Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Oct 1965

Vol. 218 No. 3

Housing Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That section 15, as amended, stand Part of the Bill."

Mr. Clinton

We have spent a good deal of time on this section but I think it will be time well spent if we succeed in convincing the Minister that certain adjustments to this section are extremely desirable. Since we last discussed the section, I put down a Parliamentary Question and I have received a reply which is relevant to this section. The question was:

To ask the Minister for Local Government the number of dwelling-houses built during each of the ten years ended 31st December, 1964 in respect of which no grant was paid under the Housing Acts.

The reply to that was:

The precise information requested by the Deputy is not available in my Department. As indicated in the Housing White Paper, it is estimated that about 150 houses a year are erected without the aid of State grants.

I submit this number is extremely small and that it could be even further reduced if we take into the calculation the number of people who still shy away from looking for grants because they think it might involve them in very serious delay or because of certain unwarranted fears, shall we say, of too rigid inspection. I should say the number of 150 houses mentioned in the reply to this question are houses which, if measured, would in fact qualify for these grants. This is one more reason why the Minister should see that it is desirable that these rectrictions or limitations on planners should be removed. There should be more freedom for planning and imagination; otherwise, we shall get dull uniformity which nobody wants.

There is another aspect of the matter which should get some consideration, that is, the fact that many people still believe that when State grants are given, that fact carries an automatic guarantee of the quality of the house. They think that with the grant the degree of inspection is such that it will ensure that at least no major defects will appear within any fairly short period. Of course that is not so. This might be very desirable and the Minister should express his opinion in regard to the extent of the inspection that goes with the grant because many people have found after 12 months or two years that dry rot has completely destroyed their floors because the ventilation was faulty.

I give that as an instance. Many such defects have shown up and many purchasers think, in innocence or ignorance, that this should have been covered by the inspection the State makes to ensure that houses on which grants are paid are built to a certain standard of quality and specification. That deals with the area. It is most desirable that this upper limit of area restriction should be removed. Nothing can be gained by keeping it in the Bill and a good deal would be lost.

I hope that before Report Stage the Minister will reconsider his attitude to this aspect of the Bill. We have all tried, at some length, to get the Minister to change his mind in relation to the grants being provided for in this Bill but so far he has given no indication that he is prepared to give way, no indication that to any degree he will improve or extend the grants which have been at the same level during the past 17 years. It is deplorable that in the enacting of new legislation or the re-enacting of old, we should include grants of the same amounts as those provided in 1948.

I am afraid the Minister is allowing the present financial position, the credit squeeze and crisis, to affect his judgment and influence him in keeping these grants at their extraordinarily low level. There seems to be no other good reason for their retention. I hope the Minister will look beyond the present position and realise that this is legislation which will stand for years to come. I hope that in such a realisation he will agree to reconsider the matter and see what can be done to improve the grants provided for in this legislation.

Mr. James Tully

I support Deputy Clinton in his plea to the Minister to remove the restrictions on the qualifying capacity of floor space of houses for grants. Over the years houses have been built which were only a few square feet more than the qualifying size but they were ruled out for grant purposes. The answer to the question asked by Deputy Clinton is that the number of such houses was relatively small, so that if the restriction were removed entirely, there would not be any great amount involved.

The Minister said last week that here we are legislating for the future. He said that another section of the Bill would apply in the matter of house building for years to come. Surely the Minister does not suggest that grants of £300 which were payable since 1948 should be considered as appropriate in future years? Even at this late stage, would the Minister consider having another look at the level of grants we are providing here, forgetting the credit squeeze, forgetting that money is not now available? In the years to come grants should not be left at the level of 17 years ago. If the Minister attempts to tie the grants to costs, even if he put in a sliding scale which would relate to the cost of the house, a lot of good would be done and much relief and encouragement given to people to provide themselves with proper homes.

We know housing costs must go up. Even the prices standstill order which became operative this morning will not affect that. In the circumstances, would the Minister consider making some provision here for increased building costs? He must look at this question in relative terms of £300 in 1948 and £300 in 1965 and recall the statement he made last week and realise that the figure could still be £300 in 1985.

Mr. Ryan

Figures produced to the Dublin Corporation at the behest of the Department of Local Government by City Hall officials show that the cost of house building has increased by 120 per cent since the level of housing grants was fixed more than 15 years ago. It seems unpardonable that we should be asked in this House to accept as sufficient for housing purposes a grant level which, relatively speaking, was 120 per cent greater when the whole principle of grants was enacted in our last housing legislation. I certainly think it is regrettable the Minister has not had the courage to provide for at least higher ceilings as the years go on. We know from experience that this House, like most Parliaments, moves after the need for something arises. Here in this legislation we are already years out of date. In this day and age, we are trying to extend into the future figures which we know in our hearts and souls are unsuited to the needs and requirements of this day.

I wish to support Deputy Clinton in the matter of inspections carried out in the course of the erection of houses for which grants are paid. The public, not unreasonably, assume that inspections will be rigid and responsible and that grants will not be paid through a Government agency, unless and until the house has been satisfactorily built. It is no comfort to people who go into a house which they contracted to purchase to know that the housing grant has not been paid because of some deficiency in the house: it is no comfort to the purchaser to know that, because the defect is still there.

I know a housing scheme not four miles from this House where the sewerage pipes were laid in the first instance with the incline towards the house instead of into the main sewer, in which the foundations were grossly below specification, below the minimum standard. Notwithstanding those glaring defects, the houses were built on those foundations and the people have been in those houses four or five years. It is no solution to the tenants' difficulties to know that the State has not yet paid the grants. It is no consolation to them to realise that the defects were so glaring that they should have been obvious during the course of erection. Even if an additional army of inspectors is required, it is most important that where the State is putting money into house building, it should ensure that jerrybuilding is a thing of the past.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing administration. It does not arise relevantly.

Mr. Ryan

Except in respect of the responsibility of the Minister.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy could tag anything on that.

Mr. Ryan

I concede that I am extending the debate and I accept the limitation you are now imposing on me. I have but one final point: when State money is involved, the Minister has a special responsibility to see that a proper house is erected. We hope the Minister will see to that in the future.

Mr. Spring

I should like to join with other Deputies in pressing the Minister to give the same concessions to house builders in urban areas as have been extended to those living in rural Ireland since October, 1963 The present grant of £275 has been allocated since 1948 to houses built in urban areas whereas in rural Ireland the grant has been increased to £460. Anybody building a private, five-roomed house, with water and sewerage laid on, can qualify for a grant of £460 in rural areas. Surely if that is possible in the country, it is doubly desirable in towns and cities. People in rural areas have greater advantages than those in towns and cities, particularly those depending on local authorities for re-housing.

