When progress was reported on this section, the Minister was about to give us some further explanation of subsection (b) and some examples, perhaps, of the type of person to whom it would apply. In the course of his comments, he remarked that this subsection was intended to widen the scope of the Bill and to make grants available to a greater number of people. That seems to me to be in conflict with the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on my amendment which sought to have this subsection deleted. That amendment was ruled out of order on the ground that it would impose a charge on State funds. Now, either the Ceann Comhairle is right in ruling my amendment out of order or the Minister is wrong.
Private Members' Business. - Housing Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 16, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Which amendment?
To delete subsection (b).
Then what would we have?
We then have all these conditions eliminated. My amendment was ruled out of order on the ground that it would impose a charge on State funds. The Minister says that is not so, that the effect of this subsection will be that many more grants will be possible to a greater number of people. Was my amendment not ruled out of order on the ground it would impose a charge on State funds?
The ruling of the Ceann Comhairle was correct. The Deputy's amendment would have the effect of imposing a charge on State funds.
I can only deduce from that the Minister's statement must not be correct. The two things cannot be right. If this subsection will have the effect the Minister says it will, then my amendment cannot be ruled out. I should like to hear the Minister say he either accepts or does not accept that. In my view, this will have the effect of reducing the number of grants that may be made, if these conditions are imposed on top of the conditions set out in subsection (a). If they can stand apart and are separate from the conditions set out in subsection (a), there is a possibility that they could widen the scope of the grants. I should like to hear from the Minister examples of the people he has in mind who would be included under subsection (b). Would he give us specific definitions in relation to the various conditions laid down here or will the interpretation of that be left to certain officials, perhaps one or two officials, in the local authority? Is there any way in which to tie this up in legislation? I should like the Minister to deal with that before I come back to this table.
The previous section was referred to as the town and city dwellers' section. This section is referred to as the farmers' section. I do not think either description is strictly true. As I understand the section, if we delete subsection (b), as Deputy Clinton wishes us to do, this would be purely a farmers' section. Under subsection (b), farmers or industrial workers will be eligible for the grant mentioned in section 15. An industrial worker living in a rural area will, if he satisfies the conditions in subsection (b), qualify for a grant of £450. It is at this point I share Deputy Clinton's concern about the subsection.
Deputy Clinton asked for examples. I shall give an example now that I came across a few days ago. A farm on which a man worked as a steward and on which he had a house was sold. He acquired a site for a house on the farm. Living with him there was an unmarried son, a factory worker, and he put his name to the application form for the grant. He was notified that he was eligible for a grant of only £300. That is an example of the type of person who should qualify under subsection (b). This steward and his family lived on and worked the land all their lives. Due to circumstances outside their control, they had to get out of the house in which they lived. Now they find, having acquired a site, that they are entitled to only £300 by way of grant. Perhaps, if the steward had applied in his own name, the situation might have been different, but he is an old man now and apparently it was decided that the son should be the applicant. I believe these are the people who should qualify under subsection (b).
The ruling of the Chair and my statement as to what is or is not in this section have been questioned by Deputy Clinton. The ruling of the Chair is, of course, right. The Deputy should have known that before he asked the question——
Then the Minister was wrong.
——and he should not deduce from that that I must be wrong. As I see it, the point objected to by the Deputy and suggested to be deleted is an additional part of the subsection that is intended to bring in more people than were originally announced to be included. Presumably, he does not want these conditions to apply.
I may have misunderstood the provision. That is why I wanted the Minister to explain it. I was led further up the garden by the decision of the Ceann Comhairle.
No. The two are quite consistent. One is that we are introducing something additional to what was already announced in the earlier stages about these grants, enabling a further number of people to be considered for these higher grants. The Deputy wants to delete this, and by so doing, leave the matter that it may be interpreted more widely than it is now capable of being interpreted. In other words, I am prepared to go a bit further than we had intended to go but the Deputy wants to go the whole hog or near it.
The Minister is trying to misinterpret what I am saying. I have asked the Minister several times are the conditions laid down in paragraph (b) a further extension of paragraph (a) or does paragraph (b) stand on its own?
It stands on its own.
Surely, therefore, I am in a position to question the ruling of the Chair?
The Deputy may not.
He can make representations.
I can make representations. It is a case for making representations. Possibly the Minister is right in what he says that this will extend the scope, provided that paragraph (b) is not an additional qualification superimposed on paragraph (a). We have all asked the Minister to give examples of the people who might come within the scope of paragraph (b), and so far he has not done so. I want to know also on whose interpretation will it be decided whether a person is in an overcrowded house, a house unfit for human habitation or is in need of housing on medical, compassionate or other similar grounds? Who will make that decision? Is it an official of the Department? Is it the officials of the local authorities, or is it the chief medical officer who will decide that "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"?
There are so many conditions there, and the conditions are so difficult to determine, that I am greatly afraid they will be used by certain people to deprive of grants a class of people whom the Minister has in mind as being entitled to grants. I would like him to give us examples of the type of people to whom paragraph (b) would normally apply and if it could be tied up definitely in legislation and not left so much to the discretion of people operating the Bill afterwards.
I would draw the attention of the Deputy to the first and second lines of section 16 (2) which says: "Grants under this section shall be made only if, in the opinion of the Minister, the person providing the house...." In other words, the person who makes the decision in these cases will be the Minister or his agent, as his officers would ordinarily be regarded. As to the type of person envisaged under paragraph (b), there is an obvious example: a person ordinarily resident in a rural area living in an unfit or overcrowded house. This seems to be the type of person we are aiming at. Furthermore, he could be a person in need of housing on medical, compassionate or other similar grounds and, this is the really important part, "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." It might be better if we looked at this in the reverse direction. We could readily envisage a person living in unfit or overcrowded accommodation but known to be and demonstrated to be well off, much better off than the members of the community among whom he lives. I do not think we should be liable or compelled by law to give that person a higher grant.
I agree.
It makes it clearer to mention those who should not benefit than to enumerate all those who should come within this provision.
I should like the Minister to make one point clear. The position, as I understand it is, first, all this is dependent on the opinion of the Minister. Secondly, the provisions in subsection (2) (a) are the provisions which govern the provision of houses for farmers and those deriving their livelihood principally from agriculture. Paragraph (b) is the one which applies to those who need not necessarily derive their livelihood from agriculture. In regard to paragraph (b), take a case where a person is qualified under this paragraph on grounds of health, over-crowding or whatever you like. If he uses his house for the purpose of some business or occupation, is it clear that is not a disqualification, that it is sufficient that it is used ordinarily for purposes of residence, that it will not militate against him that there is a business, a small shop or something of that sort carried on in the premises?
There again it is a question as to what the residence may be used for, apart from being resided in.
I am speaking about the house which is generally being used as a residence but also for another purpose.
Paragraph (b) says: "the said person or occupier is ordinarily resident"; it does not go on to deal with anything else that may be going on in the residence.
I think the case I am asking about would be included. I just wanted to pinpoint it.
I would say it would be, subject to the fact that whatever is going on in this house in the control of the person concerned is not of such commercial benefit to him as to put him out of court in so far as giving him special help is concerned.
I think that paragraph (b) has been fairly well clarified now and we know where we stand. I did not know where I stood up to the present. I said I would come back to the tables again because I could not get the Minister to see the point I was making, or perhaps he did not wish to see the point. I made a comparison between the table provided in relation to urban grants and the table now provided in relation to rural grants and I pointed out that there were three columns in the urban grants table and only two in the rural grants table. I was curious to know why there was not a third column in the latter table, in view of the fact that it would cost a man considerably more if he had to provide water and sewerage services by way of digging a well or providing a septic tank rather than connecting up to local mains passing his gate. The Minister has not yet explained why this additional amount provided in the case of an urban house is not provided in the case of rural houses. There is an extra £25 in the urban house grant and there is no such extra amount in the rural grant and no such distinction, although the Minister will have to agree that in a rural area, if water and sewerage services are passing the road where the house is being built, it will cost very much less than if the farmer had to provide these services by way of septic tank or digging a well. I should like the Minister to comment on that.
I am not being facetious when I say that we could easily insert a third column which would have the effect of giving less to those in circumstances where either or both services were publicly provided. Further, it does not follow at all that both services are going to be available in rural parts.
No, it does not follow.
It would be rather unusual to find sewerage services near a farmhouse or a rural house, unless they are in some little town. Another point is that frequently, not necessarily in all cases, although there may be a water service and even a sewerage service in some of the areas, it could be that the well at the foot of the garden would be a lot cheaper to provide than it would be to connect. In general, in regard to sewerage, I think the number of cases in which sewerage schemes are readily available would be small. The number having water may not be small, and there will be a growing number in the years ahead, but in those cases it is unlikely that the majority of them will be so near to the mains or otherwise that it will be much cheaper to connect them than it might be to provide one's own source of supply. To finish what I started to say, we could easily have the three columns but it would be going backwards.
You would be doing it by subtraction rather than addition.
