisted houses are concerned is a fairly big limit for a house. The idea of mucking about with it does not appeal to me at all.
The relationship of the grant to the cost of a house must have changed in the past ten years.
Of course. It has changed in the past 30 years also.
The grant is effectively much less now.
That is quite possible, yes.
It is costing a great deal to administer this grant.
Even conceding that, we either throw overboard the idea altogether and give grants to people building castles. The cost of administration will be as great, whether it is 1,400 1,600 or 1,800 square feet. The cost cannot differ very much whether the floor limit adhered to is 1,400 1,600 or 1,800 square feet. On the basis of cost, I do not think it raises any worth-while argument. As to the desirability of having State-aided houses of a bigger size in order to encourage people and to help people who are able to afford to build a 1,600 or 1,800 square feet house, to encourage them with taxpayers' money is not really justified.
It is a window tax in reverse.
It is so far in reverse that I do not think we could call it in reverse at all.
(South Tipperary): There is provision in the Bill for a grant of £50 for an extra room. Take the position of a man with one or two children who gets a grant and who comes along in a couple of years and gets another grant to build on some kind of annex. Would it not be more reasonable to be more liberal in the initial stages rather than have him coming back at a later stage for a grant to build some kind of lean-to to his house?
The only flaw in the argument there, to take an extreme view of this matter, is that the matter the Deputy is now raising is our attitude in regard to a house which by the addition of an extra room through the special room grant for overcrowded conditions, would put it over the 1,400 square feet. Is that the essence of the idea?
(South Tipperary): Yes.
I should put it this way, and make it very exaggerated in order to make it pointed—if somebody with a 1,350 square feet house or a 1,400 square feet house appears on the horizon some day and by the fact that his overcrowding is brought about by perhaps 15, 16 or 18 children, he applies for a grant on the basis that they are overcrowded and gets a 1,450 square feet house, then on compassionate grounds and on the grounds of overcrowding he is undoubtedly entitled to the special room grant even though it might have the effect of increasing the overall floor space to 1,800, 1,900 or 2,000 square feet. Therefore the overcrowding conditions would be the overriding factor in that matter, not the actual square footage of the house.
Question put and agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 26th July, 1962.