Amendment No. 36, in the names of Deputies Corish and others was discussed with amendment No. 26.
Housing Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 31.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.
Section 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Amendment No. 37, in the name of Deputy Clinton, has been ruled out of order on the grounds that it tends to impose a charge on State funds.
Amendment No. 37 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 32 stand part of the Bill."
The amendment has been ruled out of order. I suppose it could possibly have that effect. I put it down mainly to make the case that TB is no longer a special housing problem and that there are other conditions such as heart or other similar disability which would require, for instance, the provision of a downstairs room. That was my only interest in putting down this amendment which has been ruled out of order on the grounds that it would impose a charge on State funds. The Minister should reconsider this section in the light of the fact that the whole position in relation to TB has completely changed and that, in fact, before the position had changed this section was not used to any great extent. But, if it is to be retained in legislation, it should be widened to take into consideration other health conditions and other disabilities besides just TB which, as I say, is no longer the problem as far as housing is concerned.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 33 and 34 agreed to.
SECTION 35.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 27, line 34, to delete "by him".
The purpose of this amendment is to correct a minor typographical error in the Bill as circulated.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 36 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 29, subsection (4), lines 21 and 22, to delete "in relation to which an agreement has been made under subsection(3) of this section" and insert "secured by a second mortgage or a second charge".
This amendment will really bring to an end an anomaly that exists under section 39 (4). On that subsection I should say that where default is made in complying with conditions subject to which the loan is made, other than a loan in relation to which an agreement has been made under subsection 39 (3), a housing authority may recover possession of the house in respect of which the loan was made. If the authority did not enter into an agreement under subsection 39 (3), they could, therefore, operate under subsection 39 (4) to secure possession, even though their interest might be confined to that of second mortgagor. This amendment will get over the objection by excluding loans secured by a second mortgage or a second charge from the powers of a local authority under subsection 39 (4) to recover possession of the house to which the loan relates. If they wish to proceed for the recovery of such a loan, they would have to act under any agreement they made with the first mortgagor under subsection 39 (3).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 29, before subsection (8), to insert a new subsection as follows:—
"( ) The upper limits of valuation and income for a loan shall be the same as that for a supplementary grant."
As amendment No. 43 seems to be related to this one, perhaps the Deputy could discuss both together, if he wishes.
Yes. The reason for putting down this amendment is the peculiar situation which can arise with the upper limits of income for loan purposes which is £1,200 and the upper limit of income for supplementary grants which is £1,445, when we take dependants into account. We meet this type of case frequently, where a person can be eligible for a supplementary grant but not eligible for a loan. I think the Minister will readily agree that that should not be so, that you can have an applicant with three dependants earning £1,345 and one with four dependants earning £1,445. They can get the supplementary grant but they cannot get the loan when they pass the £1,200 limit. I should like to hear the Minister say he is prepared to accept this amendment in order to overcome this peculiar feature of the section.
I suppose one might say in this case that the operation of the loans under the SDA system in these more recent years has been reserved and preserved for those who would not be creditworthy to the degree required by the normal commercial institutions. The £1,200 income limit is the point at which we have recently raised this eligibility to qualify for SDA. In other words, anybody over that figure would seek his loan elsewhere. We feel that this principle of the reservation of these moneys for those who may not readily find the money through normal commercial institutions is being retained and the income limit of £1,200 in that regard is reasonable, in all the circumstances.
If there is to be a comparison made as to the availability, in certain circumstances, of supplementary grants to those with incomes of up to £1,445, this could in a sense be regarded as generous on the side of the grant provisions rather than restrictive on the side of the loan provisions.
Surely the Minister must agree that making provision whereby a local authority can pay supplementary grants up to £1,445 is an inducement to the local authority to pay grants up to that figure where there are dependants. While the Minister recommends that local authorities should do that, at the same time, he says the State should not agree to borrowing if a person has an income in excess of £1,200. It does not seem to make sense that the two income limits should be the same, both for a supplementary grant and for loan purposes. I am amazed the Minister will not accept this amendment to bring the two into line. I would say that the amount of money involved would not be enormous. It seems an extraordinary thing that a person who qualifies for a supplementary grant is not, in fact, eligible for a loan from the State. It seems unthinkable and I must ask the Minister to try to agree to it.
