asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that Section 3 of the Housing (Loans and Grants) Act, 1962, is being interpreted in such a way that only farmers and farm labourers are entitled to get an instalment of a reconstruction grant when half the work is completed, and that this is a worsening of the position, as other workers were similarly entitled before the passing of this Act; and if he is in a position to revert to the original arrangement.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Payment of House Reconstruction Grants.
42.
Before the passing of the Housing (Loans and Grants) Act, 1962, payments of instalments of reconstruction grants were made only to farmers and "agricultural labourers". The term "Agricultural Labourer" was discontinued on the passing of the 1962 Act, and was substituted by the definition "person who derives his livelihood solely or mainly from the pursuit of agriculture". The effect is that instalments are now restricted to farmers and genuine agricultural workers and I do not propose to extend the concession to other classes.
Will the Minister not agree that in view of the fact that practically all persons working in country districts were able, until the passing of this Act, to get an instalment when repairing a house and, in those circumstances, and particularly in view of the fact that the position is much worse now, as such persons cannot get an instalment, will he reconsider the matter?
No; I think the gradual build-up of the term "agricultural labourer" to a point where everybody was an agricultural labourer for the purposes of these Acts made the position rather ludicrous. The idea was that farmers and genuine agricultural labourers should get this preferential treatment and in the 1962 Act the new definition confines such preferential treatment to those two categories. If it is given to everybody, it is no longer preferential. In addition, I would say that even if it were feasible and desirable that the treatment should be extended to all and sundry, we just have not got the staff to do it. In fact, it is difficult enough to try to get the applications we have paid once, not to mind having them paid twice and making two jobs out of it.
The technical difficulties are the cause of this change—the fact that it was claimed that there were not enough engineers to examine the work when it was half completed. In view of the fact that this was not explained when the Bill was going through the House, that everybody was led to believe that there was no change in the position and that people now are finding that they cannot proceed with work because they will not get an instalment of the grant, would the Minister reconsider the matter?
I do not think the Deputy is quite right in saying that anyone was misled by what was in the Bill.
We all were.
If they misled themselves as to what was in it, I cannot redress that at this stage. I would say that this is preferential treatment, which has been given down the years as preferential treatment to these categories. It has merely been defined as such now. That definition exists. In addition, there are real practical difficulties as to why it should not be extended to all and sundry. I do not agree that, in the final analysis, the restriction to these categories imposes an undue hardship because the grants are not paid in two parts. It is much better to get the grant in whole rather than in part. Giving it in parts might make it an interminable operation.
If the Minister can persuade the contractor, that is all right.
I think the Deputy can do that.