Those depending on the local authorities in the towns and cities must make a move to build their own houses. Since October, 1963, people in the country, whether they rely on local authorities or do their own building, qualify for a grant of £460 while a person in the same district, living in a town, qualifies for a grant of only £275. The Minister should reconsider the whole matter. It is about time that grants were stepped up in urban areas and cities as they were stepped up in October, 1963, in rural Ireland. An ordinary person working in an urban area for a wage must find it much harder to provide the money to build a house than a person in rural Ireland. People living in rural areas have great advantages. Very often they can supply their own labour during slack periods. County councils give supplementary grants whereas very few urban authorities are paying supplementary grants to help people provide houses for themselves.

I would press the Minister as strongly as possible to provide that the same grants will be available in urban areas as have existed since October, 1963 in rural Ireland. It may be impossible to make that provision now, due to the credit squeeze, but the principle should be adopted.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Section 15 is the key to the entire Bill. I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech but I do want to say that this Bill was introduced with a flourish of trumpets and the announcement that it would be the Magna Carta of housebuilders. We find that under section 15 the very same grants are being offered to persons who wish to build houses as were made available by the inter-Party Government in 1948. Deputy Ryan has pointed out that building costs have gone up by 120 per cent since the Housing Act, 1948, was passed and that is generally admitted to be the case. It is also admitted that it is more difficult at the present time to procure money by way of loans from banks or societies, or under the SDA, than was the case in 1948. The grants are exactly the same as they have been for the past seventeen years. That is no incentive to persons to build houses. If the cost of building a house has increased by 120 per cent, let us at least increase the grant by 50 per cent. That would be an incentive. Otherwise, the Bill becomes useless and may be written off.

I should like to support the appeal made for the elimination of the upper limit of floor area of a house. The Minister knows, and I know, and many Deputies know that in order to keep within the upper limit, many people attached garages to their houses and immediately the grant was given, the partition wall between the garage and the house was taken down. That has happened down through the years. Annexes have been attached to otherwise efficiently planned houses which give the houses a monstrous appearance. I fail to see the purpose served by restricting the upper limit of floor area. What is the necessity for it? Is it so that grants will not be given to gentlemen who want to build mansions? There are very few people who wish to build mansions or who can afford to build mansions today. I can see no useful purpose in retaining a clause which was embodied in an Act that was passed when the cost of house building was 120 per cent cheaper than it is today.

I would appeal to the Minister, if he is sincerely anxious to see houses built, to increase the grants proportionately to the cost of building. In that way he would provide an incentive and encouragement to people to build houses. Although it may be some time before they can afford to build, owing to the financial squeeze, it will encourage them to plan for the future building of houses. In that way the Bill would serve the purpose for which the Minister intended it. Otherwise it will become a dead letter.

I would appeal to the Minister seriously to consider the points made by Deputies from all sides of the House. There appears to be unanimity on this matter. I am certain the Minister will also agree. I do not think it will affect the financial squeeze if the Bill is amended even to the extent that the increased grants would become payable from a future date, say in a year's time, or some such date, because according to the Taoiseach's statement last night, we will have this squeeze in operation for at least a year. By adopting the suggestion that has been made, the Minister would provide an incentive and I appeal to him to do so.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

The first point raised is that the floor area limit is somewhat restrictive. This matter was raised originally by Deputy Clinton, who used the information that we tried to give him as accurately as possible last week as to the number of houses that are built which do not qualify for grants; in other words, those over the 1,400 square feet, which is approximately 150, to argue that the number is so small in relation to the total that there is not much point in having a limit.

Mr. Clinton

I do not want to interrupt the Minister but that is not the answer he gave.

Mr. Blaney

If that is not the answer I gave, then I will have to correct myself or the answer. At any rate, the figure given is being used to argue that it is so small in relation to the whole that the game is not worth the candle, that it is not worth while having the upper limit. I think the argument is based to a degree on that figure. It has also been suggested that the imagination and usefulness of architects is being curbed in that they cannot be given a free rein.

There are many factors, as Deputies are aware, curbing the activities of architects in designing houses, not least of which is ability to pay for the imaginative drawings which run beyond the 1,400 square feet and which only a small minority can afford to build and maintain today. There is complete ignoring of the fact that the limit is to be increased from 1,400 to 1,500 square feet.

Mr. Clinton

Only where a bathroom is put in.

Mr. Blaney

The Deputy will recall that grants are being given only for houses in respect of which services are installed. There may be exceptional cases.

Mr. James Tully

Is the Minister quoting the Planning Act?

Mr. Blaney

Deputy Tully and I will have to take a weekend to discuss the Planning Act because I am worried as to what is worrying him in connection with it.

Mr. James Tully

I do not think we would clear it in a weekend.

Mr. Blaney

We will have a few weekends. We have gone to the 1,500 square feet limit, an increase of 100 square feet, and the 1,400 square feet represented an increase by 150 square feet on the limit applying up to 1950. In all the circumstances, 1,500 square feet is the right size of house for the great majority of people who would be entitled to get State assistance or local authority assistance by way of grants. It is the right size of house in anybody's language. It does not curb the imagination of architects to the degree that has been suggested here. I have talked to architects about this matter. I have gone to the 1,500 square feet partly for the reason that it will allow a little more latitude but also because the demand for bigger rooms and more space is growing and the 100 square feet addition to the existing 1,400 is to some degree justified on that basis.

On the other hand, while it may be suggested that because in future the number of houses over 1,500 square feet floor area will be very small, even smaller than the number over 1,400 now, the argument is all the greater for bringing them in, I do not agree. The fact that the number is decreasing would seem to be a sronger argument for leaving them out. If a floor area of 1,500 square feet is not acceptable to a person in future, it is not 1,600 or 1,900 but 2,000 square feet and more that such a person will be interested in.

Mr. Clinton

Such persons are very few.

Mr. Blaney

When one comes to build that type of house, whether in 1948 values or 1965 values, the total State grant represents only a fleabite in the total cost and is hardly worth the person's while to apply for, although I am sure such person would apply if the grants were handed to him on a platter.

The other matter I should like to bring into focus is all this talk about the grants not having been increased since 1948. This is the greatest cod of all time. It has not been referred to here that the grants for those living in rural areas have now gone up to £460. That is largely true with particular reference to the farming community, farm labourers and workers on roads. What we are doing now is seeking to give corresponding benefits to those living in towns, cities and built-up areas. Under this Bill, if it is properly operated by the local authorities, grants of up to one third of the cost will be given to provide sites for private houses in towns and corporation areas. This is an application to the built-up areas of what we have already done in so far as the rural areas are concerned. The site subsidy is the method whereby we hope to help the person in the built-up area to build his own house.

