There seems to be some confusion as to what exactly we were doing before the debate was interrupted. I felt we were discussing amendments Nos. 26a and 27a together.
Committee on Finance. - Housing Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 26.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
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."
—Deputy Clinton.
The note I have states that amendment No. 26 and amendment No. 26a were not moved and that we were discussing together amendment No. 27 and amendment No. 34.
There was some confusion. I felt Nos. 26a and 27a were being discussed together.
I am sorry, but I must go by the note I have in front of me. We are resuming on amendment No. 27, which is being discussed with amendment No. 34.
I have already dealt with this question of two inspections and two standards. I take it from what the Minister said when we were discussing this previously that a local authority is at liberty, if it so wishes, to accept the inspection of the Local Government inspector and pay on that without any further inspection. If that is so, what is intended in this amendment is already permissible. I certainly will ask my local authority, Dublin County Council, to ensure that this is done and that this unnecessary second inspection, which causes so much upset and disturbance to people, will be waived in future. Could the Minister assure me that we are at liberty to do that?
As the law stands at the moment, the Deputy's local authority are quite at liberty to do that. They can waive the inspection and accept the Local Government certificate in lieu thereof. If they have reason to believe at any time they should not do so, they are still perfectly free to change their mind; but if these amendments were inserted, they would not have the option in the future. At present they are perfectly free to do what the Deputy seeks by amendment to make them do.
Can the Minister imagine a Local Government inspector passing a house as being perfectly satisfactory and a local authority engineer deciding it is not?
Deputy Clinton will tell you. He has experience of this happening.
Quite a lot of experience, I am sorry to say.
I cannot see the point of it. The Minister's advisers should pass it on to the county managers concerned that it is a waste of public money.
To be fair, the inspection could have to do with the enforcement of building bye-laws and might have a bearing on whether or not the local authority should pay the supplementary grant. I am not saying it should be done but that is a reason it might be done. The difference in approach could be for such a reason rather than merely because the finish, the input of material or workmanship was not satisfactory. I am merely suggesting this could be the cause rather than two technical people differing as to what was satisfactory or not.
Everything must be cleared before the Department authorises a grant. That is what happens in my county and, I assume, everywhere else. The Minister says there is no appeal from a decision. If there is no appeal, a person who gets caught between an extra officious local official and the Minister's inspector who has passed a house could be held up for an indefinite period.
I have been told that, in a number of cases, we have two different sets of standards. The Department's standards are not considered good enough or high enough and the local authority will not pay. It seems ridiculous to a person getting grants that the Department should consider the job good enough while the local authority does not. If we could get something done by way of notice of motion in the county councils, it might be possible to cover the position in that way.
The council could indicate the manner in which they think these things should be done. In addition, we could have a look at it, in consultation with the councils generally, find out what their experience is, the reasons why they do or do not do it differently, and we might then, by way of administrative direction, meet the same end.
That is a sensible approach.
It is better, I think, to leave it open. If there are reasons why a local authority should regard a second inspection as desirable, that local authority is free to have that inspection. That is the law.
I do not agree.
In my county and in Deputy Tully's county, one inspection suffices for both. In some odd counties, that has not been the situation and, in that regard, certain steps might be taken.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
That amendment governs amendment No. 34.
Yes.
Amendments Nos. 27a, 34a and 35a are ognate. They are all the same.
They all seek to have the same arrangement.
They all go together.
I move amendment No. 27a:
In page 23, before line 31, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"( ) A housing authority may give supplementary grants under this section of varying amounts according to the income of the person applying for such grant."
Am I right in believing this is possible without amendment?
It is possible, I think, by reducing the amount of the grant within the limit, but I do not think that is what Deputy Clinton is aiming at.
This amendment was put down by Deputy Ryan and he is not here at the moment. At present we are operating a scale of grants according to income and I want to know if, in doing that, we are acting within the law.
The Deputy is not giving the maximum grant.
We can go up to the maximum. I am not seeking to have this extended beyond the maximum. I do not think that is the intention of any of these amendments.
We pay the supplementary grant in full. Apparently County Dublin is not doing that. I certainly could not agree to the County Dublin scheme.
Subsection (3) of section 26 gives complete discretion as to payment. So long as local authorities keep within the upper limits there is complete freedom.
I am afraid I am not quite clear about the intention behind the amendments. Deputy Ryan may have in mind that, when we reach the limit at which a supplementary grant is paid, if a man is £1 over that, then he gets nothing. It may be the intention of these amendments that we could go a step further and, where a man is £50 over, he would get some grant, not the full grant but a reduced grant. We are paying up to the maximum on a graded scale. It may be that Deputy Ryan wants in future grants paid on a graded scale instead of just cutting a man off arbitrarily at a certain point.
