Amendment No. 24a in the name of Deputy Ryan, is out of order as tending to impose a charge.
Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland (Charter Amendment) Bill, 1965. - Housing Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
We had an amendment which, as the Ceann Comhairle says, has been rejected as it would impose a charge. We felt architects should be induced to provide plans for a house that could be conveniently dismantled, transferred and re-erected on another site. We felt there was a necessity for fresh thinking on house planning, first, as the Minister is aiming to do, to reduce the cost and increase the speed at which houses may be provided. As the Minister knows, there are many instances at present where temporary accommodation must be provided in order to provide suitable accommodation for families in dire distress and, in many instances, we have to provide caravans, which are both expensive and not always very suitable. If it is possible to attract an architect or a firm to do some research into the provision of a house that could be erected quickly, and dismantled quickly when permanent accommodation has been provided in the particular area, that would be a valuable contribution, and it should not be eliminated from the scope of this section.
I should like the Minister to further explain subsection (3):
A grant may be paid under this Act (apart from this section) in respect of any further house erected with the approval of the Minister in accordance with plans and specifications that are the same as the plans and specifications of a house in respect of which a grant was made under this section or that differ from those plans and specifications only in respect of modifications approved of by the Minister, notwithstanding the fact that the house is not in compliance with any regulations made by the Minister for the purposes of the section under which the grant is made.
This, I think, needs further clarification. Suppose some firm, as a result of fairly expensive and extensive research, produce the type of house for which the Minister is looking, they will get 50 per cent of the cost of that house. If houses are subsequently built to that plan and specification, what does the Minister propose to give to these research people who designed the first house? Could we have some indication for their guidance, something that will provide an incentive or an attraction, something by way of royalty subsequently? Or is this confined entirely to local authority housing, in which case the Minister can say to local authorities that he will give an extra grant of so much for any house built to this particular plan and specification? I assume it is not intended to continue paying 50 per cent of the cost of all houses produced to this plan and specification. We should, I think, know a good deal more about this. As well as this 50 per cent grant, will the normal grants available also be payable? There is some little confusion which the Minister might clear up.
In subsection (1) (b), it is stated that houses could be erected in accordance with the plans and specifications either with greater speed than if they were erected by conventional methods or at lower cost. I assume from that that it would be necessary to wait until the house was finished before any decision could be taken as to whether it qualified for the grant. I cannot see any incentive there. In Ballymun, it is taking as long to build the houses as it ever did and the costs are not to any great extent much lower than they are by conventional methods. I wonder if the Minister really means what he says in this subsection.
Secondly, I assume only one house will be built and, so soon as it is built, it will no longer be an experimental type of house and will, therefore, no longer qualify for the higher grant. Perhaps I have the wrong end of the stick, but my interpretation of the section is that, while it seems to say a great deal, in the last analysis, it does not offer anything which might mean we will have more houses or more than one type of better house erected. Perhaps the Minister would explain the position.
I welcome this section. It represents a departure from the traditional methods. Quite a number of private firms are interested in building this prototype house but, up to this, there has been no legislation to give them any encouragement, good, bad, or indifferent. I have travelled in other countries in which a good deal of thought has been given to providing more houses per acre than have been provided by the traditional methods here. I am not suggesting we should aim at greater density but we want houses built quickly and this section will help us to do that. The Minister can consider favourably under this section practical and constructive suggestions governing the erection of a particular type of house. At the moment, unless a house is built to certain traditional specifications, there is no grant available for it. It must be built of concrete, or bricks, or some such material before it will be considered for a grant.
In other countries in which they have had housing problems, there has been a change in approach. Having seen the houses built, I can say that they are very nice houses, built more cheaply than houses can be built by the traditional methods. Another factor is the very high price of land; because of that, they are building more houses to the acre in other countries. I do not suggest we should slavishly follow that pattern, but it might be possible in certain circumstances to build more houses to the acre and to put small families or aged people into them. That would help to solve our problem. I believe this section will go a long way towards helping us to find a satisfactory solution to our problem.