I should like to know what is to be the definition of a rural area. There are many places in the country, and certainly in my constituency there are two, where you would have farmers operating as farmers and rural workers operating as such who are in an urban local area, as, for instance, in the Drogheda local area or the Drogheda borough. These people cannot get sewerage. They are not in a rural area such as the area which Louth County Council are administering. Is there to be a strict definition relating to the local authority area in which people live or is it to be decided upon in regard to how they live themselves or what sort of people they are? It is a problem we have to think about.
The question of definition was dealt with in this rather involved and probably confusing section 2. On page 9, at line 20, it says that " `rural area' means an area no place in which is within a county borough, borough, urban district, town, or non-municipal town." We go down then to the point where the general interpretation of this would apply, that in ordinary language the community of 1,000 or over would be the guiding line in this regard.
I am only trying to help the Minister——
I am not doubting that.
——I am not being difficult. I will use again the example of my own constituency. There are 17,000 or 18,000 people in Drogheda and also there are areas within the corporation area where people would be living within rural conditions, perhaps living in houses and working for farmers. They cannot get sewerage or water because these services are not going to be provided there by the corporation. Will they get this extra grant in the rural table or will they be precluded from getting it?
They are living within the rural area?
Yes, within the rural area. I agree that you have to take a figure. The Minister has taken the figure of over 1,000 as the population of an urban area, but at the same time the person is living within the rural area.
And going to build within it?
Yes, in a rural condition. I have one case with the Minister for definition at present, of a farmer whose workman desires to build a house and who falls within the urban area but who is living in rural conditions. Can we help him?
I do not think so, in the context the Deputy suggests. Let us go back to sub-paragraph (b) of section 16. Where the person is "ordinarily resident in a rural area", is what is set out there. Obviously, if he is ordinarily resident in an urban area, he does not and cannot, as a non-farmer, come within the terms of the improved grants. On the other hand, when I say non-farmer, a farmer at the same time may be in similar circumstances to this non-farmer but proposes to build his house outside the urban area. He could in those circumstances get the higher grant but the worker who is not ordinarily resident outside the urban area could not get it.
Our job on this side of the House is to look after the lowliest member of the population. It is our job to look after these people whether they are few or many. The Minister is well aware, as he has considerable experience of local authority areas, that in these urban areas there are farmers continuing to farm on land that will never be built on and where these workers or small farmers would if they were outside the urban area be entitled to an extra grant. They find themselves, because of the unhappy accident of being within the urban area, precluded from such grants.
Our position, I understand, is that if we put down an amendment on this matter, we may be ruled out of order on the basis of placing an extra charge on the Exchequer. That may or may not be so, but this has arisen in relation to this Bill already and so we would ask the Minister if he would be prepared himself to insert another subsection in section 16, or anywhere else the draftsman will agree to, covering the circumstances of a person who could produce a certificate from a local authority to the effect that water and sewerage would never be provided on that land and on this certificate, provide an extra grant for a person entitled to it——
Might I interject? This question of a certificate does not come into the matter at all. I wonder if the Deputy is pursuing something that has no real meaning? Nobody in his sane senses could give a certificate that there never would be water or sewerage provided in a certain place or even not provided within a reasonable time. But it has nothing to do with the qualifications or otherwise of persons for these higher grants whether there would be water or sewerage. This is not vital at all.
I accept immediately what the Minister has said. I accept his correction but I am sure he will agree that if a farm labourer or farm manager or a farmer under £25 valuation resides in an urban area and is precluded from getting an extra grant, an injustice would be done. We are precluded from putting down an amendment and having it decided. Therefore we ask the Minister, as is our right, to put it down. We should like to know what he will say about that.
The Deputy seems to want this to apply to urban areas?
Yes, to farm labourers or farmers with small valuation; in other words, the advantages proposed for those two classes outside.
This seeks to embrace that which is excluded?
Yes, in individual cases.
Yes, all the cases to which this new system of grants applies.
I think the case Deputy Donegan has in mind is somebody who perhaps happened to own 20 acres or 25 acres outside the urban area but had no residence on it and had to go into the urban area to live. He wants to get back to the land to live there and work on it. That seems to be a reasonable case to include, but it is excluded.
No; if he has land outside the urban area on which there is no residence and for various reasons he has had to live elsewhere but wants to build a residence on the land and live there, he is included.
Does paragraph (b) not apply only where he is ordinarily resident in a rural area?
Yes.
But this man cannot claim to be ordinarily resident——
Not paragraph (b). It is under paragraph (a). If he has 20 acres outside, he would qualify under paragraph (a) and the conditions of paragraph (b) would not operate against him.
My anxiety is in respect of people living as small farmers within an urban area. They are a rarity but there are such people and we must accept them. With the extension of urban areas, there may be more of them. When an urban area is extended, one always finds a bit of a rural area comes in and it may be 25 years before that becomes a suburb of the expanding town. During that time, you have small farmers, perhaps, carrying on horticultural work of some kind, and just because they are within the urban area, they are precluded from receiving the extra grants. I do not want any red herrings: I want the Minister to say if he is prepared to meet this type of person. There are not 200 of them in the whole country and not more than ten or 30 of them would ever build a house. I want the Minister to consider that for an amendment even at a later stage and see if those who have a small amount of land within an urban area and wish to build a house to live in can get the extra grant proposed under this legislation.
Something that might help in a general way is that the terms and provisions of this particular section apply to persons deriving their livelihood solely or mainly from agriculture. This is subsection (a). This would include agricultural labourers living in an urban area, but if they want to avail of it, they must build outside the urban area.
I am sorry to persist, but I think we all understand the position completely. Would the Minister indicate whether he is prepared to act on this? He knows the position: of ourselves we can do nothing to bring in this amendment. Is the Minister prepared to meet us in regard to this category of persons living within an urban area but carrying on farming?
The Deputy is alluding solely to those who are either farming or deriving their livelihood largely or solely from farming and who wish to live in the urban area?
Yes.
All I can do is consider it but I am not inclined to give a great deal of encouragement to the Deputy.
Would they be covered by paragraph (a)?
Provided they build outside the urban area.
If you have a man in the urban area of Dundalk who is a small farmer and is perhaps at this stage delivering milk in the town or to Dealgan Milk Products or some other company that markets it and who wants to build a house on his land, just because he is in an urban area, he will not get the extra grant.
Does he get a supplementary grant?
The funny thing is that he does not. I am not a member of Dundalk urban authority but I am a member of Louth County Council and Drogheda Corporation, and they do give grants. The Minister should thank me for my efforts. To be serious, I want the Minister to consider deeply the position of these farmers in urban areas because there are very few of them. It seems wrong that a person earning his livelihood, either as a farmer or labourer, from agriculture should be precluded because he lives in an urban area.
Does the Deputy refer to a person in need of rehousing?
It is on that basis the section is being discussed.
I should like to add that the Minister's entire housing policy up to the present has been favouring urban dwelling. Therefore, will he not agree it is desirable that the type of person Deputy Donegan referred to should be included? There are two types of case. There is the man with a bit of land outside who is included in paragraph (a) even if he happens to live inside.
Not a man with a bit of land. The paragraph states "solely or mainly".
Then you have the agricultural worker. He is resident inside but he is very badly housed. Can he build in the urban area and still be entitled to this grant?
He will be entitled to it, only if he comes out and builds in a rural area.
Deputy Donegan refers to a farmer living within the urban area who wants to build within the urban area.
I know two big farmers in Dundalk who have workers living within the urban area. Supposing one of them decides to give one of his workers a site for a house inside the urban area. Would it not be fair and equitable that such a worker would get the extra grant? The man would be a farm worker residing within the urban area, getting a site within the urban area from his employer.
The whole point of this provision is being missed. It has been almost forgotten by me. The provision is mainly directed to rural housing. It is what we set out to deal with in a special way. Therefore, this procedure of defining the thing with a fine comb is losing sight of the fact that the whole provision really originated in anxiety to deal in a special way with the category of people in rural Ireland whose housing conditions have not kept pace with the general national improvement in our towns and cities. That is what we should keep in mind.
Can the Minister see any difference between the badly-housed man who comes to milk my cows, to whom I give a site and who gets £900 in total grants, and the fellow in Dundalk urban area who is similarly badly housed? Should we not legislate for the latter person as well? We know there are only a few hundred cases in the whole country. I see Deputy Corry looking at me. I feel sure he is thinking of the situation in Cork since the borough boundary extension. His people can be affected by this as mine can be in Louth. I feel sure Deputy Corry agrees with me that we should legislate for this type of person.
The Deputy is trying to hop another ball.
The Deputy is forgetting that the borough boundary was extended to embrace areas outside it in order to relieve the pockets of the ratepayers inside. Those taken in will not any more be able to get the supplementary grants. The Deputy knows that as well as I do. The supplementary grants will not be paid by the urban district council.
That happened to me, too.
The man taken in has only the State grant because the people who brought him in to relieve the rates will not give him a supplementary grant.