What Deputy Clinton says is correct, though I was not primarily thinking of an increase over the permitted maximum because, if I were to recommend that, the Chair would immediately rule me out. I am concerned, however, about the situation in Dublin where either one qualifies for a supplementary grant or one does not. A man's income could be £1 over the limit and he would therefore be deprived of the total amount of the supplementary grant. I hold the grant should be on a sliding scale. If a man's income exceeds the permitted limit by £50, then the grant should be reduced pro rata, thereby avoiding the complete cutting off from benefit by having, as there is now, one grant and one limit. It may be argued that this introduces a means test. Perhaps it does, but it is a means test in reverse. By measuring means, one might be able to give some assistance, thereby avoiding the present unhelpful situation in which a person who is a small amount over the permitted limit loses all benefit.
In the estate duty code, there is a system whereby a person is allowed to go to a certain point above a particular scale before the increased rate of duty applies. The same system should operate here. I gather Dublin County Council, and perhaps other local authorities, have a sliding scale operating. The view is held in Dublin that existing legislation does not allow local authorities to have grants of varying amounts and the purpose of my amendment is to state clearly in this Bill what appears now to be doubtful in the minds of some. The Minister has stated on some other section what he understood to be the true legal position, but he has conceded that some law agents to local authorities have held a contrary view and we know that senior counsel have, in some cases, held views contrary to those of the Minister and his advisers. It is to put beyond any doubt the right of local authorities to have a means test and to give grants varying according to the incomes of the applicants that I tabled this and the other amendments.
The most extraordinary argument I have heard for some time is the reasoning behind these amendments. Will Deputy Ryan explain to me how this will help those who at present qualify for the maximum grant? If the grant is graded down, what use will it be to the fellow who is just £1 over the limit? What advantage will there be for the man who is £1 under the limit if he gets a reduced grant instead of the maximum grant. That is what he will get if this amendment is carried. I should dearly love to have this explained more fully.
As far as I know, existing legislation allows a local authority to give a supplementary grant to people with an income of a certain amount and to grade that supplementary grant, if they want to. The amount is a matter for decision by the local authority. I should be with Deputy Ryan if the suggestion were that, from the maximum up, those receiving no grant now might receive a lower grant until we reach the point at which it would disappear altogether. I could not in any circumstances agree that it would be any use at all to the people who were £1 over the grant if we graded it down. It reminds me of the old fellow whose cattle were carried away in the flood in a valley; he was terribly unhappy until he heard that his neighbour's cattle were also carried away, when he said: "Things are not so bad at all." That seems to be the attitude behind this amendment.
Deputy Tully is right in saying the permission is there to meet the grant up to the maximum but, as he says, while it is possible to grade the grant up to the maximum, it has been operated by some county councils, including my own, against the applicant. The local authorities have power to reduce the grant according to income but certainly I would support the idea that over and above the income limit, the axe should not drop.
That is not what is suggested.
A person might have £1 more than the maximum income. The Minister might readily say we must stop somewhere, and I agree we must. However, it is the cause of much disappointment and dissatisfaction if a very small increase in income deprives an applicant totally. If it meant he would only be deprived partially of a grant until he reached a further income, that would be worth implementing.
To dispel any doubts may I say that, having a generous disposition myself, the miserable and limiting interpretation which some Deputies have put on my amendment never entered into my mind. A person of mean disposition might avail of the amendment to reduce the amount of the supplementary grant, but I would consider it unreasonable to allow the axe to fall as soon as the person moves one penny above the permitted income. If the axe is to come down, I want it to come down very gently and softly so that it will not make a mark or cause any pain. I simply want a situation that if a person exceeds the permitted income limit by a small amount, he will not lose the full supplementary grant but only a portion thereof, that as he exceeds the permitted limit by a certain amount, the amount of his grant will decline on a scale somewhat equivalent to the degree to which his income exceeds the permitted limit. That is the only purpose of the amendment. I believe it is a humanitarian and beneficial way to approach the problem and I urge the Minister to put the matter right.
In order to have this dealt with even by somebody with as generous a disposition as Deputy Ryan, surely it would be necessary, first of all, to make arrangements that there will be an increase in the income limit. The income limit is laid down and no attempt is being made to interfere with that. Therefore, if we are referring to any amendment, it must be within the existing income limit and, in fact, these amendments refer to grants payable within the income limit as already laid down. I want to repeat that I am opposed entirely to what the amendments mean, not to what Deputy Ryan's generous disposition intended them to mean.