Mr. James Tully

Is this not where the double subsidy comes in?

Mr. Blaney

This is the site subsidy.

Mr. James Tully

He qualifies for the other in full.

Mr. Blaney

That does not follow. We are not talking now about subsidies for public housebuilding. We are talking about the provision of sites for private housebuilding.

Mr. Spring

If you have a private site, what is going to happen?

Mr. Blaney

The man who has a private site in some of the built-up areas I know of is going to be a very lucky man. At the moment it is impossible for an individual to get a private site in a built-up area.

Mr. Spring

What about private sites in places like Killarney where they are paying £700 and £800 for them.

Mr. Blaney

This is a plan to help local authorities to go in and take over land for private building. We are providing the site subsidy to enable local authorities to take over land and develop it for private housing.

Mr. Spring

Level up the grants and you will have no more trouble about sites.

Mr. Blaney

The arguments have been flowing from that side of the House and, indeed, from my own side of the House, that when we provide grants it is not the house purchaser who gets the benefit but the building contractor. Under this Bill the site subsidy goes to acquire the land and develop it and the builder cannot get it. The most practical way we can help those desirous of building their own houses is to make sites available to them at a reasonable cost. If a person at the moment wants to buy a single plot for a single house, he has to pay a high price for it and God knows what amount he has to pay to put in the services. If the local authority come in, take up a site, develop it and put in the services they can give those plots to private builders at reasonable prices.

Mr. Spring

What will the plans cost him?

Mr. Blaney

Whether we increase the grants or not and whether the private builder gets a qualified architect to draw his plans does not alter the fact that he has got the site for his house at a reasonable cost. This site subsidy is intended to encourage local authorities to take up lands and provide private building sites that cannot now be obtained. We are offering the site subsidy to enable them to provide sites at a cheaper rate than they would be available without the subsidy. This fact has been largely ignored and this is my answer to those people who say that we have done nothing about changing the grants since 1948.

The amount of grant is not the only or most important factor that enables people to get together for the building of private houses. It is only a small part of what is required. The figures I gave the House on the last occasion was indicative of what is being done. In 1949, only 1,500 private houses were built as compared with about 6,000 last year, and the amount of grants given is not the only important factor. The earnings of our working population have increased by about 100 per cent since 1953 and that has had more effect on activity in private housebuilding than the amount of the grants being given today or ten years ago or 15 years ago.

It is of importance that we should remember the three major improvements we are making in this Bill: increases in grants, increased provision for rural housing and the provision of site subsidies for those in built-up areas. But this Bill also provides new grants for dower houses. That is something new. There are also grants for flats and maisonettes in buildings of three or more storeys, extended provision for prototype houses, the extension from £50 to £60 in the valuation limit to enable farmers to qualify for reconstruction, new grants of up to one-third of the cost for the improvement of local authority houses and the extension of the income and valuation limit for farmers and others in order that they may obtain grants.

Mr. James Tully

Is all this in section 15?

Mr. Blaney

This is the answer to the Second Reading speeches that have been made on section 15.

Mr. James Tully

I hope the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be as agreeable when we start to reply to the Minister.

Mr. Blaney

The Minister is expected to answer the shaky points put up by the Deputies. This Bill is not a mere rehash of what is there already. It contains the additional improvements in our housing legislation that I have mentioned and I have not yet dealt with the question of subsidies. We should cease talking about £275 in 1948 and its value now because it is irrelevant and is not the important factor.

Before I conclude, I should like to draw your attention, a Cheann Comhairle, to an error in the wording in the table of grants in section 15. In the column on the extreme right, under the heading "Amount of Grant", there is in the last line the word "are". This should read "is". I should like to give notice that this requires to be changed.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister made reference to the advantage that would be conferred by the granting of a one-third subsidy for serviced sites. I should like to know if somebody takes advantage of this one-third, is that deducted from the grant afterwards?

Mr. Blaney

There is no charge whatsoever.

Mr. Clinton

It is no harm to have that cleared up. We must admit that can be an advantage, but of course it will apply to a limited number only.

Mr. Blaney

Perhaps I should say that any person who qualifies and obtains a site that has been subsidised may not get, regardless of what the other conditions are, the new high grants. In other words, he cannot get both.

Mr. Clinton

He cannot get the rural grant?

Mr. Blaney

Not if he gets a site subsidy.

Mr. Clinton

Last year in County Dublin, if my memory serves me aright, about 2,700 private houses were built. It would be interesting to know the number of those houses that would qualify for the rural grant. I would say 100 of them would not qualify. Out of the total number of houses built in the country as a whole, 6,900, it would be interesting to know how many qualified for the rural grant. I would say the number would be insignificantly small. Therefore, it is not fair to advance as an argument in favour of pegging down the State grants that most people in the country can take advantage of the site subsidy. That is what the Minister is doing in this instance. He is using it as an argument for keeping the grants down. I admit the site subsidy can be a benefit where it can be availed of, but so far very few sites have been provided under the scheme and it will be some time before we have sites.

The Minister referred to the fact that a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies had spoken in favour of increasing the grants. That is true. Three Fianna Fáil speakers drew attention to the gap between the loan plus grant and the cost of a house. They agreed that many people are debarred from becoming owners of their own houses because of this gap, which may be anything from £500 to £800. The recent enormous increases in the rents of workers' houses have made many of these people think of purchasing their own houses. But these are people who have no money saved. Still, they want to purchase a house because they realise they could be building up a capital asset for a weekly payment not much in excess of what they are now required to pay.

Apparently, what is happening in England is this. The Government go to a contractor building this type of house. They have a list of a number of people in the area anxious to purchase their own houses. They ask the builder how much he is charging for these houses and he may say £3,500. They ask: "How much will you take for 20?" They go in and buy 20. They provide the total loan and grant to buy these houses and hand them over to these people who vacate local authority houses. That frees a number of local authority houses for people in the lower income group.

That is an excellent scheme. I draw attention to it because it is impossible for these people who have not saved money to meet the gap between what is provided by way of loan and grants and what the builder must charge for the house in order to get his profit. This is an aspect the Minister should allow himself to be influenced by in making a decision about these grants. It is one more reason why I believe the grants should be increased.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister went slightly wide of the mark when he said new grants were not needed because of the site subsidy. He said this would compensate for the reduced amount paid in other than rural areas. I do not know whether the Minister spends all his time in his office or in Donegal and does not get about the rest of the country. Those of us who do get around know that since the passing of the infamous Planning Act, certain individuals around practically every town in the country have made arrangements, not alone to get control of existing housing sites, but, having found out by devious ways how the local authority propose to develop sewerage and water in the area, to buy sites along where these proposed schemes would go.

