This Bill, which has been put before the House in the last days of this session, is very important. I agree with my colleagues who said there is no way in which a Bill of this kind should be rushed through this House for the purpose of conveniencing any of us who would like to go on our holidays.
The Bill contains many new sections and changes in administrative practices. One section deals with a question I have always felt very strongly about: the idea that certain things should be dealt with by ministerial order in future and that the particular sections of an Act passed in 1966 should be changed. First, ministerial orders must be placed before the Houses of the Oireachtas and there is chance of debating them within 21 days. Very often this is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with matters of this kind. Second, the Minister feels it would be better if the Minister in charge at any particular time had the right to deal with, for instance, the size of grants and so on, without having to come before the House. In this case if specific reference had been made in the Bill they could have been dealt with because most of us agree that that is a good idea.
There are many points in the Bill that have to be teased out during the Committee Stage. This is very much a Committee Stage Bill, despite the fact that we have had long speeches here, and mine will not be too short either.
This Bill attempts to copperfasten Government policy on housing. While I will not blame the Minister, the Government must take the full responsibility for what they are doing. The Minister comes into the House as their representative. I would hate to think that he firmly believes the line being taken by the Government in regard to housing is correct. I listened to the people who spoke today, particularly Deputy Lawlor. It was obvious, as he pointed out, that he was not here when the previous legislation was passed and that he was not here when the previous legislation was passed and that he did not know as much about housing as other Deputies. To me he appeared to know very little about housing. There is no point in talking about the fact that Dublin city and county lines run together and that there is difficulty in allocating houses, deciding on requirements or looking for sites. I appointed a housing co-ordinator with the approval of my Government who agreed that this was necessary. He did an excellent job and prevented all this messing around which was occuring previously and is occurring again. What has happened since the change of Government? We do not hear very much about the housing co-ordinator.
I agree also with Deputy F. O'Brien who talked about inner city development. The Minister is talking about the way in which housing, particularly local authority housing, is being dealt with. As far as Dublin city is concerned the only housing schemes under way were approved during the time of the National Coalition Government when I was Minister for Local Government. This development was possible in some cases because I sanctioned CPOs which my predecessor and his predecessor in the Fianna Fáil party as Ministers had refused to sanction. What is going to happen now to the inner city? The Minister and other speakers from those benches have said that sites are too dear. Is that story to be used as an excuse to prevent any further development in the centre of Dublin? I am not a Dublin man, but I believe it would be a shame if the action taken by Dublin Corporation with the active encouragement of the National Coalition Government to try to rebuild Dublin city centre is to be stymied now because somebody says that it is costing too much to buy the sites.
Two angles of that have to be examined. One is the fact that building on the edge of the city will eventually cost a lot more than building in the city centre. We will have the cluttered streets and the lack of schools and all the facilities which were necessary and which were provided in the inner city, if people are moved out from there. Apart from that, people are entitled to live where they have always lived, if at all possible.
The second angle is the question of the cost of those sites. When I was Minister I said that something should be done about this. Possibly it would have been, because I felt very strongly on this question of the cost of sites. People bought old coal-yards, tumbledown houses and so on for a few shillings 30 or 40 years ago and now are looking for £1 million for those sites which they got for almost nothing. The Kenny report, which was presented to me after I had taken office, dealt only with the perimeter of the cities and towns and did not deal with the main points which were the city and town centres. In Dublin, Cork, Galway and all towns and villages throughout the country there are thousands of sites which could and should be used. The reason that they have not been used is that the Department of the Environment have not taken the initiative. I bear my share of blame for it, but Fianna Fáil, who were in office for a long time before I was and have been in office again for two years now, must take the major share of the blame for not doing something about this. Why should derelict sites in this city be left as an eyesore with tumbledown houses near the city centre? Surely the very least that could be done would be to impose some type of taxation on those derelict sites. That might force the owners either to build on them or sell them to the corporation who should build on them. When we were in office we made provision to do this but it was not proceeded with. Perhaps we had not the time. In future the people of Dublin should be housed in these places and not out on the perimeter of the city.
Deputy Lawlor has said that the whole thing is a question of money. I know how much it costs to build local authority or any other type of houses. A tremendous amount of money is required, but to get that money first of all it is necessary to be prepared to consider housing a priority. I suggest that the present Government do not consider the housing of ordinary people as a priority in their programme. It is a question of whether the money to be provided is going to be provided in the proper place. I make no apology for allocating the lion's share of the money given to local authorities in my time to Dublin city and, to a lesser degree, to Cork city. That was where the big problem was. Despite that, all local authorities throughout the country found that they were gradually getting rid of their waiting list. According to statistics issued by the present Government after they had taken office, 78 per cent of the people looking for local authority houses a little over 12 months ago consisted of two in family. This the Government used as an argument to suit themselves. Indeed, it is a great tribute to their predecessors although I am sure it is not intended in that way. If they had continued on that basis we would have reached the stage where—although we would not do away with the housing list if we were going to have a living city because there would always be people coming along who would qualify for houses—at least we would have cut down the list to the minimum. Instead of that the list is growing again. The amount of money given to local authorities last year and particularly this year for building houses in relation to the present cost of houses means that the number of people rehoused will be less and less as the years go by. As long as Fianna Fáil are there—which will not be very long but they will be there for two and a half years anyway—they will continue to reduce the number of houses being built by local authorities.
In November 1978 I introduced the low rise mortgage scheme. That scheme properly administered is the only bright light I see. It is the only hope being offered by the present Government because they have continued it for the people who are unable to get local authority houses and who are being encouraged to build their own. When the scheme was introduced as an experiment my intention was that it should apply to a married couple who had been 12 months on the housing list of the local authority and provided that they had one child at the time they applied. Possibly I was at some fault. I am not prepared to say that the officials, who are excellent people, put something into the scheme which I did not intend, but the result was that a lot of people who were married and who were in a position at that time to consider building houses were ruled out.