The Deputy will concede that if I tabled the amendment in the form he now suggests I should, it would have been ruled out of order and we would not have had any discussion at all on the merits of the proposal?
That is a very good point he should have made earlier.
That is one way of getting discussion on something we are not allowed to discuss. However, talking about Deputy Ryan's sweet disposition, the sweet way out of this, if a person who wishes to apply for a grant has an income of £1,046, the income limit being £1,045, is for that person to get himself a wife and then he moves on to the income limit of £1,145. If he has £1,146 he might add a child to the family and he then goes on to £1,245; if he has two children, the limit is £1,345 and if he has three children, it goes to £1,445. After that there is nothing I can suggest that would help.
Will the grant for a wife be available to somebody who is engaged to be married?
No. You will not get away with that one.
Are not most applicants for these grants engaged couples?
There would be an awful lot of engagements. They have to produce the wife. This is a generous increase in the grant. It has gone up from £832.
Would a child before the marriage contract be accepted?
Dependants—that is the requirement.
This is an incitement to vice.
They need not be children. They could be grown up born, if you could manage it that way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 23, subsection (8), line 46, to delete "1964" and insert "1965'.
Are we taking the other amendments?
We shall take them when we arrive at them. They are in different sections.
It is natural that we should oppose this amendment, because, as we have said already, the Minister was less than generous in the restrictive effect of this legislation. I have said that this Housing Bill has been heralded for so long and been discussed at such length that people were not entitled to get the impression that it would have a restrictive effect. In view of the fact that 1964 is the date that has been inserted in the Bill and that whoever was drafting the Bill felt, too, that it should be 1964, I appeal to the Minister to stick to his guns and leave it 1964.
The Deputy is wrong when he says those who drafted this thought as he does, that it should read 1964. What follows in the Bill indicates that it would make no sense if we left 1964, for the reason that what it governs does not operate until 1965, that is, the following subparagraphs (a) and (b) in page 23 of the Bill.
The Minister has spiked my guns by saying this refers to two distinct paragraphs, that it would not make sense otherwise, but we must remember that certain sections of this Bill still refer to 1st October, 1963, and I think the Minister would have been much better off if he had left it 1st October, 1963. The fact that it does not make sense here does not matter because if something can be done for the purpose of getting the grant under the Act it could not be done two years ago if there is no notification about it until now. The Minister would be quite safe even in leaving it 1964, though I personally think it should be 1st October, 1963, for the whole lot and that it would not do any harm to the meaning of the section or the Bill.
This is not quite as confusing as it is being made out to be by the Deputy. We must go back to 1963 and realise that at the time when we indicated that legislation would be forthcoming to justify, as from 1st October, 1963, the payment of these new higher grants to the special classes named, the land valuation, for instance, obtaining at the time had a £50 limit. Beyond that you could not go and nobody did go beyond it, nor had we any intention of going beyond it at that time. Likewise, in relation to other groups of people, income levels were different from what they were last July. What I said was: "All right; we will have the beneficial effects starting after October, 1963, but governed by the conditions that generally governed all other grants of that time," and up to last July when we introduced the Bill changing upwards the valuation from £50 to £60, and the adjustments down the scale together with the income limits for supplementary grants. This is really the cause of this and not any fiddling around with dates and figures.
Was not the proper time to adjust the rates the time when this occurred on a reasonably big scale, which was from 1st January, 1964, when in most cases there were the ninth round wage increases? If the Minister left 1st October, 1963, he would be as near as mattered to the actual time. In addition, there is the fact that the turnover tax was being introduced in or around 1st October, 1963. The Minister will find that 1st October, 1963, is far more relevant to most sections. I think that he will agree with me that it would be far more reasonable to say 1st October, 1963, and let people have the benefit of this.
What the Deputy is missing is that we had promised certain things on 1st October, 1963, and we have done these things and the actual thing now promised dates from 1st July. They were not told that until 30th June this year. To do what is suggested by the Deputy would be going back and would mean having to find out who had built and might have got more if they had waited and then give it to them, all the time remembering that our intention is to give encouragement to those who have not started.
If the Bill had not been held up, the date would not have been 1st July, 1965; it would have been earlier.
If it had been brought in in November, 1963, presumably the more attractive provisions would have encouraged more people to build houses, people who may not yet have been encouraged to do so because they were not able before, but now they are able to do so. The fact that it was not brought in last July has not really hurt anybody and it will now help those who may have been delayed and could not have started.
If you have not got something, you cannot lose.
Why should we stop at 1st October, 1963?
That is the date you picked.
I am picking 1st July. Why take me back?