The section does not mean anything more than it says. For one approved prototype house, a grant of up to 50 per cent may be made. With regard to continuing benefit to whomsoever is responsible in the first instance, that is something that cannot be covered here by legislation. If there are certain features in the construction of the house, then the designer can patent those features. The use of the patent subsequently would be a commercial matter between the designer and the user. It is not the intention, as Deputy Tully seems to think, to aim solely at speed. If we can get speed in erection so much the better; if we can get lower costs, so much the better. These are the two features and each case can be considered on its merits.
If speed of erection were the guiding principle, one would, of course, have to wait until the house was completed to find out how long it took. The idea is that plans will be put before the Department. These plans will be examined. On the case made and the information given, the Department will determine whether or not the house meets with the requirements governing speed of erection. Admittedly, it may be that a grant will be given on the assurance that this speed will be attained but it could happen that the speed of erection would be disappointing. This is something we cannot determine absolutely in advance but on a preliminary technical examination of the entire proposal and before approving of the prototype, we would have a very good idea. If the erection did not come up to the promises of the proposer, it could well be that that would be a condition that had not been fulfilled and therefore the grant would not necessarily be paid or paid in full.
Likewise in regard to the cost, if we had been misled by the proposer and the cost was not kept within what was promised, it is again possible that this would be a condition on which the grant would be paid, and if it were not fulfilled, the grant need not necessarily be paid. The House need not have any fears in this direction. The only fear I have is that there will not be enough activity under this head. It was to encourage activity in this direction that the provision was first introduced in this House some few years ago. If we can get more activity in regard to proposals for prototype houses that will meet either the speed of erection factor or the lower cost factor, or both, so much the better. That is what we are trying to encourage in this section.
In so far as the question of demountable houses is concerned, this is a matter about which we are not entirely satisfied ourselves. We are having another look at it and will report back to the House as to what we feel could be done in this regard. We in the Department are examining this question of the demountable house which is a great need. We would hope it would solve the problems in regard to elderly persons in isolated parts of the country, where a house might be needed only for a time and would be a waste thereafter if it could not be removed. If on further examination we find that something in the section might encourage others outside to lend their aid and their thoughts to this matter, Deputies can take it we shall come back to the House to try to deal with it.
I am glad to hear the Minister has already in mind this type of house that can be quickly erected, dismantled and re-erected. I hope that when we come to the Report Stage, this section will be so amended as to include this if it is considered possible and desirable.
One thing we have established which was not quite clear to everybody is that under this section there is only one prize, a prize of £1,000 or £1,500 maximum which can be paid only once to any firm or any architect to produce an acceptable prototype house. There is great need for research into what the Minister is looking for here and I do not believe that that is sufficient inducement to any firm to go seriously into research to produce the type of house we want. If the Minister is really serious about this, he will make some provision when this type of house is produced, if it is shown and proved that the research put into this work has saved the State and the local authorities a considerable amount of money, to give further compensation or some reward to those who engaged in this work. I do not think £1,000 or £1,500 will attract that sort of investigation and research.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
I thought there were some amendments on this.
Amendment No. 25 is ruled out of order because it would involve a charge on public funds.
In regard to the reconstruction grants, as the Minister knows, it is now possible for small farmers to get a £450 State grant and a £450 supplementary grant from the local authority, that is, £900. I would say there are a large number of farmer's houses in the country capable of economic repair and reconstruction and what I am afraid will happen is that the inducement to demolish and rebuild will be such that many people will now decide to do that rather than keep their own houses standing and improve them. There has been no increase in the reconstruction grant and many people will be attracted to the new house grants. It is unwise policy for the Minister not to have stepped up the reconstruction grant as he has stepped up the new building grants so that people might not involve themselves, the State and the local authority in unnecessary expenditure. The Minister should look again to see if he cannot improve grants which have been in existence for a considerable time, in order to avoid this very definite likelihood.
In the constituency which Deputy Clinton and I represent, we have quite a number of houses which are very old and in a bad state of repair. In many cases an inspector visiting these houses will say that they are beyond reconstruction. A number of the houses with which we are dealing are old mud-walled houses of a very poor type. It is a wonderful thing to get this grant of £450.