Will the Minister give further consideration to the case made by Deputy Donegan? I assure the Minister I appreciate the position he is in. In these cases it is always difficult to cater for marginal instances that will be put by Deputies. By and large, most of us would prefer that in legislation of any kind, there should be clear-cut definition. There is a clear-cut definition in this Bill as to what a rural area is. On the other hand, the point made by Deputy Donegan is an important one. It is ridiculous when you think of some of the areas on the outskirts of Dublin.
Take Rathfarnham as an instance. It has developed in recent years very considerably as far as housing by private enterprise is concerned. The area I am referring to—I am sure Deputy Clinton is familiar with it— is a rural area within the definition of this Bill; yet it is now entirely built up and a person, under the provisions of this section, who derived his livelihood from agriculture—there are a number there—would be entitled to the increased grant because the area in question is not within a county borough, urban district, town or non-municipal town. It seems to me that is the kind of case the Minister does not intend to cover but which will be covered by the Bill.
On the other hand, Deputy Donegan is pleading the case the Minister himself would like to see covered by the Bill but which is not covered by the Bill as it stands. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty but I think Deputy Donegan has made a fair case for a handful of people in that situation. I should be satisfied—I am sure Deputy Donegan would be also—if we had an assurance from the Minister that he and his officials would examine this further to see if this handful of cases could be covered.
May I pose this question to the House? Assuming we were all of a mind to include this handful of cases, how and for what reason would we justify it? We would not be taking in the fellow who sweeps the streets in the urban area, not taking in the fellow who minds the car parks, not taking in the fellow who sells icecream in vans in housing estates. How can we justify taking in the group that is being pleaded for so forcefully here?
We are accepting the Minister's definition that the individuals referred to are those who are deriving their livelihood solely or mainly from agriculture. We are accepting that.
That is under clause (a). Why should we stop at taking only those who are deriving their livelihood solely and mainly from agriculture, according to clause (a) of this section, when, by moving to the other part, clause (b), we find that all these other people I have mentioned would have at least as good a case as those under (a)?
Clause (b) already refers to those ordinarily resident in a rural area.
The Minister will understand that I am not being argumentative when I seek to justify the claims of persons under (a) who earn their living either as agricultural labourers or small farmers as distinct from those he instanced, such as corporation workers who sweep the streets, and other urban workers in an area. The answer is: the income of the small farmer is accepted as being too low at the present time. That is why he is being given an extra grant. The income of the farm labourer is accepted as being too small. Whether we are farmers or not, we accept the fact that we would like to pay farm labourers considerably more. A man sweeping the streets has an urban wage. In many cases in my constituency, he is one of the lowest paid of the urban workers but he, nevertheless, has an urban wage and is expected to pay for a corporation or urban council house something in the region of £2 a week if there is no differential rents scheme. I, like the Minister, am in favour of differential rents but most local authorities do not find a majority of their members of that opinion. That must have conditioned the extra grants the Minister is giving for housing in rural areas. He realised that the sort of money that would have to be paid, if there were not an extra grant, would be just too much for the agricultural labourer and small farmer.
My view is that the man who has £10 or £11 a week can validly be rehoused in a corporation or urban council house at a higher rent. The man who is a farm labourer or small farmer could not pay this charge if he did not get the extra grant. The extra grant in most instances comes to a total of £300 because there is a full supplementary grant also from the local authority. Therefore, the question is simply and solely a question of money and we can justify the payment of this extra grant to a farm labourer with perhaps less than £8 a week, while we cannot justify its being paid to a man with £10 or £11 a week.
The Deputy has put his finger on what is really wrong. An urban resident, on a rural agricultural worker's wage, with the big or the small grant and no supplementary grant, cannot possibly afford to build himself a house in an urban area and should be housed by the local authority and on a differential rent that he can afford. If you put that fellow in that position, you might as well put a stone around his neck and drown him.
The Minister is suggesting that the grant should be merely the State grant.
I am saying that that is what it is.
The position is as I have instanced it in my constituency. In Drogheda Corporation, there is an extra grant of a sum equal to that paid by the State—at the moment it is a maximum of £300; in the Louth County Council area and Dundalk County Council area, there is not. If the Minister went this far for those people, it might be a further incentive, not that the incentives have worked too well in certain instances, for the urban authority to give a supplementary grant. The Minister cannot frame legislation on the basis that local authorities have not done what he and I agree should be done, namely, institute a supplementary grants system.
There is the other side to this that, if as has been instanced, an urban worker with £10 or £11 a week is the responsibility of the local authority within whose jurisdiction he lives and because of the fact that he has £10 or £11 a week, can afford to pay the rent struck by that local authority whereas the man with £3 a week less cannot afford to pay it, it is ludicrous to talk about providing incentives to the lesser paid to build his own house in that locality. It does not make sense.
The Minister is now operating on the basis that he does not want to do this——
No; I am trying to get some sense into what is being put forward.
——for the reason that it is unlikely that it will be availed of because it does not make sense.
I have not changed ground. That is merely an additional reason.
It was the Minister who brought the local authority worker into the discussion.
In many instances within a few miles of where I live, in the rural area, farm workers have done a considerable amount of the work themselves——
That is the point.
——and through being given a site by a relative or by their employer, at a cheap rate, have succeeded in producing a better house than could be provided as a Louth County Council cottage and at a cheaper repayment rate than the rate that would be charged by Louth County Council. If that is possible under the sky in a rural area, it is just as possible under the sky in an urban area. With the goodwill of the farmer, the goodwill of the relative who has a site and the hard work of the applicant who goes out to get £900 in grants at £7 5s. 6d. principal and interest per £100 borrowed, he can build a house that he owns and a better house than would be provided by Louth County Council or Cork County Council or any other county council as a county council cottage.
I am not operating on the basis that there will be thousands of these. The Minister produces an argument in my favour when he says that it is hardly practicable. This means that there will be very few. I do not want to see people excluded just because they are in an urban area, if they are farm labourers or small farmers. I know of numbers in my constituency. They do not all vote for me, but I would like to see them getting houses just as they would get them if they were in the rural area.
I am the last person to be taken as arguing that farm labourers cannot or do not provide houses for themselves, despite the fact that in view of costs as known and as quoted here, it seems to be an absolute impossibility.
Effort is the answer. They make the effort.
In my own county where, by Louth and Meath standards, 90 per cent of the farmers, I suppose, would be regarded as agricultural workers, they have been providing their own houses since Adam was a little fellow and will go on doing it, grants or no grants, and can do it on the grants available to them at the present time and that have been available for years past. I have always been saying that but this is not an argument for using what is intended for housing in rural areas, for providing houses in an urban district. This is what I am trying to get across.
Let us end the game of ping pong. I know very well the Minister's problem. There is a question of precedent. Take two people living side by side, one of whom by virtue of his occupation, would get the extra grant and the other who, by virtue of his occupation, would not. This, naturally, produces in any democracy a problem for the Minister. I am certain that members of his departmental staff would be horrified by this situation, if it developed. I am asking the Minister in a most friendly manner to consider the matter before Report Stage and to see if he could find it in his heart to introduce an amendment to grant this small alleviation for what are fewer than 100 people. Will the Minister consider it for Report Stage?
That was my first offer and it still stands.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendment No. 22, in the names of Deputy Corish and others, has been ruled out of order as it tends to impose charges on State funds.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill".
I want to refer to the limitations of this section and to ask was it really necessary, in view of the very limited category of people it covers. As I see it, under this section, if a man builds a house of 499 square feet and has water and sewerage laid on, he gets £175. If, without this piece of legislation, they build a house a foot larger in floor area, they would be entitled to the same grant under section 15. There is one square foot in the difference but they are entitled to the £175 if they build it that extra foot. On that ground, I say it is unnecessary and that it will lead to the building of houses that will have very limited use.
This section seems to be designed to induce a farmer who is getting on in years to build substandard accommodation for himself so that he can move out and let his son carry on with the farm. That would be very desirable, if there was nothing to prevent him getting this grant already under legislation which has been in existence since 1948. The only case not covered in these subsections is where the Land Commission comes in to buy the house. If that happens, the Land Commission should be obliged to provide alternative accommodation for the old people. They should provide alternative accommodation, plus whatever they give for moving out, or include these benefits as a right.
It seems to me that this is an unnecessary section which gives the impression that a new set of benefits is being provided and, in my view, there are no new or additional benefits here at all. If there are, I would like the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what additional grants or benefits are provided. I know that it will make it possible to get £175 for building one room but surely that is inducing people to go to live in very substandard conditions in their old age, which is the time when they need extra comforts. If this provision were being made for urban areas, there would be a great deal of criticism, if there were not central heating. Central heating is one of the things doctors say are needed for old people.
These substandard buildings will not be suitable for anybody else. If you were providing under this section a house that might be suitable afterwards for a farm labourer and his family, you would be providing a national asset, but here you will have an idle dwelling that will be unfit for any family. It could be described as another Fianna Fáil white elephant.
This is a new provision. Heretofore you could get a grant of £175 for the provision of a three-roomed dwelling with a minimum floor area of 500 square feet. Under this provision a house of up to a floor area of 500 square feet will be sufficient to get the grant. It is intended for the young fellow starting off in the home place who wants to make provision for his father and mother. Under the 1948 legislation, he could get a grant of £175 but the minimum floor area had to be 500 square feet; now he can get it for less than 500 square feet.