Because you have already operated some sections.
Why not make it 1964?
Because it is the logical thing to do.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 24, before line 8, to insert after subsection (9) the following new subsection:
"(10) This section in so far as it relates to a grant under section 16 of this Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st day of October, 1963."
This amendment will provide retrospective power for a housing authority to pay supplementary grants where the Minister has paid a grant at the higher rate for the erection of a house for a farmer or person in certain other categories specified in section 16 of the Bill. The necessity for the restricted power arises from the fact that the grants are payable under that section for houses, the erection of which commenced on or after 1st October, 1963.
There is no objection to that.
There should not be.
The Minister picked a good date.
Amendment agreed to.
With amendment No. 30, perhaps we could discuss amendment No. 33 which is a cognate amendment.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 24 between lines 7 and 8, to insert two new subsections as follows:
"(10) A housing authority may, in lieu of making a supplementary grant, make an annual contribution towards the annual loan charges (if any) incurred by a person providing a house.
(11) This section shall come into operation on the date of the passing of this Act."
One of the things we have been hearing in this House and outside it, over a period, is in relation to the fact that when a supplementary grant is given, it very often occurs that the builder is the person who gets hold of it. That does not apply in every case but according to my information, it is quite common around Dublin city and in other parts of the country. It does not happen in the area I represent but I feel that the way to counteract this is simply to make the contribution towards the loan charges. This would mean that one of the big problems facing people owning their own houses, the finding of money to pay the loan charge, could possibly be dealt with and the cost of borrowed money for house purchases and house erection could be reduced very much. The idea behind this should be considered by the Minister. I am aware that in some countries this system is adopted to assist people to build their own houses. In some countries grants are not payable at all but loan charges are subsidised, and the full amount of a loan necessary for house building is made available to people who want to build their own houses. I should like the Minister to comment on this to see what his view is.
I would be completely in favour of this amendment if it were additional to the supplementary grants which can be paid already, but I am very much afraid it would operate to widen the gap again between the amounts provided by way of loan and grants and the amount required to purchase the house, and that it would operate against many people being able to purchase their own houses. If it had the effect which Deputy Tully expects it to have, of taking something away from the builder that perhaps he should not get, especially in cases where he is making an undue profit, I would be in favour of it, but I am afraid it would not operate in that way.
There is a lot to be said for a reduction of the service charges on the debt, more especially when a house is purchased by a newly-married couple, because when the family comes later, the weekly outgoings very often are a nearly unbearable burden. If this could be operated in the way suggested by Deputy Tully, it would do a lot of good for these people, but unfortunately I cannot see it having the effects we all want to see, that is, that the supplementary grant will not automatically be passed on to the builder and be added to his profit which it is felt is already high enough, if not too high. I should like to see it as the Deputy sees it but I am afraid I cannot.
As I understand it, the intention of this amendment is that in respect of a grant of £150, this grant would be reimbursed by way of reduced annual repayments on the loan. Let us assume that a person needs £1,000 to do a job and he is entitled to a grant of £150. As I see it, what would happen under this amendment is that the person would really repay £850. Is that right?
If the Minister will settle for £850 or £1,000, I am with him. In fact, if the figure were £1,400, he would repay about £2,300, with interest.
I am taking £1,000 as a nice even figure. I am taking £150 as another even figure, and asking am I right in saying the intention is that having borrowed £1,000, the amount is abated forthwith by the amount of the supplementary grant. No?
No. If the borrower borrows a certain sum of money, the repayments on that sum are one problem and the repayments of the interest on that sum are another problem. The result is that a person who borrows £1,400 will find that over a period of 35 years, he will repay £2,300. The suggestion is that the supplementary grant should be used for the purpose of reducing the interest rate on the money, and therefore reducing the amount of the repayments. The Rules of Order of the House will not allow me to propose interest-free loans because they would be a charge on the Exchequer, so I am putting something into the Minister's mind and having it discussed by using the only means I can, the supplementary grant. If we keep to the supplementary grant, we cannot be ruled out of order. If the Minister decides to introduce a further amendment to wipe out all except the ordinary service charge on loans, he will get the full support of the House, I am sure. We think an effort should be made to alleviate the crippling repayments which the unfortunate person who borrows money to build a house finds he has to make over a long period. This is one way in which this can be done.
We now know what the Deputy wants, which naturally we could not be expected to interpret up to now.
I am sorry.
All I can say is that this is completely out of the question so far as this Bill and this section are concerned. I could point out that an excellent scheme is operated by Cork Corporation, a scheme of subsidised loan rates related to income levels and so on which I believe is working extremely well. I am not sure but I think it is two or three per cent. Actually, the interest rate is abated according to the income of the recipient of the loan.