This is not £450; it is £140.
I am not talking about the reconstruction grant but the grant for the building of the house which the Deputy mentioned and which is £900. This is an encouragement to a man to build a good house. I agree that if it were possible to increase the reconstruction grants in certain cases, it would be a wise thing to do, but taking the long-term view, we know that with patching up an old house, you will never have a new house. Therefore I should like to see the stress laid on building. This is what we are up against in Dublin. People will ask: "Why are you taking down this old house" or "Why are you bringing in a new planning scheme for North Dublin?" But in 25 years time, these houses will be falling down. We have a number of old patched-up houses on which a good deal of money has been spent but which are still old houses with no dampcourses and so on.
As I said, I should like to see the stress being laid on building. This would be better for all concerned. We have made a liberal grant available already and whereas heretofore we took in only one section, those who are deriving their living completely from the land, we are now taking in another category, for whom I have been fighting for a long time, which includes road workers, office workers and people in various jobs in commerce. I think this is a great advance by the Minister and obviously a lot of thought went into this. Over the years I have tried to get reconstruction grants for quite a number of people, just as Deputy Clinton and other Deputies have also tried, but the position is that people spend £500 or £600 on an old house, raising some of the money in the bank perhaps and getting £140 from the State and another £140 from the local authority, if they so wish, and even after all this, the unfortunate people still have an old house. If we are to raise the standard of housing, I am all in favour of this liberal grant being given now. Even if a man is going to put a millstone around his neck for 20 years, or 30 years, or 40 years, it is a very liberal grant. When I was young, if I had received £900 towards the building of a house, I would have been very happy and I would not have thought of reconstructing an old house.
I should like to put a question to the Minister. I am in some doubt in regard to subsection (2) (b). I notice that over the years in our legislation—I am subject to correction on this—farmers have been getting liberal grants of one kind or another, but one of the greatest sections of our people who have been neglected is the urban section. One takes it for granted that urban dwellers are wealthier than the agricultural or pastoral type of person. I should like the Minister to clear up this point for me, by telling me whether these other cases apply to urban dwellers and whether the farmers get two-thirds as against the urban dwellers' one-third. I have gone through the Bill thoroughly and I cannot find any other section which proves or disproves this point.
With regard to Deputy Andrews' question, what is provided and what has obtained for some years, in relation to grants of say, £120 or £140, just to take those figures, in relation to the farmer is that if his job costs less than three times the maximum of the grant applicable to this particular case, which is related to the size of his house, then the question of two-thirds can arise. If in fact the total of the job is greater than three times the maximum grant, then it does not really make any difference because he can only get one-third and not exceed £140, whichever is the lesser, and one-third would be £140 in such case and he would hope to get another one-third from the local authority. In the case of an urban or non-farming group, then in any case they will only get one-third, so that really if their job costs less than three times the maximum grant, they can theoretically lose, and indeed, in practice, lose, if they are in a local authority area where there is no supplementary grant there to match what is paid by the Government. Assuming that there was a case of a similar cost relating to a similar sized house, the applicants for which were one from the non-farming group and one from the farming group, and if there were the full supplementary grants operating and applying to the non-farmer as to the farmer, then the ultimate wind-up would be that the two would have the same amount, twice the maximum grant. Where the cost comes below the maximum grant, then in some cases, depending on the operation of the supplementary grant, the non-farmer may get less.
I think the Minister and the House will agree that the expenditure of money on reconstruction grants was money exceptionally well spent. It has done a considerable amount of good in repairing old dwellings and eliminating unsightly buildings in many of our towns and cities. The expenditure of money under this heading has done more to make our towns tidy than anything else I know of, apart altogether from the benefit it conferred on the human beings whose habitations were improved as a direct result of these grants.
Consequently we are concerned that, in a comprehensive Bill of this kind governing all aspects of housing, no increase was provided for reconstruction grants. Money is the most essential ingredient and the greatest incentive we can provide for the re-housing of our people. People looked to this measure with hope and confidence for an increase in grants of this kind as the first essential. They hoped that reconstruction grants would be increased out of all proportion. That seemed only right and proper and realistic, in the light of the considerable increase in labour costs and the costs of materials which has taken place since these grants were first introduced a considerable number of years ago.