Mr. P. Brennan

Private individuals?

Mr. James Tully

Private individuals. To suggest that the local authority may now come along and purchase tracts of land and building sites for the purpose of making them available, even with a one-third subsidy, is pure cod.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And it would not seem to arise on the section.

Mr. James Tully

I made it plain I was referring simply to the Minister's explanation why this section did not require extra grants for urban areas. He said they did not require extra grants because he was in fact providing money in another way. I want to make it clear that the money is not being provided or, if it is, it is not going to be made available to the people we are talking about here. I do not want to go any further on that line because we can take it up again at a later stage. Suffice it to say that anybody who now wants to build a house in a non-rural area must be prepared to pay through the nose for a site. When he gets the site, he can qualify only for the same grants as applied in 1948. The Minister referred to the change in wages and costs and said people had tremendous increases in wages.

Mr. Blaney

Do not misquote me: I said one hundred per cent. I did not qualify it by any other adjective.

Mr. James Tully

Very well; 100 per cent increase in wages. He said that increase should permit of their being able to carry on with the help of the £300 grant in building their own houses.

Mr. Blaney

I did not say that.

Mr. James Tully

Very well. I wonder what the Minister did say because I did not get the drift of his argument, if that is not what he did say. If that was not the drift, I wonder what it was. If a man found in 1948 that, with the help of a £300 grant, he could build a house costing between £900 and £1,200 or £1,400, I do not know how the Minister can now think that a man today can build the same type of house with a grant of £300 when the house costs anything between £3,000 and £4,500. No matter what increase in wages a man may have got, I do not know how he could possibly build his own house today with a grant of £300. The mistake the Minister is making is that he is not relating the amount of the grant and the amount of the loan to present day costs. If he did, we should have no difficulty in persuading him of the necessity for an increase.

Deputy Moore referred the other day to the fact that local authorities at one time provided tenant-purchase houses and he said Dublin proposes to do that again. Is it not true that the Department of Local Government banned completely the provision of tenant-purchase houses? Did the Department not state definitely that there was no provision in the Act and this could not therefore, be done? We were doing it in Meath and we were stopped by the Department. I take it there is no special regulation, though I am sure Dublin Deputies would welcome such a regulation, relating to Dublin.

We cannot discuss section 16. We are talking about rural houses, but, if we talk about rural, we must also talk about non-rural. A rural area means an area "no place in which is within a county borough, borough, urban district, town or non-municipal town." I wonder if the Minister is aware that certain of his officials have decided that a rural area is an area in which there is neither public water nor sewerage and have refused to give the increased grant in areas to which that yardstick applies. Perhaps the Minister would check on that. If he does, he will find that, no matter what way he tries to tide over with his one-third subsidy for sites, he cannot get away from the fact that all that applies in that area is the £300 grant. If this Bill lays down what a rural area is, then the Minister should insist that the officials in his Department know what a rural area is and put a stop to the cod that is going on at present.

Mr. Jones

The Minister referred to the grants payable and said that is not the complete sum applicable under the section. Would the Minister agree that local authorities are finding it increasingly difficult to get contractors at the present time within the range of grants payable? The cost of housebuilding has increased considerably. The ordinary three-roomed cottage is tendered for at the moment round the £2,000 mark. Restrictions on the acceptance of such tenders is slowing down the rate of progress. This points to the necessity for increasing the amount of the grant. It is a clear indication of two developments: the grants now payable have lost the value they had when first introduced and increased costs in materials and labour adversely affect the situation. The Minister, in his experience, must have found these material factors operating. There is a wide gap now between the amount a person must provide in order to build his own home as compared with the value of the grant and loan facilities formerly available. I agree the provision of serviced sites within the urban areas will be a help, but that position will not apply in the rural areas because local authorities will not be able to provide serviced sites in these areas.

The Minister has power to make regulations in relation to density of housing per acre. I take it that will be done, in the first instance, by the planning authority in each county. Has the Minister in mind what density he will allow within the serviced site areas? Will this type of housing be in a more confined space than has been the practice up to this? The Minister says other factors enter into the question of grants. That is so, but the Minister must be aware of the difficulties local authorities are experiencing in regard to the provision of houses. Would the Minister not consider increasing the inducement to people who might be prepared to build houses for themselves, thereby removing these from the responsibility of the local authority? If adequate facilities were available, people in their private capacity might avail of them.

Mr. O'Hara

There is a serious housing shortage in many parts of the country. There is a shortage in North Mayo, though the position may not be as acute there as it is in the bigger centres of population. We have not been able to solve the problem in Mayo because of lack of finance. There is a shortage of housing in Crossmolina, due to an increase in the number of people coming into the town. The main reason why I raise this matter is that I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in many places along the western seaboard there are hundreds of vacant houses.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the section. This is Committee Stage and we are discussing section 15, as amended. The Deputy is making a Second Reading speech which is quite irrelevant under the section, as amended.

Mr. O'Hara

I suppose a Deputy cannot be blamed if, now and again, he tries to have a little bit of a side wallop in matters in which public money is involved. I want to point out to the Minister—I think I am entitled to do it—that there are hundreds of houses, built with the help of substantial Government and local authority aid, which the people have left. These houses in the rural areas are falling into disrepair and, subject to your ruling, Sir, I suggest to the Minister that if these people were communicated with in England, America and elsewhere, it might be possible to come to some arrangement——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The point is irrelevant. Unless the Deputy sticks to the section, as amended, he will have to resume his seat.

Mr. O'Hara

It is a very urgent matter and this is the only opportunity I have to bring these facts to the notice of the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It may be an important matter but it is not relevant to this section, which deals with the payment of grants.

Mr. Moore

As the Minister has pointed out, he has urged local authorities to acquire land which could be let for the building of private houses. In the city area, Dublin Corporation has on occasions, despite the scarcity of land, acquired land and given sites away free, fully serviced, which cost about £700, for the building of houses. Admittedly, we did reserve these to occupants of corporation houses, on the understanding that they leave their corporation house and take one of these. If we had more land, we would extend the scheme. The Minister has pointed out what local authorities can do. If we take one site in the city here which has been purchased and serviced at a cost of £700, there is a grant of £700, plus a State grant, plus the full supplementary grant, which will give an actual grant of £1,200 a house.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This does not seem to arise on the section, which deals with the payment of grants.