There are another few aspects which can be looked at in this. Perhaps we should be prepared to increase the limit of £1,040 to £1,200. We should also have regard to the fact that this limit only applies to loans under the SDA scheme and drawn from the Local Loans Fund and that loans from this source may not be made to persons with incomes on a higher level than £1,200. In this way we are not really saying that you may not lend money to people over £1,200. If the local authorities wish to go beyond that, they may do so, but they must supply the money from other than a Government source.
The Minister knows the extreme difficulty experienced at the present time. He knows the money just cannot be found. Is the Minister saying that as long as this credit squeeze lasts, no money can be found outside? I cannot understand why somebody if entitled to a supplementary grant, should be put in the position that he cannot also be given a loan. There is nothing wrong at all with the amendment which says that the upper limits of valuation and income for a loan shall be the same as that for a supplementary grant. Perhaps the Minister is not aware of this but local authorities have a habit of trying to juggle around so that somebody would give a high income figure for the purposes of a loan and, thereby, deprive himself of a supplementary grant.
No; I would not agree with the Deputy. I do know that juggling around has been done in the past where a person who established himself as qualifying for a supplementary grant could not qualify on creditworthiness for a loan. I know of one case only where both were got in these circumstances, but that is a long story. It is not the parallel of that at all. It does normally set out that if the local authority wish to provide these supplementary grants, they may go to a limit of £1,450, provided it is in respect of an applicant who has not less than four dependants. In other cases, it is scaled down and comes back to the basic £1,045, where there are no dependants. If the appropriate cases come along, that person will get some part of the supplementary grant as determined by the local authority. That same person, if over the £1,200 limit, will not get an SDA loan.
On the other hand if he earns under £1,200, he can get both supplementary grant and the SDA loan from the local authority so that this is radically different from the situation Deputy Tully has mentioned as being a sort of "fiddle" in the past and which I knew was so myself, that if you qualified for one, you put yourself out of court for the other. In other words, if you made a good case for a loan, the same case defeated you for a supplementary grant. But here, if you go on the permitted limit, it is quite clear that within the scheme a person may qualify for a supplementary grant and, provided his income does not exceed £1,200, he will be entitled to full consideration for an SDA loan. I think this is fair. It is codding nobody.
I am extremely disappointed by the Minister's attitude to this amendment. It is incredible that a person can qualify for a grant from the local authority and at the same time, cannot qualify for an SDA loan. As we advance in this Bill, it is revealing itself more and more as a Bill to enable the local authorities to contribute more from the rates, while, at the same time, little or no additional contribution is made by the State.
Would the Minister consider this point? We all know of people living in rented houses or who are married and have not a house of their own and want to build a house. There is a fairly well established salary at which certain people feel they are in a position to build their own houses. Is it not rather ridiculous that people who have reached that salary feel they are able to pay a loan and these are the very people who are deprived of getting a loan by this section? If the Government are serious about encouraging people to build their own houses, would the Minister not consider making provision that the necessary finances when available to the Government would be made available to them? This sort of penny-pinching which is put in for no reason that I can discover should not be included in this Bill. It would be far better if the Minister said "If those people want to build their houses, the State will give every possible assistance", instead of saying: "You have an income which will allow you to repay a loan. You have got a grant from the local authority but you will not get a loan because you have a few pounds more than we think you should have to qualify for the loan." I cannot understand that.
Surely the Deputies concerned with this amendment must be aware, despite all the talk about a credit squeeze, that the activities of the SDA in the past three or four months have gone up at a rate that has probably never been witnessed before.
In the past three or four months? People have not got a penny from them. You have the applicants but no money.
Do not be codding yourselves. There is no point in using that old red herring. If we have applicants and they are approved, the argument the Deputy is making comes to nothing.
They will be paid some time.
In Deputy Clinton's local authority, they are processing applications in greater number than for many a long day, and until the limits were changed, to the much abused limit of £1,200 the activity in SDA loans was practically non-existent.
The credit squeeze has a lot to do with it.