Surely a floor area of 500 square feet is a very humble dwelling?
I agree, but they are not confined to that. If they want to build a bigger house, they can still do so and get the grant, but this provides a chance for the old couple to build a smaller house if they want to, and I do not see anything wrong with the section.
It is only wrong in so far as it is a pretence that it is providing something new and additional. It is inducing people to move into substandard accommodation and to spend money on accommodation that will be useless from the day they die.
In section 15 you have grants provided for houses with a floor area of more than 500 square feet and less than 1,400 square feet. Here, where there is a question of the second house being built, the floor area cannot exceed 500 square feet. Why not run the two together and let the second house grant be obtainable, even if the floor area is over 500 square feet?
They can get that under section 15. If a couple decide to build a house for themselves in which the floor area is only 400 square feet, they would not qualify for the grant under section 15, but they will qualify for it under this section.
This qualifies them to get a grant for a house with a floor space under 500 square feet?
Yes, if the people themselves are prepared to settle in that accommodation. Then this section will qualify them for the grant of £175. Under section 15, the minimum floor area must be over 500 square feet.
Do you think it is a good thing that people should build houses of such very small size? Is it good policy for the country?
What we are trying to do is to provide accommodation for a farmer and his wife in which to live so that their son can marry and bring in his wife. These people are getting on in years and they want some accommodation for the remainder of their time. If they are prepared to settle in a house with a floor area of under 500 square feet, they can have that house built and qualify for a grant of £175. This is a new provision. It certainly cannot take from the scheme in any way. It has nothing whatever to do with section 15. Under section 15 the minimum floor area is 500 square feet. Under this, it can be 350 or 500 square feet.
I agree with what the Minister is trying to do, that is, to make it as easy as possible for an old couple to leave their house and farm to the son coming after them. There is no doubt that this is a human problem. Some old people have sufficient accommodation to bring the new daughter into the family and live happily under the same roof; but the new woman often prefers to be in a house on her own. Perhaps the Minister would consider extending this plan to cover extra accommodation on an existing farm by the addition of a couple of rooms and, perhaps, a kitchen? In this way they could be all under the same roof. Perhaps the newly-married couple would agree to live in the small new dwelling for a number of years. Then, by agreement, the old people would get out of the house and switch with the son when his family increases. I would like to see them all under the same roof. I would like to see the necessary money provided so that the premises could be extended to accommodate both families. Perhaps the Minister would examine those points.
I believe Deputy Healy has made an excellent suggestion. This proposal had practically nothing to recommend it up to now, but now it has something. The Minister should seriously consider it. If the conditions of this section could be fulfilled by the addition of a couple of rooms to the existing dwelling, or at least the provision of an inter-connecting passage way or door, it would be a matter of great importance. There is no doubt that most elderly people require some attention. If they could get that minimum attention, daily perhaps, they could live without having to go into a hospital or other institution. That would be much more desirable. This accommodation, that would otherwise be useless, could be used as additional accommodation for the son's family as they grew up. Personally, I should like to support Deputy Healy in this suggestion and I hope that the Minister will consider it.
This section is primarily concerned with the provision of a dower house. I would agree with Deputy Healy and Deputy Clinton. The suggestion of a dower house originated many years ago in order to encourage early marriages in Ireland. I have experience of one dower house that was built voluntarily at the time as an experiment, without any subvention from State or local authority funds. Being associated with housing over a number of years, I took a keen interest in it. Some years after it was built, I went to see the old couple and asked them how they liked their new house. The answer I got disappointed me very much. They felt they were cut off too much, even though they were within 200 yards of the old residence. The old woman said: "It is only a little bit better than the county home." They preferred to be within the walls of the old dwelling. The occupants of that dower house eventually finished up by going back to the old home. As time went on, the new couple were blessed with a family and the old people went back as grandparents to rear the children.
There is a social problem here and I think Deputy Healy's suggestion is an excellent one. The Minister should consider making provision for the addition of two or three rooms to the old dwelling. I would give them a choice. This is something we would all wish to see coming into operation. At the same time, I am in agreement with the section.
I think there is a bit of confusion in regard to the point Deputy Clinton was making which dealt with a different matter. In respect of the three-roomed type of house we have been building in rural Ireland, there has always been a minimum floor area of 500 square feet to qualify. I would ask the Minister to give every attention to the point made by Deputy Healy, but, at the same time, I should like to have the section as it stands given a trial.
I want to put the other point of view. There is very great strength in the arguments put forward by Deputy Healy, Deputy Clinton and Deputy Collins with regard to a grant for the addition of rooms and flats to existing houses. Generally speaking, the idea contained in this section is a good idea, but, while there is great force in the point of view expressed by the three Deputies, while I would like to see that provision contained in the section, we would strengthen the legislation if at the same time we permitted the building of a house of this type, even on another holding.
There are two different sets of circumstances that can arise. One is the set of circumstances about which Deputy Collins spoke, where the old couple, having gone to a dower house, found themselves cut away, unhappy, and eventually went back into the old homestead. There is also the set of circumstances which can arise where the old couple would prefer to go away to a different part of the country or county. It is unduly restrictive in this section to provide that the grant will only be given provided they build on the same holding. I do not think it would weaken the section, or the thinking behind the section, if it were to be provided that the grant would be available on a house of this type without necessarily restricting the building of it to the particular holding. I agree that in the vast majority of cases the situation is that described by the last two speakers, where the old couple would like to stay as near the homestead as possible. Those probably are, as I say, the vast majority of cases, but there are the other cases and I do not think these should be cut out.
One of the things we have to keep in mind is why, by and large, there is likely to be a demand for dower houses or separate homesteads for the old people, or the not so old these days, when a young couple, a son and his bride, take up residence in the original home. In most cases, the older woman and the young bride do not hit it off. Is that not the real reason why semi-detached or detached accommodation must be provided for the old people? It is a problem of incompatibility as between two people, one of whom, by tradition and practice, feels she is entitled to insist that the house must be kept in the way in which she kept it and the other of whom feels that, as a new broom, she must sweep clean. That is the basic problem in the majority of cases. The addition of a couple of rooms to the original homestead will not solve the problem and the idea of the dower house is to obviate the unpleasantness that can arise because of incompatibility.
There are cases, of course, in which there is no incompatibility. The older woman is of great assistance to the younger woman, does not insist on her way of doing things and takes it for granted that the young woman will step into her shoes. Where that is the case, a reconstruction grant for the purpose of providing additional accommodation solves the problem. It must be remembered that if there is intercommunication, then the dwellings are not separate.
The basic idea here is a dower house for the old people, a completely separate dwelling suited to their needs. The idea is to abandon the requirement of 500 square feet minimum. It has been said that nothing worth while can be built under 500 square feet. Take a room of 160 square feet and another of 150, and add a little bit for a scullery, and you are still under 500 square feet. This is to cater for a relatively small number of people wishing to have a separate dwelling as distinct from an addition to an existing dwelling. Where an addition is required, the reconstruction grants will take care of that. If a bigger house is required—three rooms, four rooms, five rooms, or six rooms—the grants available under existing law will cater for that situation. Where it is sought to have the old people in very close proximity to the original homestead, or actually living in an addition to the homestead, I certainly undertake to look into that to see whether or not reconstruction grants are suitable and capable of application. We provide the grants. I shall certainly look into this from the point of view of those who may want to have some structure built up against the original homestead but without being internally connected, but I shall retain the basic idea of a separate detached dwelling, with no specification as to the distance that dwelling must be from the original homestead. All we say is that it must be on the holding.
Why insist that it must be on the holding?
That is an aspect we can consider. We can consider dower houses being provided in numbers in parish or county. One can visualise half a dozen of these dower houses. When the old people pass on, who will occupy them? Will they be allowed to fall into disrepair because of having no care or maintenance in the interim between the deaths of the old people and the son and daughter-in-law, in time, moving into them?
The Minister misses out the fact that, if the son or prospective daughter-in-law has a small holding, the dower house could be built on that small holding. Reverse the order.
If the young couple have a holding of their own and there is no house on it, they qualify for the £450 grant, not the £175.
They could move out and let the old people get the dower house on the small holding for £175.
That is shuffling the deck. I do not know which card is going to come up.
It depends on what way the Minister shuffles them.
There are those few things which require to be looked at. A great deal of what has been said here can more readily be catered for under the reconstruction section, with some amendment, if necessary, rather than by broadening this to take in everything that has been referred to. It should be remembered that this section is designed to help the erection of a small house, smaller than normally accepted, for people in special circumstances and that anything beyond that falls in naturally under the normal grants system. If a grant of £175 is given in this special case, undoubtedly the relationship of the grant to the total cost is more favourable than it will be when a house is built at greater cost and gets the same grant.
The supplementary grant will not apply to the smaller house.
Why not?
It is under 500 square feet.
It will apply.
No, it will not.