Mr. Moore

Reference has been made to higher grants. I am referring to grants already there.

Mr. O'Hara

Can we not point out to the Minister where he can economise?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No; that would not arise on this section.

Mr. Moore

Deputy Tully referred to my previous remarks on the tenant-purchase scheme. We have acquired sites in the city which we hope to develop under the tenant-purchase scheme. I mention this because Deputy Tully seems to have doubts about it.

Mr. Mullen

There is great need for increasing grants as far as Dublin is concerned. Evidence to this effect has come about quite recently in regard to the commitments people are expected to meet in setting out to buy their own houses. It was my understanding that the idea of giving grants was to induce SDA tenants to buy their houses. The grants set out here are too low. It is disappointing to find there is no increase, particularly in view of the fact that we have to take into consideration the cost of the house, the amount of the loan and what the intending purchaser has to lay out as a deposit. Intending purchasers of houses, in Dublin, anyhow, are being required to put down deposits of £560, £600 and £700. One may as well ask such people to put down £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000. The situation is ridiculous and is crying our for a remedy. I would urge the Minister to do something about this. If he does, he will demonstrate that he is taking this housing situation seriously. There are a considerable number of people who have been described as members of the working classes who are found to be entitled to a loan and grant because they are members of the working classes. However, because they are members of the working classes, they find themselves unable to lay their hands on such large deposits. These are the people who deserve assistance and I would strongly urge the Minister to reconsider this matter and agree to increase the grants in cases of this kind.

Mr. Crotty

The Minister has set a headline in regard to rural houses by increasing the grant to £450. If there is a case for increasing the grant to £450 in rural areas, there is a case for a much greater increase in the urban areas. The cost of labour is much higher in urban than in rural areas, and various other costs are much higher. A number of people are still able to secure sites of their own, more especially where old dwellings have been demolished. There are old dwellings in urban areas and people deserve to get every encouragement to secure sites in these areas. It would be a great help if a grant of £450 were given in the urban areas. In fact if the Minister is prepared to give £450 in a rural area, its equivalent in an urban area would be around £600. Tenders were received the other day for four bungalows in the town of Kilkenny, over £3,000 each, and these were ordinary local authority houses. Taking the cost of building into consideration, the Minister should increase the grant to at least what is is in the rural areas.

Mr. Clinton

I should like to put Deputy Moore right about one thing. He said the Minister is constantly urging people to buy land for the provision of serviced sites. That is true, but I think the Minister is in a bad position because we have gone ahead in Dublin County Council and purchased a couple of sites, and we now find that people are in serious trouble as a result. While the Minister is agreeable to sanction it, we still can get no money from the Department. These people have sold their farms to the county council, bought other farms and are in a serious position.

Mr. Blaney

What was the Deputy doing over the past seven years when we were advocating the purchase of sites?

Mr. P. Brennan

It is very hard to deal with all the questions that arose because they are completely outside the section before us. The Minister referred to the fact that there were provisions in this Housing Bill whereby local authorities could assist persons who were anxious to build their own houses by providing sites in built-up areas. This is something which, I am glad to say, has been going on in my county for some years. Wicklow Urban Council gives sites for nothing to people and gives them the loan, so that there is no problem whatever. In that way you can encourage people. Apart from the fact that you get a grant of £300 or £450, a lot of work is involved in the acquisition of a site, arranging with an architect or an engineer to design a house, and then sending it to the planning authority for permission. It is not just as simple as suggested here. The fact is that local authorities purchase sites, develop them and make them available to applicants, and all the applicant has to do is apply, and then he either qualifies or does not, and if he does get a State grant, he is provided with a loan, and it is then a question of either building himself or getting——

Mr. Crotty

Has he still not got to get an architect?

Mr. P. Brennan

Not necessarily. He can go to the Arcade and get a plan for half-a-crown. He can decide whether he wants to employ an architect or not. As far as the Department is concerned, the experience has been that the State grant of £275 does not appear to be a barrier to building houses in the private sector. Last year 6,900 houses were built, which was a record. I should also like to point out that the experience this year has been that we are going to have another record because in the first six months of the year there has been a substantial increase in the number of people allocated grants as against the same period last year. The number of grants actually paid is nearly double what it was for the same period last year. This would indicate that even though we had 6,900 houses provided by State aid in the private sector last year, we are going to have a substantial increase in the number this year. This is very welcome and, as I say, it would indicate that the grants do not constitute a barrier.

It has been said before from all sides of the House that if we increased the grants by £100, or by 25 per cent, 50 per cent or 100 per cent, the people who are going to buy the houses would not necessarily benefit by a reduction in the price they have to pay. I do not think the arguments advanced are sufficient to influence the Minister to make a change. We are quite satisfied that the figure is such that it is an encouragement to our people who are availing of it. The argument that because we have decided to do something for another section of the community we should also apply this generally is not a legitimate argument, in my opinion. What we are doing in regard to rural grants is trying to provide increased grants for small farmers, about whom everybody seems to be worrying, and for other people in the rural community whose incomes are very low and who normally would not be in a position to build houses, to encourage them——

Mr. Clinton

We are not complaining about the size of the grant.

Mr. P. Brennan

You are trying to argue that because we did something for these people, we should do it for all. There is no need to do it for the others because they are availing of the grants in increasing numbers every year. I hope the number of people who qualify for the increased grants will increase over the years also. With the passing of this Bill, we will have every reason to believe that there will be a substantial increase in the numbers and all this will help to increase the number of houses provided annually and lead to better housing conditions.

Mr. Crotty

Does the Parliamentary Secretary not appreciate the increased costs of building at present?

Mr. McLaughlin

A few days ago I had a visit from a small farmer from within the borough of Sligo. His house had fallen into disrepair and he decided to build a new house but he did not know what the situation was in regard to the grant and he asked me to find out. I made inquiries and I found that this man, who is building a five-roomed house within the borough, would get only £350 for his new house and he stops there. His valuation is high and his farm is only about 30 acres.

Mr. P. Brennan

Is the farm in the borough?