I hope the Minister will have second thoughts and make this measure a little more realistic by increasing the grants of £100, £120 and £140 to a figure more in keeping with present day costs. Otherwise, I do not think he will have done anything in this measure to make reconstruction grants more attractive to our people. They have been widely availed of up to now and they have done great good. If the Minister wants to ensure that that trend of happy events continues, he will have to be money-minded. People are money-minded in this matter and the grants should be increased proportionately.
The Minister will appreciate that it is difficult for a person with little means to avail of a reconstruction grant in the first instance. Many local authorities do not make money available for this purpose. One must have at one's disposal a minimum amount of money to put a contractor to work. As public representatives, we know that very many people are frustrated because they do not have the initial outlay of capital to entice a contractor to accept a reconstruction job.
The Minister has also said that these grants are to be on the basis that the applicant must be prepared to pay not less than one-third of the cost. That can be quite a considerable sacrifice for a person with little means. On the other hand, we know that some applicants are quite handy, or their families are in the building line, or their friends or relations are tradesmen, and can carry out a reconstruction job within the confines of the grant alone. I appreciate that the principle of the applicant spending some of his or her own money is necessary. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this aspect of the reconstruction grants and to increase the amount to some extent at least.
It is also true to say that the grants made by the Minister's Department were allotted on the assumption and understanding that the local authorities would pay £ for £ with the State grant, that whatever amount the inspectors stipulated was the grant involved— whether £100, £120 or £140—the local authority, be it a county council, a corporation or an urban council, would pay £ for £ with that grant. Many people were of the opinion that that would apply, and when the Minister indicated the amount of his grant, they automatically doubled it in anticipation of getting that amount from the local authorities towards the repair of their houses, but they found to their distress and disappointment that the local authority to which they belonged had not adopted that grant scheme. Some local authorities paid nothing towards the generous grants given in the past by the Minister's Department and the unfortunate people in their areas had to meet two-thirds of the cost of the repairs involved.
There are other local authorities that pay only a percentage of the Department's grant, perhaps 75 per cent, or 50 per cent, or on the basis of a means test. Again, the principle of paying £ for £ with the reconstruction grant awarded by the Department is frustrated and set aside. Where the Minister is unable or unwilling to compel or direct local authorities to adhere to the principle of paying grants pro rata with the Department grants, where he is unable to bring about that happy situation, I submit he has a moral obligation to come to the rescue of the people who are obliged to bear this unfair share of the responsibility for the reconstruction of their houses. He should make provision for increasing these grants.
I can imagine the argument being made to me that this would be an acceptance of the shelving of responsibility by some local authorities, and that all local authorities would follow suit, and eventually, because of the impost on the rates, no local authority would want to pay their contribution towards reconstruction grants which are already a serious burden on the rates. If this measure is to be realistic, as I said at the outset, and if it is to have regard to present day costs, grants for reconstruction and repairs must be increased. This Bill will fail very largely in its intention and in its hopes if the Minister does not provide these increases which the people are expecting.
He has quite rightly increased the grants for new houses, especially for the farming community. We now have grants of up to £450—that is quite a considerable figure—and like amounts from the local authorities, but in the matter of reconstruction, we have the status quo. We have the same figure now as the figure which obtained a long number of years ago. I think these grants came into operation ten or 12 years ago, and there has been a colossal change in the times and an upward spiralling of prices since then. I should not like to hazard a guess as to the extent to which the cost of living has increased since the grants were first introduced at this figure. In all the circumstances, I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to increase these grants which are doing such tremendous good. He must realise, most of all, that, by assisting people to repair their homes he is not merely conforming to a plan which will beautify a local district or a town by eliminating eyesores and derelict sites but is easing the burden on the local authority and obviating the necessity for that authority to build new houses for these people. Bad and all as the situation now is, our new-house problem would be increased out of all proportion and would probably be truly chaotic, were it not for the amount of money spent on reconstruction grants and the vast number of people who avail of these grants to improve their homes. We must continue that good work which has obviated the necessity for the local authority to build so many more new houses which otherwise would be required. In all the circumstances, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, I appeal to the Minister to ensure that this good work is continued and accelerated so that these grants will readily be availed of in the future. He must create, in this Bill, the opportunity for people to avail of them.