Not in Dublin County Council.
Do not tempt me as to what is allowed in any particular county.
In any county.
It may be applied.
Only if it qualifies for the full grant issued from your Department. This is another of these tricky ones we had better clear up.
It will qualify pound for pound.
Three rooms, under 500 square feet?
I know what Deputy Tully is talking about and I do not blame him for this; I have heard it several times from Deputies during this debate. We tend to talk about what we know to be the situation under existing legislation rather than go forward with the new provisions that are in this Bill. Therefore, in regard to supplementary grants, we measure them according to what we know is happening under existing legislation, without having regard to the forward sections in the Bill which make it possible for supplementary grants to be paid in respect of dower houses, if the local authority think fit.
Will the Minister say what is the section dealing with the dower house?
Section 26. We are putting in a special section to deal with a limited class and going where we have never gone before. If such matters as building on to the existing house, connecting to the existing house, can be catered for, it is better to cater for them by maintaining the reconstruction section rather than taking away the principle we are standing for here, that is, special grants for dower houses under 500 square feet for people in special circumstances, and I will consider that very fully.
The only point I would like to press on the Minister is not to make this section unduly restrictive. The idea enshrined in this section is a good one and it would be a pity if it broke down because the Minister makes it too restrictive. I can think of a number of cases—I am sure most of my colleagues in the House could also think of them— where it would suit the retiring couple not to build their dower house on the holding. That may arise because the holding does not lend itself conveniently to the erection of a second house, even a very small second house. It can arise because of family circumstances where, as is normal enough, the family have grown up and different members of the family have gone to various parts of the country. It may suit the retiring couple, instead of building their dower house on the holding adjoining that of the last member of the family who remains on, to go down and live near another member of the family in a different part of the country. In that kind of case, the provisions of this section should also apply. If a house of this type is built, even though it is on a different holding in another part of the country, the retiring couple or retiring person should not be precluded from getting the grant.
I should like to add to Deputy O'Higgins's suggestion about not having restrictive conditions in the section. In rural Ireland where the eldest boy of the family reaches marriageable age, it is proper that he should get married, but the father and mother are still on the farmstead and might still have other children under 21 years of age. That being so, it is not possible for the father to sign the farm over to the eldest boy as is traditional. If the eldest boy reaches marriageable age and has no prospects of getting the farm, he might threaten to go somewhere else, which would be against the family tradition. The point I want the Minister to consider is that if a dower house is built, there should be no restriction on the eldest boy and his wife living in that house until such time as the farm is signed over to him.
The Minister has agreed to reconsider the situation as to whether a semi-detached arrangement might be acceptable to him or whether this could be provided under the reconstruction grant in some suitable form. Deputy O'Higgins has made a case that also merits the Minister's consideration. Very often there is a favourite member of the family and he might not be the person who is going to live on in the household. The retiring couple might prefer to live beside that member of the family who is near the village. Surely the same purpose is served if that dower house accommodation is provided near the more favoured member of the family? The only point the Minister has made against that is that it would not be there for future generations but it would be there for the use and enjoyment of somebody, and that is the important thing. Even if it had to be provided again on a future occasion, the cost is not enormous. The Minister should accept that it would be reasonable that this type of accommodation must not be definitely provided on the holding itself.
I should like to mention the supplementary grant aspect of this. I presume it will be permissible for the local authority to give the complete supplementary grants up to pound for pound as they so desire, but most local authorities have a means test in the case of new houses, and these will be new houses. Is it permissible for the local authority to have no means test supplementary grants in this case? I should like to see that when the old couple are prepared to transfer the farmhouse to a member of the family, at least they would be able to get the full supplementary grant without a means test.
The other point I want to make is in connection with the semi-detached house. There is a lot to be said, if the parties concerned are so desirous, for allowing them to get the dower house grants by building a semi-detached house. In some cases farmhouses may be rather small. They would probably be all right for the old couple living there at the moment, but if they build a dower house which is separate and the young married couple move in to the existing house, it may be that after a number of years the couple will have to think about extending the farmhouse. By that time the father or mother may be dead and the dower house, which perhaps was built separately from the original house, may be vacant. Would it not be a good thing to have this extra accommodation available, extra accommodation which, at the time when it is needed, may not be occupied for the original purpose for which it was built? I would strongly urge the Minister to consider allowing this section of the Bill to cover a semi-detached building.
I am grateful to the Minister for drawing my attention to the fact that section 26 does include grants under section 16. I could not agree with Deputy Cunningham in regard to semi-detached houses. If a semi-detached house is built, it does not qualify for a new housing grant and therefore the house would come under a reconstruction grant which could be greater, which could be £280. Possibly that might be the way to do it but those of us who travel around the country and meet people realise that a lot of annoyance can be caused by what is described as two women under one roof. It would be a mistake if this House encouraged the building of dower houses—call them what you like—for old people to live in, almost on the same floor as the young married couple. Most people realise that a lot of trouble can be caused by old people living too close to married sons or daughters. If the house is being built, it should be some distance away from the holding, if the son or father has a separate holding. I think the idea is a good one. Many people tell me that they would like to give the eldest son, or the son on the farm, the old house if they could find somewhere to live themselves. Many people are unable to do that. The provisions in the Bill will enable this but we should not encourage building on the same doorstep.
They would have a choice.
Where the house should be built should be left open. For many reasons, probably for health reasons, the old couple might prefer to live in a semi-detached house, convenient to the young married son or daughter. To be quite honest, I think that these family rows do not exist until the couple get married. If the house was built prior to the marriage, the row would probably never arise. For that reason, it would be advisable to give them the option. There may only be one of the couple left after a short period and he or she will probably be a heart case or suffering from something else and would like to be living either a reasonable distance from the married son or daughter, or perhaps under the same roof. If the Minister considers building dower houses and giving grants, he should leave it open as to where they should build, but each case will have to be judged on its own merits.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Amendments No. 23 and No. 24 can be taken together.
I move amendment No. 23:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:
"(3) For the purpose of this section `dwelling' means a house or part of a house, used or intended to be used as a separate dwelling."
This amendment is straightforward and simple. I felt it was necessary to remove any misunderstanding which might arise in the absence of such a subsection. I feel sure the Minister will readily agree that it is a desirable subsection. The first part of this section says:
The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and subject to such regulations as may be made by the Minister for the purposes of this section, make, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, a grant to a body providing (whether by erection, purchase, reconstruction or conversion), with the approval of the Minister, one or more than one house for the accommodation of elderly persons.
It says "one or more than one house". It is difficult to understand why it does not say "one or more dwellings" because further down it refers to "each separate dwelling". I have in mind reconstruction or conversion. You could provide in the same house perhaps two or three or more dwellings and that is why I wanted to ensure that this would be qualified and that we will know exactly what we are talking about. I wanted to ensure that such a reconstruction or conversion would qualify for this grant and that if it qualified, at least it would have minimum standards. I consider that minimum standards for this type of accommodation would be 500 square feet. I will say no more until I hear what the Minister has to say.
The amendment, as I understand it, seeks to define "dwelling".
Yes.
And on that basis I do not think it is necessary and might even be dangerous for the reason that the section as operated enables grants to be provided for each separate dwelling in a house. Acceptance of this amendment might confuse the existing situation since grants for elderly persons' accommodation would generally be paid for dwellings which might have common facilities. They might have one diningroom, one lounge and so on. The definition sought by way of the amendment, far from being necessary to improve the situation, could lead to a restriction in that we might knock out those units which would have common dining, kitchen or lounge areas. A definition of the word "dwelling" might preclude what, in practice, is allowed. The practice is not long established but it is there and we do pay grants for separate dwellings where common facilities are provided.
On the point that one subsection of the section mentions "house" and the other mentions "dwelling", that seems at first confusing, but in fact while talking about a house, we were discussing it in the context that it may contain several dwellings such as referred to in subsection (2) of section 19. The reference to "house" is to what we might call the building, as the house may be divided, except that house is defined in section 2 of the Bill already passed and under the definition, the house or building referred to there is a building within which several dwellings for the purposes of this section may be contained as a result of construction or conversion.
Does each separate dwelling qualify for the £300?
Yes.
So that one house reconstructed could qualify for three or four £300 grants?
For whatever number of acceptable dwelling units are included perhaps with common facilities. There is a grant for each dwelling unit within the house.
Does the Minister not consider it desirable to have some sort of a specification for a dwelling? Is it not wide open as it stands to all sorts of interpretations? Should not people have some advance information as to what exactly is in the Minister's mind as qualifying as a dwelling? The Minister has spoken of common dining facilities and certain facilities used in common generally in the house and which might be desirable as an economy, but is it not necessary to have some indication of what would be regarded as the minimum standard for a dwelling?
In regard to this, as in regard to many other matters, all I can say is that we cannot spell it all out in law. God knows, the Bill is big and confusing enough as it is. If we were to try to put everything into it, we might do what I am accused of doing, tie ourselves up too tightly. The administration of this will have to be covered by regulations rather than by written law passed by the House because we want some freedom to meet changing circumstances which we would want to meet and which would be needed to meet cases we could not now even envisage but which might merit consideration in the future.