If it did not suit, credit squeeze or not, it would not be availed of. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Since the limits were raised, activity in local authorities where activity had almost ceased, has taken on new life and is now achieving a rate that has not been witnessed for a long time.
Am I allowed to make a categorical statement? There are numbers of people in County Meath who not alone have qualified for loans but many of whom have their houses almost completed—some of them are availing of this and some are not—and they have not got a penny in the past few months. Some of them have been waiting for two months and they have been told: "You will get the money when we get authority to pay it from the SDA." Is that just talk or making use of the fact that there is a credit squeeze? Will the Minister say: "We have not got the money. We are short of money and we ask the people to have patience until it is available." If the Minister does that, we are prepared to sympathise and give him support but do not let us have a continuation of this story that there is plenty of money.
When the Deputy talks about the continuation of the story, I take it the story began many years ago.
It began two months ago.
I do not agree. Whatever about the veracity of what he says in regard to his experience in County Meath of loans being sought and approved and not yet paid——
I give my word as a Deputy.
Whatever about that, it has nothing to do with the argument the Deputy has been making against the £1,200 limit. The fact that people have applied and are eligible for, and have been promised, loans in such number as the Deputy complains about surely proves that the £1,200 limit is operating satisfactorily? It is not the fault of the limit if, in fact, they are not getting the money.
The Minister is trying to ride two horses. A few minutes ago, his argument was that the money was there.
The Minister says it is within the power of the local authority to provide loans for people whose income does not exceed £1,200. We tried to do that in Kilkenny but when we went to raise the money, we were told it could not be done.
When was that?
In the past few months.
What were you doing in the past few years?
That is not the point. We were not able to raise money even to pay reconstruction grants. As a corporation, we were anxious to ensure that people, subject to this maximum income, could get a loan, but we could not give it. I ask the Minister, in view of that, to reconsider and accept the amendment by Deputy Clinton that the limit be extended.
What I should like to say in conclusion in so far as this is concerned is that there is more money going into housing in all its aspects than ever went in before at any time under any Government. That is all I wish to say about all the talk there is regarding the credit squeeze. There is a credit squeeze but despite that, the total amount of money, the total contribution from public money going into housebuilding and reconstruction this year will be the highest ever put in.
We are not in a position to pay our reconstruction grants.
The Minister is talking about the amount of money provided in the Estimates. Last year, we provided a certain amount of money but it was not spent. I do not think it can be spent this year because everybody is held up for want of money for housing. We are only fooling ourselves if we say there is money available. It is not available. Apart from that, we are not legislating for today but for a period when I hope money will again be available. It is certainly not available at the present time. The Minister is quite right in saying that the number of applications for SDA loans to Dublin County Council has rocketed in the past couple of months but I submit that that is not entirely due to the increase in income limits. It is largely influenced by the fact that loans have been refused by building societies and others who provide credit for building and people are coming to the county council as a last resort. Many people do not like to use SDA loans. Many builders dislike intensely to do so because of the delays involved in getting the money. When building societies were making money available it was made available quickly and without difficulty. There is considerable difficulty always in connection with SDA loans and grants.
I am amazed that the Minister should seem to be disappointed and dissatisfied that moneys being provided by way of loan and grant through Government machinery are being utilised and that he should use all the time as a reason for not improving the facilities the fact that they are being used more and more by the people. The Minister should be proud and glad that increased building activity is taking place in a country where so much building is required and so many houses are needed. I would ask the Minister to take a serious look at this before we reach the next Stage of the Bill and, if we have failed to convince him, see if he cannot convince himself that there is a strong case to be made for having the income limits the same for loans and grants and thus eliminate all this confusion.
Deputy Clinton has alleged that there is no point in providing money if we do not spend it and he instanced the building activities and the departmental and local authority activities last year as an example proving his case. I am sure he recalls that there was a builders' strike for almost three months which very effectively reduced the output and that a greater hold-up had taken place than was represented by the amount of money unspent. In other words, if there had been no hold-up, there would not have been enough money.
A sum of £1½ million was spent.
Yes, but there was a shut-down for three months in Dublin. If you take that into consideration, it will be found that the £1½ million would not have met what should have been done in these three months when the building trade would have been at the peak of its output.