There must be provision whereby the man of little means can get the necessary outlay money to avail of the grant and put the contractor to work. The amount of the grant must be sufficiently attractive to entice more people to embark on jobs of repair and reconstruction. These archaic and outdated figures of £100, £120 and £140, which have been on the Statute Book for quite a long number of years, are just not big enough in these times. It is a poor appreciation of the number of people who avail of these grants and the local authorities who have contributed, many of them very generously. The local authority with which I have been connected for a long number of years, Clonmel Corporation, has been foremost from the commencement, in paying pro rata, £ for £, with the Minister's grant.
There are not very many grants involving housing. There are new-house grants and there are repair and reconstruction grants and sanitary facility grants for bathrooms and toilets. The number of grants where £ s. d., the main criterion, is involved is small. The Minister is increasing the number of these grants, certainly for new-house building. We hope he will see the wisdom and the realism of increasing these reconstruction grants. The country now finds itself in a period of depression, due to the acute shortage of money, which is affecting housing. I would hope the Minister would be optimistic enough not to be overpessimistic on this account alone by reason of the recession which we have at the present time and that shortage of money. I certainly would hope that this is the reason he is not prepared to increase these grants because we all look forward to better times and to the passing of this recession. In all the circumstances, if this measure is to accelerate the housing drive, the re-housing of our people, these grants, as a first essential, should have been increased. Despite the present economic crisis and the acute shortage of money, I am appealing to the Minister to reconsider his attitude towards these essential grants and to increase them in proportion to the new-house grants which he has awarded to the farming community.
The Minister knows from his records that there are quite a large number of houses in rural Ireland capable of economic repair. He knows also that the housing needs of most of these people would be met by reconstruction rather than by a new building. I know it is his policy and his intention, as indicated in this Bill, to keep as many houses that exist at the moment standing as long as possible and providing housing accommodation. He has demonstrated this by introducing a new grant for houses that are not capable of economic repair. He desires to keep them standing for a limited number of years—say, for ten years—and serving the purpose until, we hope, our housing needs may be met and a lot of the backlog and arrears wiped out.
Deputy Treacy has drawn attention to quite a number of the snags that public representatives at local authority level come across from time to time. He indicated the difficulty of even finding the initial money to start the contractor. I do not know how that might be overcome. It arises only in exceptional cases but it has arisen in a number of cases I am aware of.
Another matter that has caused a considerable amount of trouble is the two inspections, where a supplementary grant is being provided by a local authority. There is the Department's inspector and, on his report, the Department decide to pay the grant but then the local authority inspector goes out and he may say that the standard of the work is not good enough for him.
Would that not be a matter of administration rather than legislation?
It is related to the grants being provided. I refer to it in this way that if the Department could arrange to pay both grants and get a refund from the local authority, it would assist this considerably. There would then be one inspection and we would avoid wasteful duplication. I have in mind one certificate that both the local authority and the Department would accept. It gives rise to considerable difficulty.
I wonder if this reference to people whose livelihood is the pursuit of agriculture includes horticulture? Does "agriculture" include horticulture, please?
I should have to have notice of that one.
It is important that it should include horticulture. I have in mind market gardeners, fruit-growers and, perhaps, glass-house people in some instances. I think this should be so amended as to ensure that horticulture will not be excluded but will in fact be included. I thought the Minister might be able to clarify the position for us. This is operating against the payment of supplementary grants by county councils. In quite a few councils at the moment, they are refraining from paying the £ for £ supplementary grant because it may attract too many people to demolish houses that should be left standing and to go ahead and build new houses where reconstruction would meet the need. The Minister must accept that, if he raised the grants for new buildings because of the increased cost of building, the cost of reconstruction has increased in the same proportion as it has increased for the building of new houses. It does not seem equitable or right that a man who is deciding to meet his housing needs by reconstruction does not get the same consideration as the person who decides to meet his housing needs by building a new house.