Could the Minister say if any precautions will be taken to ensure that no exorbitant rents will be charged by the recipients of these grants?
There will not be any £25 a week flats?
All of this, in the first instance, relates to payments to approved bodies. Any Minister for Local Government may not be infallible in choosing the approved bodies and may pick a wrong one now and again. Even if that did happen, we are still not in the wilderness because the regulations which would govern this whole operation would set out for interested bodies seeking approval of a proposal the broad conditions under which they would get grants and one of the conditions would be related to the rents that might be charged to occupiers of these dwellings. In other words, we would say: "If you are going to charge exorbitant rents, you will have to build yourselves."
In other words, grants will be given to people who are elderly or ill and not in respect of people who are well off enough to be able to afford to stay in their own flats?
I envisage that the bodies we would hope to attract as we have so far attracted them would be charitable and philanthropic bodies who would offer to do these things for the community. In addition, we would say: "In case you are not all you appear to be, if your rents are too high, for instance, and beyond the reach of any reasonable case and so on, we shall not include you in the approved bodies and we will not pay grants in respect of these houses."
Am I to take it that the luxury flat builders need not apply for grants of this kind?
It is grants for old people's dwellings we are talking about.
But if somebody sets out to build luxury flats for old people who can afford to pay high rents, they will not receive grants, is that so?
Luxury flats, generally speaking, will not get grants from anybody.
I should like to ask the Minister if grants will be given for this purpose to charitable or philanthropic organisations who do not own the property or will not own it when the grants are being paid or when the house is completed? If an old couple are living in a dilapidated house of their own, can the grant be paid to the organisation that will undertake to have either a small new house built for the couple or the existing house repaired for those who cannot do it for themselves?
All I can say in reply to Deputy Mullen, without tying myself or anybody who comes after me so that they cannot move at all because of my statement in this House, is that luxury flat building for this or any other type of person is not welcome, so far as applications for grants are concerned, to say the least. In our operations up to the moment, we have refused grants in certain cases of the luxury type or the high rent type of case Deputy Mullen has mentioned. Even though our experience is very limited, we have come up against that and we have refused grants.
I feel most of this accommodation will be provided by the building of new houses. A number of local authorities have in mind at the present time the building of new houses for elderly people and in conjunction with that, the provision of home nursing services of some description. Therefore, it is extremely desirable that written into the Bill we should have a minimum standard for new houses. The Minister may consider it undesirable to have a standard specified in the case of reconstructed or converted houses, and I agree with him, but in the case of new houses specifically provided for elderly people, it is extremely desirable we should lay down minimum standards. If we are to provide suitable accommodation for old people, we must look a little ahead and make provision for some sort of central heating. If old people go into a home, they get central heating immediately as one of the most important requirements to keep old people alive and healthy. In those circumstances, the grant of £300 being provided here is much less than generous. In providing accommodation for elderly people, we may for many reasons have to consider ground floor accommodation because of the various ailments they suffer from. This form of accommodation may require fairly expensive equipment if our old people are to be given reasonable comfort and kept out of homes and institutions.
It is there we shall save money. I would appeal to the Minister to do two things. In the case of new dwellings for old people, he should lay down minimum specifications. He should also give a good deal more consideration to the amount of the grant and decide, if possible, to increase that grant in order to provide the facilities old people require and are entitled to.
Most Deputies will regard this as being one of the most important sections in the Bill. It opens up new opportunities for housing our elderly people and the Minister deserves our congratulations for including it in the Bill. Not alone will the State give £300 per dwelling but the local authority will give the same amount. Deputy Mullen mentioned control of rents. Anticipating the enactment of this legislation, there are six bodies in Dublin city negotiating with the corporation to provide dwellings for elderly people. One of them is the Catholic Housing Society and the other is a Methodist Church body. I do not think either can be accused of charging too much rent for dwellings.
Have we here a definition of "elderly"? Is there an actual age limit? Must a person be very old or middleaged? During the dangerous building crisis in Dublin, we had some difficulty in deciding who was elderly. We decided the age should be 60 years but when the situation became very bad, we reduced it to 50 years.
If you are looking for a job with a State Department, 40 years is elderly.
They say you are too old at 35 years.
Thanks to the Bill, we are now enabled to treat our elderly people very well. Deputy Clinton does not think a grant of £300 sufficient. Perhaps he forgot that the local authority will contribute a similar amount. I again congratulate the Minister on introducing this section into the Bill.
Some of what Deputy Moore said prompts me to rise again. He spoke of the type of organisation who have set out to build houses for elderly people. They are praiseworthy organisations. I am familiar with the efforts of the Catholic Housing Society. The cost to them of providing accommodation for elderly people is far higher than the £600 in grants referred to by the Deputy. It costs £1,500 per house at least. One organisation with which I am familiar as a trade unionist contributed £1,500 to provide housing accommodation for one person under this scheme. In that context, surely it is obvious the amount of the grant being provided here is too small? When I referred earlier to the builders of luxury flats, I had not in mind people with no money. I was indicating that I did not like to see a situation in which people could get on a particular wagon to make money. I am sure the Minister will take these matters into consideration.
Deputy Clinton has a very good point about this maximum grant of £300. If the Minister cannot see his way now to increase the figure, could he not acquire authority through this Bill to give him an opportunity of increasing the amount in the future? Who knows what the cost of building will be next year? These are things we must now take into consideration. A grant of £300 now may not be worth £150 in the near future. This section was conceived with a view to encouraging and helping the provision of accommodation for elderly people.
We are dealing with amendments Nos. 23 and 24.
If a local authority provide dwellings for elderly persons, are they not entitled to a two-thirds subsidy?
Not at the moment, but they will under the Bill.
That is what I mean. Kilkenny Corporation are providing a number of houses for elderly people and we thought we would be entitled to a two-thirds subsidy.
I should like to compliment the Minister on this section which gives an incentive to charitable bodies to cater for old people. In Cork, a charitable organisation have set about building a home where 20 old people can be accommodated. I can assure the House we could not have embarked on this scheme without the aid of this grant. In Cork, the local authority have provided 40 ground floor flats for old people. This, in turn, helps to ease the housing situation considerably because there were old people living in houses with three and four bedrooms and it is now the policy of the corporation to build these maisonettes and urge such people to leave their three-bedroomed houses and take up residence in these small dwellings. The move has been very successful.
If we could dispose of the amendments, the Deputy's remarks would be relevant to the section. At the moment we are dealing with two amendments by Deputy Clinton which deal with other matters.
Would the Minister tell me if by "dwelling" or "house", he means a one-roomed, two-roomed or three-roomed building because I do not want to see someone or other setting up a number of single-roomed buildings such as we have in a number of areas already where old people were persuaded to leave three or four-roomed houses and were told that they would get a modern flat. That modern flat turned out to consist of a one-roomed place with a bed and a fireplace and a very small bathroom off it where they could wash up their kitchen utensils. I do not want that kind of thing to be set down as the policy of this House in 1965 and there is a great danger that something like that will develop out of this. The question as to whether these flats or maisonettes are to be one-roomed, two-roomed or three-roomed should be set down in the section.
Deputy Mullen referred to the cost of building one of these and I must say he is correct when he puts the cost at £1,500. The Minister may have in mind the provision of such flats in existing dwellings, and perhaps that can be done; but we should remember, when we speak of a grant of £300, with another of £300 by way of supplementary grant from the local authority on the basis of pound for pound, that all local authorities do not give these supplementary grants. It was only recently that in my constituency of Meath the county council decided to pay the supplementary grants for the urban councils which were unable to pay them. The Minister must let us know what he means by "dwelling" so that we will not have the kind of thing that has been referred to.
We are taking the two amendments together.
The discussion has drifted somewhat away from the amendments.
I agree. I have been asking the Minister to lay down minimum standards and he says that he cannot spell out everything in the Bill and that it should be left to him to do it by regulation. I do not like that system. It is extremely dangerous and I think that we should have minimum standards for reconstruction works and minimum specifications for new houses. The Minister should tell us whether he is prepared to accept the second amendment.
Is it not a fact that when we speak of minimum standards, we should speak from experience of them? There should be an experimental period before we establish what is to be a minimum standard. We have 40 people living in these new flats in Cork and we have no complaints from them.
In one-roomed accommodation?
Yes.
You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Would it be the Minister's intention that a local authority providing dwellings for old people would qualify for this £300 over and above the ordinary grant?
The House is always reluctant to give any Minister power to do things by regulation.
Only on this occasion.
Would the Minister consider it advisable that he should have power to make regulations specifying the type of house to be dealt with? Would he consider that as an amendment?
That comes in in later sections, in sections 34 and 35. In these sections, powers are given to enforce the conditions subject to which grants are made.
Is it related to section 19?