The other point is that this year, which is the year in question here, more than half of the total provision of money, which is the greatest amount of money we have ever provided, is already spent, so that there cannot be any question that we are providing money merely on paper and doing nothing about it. More than half the figure is now gone.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 42:—
In page 29, before subsection (8), to insert a new subsection as follows:
"() In calculating the amount of a loan under this section the value of the house shall not be reduced by the amount of the supplementary grant if any such supplementary grant is being paid."
In the course of my experience as a public representative, I have found that the deduction of the supplementary grant before the loan is estimated has caused a great deal of trouble and confusion. Everybody seems to be aware that he is entitled to a State grant but persons are not always aware that they are entitled to a supplementary grant because the practice has been that no supplementary grant was paid by certain local authorities or there was a very small grant and there were grants of various sizes paid by various local authorities. In their ignorance and innocence about these matters, persons applied for the State grant and the loan and the State grant was deducted and the loan was calculated on the balance. An applicant might subsequently meet somebody who inquired if he had asked for a supplementary grant, which made him aware of the fact that such a grant was available. He applied but could not get the grant. He was debarred because the loan had already been calculated after deduction of the State grant. If application for the supplementary grant is not made within a month, the applicant is debarred. There is one month in which to make application for the supplementary grant, in which case both grants are deducted and the house can be proceeded with. The supplementary grant involves a delay of one month because of the operation of a means test by the local authority, and the necessary investigation whereas it is quite an easy matter to know who is entitled to a State grant and who is not and the application can go through much more quickly. All the amendment seeks is that the amount of the supplementary grant, if any, will not be deducted for the purpose of estimating the loan.
I am rather surprised to learn that this is done. It is not done in the constituency I represent. We do not have any difficulty.
It is no wonder that you have no money left.
It is required to be done.
We will not go into that. We do not want the Deputy to incriminate himself at the moment. In this connection I would say that 95 per cent is the limit of an SDA loan, plus the top limit of the loan that may be granted regardless of the cost of the house.
It is 95 per cent of the valuer's value.
The value of the house, not the cost.
Do not draw me on valuers because I have more bother with certain valuers than with others. I will say no more about it. It is a reasonable thing, if we are to have a 95 per cent loan, or 99 per cent as is the case where persons vacate a local authority house, that regard must be had to the net cost of the house rather than to the gross cost. Therefore, the deduction of any State or local authority grants would seem to be a fairly reasonable operation and the loan thereafter would be calculated on the residue rather than on the original amount. I cannot see a great deal wrong with the operation as of now. Assuming that we forgot about all this and said that we will make it 95 per cent of gross cost, is it not conceivable that on the 95 per cent of gross cost the loan in those circumstances would be greater than the net amount of money the person had to find in addition to the grant?
At present values, I do not know where it comes in at all.
Do not try to confound a very good argument. It is a mathematical calculation on a given figure. If the Deputy picks a figure, I will do the calculation.
£3,500.
This anomaly will arise unless there is a downward scale for the percentage loan that would be granted. It is not unreasonable to expect that some contribution would be made by the person raising the loan and getting the grants and having a house provided. I do not say that this necessarily should be large but even as an expression of good faith on his part, the applicant should be expected to have got to the stage where he had gathered up some part of the cost, no matter how small, and that some part would be provided by him before he looked for aid by way of grants and loans, particularly having regard to the fact that in all cases these grants and loans come from public moneys, whether rates or taxes. If the person goes to a commercial firm outside, that is another matter: he may be facilitated.
What about the cost of the sites?
We decided that yesterday.
The Minister is talking about the amount of the loan. Surely the permissible amount of loan today, if we put in the price of the erection of a house on a serviced site, could not possibly be 95 per cent. I am sure the Minister knows that the permissible amount of loan would not reach anything like 75 per cent.
What price house?
Any house at the present time. A very poor house runs from £3,000 upwards.
Do not be codding yourself. We are not in the same country at all.
May be the Minister is talking about Donegal.
I know a lot more of the country than Donegal.