On the question of horticulture, I would refer Deputy Clinton to page 6—not page 6 of the Bill we are now discussing but of another one. If he cannot find everything there, we shall have another look at it.
Getting back to this question of the size of the reconstruction grant which was very much laboured here by Deputies Clinton and Treacy, indeed, listening to Deputy Treacy, one would think that unless we in the Government and in the local authorities make it almost so attractive that people cannot avoid repairing their homes, it just does not make sense. This is, of course, very far from the truth and indeed it is a good thing that it is. Before there were ever grants to build, repair or maintain homes, 99 per cent of the cases showed that in one way or another the job would be done anyway. We have been trying to incorporate more people, and even those who would not be able to do a good job or who would have been doing it at great sacrifice to themselves and possibly doing a poor job in the long run. By virtue of these grants we hope they will do a better all-round repair and reconstruction job.
The result is that in the past ten years, on a very rough count, 72,000 homes have been so repaired under reconstruction grants. This is not taking into account the recent high level of activity in the installation of services which is probably one of the best improvements of all which can take place in our homes. The water and sewerage grant cases being done are running at a figure of up to 6,000 a year at the moment, as I am sure the House will be very happy to hear. Against that, a few years ago this was practically non-existent and we did not really have a scheme for it. We were not water conscious in those days. The situation today is that about 6,000 a year is the rate of progress. That seems to be growing very rapidly, together with the fact that well into 70,000 have had reconstruction jobs done with the aid of grants in the past ten years. These figures are still maintaining a very healthy level and this would appear to me to be a fair indication that our housing stock in private hands is not being neglected, however much it may have been in the past.
As to the amount of the grant, we discussed this on the new house grants and we had all the arguments, not the least of which was that the new house grants were far too little. Now we have the same people making an argument in the opposite direction: that in future the new house grants may attract people to build new houses instead of applying for a reconstruction grant. Pardon me if I seem confused by the arguments advanced on two different sections. I would say the average cost of the grant-aided reconstruction jobs handled in the Department is just over £400. Admittedly, there may be ones costing £1,200. I do not say there are not, because otherwise we would not have an average cost, but taking the average, this means that a great proportion of our people applying for grants and supplementary grants are getting up to two-thirds of their total outlay on these reconstruction and repair jobs. We should remember that, even though it may be seven years since, in 1958, we gave some increase in these grants. Since then, we have also by various means, made it more attractive and more feasible for people to avail of these grants by making moneys available through the local authorities and SDA authorities for reconstruction.
In this Bill for the first time ever, directed towards the reconstruction and repair group, we have a very specific useful new addition to our loan facilities, that is that £200 may be provided through the SDA and council sources without security. Quite candidly, I do not know at this juncture how much further we are expected to go. We have to keep in mind that the average cost of repairs in the cases we deal with in the Department is £400. We have grants running up to two-thirds and sometimes up to £250 or £280 if the total cost of the job is over £400. I think we should take this into consideration as well. Despite the fact that costs are being quoted here as the be-all and end-all of what the measure of a grant should be, surely the real measure is the numbers in which they are being made available.
I do not want to re-use the argument used about housing earlier in regard to the new housing grant figure and the amounts of these grants but the very same argument applies. Ten or 12 years ago when these grants were almost as large as they are now, not as many of them were being availed of to the same degree as at present. To these further higher figures we must add this 6,000 of the water and sewerage grant applicants and take credit for the fact that this is a further decided improvement in a very great number of our houses. That particular aspect of our activities is growing very rapidly and I hope will continue to do so right up to the time when we can truthfully say that the great majority of our houses have water on tap, whether it be privately supplied, publicly supplied or through a group supply. These are the things we have to remember here.