The Minister should not give all the credit to Cork Corporation. We have one in Meath, too.
What is the Deputy looking for now?
There is never enough money available. Even before the credit squeeze was ever mentioned, only a limited amount of money was made available. The Minister is aware of that even in Cork or Donegal or anywhere else. We tried to borrow some money in Meath but it represented only a percentage of what we needed, with the result that we could not afford to borrow this money and at the same time continue paying supplementary grants. We are suggesting that this is one way to get around it.
I should like Deputy Tully to further clarify the position. Is the Deputy not, in fact, sowing other seeds in the Minister's mind? Is he not asking the Minister to subsidise from the State the servicing of the debt incurred in borrowing money for the purchase of houses? I think he is asking for a State subsidy towards the cost of servicing the debt incurred in borrowing money to purchase houses.
That is the least of what he appears to be asking.
If, as appears from what the Minister said, the local authorities are at liberty to do this, I think Deputy Tully is looking for something in addition to the £ for £ contribution from the State towards a subsidy on loan charges.
Before there was any mention of a credit squeeze, there was a limitation on the amount of money available for these subsidy operations. I do not know how that arose unless there was confusion about those outside the SDA classes. There is no limit within SDA classes, either upwards or downwards. The amount of interest may be charged by the local authorities in their business. They can charge over or under the rate and we do not interfere.
I explained that the reason I mentioned the supplementary grants was to remain within the Rules of Order. I think the Minister appreciates the fact that it would be pretty difficult to supplement the loan charges on the scale necessary in some housing areas. In other words, everyone who would come within a certain income limit could have his loan charges supplemented by a payment from the local authority, and even the £300 for the supplementary grant represented as a loan charge over a period of 35 years would not go anywhere near what would need to be done. I am suggesting that the Minister might consider this proposal worth putting in as a special section in the Bill. I put down the amendment for the purpose of having it discussed. We have discussed it now, and if the Minister is prepared to consider it, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
(South Tipperary): The local authorities usually put up £ for £ as regards these grants, and I wonder if the local authorities are prepared to subsidise the interest on the loan charges, is the Minister equally prepared to meet it on a £ for £ basis?
No.
When the local authorities make money available at low rates of interest, where do they get the money to pay the interest to the Local Loans Fund?
From the rates, of course.
Can they charge some applicant a higher rate of interest to make up the loss?
They may do. There is no limitation. There once was a limitation of 1/2 per cent but there is no limitation now. In most cases now it is 1/4 and they are still making it pay.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 26, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
Through some confusion, I am sure on my part, an amendment in the name of Deputy Ryan, who was not here at the time, was not moved. It sought to have certain restrictions removed in relation to dependants. The section allows four dependants to be taken into consideration, and only four. It stops there. I feel that what is in Deputy Ryan's mind is that if we are prepared to pay £100 for dependants up to four, why do we not continue to pay this £100 if there are more dependants? If dependants up to the number of four cost £100 each—and this is accepted by the Minister—surely they do not cost less from then on. I shall leave it to Deputy Ryan to deal with this aspect of the amendment which, through confusion on my part, was not moved at the right time.
I do not think I can add much to the well-stated case by Deputy Clinton. Being a member of a large family myself, I can never understand why people are envious of any allowances or other benefits made available to large families by reason of the numbers in them. During the war, when we had rationing, neighbours used to speak enviously about the large amount of tea and other commodities going into any house on our road that had a large family. They did not seem to have regard to the additional expenditure involved and to the extra mouths that had to be fed.
In this country, where we always pride ourselves on the size of our families, we are appearing to impose a restriction. It is in the case of the larger families that the accommodation is required. Most of the units of modern accommodation, I am afraid, are not designed to house them in comfort. The cost of adding the accommodation is, in many cases, prohibitive.
The effect of limiting the benefit here is to deprive the larger family and those in greatest need of the additional help which they require. Consider the initial basic cost of one room, whether the room be small or large. A certain portion of the price of the additional accommodation will basically be the same whether you are adding a room 10' × 10' or 20' × 10'. It seems undesirable and wrong that we should impose a limit on the benefit which we will confer and base it upon the size of a small family. We should continue these benefits where there are larger families. It will not cost the State very much to continue benefit according to the necessity of the applicant.