The Minister must not know very much about modern prices if he says I am talking nonsense when I say a modern house costs £3,000. The tenders——
Do not mind about tenders. I am talking about justifiable costs and prices. If we pander to tenderers, as Members of that side of the House have been asking me to do during the past 15 years, it is no wonder the price of houses is high. I have a letter which I can show to the Deputy.
How long have the houses been built to which the Minister is referring?
They are being built at the moment. They have been built during the past year.
I can show the Minister houses built two years ago for £1,840 which could not be built today for less than £4,000. Saying that houses can be built today for the same price as two years ago is talking nonsense. I am surprised the Minister is not more up to date. The Minister said people should have some money in hand. I am sure the Minister had occasion to know recently what it cost to furnish a house. In addition to that, the Minister said a person who built a house should have a fairly substantial amount——
I did not say substantial; I said they should have some money; surely you do not want us to furnish the houses as well as help build them. People who cannot afford to set about building their houses should be satisfied to rely on the local authorities to build them houses at a rent.
The Minister's contribution has led us away from the amendment.
Provocation.
He missed the main point I was trying to make in favour of the amendment, that by taking the supplementary grant into calculation for loan purposes, many people who would get a supplementary grant have been deprived of it simply because they did not apply for the supplementary grant within a month of applying for the loan. That is the rule. I am aware of many cases where this has happened, and if the persons had known it would happen, they would not have built. I would ask the Minister in a particular way to listen to this argument. I know many people within the prescribed income bracket who have been deprived of supplementary grants because this deduction was made. That is why I am asking that this be left out of the calculation. It makes an enormous difference to a person when he is deprived of a supplementary grant. The effect on the loan would be so little by leaving this out of the calculation that I would ask the Minister to accede to the terms of the amendment.
Is it so in the Deputy's experience that if people do not apply for the supplementary grant and do apply for the loan, they get the loan and are left without the supplementary grant?
That is so.
That is not provided for in any legislation, past or present. It is purely an internal matter in the local authority concerned. It is not our doing.
If members of the local authority so desire——
If the manager so desires.
As I understand the Deputy, some local authorities must have things nice and tidy and they say applicants must apply for both things within a month of each other and that if they do not apply for the supplementary grant within a month of the loan application, the loan goes forward on the basis of net cost of the house, without any credit being given for supplementary grant. The loan is allocated on that basis, without regard to the supplementary grant and that loses the applicant the supplementary grant.
That is so.
This procedure is not of our making by law.
Then it need not happen.
It is not to be taken from that that I agree the purpose of the amendment would be served if we ignored the supplementary grant in calculating the loan. What I am saying is that loan applicants need not lose a supplementary grant.
The Minister has said the applicants concerned need not be deprived of the supplementary grant. The loan is passed and agreed but it is a different amount. Is that not so?
Yes.
How is this rule to be overcome?
The only simple way to get over it would be to have a recalculation.
A paper transaction would affect it.
That is what I am saying.
A simple recalculation at local authority level.
A simple calculation would revise the situation in favour of the applicant, give him a supplementary grant and reduce his loan by whatever percentage would emerge as a result of the recalculation.
Is it not prescribed that all grants must first be deducted?
Certainly, by applying for one and the other within a month of each other. It is not a prescription or a dictate of this House by any law made by this House.
It has been used the wrong way round, but if the Minister assures me it is not necessary, I shall withdraw the amendment.
There may be reasons why the Deputy's local authority have determined that this is the manner in which they prescribe that applicants should apply for loans but we do not dictate to them that that is the way they should act. If a person is to lose as a result, there should be no hard and fast rule about correcting it on paper.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 43 not moved.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 28, to add to the section a new subsection as follows:—
"() The fixing of the rate or rates of interest to be charged by a local authority in respect of a loan advanced under this section shall be a reserved function."
The Ministerial amendment No. 45 may be related to Deputy Corish's amendment.
I should say that section 42 provides for the making of schemes by housing authorities for the guarantee of loans by building societies, assurance companies, banks, etc., for the erection, purchase or reconstruction of houses. Under the 1962 Act the making of these schemes is a reserved function. The inclusion of a similar provision in section 42 was omitted through inadvertence when the Bill was being circulated and amendment No. 45 will restore the existing position by ensuring that the making of guaranteed schemes will be a reserved function.