Mr. McLaughlin

His home is within the borough but I am not sure whether he has land within the borough. This type of person should be considered. It is a clear case of a man losing because he is within the borough, while perhaps a neighbour 40 yards away may benefit. Recently I had an inquiry from a person with a very large family who erected a five-roomed house. This was in County Leitrim and again the only grant he got was £350, due to the fact that his valuation was too high to qualify for the full grant. The question of valuation should be cut out altogether in such a case and the grant should be given to the man with the five-roomed house. As somebody mentioned already, the cost of everything has been going up for the past ten years but there has been no increase in some of the grants in the same period. The Minister should consider this very carefully because costs of labour, materials, water supplies and everything else involved in the erection of a new house are still very high. I should also like to say that the reconstruction grant for small farmers for a three-roomed or four-roomed house is not in keeping with present-day costs of having that house put into repair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would arise on another section.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 16.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 15, in the name of Deputy Clinton, has been ruled out of order as it tends to impose a charge on State funds.

Amendment No. 15 not moved.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 15, subsection (2) (a), line 24, to delete "fifty" and insert "sixty".

This amendment will correct a typographical error in the Bill as circulated. It proposes to substitute a reference to £60 for a reference to £50 in section 16, (2) (a), in regard to the valuation up to which a farmer may qualify under this section.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 17, in the name of Deputy Clinton, has also been ruled out of order as it tends to impose a charge on State funds. With amendment No. 18, perhaps we could also discuss amendments Nos. 19 and 20.

Amendment No. 17 not moved.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 15, in the first column of the Table to subsection (3), to substitute "£40" and "£60" for "£35" and "£50" respectively.

Section 16 provides a scale of grants for farmers and others for houses, the erection of which started on or after 1st October, 1963, and in the table there is set out (1) farmers with a valuation which does not exceed £25, (2) exceeding £25 but not exceeding £35 and (3) exceeding £35 but not exceeding £50. As from 1st July, 1965, the references in this scale to £35 and £50 are to be construed as references to £40 and £60. Really, there is no material change in the overall position: it is merely trying to put this down in a better way than it might have been done as originally circulated.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 16, in the first column of the Table to subsection (3), to substitute "£40" and "£60" for "£35" and "£50" respectively.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Blaney

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 16, to delete subsection (4) and insert the following new subsection:

"(4) In the Table to subsection (3) of this section, the references to £40 and £60 shall as respects a house the erection of which commenced before 1st July, 1965, be construed as references to £35 and £50 respectively."

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 21, in the name of Deputy Clinton, has been ruled out of order as it tends to impose a charge on public funds.

Question proposed: "That section 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Clinton

I had a number of amendments to this section, all of which have been ruled out of order. One was to provide a definitive date for this section to become operative. I think it is very confusing that so many dates are mentioned in the Bill for so many different purposes. It is well known that the Bill was heralded as far back as October, 1963, and all during the election campaign, the people were being promised a new deal in housing. Everything said then and prior to that time would give people reason to believe that when this magic Bill came along, it would have retrospective effect. It has taken a couple of years to produce the Bill and it is not unreasonable to suggest that it should have retrospective effect at least for a year or two; but in many cases it is brought up to the current time. People were entitled to expect it would be retrospective but it is not.

Subsection (b) of this section, in my view, is merely a means test. It says:

the said person or occupier is ordinarily resident in a rural area—

a rural area would have to be described and defined

—either in an overcrowded house or in a house unfit for human habitation—

all these things must be defined: what is "an overcrowded house"?

or he is a person in need of housing on medical, compassionate or other similar grounds—

who is to decide all these things? Consider the delays involved in deciding them—

and the circumstances of the person or occupier are such that he could not provide a house for his own occupation without the aid of a grant under this section.

Who could possibly prove all these things? How long would it take? Surely we either want to give farmers grants or we do not. I believe the subsection is deliberately put in to be a brake again and the cause of endless delays and frustration in proving or disproving that a farmer qualifies under all these individual headings.

Surely if we have the valuation of the farm and we want a few people to remain in rural Ireland, we should give a grant and have none of this means test business. We have more than enough of that in the Health and Social Welfare Acts. Now we are introducing another long list of qualifications that are tantamount to a means test of farmers seeking grants in rural areas. We are increasing the grant and making it impossible for them to get it. It does not make sense to me and it seems as if, even in rural areas, we do not want to make it easier for people to provide their own houses. I should like to see the subsection removed: I tried to have it removed. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say in relation to it and how he can justify all these provisions before it can be decided that a man is entitled to a grant.

Mr. Blaney

In answer to the first point, it is true that the Bill took quite a long time to prepare, but on the other hand before the House is finished with it. Deputies will realise why. It is a very big, comprehensive Bill and undoubtedly a great deal of work behind the scenes had to go into it as distinct from decisions of mine, the Government or anybody else. The hard work of the officials dealing with the finalising of the wording that would convey the intentions of the Government does not look as if it required much thought but in a Bill such as this, it was a very onerous job and if an undue time appeared to the House to have elapsed, I can assure them that is not really so. The time was all necessary and time over the normal hours of those immediately associated with the Bill was put in on its preparation.

Regarding these dates about which Deputy Clinton complains, I should recall why 1st October, 1963 was fixed. This was the point at which it was decided, and announced by me on behalf of the Government, that we had determined to do a job regarding further assistance to the farming community by way of increasing Government grants for housing for these people. Once having said it, is is only right to say that as and from that date, anybody who might come into the category would be in rather a quandary as to whether he should start or not start. Therefore, we made it 1st October, 1963, the date on which this information was first announced.

Regarding 1st July, another of the dates Deputy Clinton alleges are confusing, I do not deny that they may be confusing. The 1st July date was taken because it was the actual date of publication of the text of the Bill which was circulated on June 30th. If we only promised certain of these provisions that are in the Bill and did not put them in, it could have a retarding effect on housebuilding rather than act as an incentive. Naturally, we had to fix a date and the obvious one was 1st July. The people did not know about it until this date.

Deputy Clinton suggests we should go back further and make many of the provisions of the Bill retrospective. I should say a fairly reasonable assessment of the matter is based on this consideration: these incentives and improvements in housing legislation, whether by grant or otherwise, are intended to be new and additional incentives to get people to build more houses more quickly. It would negative the whole argument if we were to compensate people by giving retrospective benefit to people who had already completed houses in the previous six months or two years. Our purpose is to encourage more people who have not yet felt up to the task of going ahead and building their houses to do so now under the provisions of this Bill.

It is not our aim to compensate those who have already completed their houses or who began to build on the day of the announcement of these improved facilities. There were people who, before these facilities were announced, felt that, with the grants then available, they were in a position to go ahead and do the job. What we are trying to do here is to get the people who did not feel they were able to go on with the job to do so now. That is the very reason why we do not go back a year or two years, much as we might like to do so, to compensate those who have already done the job. We could with justification say to those people: "Here is another £100 or £150. You are entitled to it as much as those who have not yet begun to do the work." Our whole effort must be to get people to build, not to compensate people who have already built. A date must be chosen and if we go back two years, there is no reason why we should not go back five years. If we go back beyond 1st October, 1965, and 1st October, 1963, respectively, there is no reason why we should not go back five years or indeed ten years.