I would say further in regard to Deputy Clinton's fear, as expressed, that people may be encouraged to build new houses instead of reconstructing on the basis of the level of this grant, that taking another line on it, the new higher grant will not be allocated unless there is a need for a house either by reason of the condition of the existing house which is no longer fit for or capable of being repaired at a reasonable cost or the applicant having no house at the moment, in that event, the reconstruction as an alternative does not arise. I can assure the Deputy that whatever the position may be with regard to this, one of the essential conditions of qualifying for the increased higher grant is the need for housing and this applying to a person whose house is capable of being put into sound condition, that person will not get the new higher grant. If he wants to go ahead, despite that, he will get the normal grant but not the higher grant.
Could I ask the Minister one question here? In subsection (2) (a) which says:
In case the person reconstructs a house for his own occupation, and derives his livelihood solely or mainly from the pursuit of agriculture and the rateable valuation or the aggregate of the rateable valuations of the land (if any) and buildings occupied by him does not exceed sixty pounds, two-thirds of the amount estimated by the Minister to be the cost of the works and ...
No valuation limit is mentioned. I know that local authorities who previously operated this scheme have contended that a person must be a member of the working class before he qualifies for the grant. You also have local representatives trying to prove that a man is, in fact a member of the working class, even though he may live in a house with a rateable valuation of £30. The house may be let to him, or he may have got it cheaply in some way or another. Dublin Corporation will not pay the grant on that house even if he does make application.
Could the Minister mention some figure of valuation which would entitle a person to get even one-third of the grant? Would the Minister consider a person who is on the approved waiting list of the local authority, even if he lives in the city, and pay him a two-thirds grant as well as the agricultural worker mentioned here? This would encourage more people to buy and repair houses. It would also relieve local authorities, I am sure, of many hundreds of people on the waiting list.
Finally, I think Deputy Clinton has a point in the matter of inspections because I think three inspections are carried out in respect of each grant in this city. As a measure of economy and expediency the Department and the local authority could agree to have one inspection or, at most, two, the cost to be met jointly by the two bodies. That would speed up inspections greatly.
This section relates to reconstruction grants.
I am aware of that.
The matter raised by the Deputy, for the guidance of him and his colleagues, is a matter entirely within the competence of the local authority. If they want to deal with it under an old enactment and subject to the restrictions of an old enactment, that is outside my control but they are not restricted in the way the Deputy has described. The idea of two and three inspections by the local authority inspector is not practised in my county. We have been operating over the years on the certificate of the Department of Local Government inspector.
Are you operating within the law?
I should think so and to the utmost extent of the law but we have no local authority inspector doing this work. If the Department's inspector says "Pay," once the certificate is cleared by the Department, we pay on foot of it.
That is very sensible.
This is within the discretion of the local authorities and a number of them follow the same practice as in my county.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."
In present circumstances where there is such a housing shortage and where so many people are living in such deplorable conditions, I welcome this section because it seems to give grants to, shall I say, bolster up existing houses and keep them so that they will provide some reasonable shelter and accommodation until the time arrives when we have sufficient houses. I have often been angered in my own local authority to see the council insist on demolishing a house that was reasonably good. In some cases the sequel was that, the family had to go into a night shelter accommodation and the husband was separated from the wife and children. In those circumstances, it is deplorable that any house with a roof capable of keeping out the rain should be demolished just because somebody has decided it is unfit for human habitation. I am glad the Minister has decided this should no longer be done and that every effort should be made speedily to improve the house to such an extent that it will provide accommodation for some ten years more until we can hope that this enormous backlog in housing needs will be wiped out and we shall not have this type of case to meet.
Apropos what Deputy Clinton said, it seems to me that in the city area houses are being demolished which might reasonably be kept in repair for some little time until the present bottleneck in housing is eased. I ask the Minister to look at that problem. There is, I think, a panic attitude in certain sections of the corporation administration regarding housing at the moment and many houses are being condemned as dangerous which might be put into repair for a short period at least and obviate some of the terrible torment and hardship which citizens endure at present.