Is amendment No. 44 being withdrawn?
No, it is not.
We are taking amendment No. 45 with this amendment.
Does the Minister suggest that his amendment covers my amendment?
Not at all. I did not even see the connection until it was pointed out by the Chair. I take it that the Deputy wants me to say what I think about what he said. I do not think this is either a useful or necessary amendment although the object sought by the Deputy is a very laudable one. The situation is different from Cork. They have changed there. They had a large scheme which was very much a subsidised interest rather than the operation of SDA loans. This is being brought about despite the fact that there is no question of designating whose function it is.
That is all right. We have also, in County Meath, succeeded in doing the same thing. That does not mean that because County Cork and County Meath can do those things that we should leave the rest of the country to the county manager and in the position that they cannot do it because the county manager does not want it done. The one way to prevent the county managers from ruling the roost is to accept our amendment and give the authority to the members of the county council. They will then decide whether or not the scheme can be introduced.
I shall have a look at that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill".
This is the one I referred to briefly before. It says that provided the housing authority make such conditions, which are approved by the Minister, they may make a loan providing the house is fit for human habitation. It is a little bit difficult with regard to reconstruction, repair or improvement of a house. In the case of a big house if the people who own the house cannot afford big repairs and can only repair enough of it to satisfy the family needs they do not qualify according to this because the entire house would not be fit for human habitation. Can the Minister say would "dwelling" cover this in a different way? It says "necessary to provide suitable accommodation". Does this mean if somebody has some repairs carried out that it will apply to this? Does it mean it can only apply to the necessary repairs? Does it apply to the house even if the repairs might be desirable and the Minister's engineer may consider they are not necessary? Will the Minister explain if that is so and if it is suitable for reconstruction and repair?
It is rather difficult to know. It is a very nice question as to whether or not this loan we are talking about should be said to apply. Put it another way and say "unnecessary repairs". If we look at it that way we should say it should not apply. If we get back to the way the Deputy expressed it as to whether or not any part of this loan would be regarded as applicable to repairs which were not regarded as necessary by our inspector on the job it is a different matter. I am putting it the other way round and it could be a question of whether this loan would apply to unnecessary repairs.
Somebody who is repairing the windows, doors and other parts of a house which has a thatched roof at the same time decides he will put a tiled or slated roof on. That could be claimed to be unnecessary repairs because the house is quite good.
I would say, in circumstances like this, it would not be regarded as unnecessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 31, after line 23, to insert before subsection (3) the following new subsection:
"(3) The making of a scheme under this section shall be a reserved function."
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42, as amended, agreed to.
Section 43 agreed to.
SECTION 44.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 31, subsection (1), lines 53 to 56, to delete all words from "for" in line 53 and insert:
"—
(a) the provision under this Act of dwellings in respect of which a grant under section 15 of this Act has not been made, or
(b) the provision of sites for building purposes, provided that the Minister is satisfied that the work of developing the site commenced on or after the 1st day of July, 1965."
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the new subsidy for developed sites will apply to sites on which development started on or after 1st July, 1965.
The Minister will not go back any further than that?
I will not.
The Minister has been saying things since 1963 but if he went back as far as he has been talking about he would go back to 1963. I know from my previous efforts here the Minister is not prepared to move an inch in making the application of various sections of this Bill retrospective even for a short space of time.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 have been ruled out of order as they tend to impose a charge on State funds.
Question proposed: "That section 44, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
My amendment on this section was ruled out of order and I can only discuss it on the section. We had, in County Dublin, for years, people living in overcrowded conditions as subtenants of cottages and the Minister would not accept them for the larger subsidy. After a lot of effort we got him to say this was undesirable. None of us can understand why he still excludes people who are forced into living in caravans. We, ourselves, are, in fact, providing caravans for a number of people where we cannot provide houses and where we cannot get the money fast enough to provide houses and also while we are waiting for the money to provide those houses. We have put the people into caravans and as a result of doing that we are deprived of the subsidy. It does not make sense to me or to anybody else.