Mr. Crotty

I suggest the Minister go back to October, 1963, because people who were at that time thinking of building houses were advised by officials and members of local authorities that anything they did then would qualify under the terms of the Bill then announced, that people in rural Ireland building houses will get the £450 grant from the Government, though that provision is not passed. People undertook commitments on that basis, on the promise that they would qualify under the improved provisions of the Housing Bill. They went ahead and built, and if they started operations before 1st July, they are cut out.

Mr. Clinton

I think the Minister will agree this was a much discussed Bill and people were able, from the hints given by Government speakers, including the Minister, to anticipate a certain number of improvements because of the Bill, small though the improvements may be. A peculiar feature of the Bill is that not one date or two dates but three dates are mentioned. Improvement grants go back to December, 1964 and then there is 1st October, 1963 and 1st July. There were three different dates in various sections of the Bill. The explanation given by the Minister, while good in its own way, certainly does not meet the objections to this date or the suggestion to go back a reasonable period and have one date in the entire Bill.

The Minister did not refer to the objections I raised to paragraph (b) of the subsection which involves a means test. I should like to hear him give his reasons why all these qualifications have first to be satisfied before we can decide to give a farmer a grant to build his own house. There are so many things that have to be proved or disproved at the whim of somebody in the area or of the Minister's inspector or whoever makes these decisions. The Minister says he is anxious to get the greatest number of houses built in the shortest possible time. One of the best ways of achieving this is to remove that entire paragraph, eliminating all these silly qualifications which a man must satisfy before he can get a State grant.

I notice that while in the section covering ordinary grants there are three columns, the third column is eliminated in the section covering the rural group. Apparently it is assumed in these cases that a piped water supply and sewerage facilities are never available, that the people must always provide themselves with water by digging wells and with sewerage facilities by laying down septic tanks. That is my reading of it. Perhaps the Minister would explain the position.

Mr. Blaney

Dealing with the Deputy's first point—I am sorry I overlooked referring to it earlier— the question of proving or disproving so many things by so many people does not arise. The reason for these two sets of conditions is to widen the scope of the provision rather than restrict it: if a person does not win on the red, he may win on the black. It is not a question of proving or disproving. The provision says "if in the opinion of the Minister" certain things are so or are not so. The aim is to expand rather than restrict. In regard to the columns mentioned by the Deputy, I cannot identify them.

Mr. Clinton

One is the table at the top of page 16. It contains only two columns whereas the table on page 14 has three.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is the comparison of page 14 with page 16

Mr. Blaney

I did not get the point.

Mr. Clinton

The point is that there are different and improved grants in cases where there is a piped water supply and a sewerage service on the road. Such services are possible even in a rural area unless we qualify rural areas and eliminate any area which has not got these services. Why is there not a third column in the second table? I should like also to ask if these conditions laid down are meant to widen the scope of the provision rather than to narrow it. Does it mean that a farmer who meets some of these conditions but whose valuation is more than £60 will come within the scope of the section? The first qualification is that the valuation of the person concerned must not be more than £60. Further down, other conditions are imposed. Does it mean the person could go up to any valuation figure if he fulfils some of the conditions laid down in paragraph (b)?

Mr. Blaney

The table given on page 14 under section 15 deals with persons and grants in respect of persons who may be in rural or urban areas and who may be in serviced or non-serviced areas. In the case of the farmers, it is the one on page 15 or 16, as the case may be. This deals straightforwardly with that category as to whether they are in a service area or not in a service area.

Mr. Clinton

Does the Minister agree that it makes a difference from the point of view of cost to the person building a house?

Mr. Blaney

Yes, a difference of £75.

Mr. Clinton

But there is no additional grant because of the difficulty in this case.

Mr. Blaney

If you service a house in a non-service area, you get £75.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not think the farmer does. There is no special provision made for it in page 15 or 16. That is Deputy Clinton's point.

Mr. Blaney

He is getting it in this higher grant.

Mr. Clinton

But it is within the grant.

Mr. Blaney

It is always within the grant, whether it is one grant or two grants.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): A farmer will get £450 if his valuation does not exceed £25, whether he can connect with a main sewage and water scheme or whether he has to provide one himself.

Mr. Clinton

By digging a well and installing a septic tank.

Mr. Blaney

Yes.

Mr. Clinton

That is the point I am making, that the provision of supply involves him in considerable extra cost for which he is not compensated here in any way. If by accident he happens to be adjacent to where the services are, he has not that cost but if he is in a more remote area, he has the cost and he is penalised because of it.

Mr. Blaney

Probably the two columns are confused through my fault. They should not be confused, in that the first column deals with a nonserviced house and the second column deals with a serviced house.

Mr. Clinton

I presume that it deals with services that are provided either by a local sewerage supply passing the gate and a piped water supply or by a septic tank and the digging of a well.

Mr. Blaney

It does not matter how they are provided, if there is a finished serviced house.

Mr. Clinton

There is a very big difference to the man building a house between the case where the services happen to be public services and where he has to dig a well and instal a septic tank. There should be some compensation for the man who has to provide these services for himself.

Mr. Blaney

The converse could be true, that we should fine the man who does not happen to provide the services. A man who chooses to build a house on an eminence some distance from the main road cannot be said to be in need of compensation so that he can put a road similar to the main road up to the door of his house. That is the logical conclusion.

Mr. Clinton

I follow this up because of the fact that a distinction is made on page 14 in the case of the urban grant, in that it is recognised that it costs more to provide a septic tank and a well—not sufficiently recognised—but it is recognised by the additional £25 over and above the grant applicable where the services are available. There is no such recognition in the case of the rural grant.

Mr. Blaney

I still maintain that what it really amounts to is that we are not penalising the man who has the services provided for him at public expense.

Mr. Clinton

That is an answer but not a just answer.

Mr. Blaney

The answer is as good as the Deputy's argument. It has the same merits.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Reading the heading there, does it not mean that you could have under section 16 a decision by a Minister that a farmer could reasonably provide these services himself and, since he does not, he is not entitled to a grant? Maybe there is nothing in it but Deputy Clinton has raised the matter. The headings in the columns associated with section 15 are: first, where sewerage facilities and piped water supply cannot reasonably be provided. That is clear enough. The second is where sewerage facilities and water supply are provided. Again that is clear enough. The third is where the person, although there is not a public service available, in fact makes the provision. Now applying it to a farmer, there is the same first heading, where the facilities cannot reasonably be provided. In that case there is provision for the grant. Then where, in fact, they are provided, there is provision for a grant. But there is no similar column providing for where the person makes the provision, where public supply is not available. So that one could have a situation in which the Minister could say: "In your case, since you have not made provision, although there is no public water supply available, you are not entitled to a grant because it could reasonably have been provided. Is there not a difficulty there?