Yes. I have already dealt with the first of these amendments and as to the second, I must say that I would not agree with Deputy Clinton in legislating for a minimum floor area of 500 square feet, while at the same time I would agree with Deputy Tully that the other extreme is worse. What we seem to get away from is the fact that we would hope to have more and more of our old people living in their own little homes rather than in institutions. If we are to do that, we must have the greatest possible scope within which this accommodation can be erected. It has been said that floor space of 500 square feet would be an embarrassment for old people but I will go so far with Deputy Tully as to say that I am not going to allow the pigeonholing of our old people.
What I want to say is that we are talking too much about our old people and doing too little about them. I am not throwing that at anybody but this is true. If we can in any way meet the objections or the views of the House, we will go into the matter between now and the next appropriate Stage. Let us make up our minds to get on with the intention underlying the section in a positive way. In that regard it is no harm to say that even at this stage, little momentum though this effort has gained, we have contributed to 300 of these old people's dwellings to date. The demand for grants for this type of dwelling is only now getting under way and I envisage an upsurge in that demand and a great deal of headway being made in this direction in the immediate future.
Will the Minister answer one question? Could he say if, in fact, any of these 300 dwellings is a one-room dwelling?
(Cavan): Do they include the 40 in Cork?
Yes, there would be one-room dwellings in that number.
Will the Minister make a definite statement that one-room dogboxes are not places in which to put old people?
I am trying to avoid tying ourselves unnecessarily here by declaring that no one-room dwelling will be provided in any circumstances or that nothing under 500 square feet will be provided. I do not believe that that type of restriction is suited to the problem which, for the first time, we are beginning to grapple with and in connection with which we have a great deal to learn, although there is a great deal of experience in other countries to be drawn on. In other countries a great deal has been done, not all of it successful. A great deal of work has been done in other countries at great expense that it would be better if it had never been done. It is not because of single rooms. That is not the only fault or the only mistake made.
There is no intention to pin the Minister down but he must have had something in mind when he inserted the section and the £300 must be related to something. It is not a figure drawn out of the air. I, like the Minister, would not care to define now what exactly a dwelling for elderly persons should be but I would certainly agree with Deputy Tully in a general condemnation of the establishment of homes consisting of one room and maybe a toilet and a little scullery. I would imagine that the Minister has in mind, say, a living room, a bedroom, or maybe two bedrooms, a bathroom and scullery.
Might I repeat what I have said? If the Minister could give us a rough indication of what he had in mind, I personally, and I think I talk for my colleagues in this, would be prepared to say: "Right; if later on you think you should specify minimum standards by way of regulation, I do not think there is anything wrong in that." I think Deputy Tully would be entitled to suspect—although I would not believe it—that the Minister may condone in certain circumstances the establishment of one-room dwellings for elderly people. Let him give us a rough idea, say, living room, bedroom, scullery and toilet. If he did that, he would certainly allay any fears we may have that there would be exploitation in this business because, if grants of £300 are to be given ad lib to bodies— and I exclude the bodies which have been referred to by Deputies on both sides, which are purely charitable organisations—there could be a body established, ostensibly to provide homes for elderly people, that might make substantial profit out of it. Therefore, the Minister should give us a rough idea of what he has in mind and I certainly would be prepared to trust him if he went a little further and said that he would not rule out entirely one-room dwellings.
(Cavan): It has emerged from this discussion that recently 300 houses for old people have been constructed. It also appears from what Deputy Wyse from Cork has told us that 40 of the houses—you could not call them houses—call them hovels—that have been built in the city of Cork consist of one room each. Everybody in the House agrees that accommodation consisting of one room in which a person has to sleep, eat, cook, wash and spend the rest of his existence is not suitable accommodation for anybody. It is certainly not accommodation for an old person and it would be a retrograde step to pass legislation in 1965 which would accept as a standard of accommodation meeting with the approval of the Department of Local Government accommodation consisting of one room. The House is now entitled to a clear statement from the Minister as to whether he thinks that in any circumstances a building consisting of one solitary room is up to the required standard for the accommodation of elderly people or an elderly person.
Let us be realistic about this. We are dealing with old people and we are dealing with charitable and philanthropic organisations. We have here the city aspect where it is suggested by Deputy Clinton that these houses should be centrally heated. Well and good, if that can be done, it is desirable. It is desirable to have a bathroom and toilet, yes. It is desirable, as Deputy Corish has said, and to be highly recommended, that these houses, whether they be reconstructed houses or new houses, should have a bedroom or two bedrooms together with kitchen and living room. We all know the position in the country where you have an old person or an old couple living in what is a tumbledown shack, and there are some of them left. It might have been at one time a three-room house but as of now there is one room left. The St. Vincent de Paul Society or some such organisation is interested. The person or couple concerned have no money whatsoever and cannot ever afford to pay any money as a contribution towards what should be done. The charitable organisation must provide all the money except for the grants which the Minister is enabling the Department and the local authority to pay out. So it is purely a question of providing an ad hoc relief for those people which in the case of an old man of 80 will last for his lifetime.
That is an awful attitude.
It has amounted to that. The Minister must be given a great deal of latitude in this.
The man's 81st year is as important as his first year.
If he is not prepared to go into the county home, if there is no money to pay for all the things that have been suggested from the opposite benches, for the installation of central heating and all the other things, the only alternative is to leave him in his tumbledown shack and do nothing. Therefore, the Minister must have power to use his discretion and the discretion of the officials of the Department.
I hope it is his discretion rather than the Deputy's, in this case.
If a charitable organisation puts up proposals to the Minister for the reconstruction of a house or the erection of a substandard house or anything that will improve the housing conditions of those old people who do not want to move elsewhere, who will not go into the county home and cannot ever hope to have better accommodation, then every such proposal coming before the Minister, even though it is not 100 per cent perfect, should be favourably considered.
I think the Minister is being embarrassed by his defenders.
Not a bit. An awful lot of sense comes from that quarter.
I think Deputy Cunningham was talking an awful lot of tommyrot.
The Deputy does not understand his accent.
The fact that the Minister is a Donegal man may have an adverse effect on what I am going to say, so I had better be careful. I think Deputy Cunningham did not intend to say what he did say. When he reads the Official Report in a few days——
I do not have to read it to know what I said.
——I think he will be the first man to admit he made a cardinal error. When he reads the Report, and this is one he will want to read, he will not believe he said the shocking things he did say. Deputy Corish put his finger on it when he said that to an old man, his 81st year is just as important as his 21st. It is a lot of cod to suggest that, when people are old and unable to look after themselves, we should be entitled to put them away into some sort of box because they have not sufficient money to pay for themselves. Deputy Cunningham used the word "substandard". If somebody is getting charity, he cannot complain.
As far as the county homes are concerned—a number of them are known by other names at present—some of them are doing an excellent job and they are very comfortable. The only thing wrong is that they have recently become very overcrowded. We know the reason why, but I will not go into that now. We are trying to impress on the Minister that he should not allow even charitable organisations to erect dwellings with a livingroom-cum-bedroom in which the door can be pushed back only a foot or two because the bed is behind it and within four feet of it is the fire on which they are supposed to do their cooking. It is in this room they must entertain any friends. If that type of dwelling is being built with the aid of the Department's £300, I believe the Minister is making a mistake. I agree that Deputy Clinton's suggestion for a minimum of 500 square feet is too high a standard.
It is too big. It is not that the standard is high.
Would the Minister explain what is the difference between a high standard and a big floor space?
There is quite a difference.
I think slightly more than half that floor space would be better. The one thing the Minister should stamp out is any attempt by the charitable organisations to introduce these one-roomed dwellings for people because they are poor. The same is being done by local authorities although they are not mentioned here.
I am surprised to hear Deputy Tully say that half the 500 square feet I am asking would suffice.
Slightly more than half—two 12 x 10s.
There would be no bathroom or hallway. You can get very near 400 square feet and still have very little accommodation. What I am aiming at in both these amendments is a minimum and to ensure this minimum will not be a box room. I am afraid that is what we will get if we do not lay down minimum standards. We have got single room accommodation in Cork already, and I should like to know what contribution the Minister has made towards those dwellings. I know a good room might represent an enormous improvement in the living conditions the old people had previously. Nevertheless, we must safeguard society against this sort of thing. If not, the old people will be put into a cell and forgotten about. We should show our interest in them and our appreciation of the fact that, if we put them into an institution, it will cost anything up to £20 a week to keep them. It costs £17 10s. a week for a child in a public ward today.
These are the considerations I had in mind when I asked for a minimum standard. I would be prepared to see that reduced to 400 square feet. If the Minister thought that should be done, I would be agreeable, but I certainly would not be agreeable that it should be brought down to one room. I should like to hear from the Minister what contribution he made in respect of the rooms in Cork. What does this £300 provided here relate to? Surely there must be some standard to indicate where the £300 is going?
First, I want to ask what are we doing with our old people at present? Where are they now?
A lot of them are here but in a few years' time they will be in the same position.
What conditions are they living in now? Because we have a fair idea is no reason why we should not improve the position. Under this section we are dealing with approved bodies or bodies that may seek to be approved philanthropic and charitable bodies. We are not dealing with local authorities who may seek to avail of the new incentives. That will be dealt with in another Part of the Bill. This section deals purely with the provision by approved bodies of houses for the elderly. In no case will any body be given grants if there is the slightest evidence that they are going to make money on the grants.