There is even a distinction made here between itinerants being housed out of caravans and ordinary residents in any area who are living in caravans. If you house itinerants out of caravans, you get a subsidy. If he is an ordinary, decent person who is in a caravan because of the deplorable housing conditions he was living in, there is no subsidy. If the Minister takes a good look at this, I think he will include people in caravans. A caravan any day of the week is a great improvement on Griffith Barracks, Mountjoy Square or any of the temporary accommodation provided through the health authority. It is in an effort to meet that situation that we are putting people into caravans. It is in order to keep out of such institutions that people provide themselves with caravans. Therefore, it seems unreasonable that they should not get the subsidy, and I do not know how the Minister is going to defend his stand on this.
I want to take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for coming to our aid in County Dublin by giving the two-thirds subsidy to subtenants in council houses. We were the first breakthrough. In regard to Deputy Clinton's point about caravans, the Minister gives one-third subsidy to caravan dwellers and two-thirds if they are subtenants. I have been speaking to the Minister about this matter. It is hard to know where to draw the line. We had to house seven people out of caravans in Lucan. When a housing scheme is started anybody could draw in a caravan and be living there. It is open to abuse in that way. However, I would like if the Minister would have another look at the matter because we have a problem in Dublin dealing with this.
The one thing that seems to be overlooked in this is that a caravan is not in the normal sense a dwelling. Anybody living in a caravan cannot be claimed to be living in a house. They have not got suitable housing accommodation. If they have not got suitable housing accommodation, they should be entitled to the normal subsidy. I am sure the Minister will agree that the proper subsidy to be given to caravan dwellers going into a new house is the two-thirds subsidy. The caravans may be retained for other unfortunates who will require them at a later stage. This whole matter of saying that because they are living in caravans they are only entitled to the one-third subsidy is wrong and I think Deputy Clinton is perfectly right.
Surely there is a bit of confusion here? It has only dawned on me that Deputy Tully is talking about people out of caravans already provided by the local authority. I do not think that is what Deputy Clinton is talking about.
That is part of it.
It is only a minor part of it.
It is part of it. There is no use saying these people do not qualify.
There are three elements in this. First, there is the payment of subsidy by the local authority for the provision of caravans. We have allowed subsidy for such operations in the recent past. Next is the question whether persons by reason of living in a caravan should indiscriminately, as of right, be entitled not only to be rehoused but to get the higher subsidy. There is no straight answer to that.
I agree.
In the context of this Bill it is the need of rehousing that will determine the matter. Whether they are in caravans or not is not the essence of the claim. The claim could arise because a person is in a caravan or it could arise on medical or compassionate grounds. It might happen that a person in a caravan—it might be his own or somebody else's and need not necessarily be a local authority caravan—would be entitled by virtue of need to the higher subsidy. The third element concerns caravans provided by the local authority. The question seems to be raised here whether persons leaving those caravans and going into houses are entitled to the subsidy.
The Minister said he was already subsidising those caravans. He is not. They are being provided by the local authorities out of the rates.
They are, in my foot.
They are. The Minister refused to subsidise them.
Is the Deputy saying they are getting nothing at the moment? That is not true.
The Minister has not given them anything so far.
The question of the caravan being provided with the aid of subsidy obviously must be different from the question of the caravan provided by the local authority without subsidy. The two cannot be treated in the same manner.
The Minister has attempted to unscramble this question of caravans. If you are housing an itinerant, you get a 50 per cent grant, but if the person concerned is not an itinerant but a working class person who, by his own thrift, got into a caravan, he will get only a one-third subsidy.
From where?
From the State.
Suppose he is a tinker who works for a farmer and is no longer an itinerant?
I am talking about an ordinary member of the community who lives in a caravan. He gets a one-third subsidy. The caravans are provided by the local authority to keep people out of institutions like Griffith Barracks. Why does the Minister think such a person is not entitled to the normal subsidy? They are living in caravans because they want family type accommodation other than institutional accommodation where they will be separated from their wives and families. The Minister should agree to take a serious look at this. I can see a point can be made for eliminating people with lots of money who live in caravans. But, since they are not members of the working classes, they are not eligible. But those living in caravans because of their circumstances, who would otherwise be eligible if they were living in any sort of house, should receive the two-thirds subsidy the same as anybody else. This is merely cheese-paring.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 2nd November, 1965.