Had the Minister in mind that somebody who was up to an income of £1,440 should not require any further supplementary grant? Was that the reason why this limit was imposed? I am aware, as is everybody in the House, that it is a very much more generous interpretation of this measure than the previous Act laid down for a supplementary grant. Before this, if anybody had over £840, whether he had one child or 20 children, he could not get the supplementary grant. Above £840, they got nothing at all. Possibly that might be the idea why it has now been decided to raise it to a maximum of £1,440 which is a big change. It should not be limited at that. Even if the amount per child or dependant is reduced after that, it should be possible to give some allowance over that.
Like Deputy Clinton, the person who was to move an amendment here on this section unfortunately did not do so and I should like to explain what we were trying to do. The section itself reads that "where a relevant grant is made by the Minister or the Minister for the Gaeltacht, as the case may be ... the housing authority may make a supplementary grant ..." We feel that a lot of unnecessary annoyance is caused to people building houses because of the fact that they cannot get any payment from the local authority or any supplementary grant or portion of a supplementary grant from the local authority until the grant by the Minister for Local Government is available and approval is sent to the local authority We can see no reason why the Minister should not have included in it that, when the grant was approved, if the local authority thought fit they could give portion of the supplementary grant to assist people of limited means to bring their house to the stage at which it would qualify for the full State grant. Perhaps the Minister might consider this before Report Stage. It affected a lot of people, particularly in the past 12 months.
When Deputy Tully was not here, the Minister explained that, in his county, this was being done, that everybody is at liberty to do it and that he felt certain that, if it is moved in the county council, it will be done.
The section says "made" and that means that it cannot be done until the State grant is paid.
That is so, but, in our experience, it is paid promptly. It is the local authority grant that holds up the payment of the additional amount.
We were hoping that a portion of the supplementary grant could be paid.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Amendment No. 30 was discussed with amendment No. 27a.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."
Can the Minister say why the grant can be paid only to a body? Supposing a person, in his generosity, provides housing for elderly people. Can the grant not be paid to an individual?
Last night, I asked the Minister when he was asked to define "body" if a health committee of a local authority qualified for such grant and the Minister was very emphatic in saying it did not. He said that a body should be a charitable organisation or a committee of a local authority consisting of members of a local authority, some members or all members. At the time, I let it slip. Why was the Minister emphatic that a health committee, who might be the entire local authority or a committee consisting of members of it, would not qualify while another type of committee set up by the local authority would, according to the Minister, qualify?
It is strange that the Deputy should raise this matter again because I, too, thought about it later and wondered why Deputy Tully should interject about a health committee when I was talking about a body or a group. At that point, the Deputy mentioned a health committee. From the way he said it, I thought the Deputy did not think much of health committees and that there was some gag about it. I now understand why he asked the question. There is no reason why any body such as a health committee or other committee that might get itself together or is already an entity should not qualify for these grants if they are of a philanthropic nature.
Take a health committee made up of a large mixture of outside people and councillors. This is the type of committee I believe could do the job, where there are no other bodies in addition, and where none of your voluntary bodies or charitable organisations might be making any move. At the worst we could even appoint people on behalf of ourselves, through the membership or some agency of the county council, who would have the advantage and the knowledge of the facilities available to them as councillors and could more readily get the thing going than those you might select outside. That is what I had in mind. I misunderstood Deputy Tully at the time. I did not intend that health authorities were not the people who should do this.
I am glad the Minister raised the question because I was rather surprised at his explanation.
I thought it was your health committee you were talking about.
No. Our health committee is an excellent body and, if the Minister proposes, the health committees will be delighted to make available houses for elderly people and others.
Would the Minister deal with the other point I made? If an individual wanted to build houses for elderly people, would he receive the grant?
The State grants would have been made to bodies and bodies only in this context. Therefore, there would be no sense in making any provision for supplementary grants because there would not be any individuals to avail of supplementary grants. This grant is dependent on the agency having got the State grant and it does not provide for grants for individuals.
What is the objection to providing for individuals, as a matter of interest?
That is another point.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Amendment No. 31 in the name of Deputy Corish and others was discussed with amendment No. 26.
Amendment No. 31 not moved.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 25, lines 11 to 18, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following new subsection:
"(3) A housing authority may impose in relation to the making of a supplementary grant under this section such conditions as they think fit."
This is a drafting amendment and nothing more. I should say, in explanation that section 29, subsection (3), provides that reconstruction grants may be confined to certain classes of persons reconstructing houses of particular types, etc., if the housing authority think fit. Under the amendment it will be provided simply that "a housing authority may impose in relation to the making of a supplementary grant under the section such conditions as they think fit". I should add also that the amendment will bring the section into conformity with section 26, subsection (4) on the making of supplementary grants for new houses. It is really a relaxation.
It is a relaxation in favour of local authorities, is that not so, but it is not a relaxation from the point of view of the persons who might hope to qualify for supplementary grants?