Mr. Blaney

No. The general situation is that in this regard it is the intention to have services provided in all new houses unless such provision is an unreasonable requirement. If somebody is building a house, the first thing he should do, although it is not always done, is to apply and get his plans approved and his grants allocated as per the plans. At that stage it would be determined as to whether or not services could reasonably be provided. He should get it clear at that stage that it is unreasonable to expect him to provide the services. It is at the time of allocation, which should be before the house or any part of it had been commenced, that that should be determined. If an applicant builds a house in the pious hope that everything will be all right and makes no provision for services either outside or inside the house and we find that it was reasonable that he should have provided these services and it was reasonably to be expected, he will be in trouble.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

He will get no grant.

Mr. Blaney

That would be it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

He cannot get a grant. Is that not the sanction— that he will not get a grant?

Mr. Blaney

Yes.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister has put his finger on a rather sore point. While for some time it was quite easy to apply for a grant and get an inspector to examine the whole situation and decide, that is not so now.

Mr. Blaney

It never was legally so.

Mr. James Tully

If the man applies now and waits until the inspector comes to examine his site, he will have to wait a heck of a long time. When a person decides to build a house and has plans drawn up, he does not want to have to wait three, four or five months for an inspector to arrive to say whether or not the plans are in order. The Minister may say that that does not happen in every case—I quite agree—but it does happen. Did I hear the Minister say that four or five months is not inordinate? I will put another name on it.

Mr. Blaney

If the Deputy is quoting me, I did not say that. I do not know where the Deputy picked that up.

Mr. James Tully

Four or five months is not unusual.

There are a couple of other things in connection with this section. One of them is the question of rural areas. The Minister has been referred to grants for farmers. This section does not apply only to farmers. That point must be cleared up. Not alone have they been referred to as farmers' grants in the House but a number of people and a number of local authorities are under the impression that this applies only to farmers with a valuation. It should be explained fully that it applies to persons other than farmers, that it also applies to persons in rural areas who are living in condemned or overcrowded conditions.

The section says:

(a) The said person or occupier is in need of housing and derives his livelihood solely or mainly from the pursuit of agriculture and the rateable valuation, or the aggregate of the rateable valuations of the land (if any) and buildings occupied by him does not exceed fifty pounds.

(b) the said person or occupier is ordinarily resident in a rural area either in an overcrowded house or in a house unfit for human habitation, or he is a person in need of housing on medical, compassionate or other similar grounds, and the circumstances of the person or occupant are such that he could not provide a house for his own occupation without the aid of a grant under this section.

There have been some most extraordinary interpretations of this at local authority and departmental level. I mentioned on a previous section that a rural area was generally considered to be an area in which there was no piped or public water or sewerage and that people who have built houses in areas which were really rural but where there happened to be a pipeline passing by were held not to be entitled to get the rural housing grant.

If we go back to page 9, to the definitions, we find in line 20:

"Rural area" means an area no place in which is within a county borough, borough, urban district, town or non-municipal town;

That being so, it is a little high-handed on the part of officials to rule out people simply because there is a pipeline passing their gateway conveying water from a reservoir to a town and that person gets a connection made to that pipeline. If there is any doubt about such cases being ruled out, I can give specific instances to the Department which I took up with them myself and on which I was told that there was an authoritative ruling. In such cases, the Minister should intervene.

There is another aspect of it. The section refers to "a person ordinarily resident in a rural area either in an overcrowded house or a house unfit for human habitation." It often happens that young people getting married in a rural area who have been living in a house which might or might not be overcrowded before the marriage would qualify for a grant, but if they leave that house and move into a new house directly on marriage, they are ruled out by the Department under subsection (2) paragraph (b) of section 16. The Minister will have to have these matters clarified because an otherwise good section is being spoiled by this interpretation.

There is no point whatever in passing legislation through this House for the purpose of improving any particular matter if it is left so loose that certain officials administering the Act at local authority or departmental level can frustrate its whole intention by saying: "This is what we read out of it and it does not matter what was intended." Our experience of the Planning Act and the interpretation being given to what we consider to be perfectly simple phraseology makes us very suspicious indeed. It is our job to ensure that it cannot happen when this Bill becomes law. We must have it down in black and white and we must insist that before the Bill goes through, not alone is the Minister satisfied but we also are satisfied that the wording is what we want it to be.

The grant of £450 is a substantial amount of money but it does not bear much relation to the real cost of building a house at the present time. If the local authority give the other £450, the person building the house gets £900 which is a substantial amount of money, but with present housing costs it is very important that the maximum benefits be got from these grants.

The Minister, referring to grants to farmers, may have been contained by the fact that most people who apply for permission to build in a country area are told by the local authorities that unless they are farmers who live in the country areas, they will not get permission to build a house there. The Minister may be surprised at that interpretation but it is an interpretation given by local authority officials who claim that they have got it from the Custom House. Some of them are not yet aware that the Custom House has been changed to O'Connell Bridge Building.

Mr. Clinton

I am very glad that Deputy Tully has gone back to subsection (b), which confuses me. I would ask the Minister if that subsection stands on its own. The section says:

The said person or occupier is ordinarily resident in a rural area either in an overcrowded house or a house unfit for human habitation....

Does that stand if a person has an income of £2,000 a year? The next line is:

or he is a person in need of housing on medical, compassionate or other similar grounds.

Does that stand on its own? I would like the Minister to define or explain the word "compassionate". Here is where we run into difficulties at local authority level and it all depends on who is looking at the section. This is something that should be tied up tightly in this Bill. If it is possible to give it any other meaning, it will be given that meaning if it means the preventing of a house being built.

I should like the Minister to comment on that paragraph when we resume the debate but I have not yet finished with the table. It is this difference between the two tables which does not make sense to me. There was one question I asked the Minister which he did not answer: whether a person with a valuation of over £60 and qualified on other grounds would still qualify?

Mr. Blaney

If he qualifies on other grounds, obviously he is qualified; but I cannot see how he could qualify with over £60 valuation.

Mr. Clinton

I suggest it could be artificially provided. If I had a valuation over £60, I could go in there and live in overcrowded conditions.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.