The Minister might also explain whether this section can be made applicable to the tenants of old county council cottages. Will the grants provided for in the section apply to the reconstruction of old county council cottages. Some of them in County Dublin, at least, are very old—Parnell cottages, as they are known—and are in very bad repair. Even some of the more recent ones built in our own lifetime were jerrybuilt in many parts of the county and situated in most awkward places. They were built of inferior material and might very well be described as unfit for human habitation. In such circumstances, will the grants provided in this section be made available?
In reply to the point about very old houses and cottages, if these are old vested houses and cottages, they come within the section just as ordinary houses do that have fallen into disrepair and are housing some old persons who were incapable of doing anything about them. The council can step in and do something there. There is nothing new in this; it is a re-enactment of what has been there since 1962. Apart from answering Deputy Dunne, my only reason for intervening is to try to impress on Members of the House who are members of local authorities that they should use this section to a greater degree than has been the practice. It was very slow in getting off the ground. It does not seem to be very well known throughout the country, and while the number of cases coming forward has shown a fairly substantial increase, the use made of the provisions of the 1962 Act is small.
Further, the operations taking place under this section are not spread uniformly throughout the country but are accounted for to a great extent by a very few counties. That would indicate these counties have realised the value of this provision and have used it systematically. Some counties are using it having seen its advantages. That should be an indicator to other counties that this would be worth doing. I would appeal to Deputies to try to publicise this a little more than it has been publicised in their local authorities, particularly their rural local authorities, to try to get a systematic survey of these cases and a systematic approach to their elimination.
Nearly all the activity we have on record at present is accounted for by the counties who have done so. No doubt this can be very useful and can alleviate a great deal of hardship and suffering for some of our not so well-off elderly people. At the same time, it can save the local authority a great deal of money. By doing these limited repairs, they can enable the house to last the lifetime of the person concerned and obviate having to provide for them in an institution at a high cost. I will come to the House, as I did in 1962, to ask them for their fullest co-operation in getting this going.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister tell us whether this is a re-enactment?
No.
I know this type of work has been carried on but it has been carried on very slowly and completely at the expense of the rates. I know that where people are looking for an improvement in their houses, an extra room and so on, it is very difficult to get the local authority to do that sort of job. It is easier to get a scheme of 100 houses going than to get this type of improvement in the existing house, where the family have increased so much that they are almost out the windows. Any inducement that can be offered to local authorities to make them proceed more quickly to improve conditions in local authority houses is to be welcomed.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 25 agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
Amendment No. 26a not moved.
The next amendment is No. 27, in the name of Deputy Clinton. Perhaps, if the Deputy so wishes, we might discuss with it amendment No. 34, which is cognate?
That amendment was put down by Deputy Ryan, but he does not seem to be aware that this is done already by some local authorities, that is, that they give supplementary grants in varying amounts according to the income of the person applying. I think there is nothing to prevent us doing that. We vary the amounts according to the income of the person concerned.
Might I remind the Deputy that he is not dealing with amendment No. 27?
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle drew my attention to amendment No. 34. I move amendment No. 27:
To delete subsection (4), lines 28 to 30, and substitute a new subsection as follows:
"(4) A housing authority shall without further inspection upon receipt of a certificate from the Minister that he has made a grant under this Act, pay to a person the appropriate supplementary grant already approved by the housing authority."
I have already made the case for this on the question of reconstruction grants. This is where a lot of difficulty arises because of two inspections. I am glad to be assured by the Minister that this is something that can be rectified at local level and that in fact there is nothing to prevent a local authority deciding to accept the Local Government inspection and go ahead and pay. If it were possible also to have the Department pay the two grants, with some sort of arrangement for reimbursement, rather than have all this confusion about the payment of two grants, it would be much better. This is all in connection with the same job. It would relieve the amount of hardship on the people applying for these-grants if there could be one inspection and one payment rather than two inspections, two sets of standards and two payments. I certainly will move in my local authority that we accept the standards prescribed by the Department, accept the inspection and pay on it, but there are all sorts of crisscross notifications involved as between the Department of Local Government, the county council and the person involved, and I would strongly recommend that the two grants be paid by the State and that the local authority then pay their portion to the State rather than to the person concerned.
Is amendment No. 27 withdrawn?
I am hoping the Minister will agree to it.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.