That would depend on the interpretation.
In the section, as it is worded at the moment, there are specific categories in respect of whom a local authority may lay down conditions. The Minister is freeing the local authority from any restrictions of that kind and they may adhere to what is in the Bill if they wish. On the other hand, they may go completely outside that.
Yes, as they think fit, rather than defining it for them.
But they may go beyond the scope?
That is the Minister's interpretation of it. Here again we come up against this whole question. We have had bitter experience of this before when it was said to be an improvement.
We are back on the planning again.
We will have quite a time on that yet. The amendment says:
A housing authority may impose in relation to the making of a supplementary grant under this section such conditions as they think fit.
Could the Minister explain to me how that is a relaxation of the existing terms upon which a supplementary grant may be made? I should like to know, because at the present time a supplementary grant is made, if everything is OK from the State end. Now we are allowing the local authority to come in and decide that there are certain things which are not mentioned at all until the job is complete. Do not forget that the question of the paying of a supplementary grant will not arise until the complete job has been done. Then the local authority might step in and say: "Oh, well; we meant you to have a window with four panes and you have only two and you were supposed to have a wooden floor here from a certain type of timber and now you must have something else." The Minister may think this is going a little too far but, from experience, most of us know how far this can go. I think the Minister should be very careful about handing over authority, not, mind you, to the elected representatives of the council but to one of the officials, again, who will decide what terms should be laid down before a supplementary grant is paid.
I think what Deputy Tully points out is quite correct, but I think there is a very fundamental objection to the amendment in that it would seem to most of us to be desirable that applicants for supplementary grants should know, as far as possible, where they stand. In the Minister's amendment, it seems to be open to the local authority to treat different individuals in different ways. You might have a case which, to the onlooker at any rate, would seem to be exactly the same as another, but it is open to the local authority to treat each of these in a different way because under the Minister's amendment, it seems to me to be open to the local authority in respect of each applicant for a supplementary grant to impose different conditions. There is no kind of over-riding guide or rule which applicants can rely on as showing whether or not they are going to come within the category which will get them a supplementary grant.
Further to what Deputy M. J. O'Higgins has said, are local authorities not obliged to prepare a scheme outlining the conditions under which they will give a supplementary grant and apply that generally to all applicants? I should like to clear this point with the Minister, when he is disengaged. Is it not right to say that local authorities are required to prepare a scheme, whether or not they are prepared, because the normal practice is to prepare a scheme in which they outline the conditions under which they will pay supplementary grants? I think a point arises there as to whether or not they are compelled to prepare this scheme and operate the supplementary grants according to this scheme. Are they obliged to do that? I know that has been the practice but we feel people should know where they stand.
This is an objectionable amendment because it permits local authorities to worsen the supplementary grants scheme and to impose additional conditions, over and above those required by the Minister. Again, it re-introduces these two sets of standards I have objected to earlier on. I think we should have one set of standards recognised at both levels. As Deputy O'Higgins says, people are entitled to know where they stand; otherwise it only makes for confusion and an immense amount of trouble for the applicant.
Would the Minister say what obligation there is on the local authority to prepare and operate the scheme?
None whatever. We are inclined to take this too literally.
The reason I asked that was I understood the Minister concurred in Deputy Clinton's interpretation that the local authority was under obligation to publish a scheme. It may be they are prepared but they are under no obligation.
If you were going to provide supplementary grants, then a scheme would obviously be the only manner in which they would be provided.
There is another way.
Individual treatment.
The point is that here we are on the Housing Bill and some other time not so long ago we were discussing something else—perhaps the same Bill and we were all talking about the local authority not being able to do things without coming back to the Minister. Here, instead of having in the Bill a provision that the making of grants under section 29 may be confined to—
(a) persons of such class or classes,
(b) persons reconstructing or improving houses of such type or types, or
(c) persons of such class or classes reconstructing or improving houses of such type or types.
—we are now suggesting the wiping out of a number of them from line 11 to line 18: those three restrictive passages. Instead of that we are merely saying the same local authority may impose such conditions "as they think fit". Surely it is a much more straightforward method of dealing with it? It imposes and creates no danger that I can see and it simplifies generally the actions of the local authority in arranging their scheme.
Could the Minister say offhand whether this would be a matter to be decided by the members of the local authority or the officials?
This is an executive function and the Minister is trying to put another face on it.
Is that correct?
The straight answer is that it is an executive function but the money must be provided, and unless the councillors agree, where is the manager to get the money after performing the executive function? The only sane way to approach this is to have the scheme prepared by the manager and brought to the council by whom it may be amended and it may even be brought back and forward until it conforms with their views and as a result of the scheme hammered out between the manager and the council, the council will be committed to provide money to finance it.