In regard to the provision of one-roomed cells and so on, you could have the cells, the jailers rattling the keys and so on; but when we talk about one room, we must remember that communal services such as relaxation and reading rooms, diningrooms, toilet and bath facilities will also be provided, in addition to the one room which will be a livingroom-cum-bedroom.
That is an institution.
Not necessarily.
It sounds like it.
The Department of Health come into this. I hope they will enter into it even more in the future by the provision of certain grants through the health authority to furnish these rooms after these houses and apartments have been provided, either by the local authority or by any of the other bodies, and that they will further help by providing visiting and nursing services and the various other facilities these old people will require which could not properly be provided through a Housing Act, through the Department of Local Government, or through the housing authority in any area.
When we talk about rooms, it is in that context that I think of rooms, and I ask the House not to seek to exclude that type of provision and, therefore, that type of accommodation. I am not asking the House to approve of it, or to specify whether it is desirable, or a complete answer to the problem. All I ask the House is not to exclude that type of accommodation. We are dealing with a situation which has never been grappled with hitherto. The old are increasing in number. We may have a problem to solve, a problem which little or nothing was done to resolve up to this. Are we going to tie ourselves here in such a way as to prohibit our doing anything to alleviate the lot of these old people? Many of them are living in appalling conditions. Very few bother about them.
Voluntary organisations are interesting themselves in this problem. They are trying to do something for these people. They collect funds and with these funds, plus the grants from the local authority and the Government, they can buy a house. Voluntary workers—professional men and skilled tradesmen—carry out reconstruction and thereby provide really good accommodation for some of these old people. I am not saying the accommodation provided in this way is ideal, but we cannot hope for the ideal since we have not yet made a start even in trying to discover what would be the ideal accommodation and the ideal treatment for the aged.
This is a matter, indeed, about which we should think. Let us get on now with the work of helping the voluntary bodies with these grants, ensuring, of course, that there are no abuses, no rent-racketeering, no ill-treatment of the aged and the elderly. It is, indeed, most unlikely there would be any abuses because these bodies are philanthropic organisations, not commercial concerns. When these put up a scheme, we will vet it and then give the appropriate grants. I can assure the House that in every case the money spent will be in excess of the amount of money from the local authority or from the State.
Why is "body" not further defined or qualified in some respect?
If anybody can give me a definition or qualification——
The Minister described in a few words the type of bodies he means.
Charitable and philanthropic.
Would that cover it?
Possibly. At one stage I rather hoped that from our local authorities and the county housing authorities we might get a select membership from each area for the purpose of forming themselves into an approved body to operate under this. They could harness the councils' efforts.
They cannot build their own houses.
The Minister is not thinking of a health authority, is he?
No, but I am beginning to think I will need one shortly myself.
(Cavan): The Minister would help us if he would give us some indication of the type of accommodation he approved of in Cork and the kind of grant he made.
Before the Minister replies, in Cork we are building a very moderate type of building with central heating, bathrooms, a recreation hall and a garden. The people can come and go as they please. They cook for themselves. In the near future, we are hoping to provide a nursing service. The people are completely independent. Nobody watches them.
Is it a communal kitchen?
Yes.
Is it an hotel?
Deputy Barrett knows the kind of home that is being built in Cork. I suggest Deputy Fitzpatrick should visit Cork and then, possibly, something on the same lines could be done in his own county.
For how many people is it designed?
Twenty.
Is the grant given in respect of every single living-room?
As far as I know, it was £300 per dwelling—£300 from the local authority and £300 from the Department.
Per room?
Per room.
Would the Minister say if he considers this is the ideal way to deal with this problem? Personally, I believe it is either an hotel or some type of institution.
It is not an institution.
One cannot get away from the fact that this accommodation consists of a bedroom, perhaps a cubicle, a communal washing place, a place in which to cook, or have things cooked for them, with a communal sitting-room. Is there any name by which to describe that other than "institution"? It is the same type of accommodation as we have in our county homes. There is very little difference. I do not decry the Cork effort, but there are a great number of old people who would rather die on the side of the road than go into an institution. I was under the impression that this section was intended to cover self-contained dwellings of an appropriate size to house these people. I thought that was what the Minister had in mind. I do not think we should get mixed up with institutions because at the moment in Meath we are spending £270,000 to build exactly what Deputy Wyse has described, but we are calling it the county home.
We do not call it that.
Mr. Barrett
No, no. It is a different thing altogether.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 24:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:
"(3) A dwelling to which this section applies shall be not less than 500 square feet when measured in the prescribed manner."
I should like to get some sort of assurance from the Minister that he will lay down minimum standards below which we cannot go in providing this accommodation. The Minister has convinced me that I have gone a bit too high with 500 square feet, but I should like him to give some assurance that he will reconsider this aspect between now and Report Stage.
Will he do it by regulation?
There will be a regulation.
And will he lay down a minimum?
The Deputy, I am sure, would like an assurance from the Minister that minimum standards will be laid down under the regulations.
What I am more anxious about is what Deputy Tully is after, where we provide these units in isolation in the vicinity of people's own homes where they have lived all their lives and the only place where they will be really happy. I have seen these people in institutions so often; they are well looked after but they have no interest in anything around them and are just waiting to die. That is something I want to get away from. I should like to hear from the Minister what minimum standards he has in mind where this type of accommodation is provided in isolation, not the communal type of accommodation described by Deputy Wyse.
Section 14 gives the Minister all the necessary powers and authority to make regulations as suggested by Deputies. In this regard again we are probably taking too literally the matter of housing the elderly on this section when it relates only to the activity of one group of people, the voluntary bodies who are being enticed to come forward to do the job which we and the local authorities have failed to do. In doing that, we must not hold out a stick to them and say: "If you do this job, you must beware; otherwise, I can catch you out on any of the sections." That is not the intention here. We are endeavouring to harness the energy and enthusiasm of these bodies by the device of offering them certain grants because it is work about which they know a great deal, due to their activity in other spheres of social work in the community.
In regard to setting up minimum standards, Deputy Clinton has put his fears more specifically in regard to the provision of a single detached unit for an elderly person or an elderly couple and asks what is the minimum we hope to provide. I would think it would be the couple of rooms, the bathroom and the cooking facilities which we would all regard as desirable. In regard to these rooms, we are talking about single rooms which may be twice the size of the minimum size ones, more than standard-size bedrooms, which are intended to be on the one floor without any real physical division because the aged person will find it more convenient that way, so that this bedroom and living room——
Bed-sittingroom.
Bed-sittingroom. I do not know as much about them now as would other Members of the House but call them bed-sitters, if you like. Many of our people, young, middleaged and all ages, are living in these bed-sitters and living quite well. They would not change their bed-sitters if you gave them a room in the highest cost hotel in this city. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the bed-sitter, provided it is big enough, provided the proper facilities are readily available to elderly persons, provided their food can be brought to their rooms or can be availed of, if they are sufficiently agile, in the communal dining room. I do not think we will get anywhere by tying ourselves by law of this House to minimum or maximum standards. If there is anything I can do by going on record in regard to this matter, I shall be only too glad to do it but I would ask the House not to seek these standards by law.
If the Minister would go on record as saying that one-room dwellings should not be erected by local authorities I would be very happy.
I believe the Minister is sincere in his concern to ensure that whatever accommodation is provided for the aged will be reasonably adequate. As he has given us an assurance that, if necessary, he will prescribe minimum standards by regulation, I am prepared to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill".
The grant in this case is less than generous, especially if we are providing these facilities in isolated units; there is no doubt we must look forward to more comfortable accommodation for our old people than they have been enjoying up to the present and we must lay down standards that represent a considerable improvement. If we are to provide what these people would get in institutions, for instance, some form of central heating in the isolated dwelling, this is a very inadequate grant. The Minister says the health authority may make grants for the equipment of these houses. If we could be assured that that is so, perhaps we could change our views somewhat, but we might need a considerable amount of equipment in many cases if we are to keep our people at home. That is where they should be kept because of their own inclination to stay at home, because of the comfort they enjoy at home and because of the enormous cost of keeping them in institutions. We have no assurance that health authorities will make such grants available for the equipment of the house and in the absence of that assurance, the Minister should agree to increase this grant and make that differentiation as between this type of accommodation being provided in isolation and the institutional type of accommodation described by Deputy Wyse.
One of the things I should have mentioned in regard to section 19 is that I would hope to provide a grant for custodial staff for this type of house, this group of dwellings, for instance, a caretaker. I shall deal with that at a later stage of the Bill but I am merely mentioning it now. I shall be able to bring in an amendment at an appropriate stage to enable grants to be made towards the expenses of custodial staff in respect of some of these buildings to which we may be contributing under this section.
Will there be anything in regard to maintenance? That is going to be the biggest trouble with any of these places.
The Minister does intend, before we finish, to include something of that sort?
That is what I am suggesting. I am merely giving notice that we may wish something of this nature at a later stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.