I think the Minister is not being fair. He knows that the scheme is prepared by the manager and the members are allowed to have their say and eventually the money is provided for the scheme. All the difficulty here, in my view, is that the housing authority may, in relation to making supplementary grants under this section, impose such conditions as they think fit, picking out one case, and the housing authority referred to does not mean the members of the authority who draw up the scheme but the authority's officer, the manager or whoever gets the job to do for the council. I am sure the Minister knows well there is a great difference in the preparation and placing before the council —the elected members—of a scheme when they can discuss the provision of money, and under the section as it stands that can be done, and what can also be done under the amendment. When all the preparations are made in the case of John Brown's house and when the house is finished and the State grant is paid and the time comes for the payment of the supplementary grant, the manager can say that the wrong paint was used or the wrong type of chimney and that is an argument the manager can use and will use to avoid paying the grant. The Minister should look into this and see that it is not a question of our asking the Minister to take over the control of things that belong to the county council so much as a case of not placing extra power in the hands of the county manager. That is all he is doing and I am one of the people here always asking for more power to be given to the elected representative. It does not give one iota of power to them.
It does not take it from them, either.
It does. After they have passed the scheme, it enables the manager to say this must be done or that must be done in an individual case.
Surely the Deputy is not trying to make the House believe that a subterfuge is being provided which a manager can operate against the wishes of the council?
It can operate that way. That may not be the intention of those who made the change.
A lot of the codding done by managers in so far as councils are concerned is the fault of the councillors who allow themselves to be codded when it would better fit them to put the managers on the spot but this they are not prepared to do. Having said that, what I shall undertake to the House is that if this is lessening the power of the council, I shall see that it does not go through. If it has to be amended, I shall have the amendment made in such a way that it will not lessen their powers. If the House will leave it to me, if there is any question of lessening the power of the council, the amendment will be altered in such a way as not to have that effect.
Would the Minister consider making it imperative to have one set of standards recognised because it is due to the two sets of standards that there is the difficulty and the fact that there are in many local authorities separate inspections? This leads to a lack of confidence and people believe they are being deliberately deprived of the grant by the local authority if there is one set of standards for a Local Government inspection and another set of standards for the local authority inspection.
I agree with the Deputy. If this practice obtains in some areas, let the councils in those areas indicate that they do not require these extra inspections and have them cut out.
The Minister thinks it can be done as simply as that?
I see no reason for any difficulty.
The managers may say it is a reserved function.
Great difficulty is encountered in getting reconstruction grants. This does not happen in every case. When a person has gone through the mill and has got the Local Government engineer to pass the work and finalise it, he then has to get the local authority engineer to go through the whole process all over again. I think that if the work is passed by the Local Government inspector, the local authority should be prepared to pay a similar amount and it should be left at that.
That is what I think also.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 33 has been discussed with amendment No. 30. Amendment No. 34a has been discussed with amendment No. 27. Amendment No. 34a has been discussed with amendment No. 27a.
Question proposed: "That section 29, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
There does not appear to be any regulation made as to when this will come into operation. We already have reconstruction grants operating and we do not want to have a lapse of time which would enable somebody to say that on the passing of this Act the previous legislation in regard to reconstruction grants ceased to operate and the new measure will not come into operation for a number of weeks. Is there a danger that people will be deprived of reconstruction grants that they would normally be entitled to?
There is no question whatever of any break. The old law will be repealed only as this legislation replaces it and the danger of a break does not exist. For the record, may I say in regard to section 26 that I shall be giving consideration to the question of the payment by local authorities of supplementary grants by instalments; in other words, something similar to the instalments we now pay ourselves. I intend to have a further look at that and I may be coming back to the House with some proposal on these lines.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Amendment No. 35 has already been discussed with amendment No. 26. Amendment No. 35a, in the names of Deputies Ryan and Clinton, has been discussed with amendment No. 27a.
Amendments Nos. 35 and 35a not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 30 stand part of the Bill."
On the question of essential repairs, we have had experience of people who buy a big old house and for the purpose of accommodation for themselves and their families decide to repair portion of it but the departmental inspector who examines it says that the whole place must be repaired as it is one dwelling. This has caused a lot of unnecessary trouble. There is a man in my area who got an estimate for repairs costing over £2,000 when the grant was only £280. There should be some provision whereby if it can be proved that only portion of the house will be used, the repair of the entire house will not be necessary in order to qualify for the grant. Is there no comment from the Minister?
I agree to the section.
Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.