Subsequently, the present Minister altered the conditions slightly but it is difficult to understand his thinking on it. In his alteration of the scheme he said that it should apply to people where there were two in family, parent and child. This was intended to deal with the one-parent family but it would have been far better if he had said simply that it applies where two people are concerned. People who are married, whether they have a family or not, are entitled to housing and if they are unable to provide it directly out of their own pocket, then money should be provided for them by somebody. The local authority can do it with the aid of the low rise mortgage. I suggest that this alteration in the scheme be made. This will relieve to some extent the claims of a number of people who at present see no hope of ever being rehoused.
The Minister rightly talks about the co-operatives who are building houses and one in particular operates mainly in his own county doing an excellent job. Father Bohan's group have been working very hard. Legislation should be devised, not to give them £6,000 for the purpose of helping them along, but to give co-operatives like them a substantial amount of money which will ensure that they will at least be able to continue building the houses. The biggest trouble with those schemes is that their cash flow is always too tight. If they had a certain amount of money on which they could operate they would always have a flow which would keep them going, but when they build a scheme they have to wait until the scheme is almost completed before they have enough money to do anything with it. It would be an excellent idea if something could be done to ensure that these people are helped. During my period in office legislation did not enable me to give them the money I thought they needed. I mentioned Father Bohan's group because they are doing a very good job and there are many others who deserve to be helped.
The amount of money being made available to local authorities for housing is so small when compared with building costs that it is ridiculous to suggest that the Government have any interest in keeping up local authority housing schemes. Deputy Fitzpatrick said this morning that a definite effort is being made to reduce them considerably and this is also my opinion. The number of local authority houses built in 1976 was 7,263; in 1977 it was 6,333 and in 1978 it was 6,073. Where do we go from that? Figures go down on a sliding scale. There is no point in saying to people who apply for a local authority house that they are being put on a list or that they will get an SDA loan. The amount of money available last year and this year for SDA loans is so small that it is of no use to the large number of people looking for houses. I have figures of the number of people who availed of loans and the figures given by the Minister for last year as compared with previous years. He gives the impression that he is comparing like with like but this is not the case. There was a means test applying the loans to people with a reasonable income as against something which was promised to everybody, no matter what the income. It is not right that this should be done.
If someone comes to me as a public representative and tells me that he badly needs rehousing I must advise him to go to the local authority and apply for an SDA loan. The Minister has recently made a regulation confining these loans to people with an income in the region of £80 per week. The amount of the loan is £9,000 and the repayments amount to about £22 per week. Then these people must look for a suitable site. Even if the site is provided by the local authority it can cost from £1,200 to £2,500. Prices on the open market start at £2,000 and end up anywhere, depending on the number of sites available in the area. The loan of £9,000 is not given until the house is completed. They must find a builder who will construct the house on the site. They will have the £9,000, less the cost of the site, plus whatever money they have saved. Young people cannot save much money at present.
There is no such thing nowadays as a house costing £10,000 or £12,000. One would be lucky to find a house under £16,000 and the cost of an ordinary three-bedroomed house is between £15,000 and £20,000. Of what use is a loan of £9,000 to someone who is earning only slightly more than £80 per week? Such a person may qualify for a low-rise mortgage but if this is not the case he cannot get the money to build a house. I am sure the Minister has had the experience of going around the country and seeing the type of houses being built. There is a rather strange phenomenon at present. Ordinary houses are no longer being built but there are many luxury houses under construction in the £40,000-£100,000 bracket. Ten years ago a luxury house might have cost £20,000 but such houses are now being sold at these exorbitant prices. The two-house family is now nearly as common as the two-car family. People with money are buying property but the small man cannot get the accommodation to which he is entitled.
In bringing in this legislation the Minister had a golden opportunity to deal with problems of this kind. He should have taken firm steps to deal with the question of site value and the exorbitant demands being made by people in cities and towns for sites which they acquired for very little. He should have ensured that local authorities were allowed, as previously, to build houses for those who need them.
There is reference in the Bill to an inspection by a medical officer of the accommodation of people who require housing. It is suggested that it would shorten proceedings if that procedure were done away with and left to the discretion of the local authorities. I do not know if the Minister has examined this point. I do not want to see a situation arising again where county councillors will be giving out houses. I believe that the officials, on expert advice, are the people to allocate houses. That has been the system. I do not believe that someone who is not a medical officer should be entitled to carry out this function. Council officials are the same as the rest of us and have their own definite political views. The onus should not be put on them but should be allowed to rest on the medical officer who gives professional advice. The fact that medical officers may have been switched to the health boards should not prevent them from giving advice. The Minister should examine this point. I do not want to see again the racket which existed many years ago where someone who wanted a house got it because he lobbied councillors. That was before my time as a member of a county council, but it was done. The situation has now changed drastically and I would hate to see the re-creation of the old system.
Veiled references have been made to the standard of local authority houses. In my time in this House I have become used to people flying a kite to see what the reaction will be. Fianna Fáil have always been very good at kite flying. A few little kites have been appearing about the standard of houses—that they are costing too much because the standard is too high. When I took over I found the standard was too low. It was an abominable standard, the worst possible standard, not only for local authority houses but for the cheaper private houses as they were then. The general standard had dropped considerably.
When the local authorities started to build decent houses people were ashamed to build poor type houses beside them, and the standard went up generally. I should not like to see us going back, in the interests of the economy, to the type of houses built by my predecessor. I handed over a good standard to the Minister. He has maintained it up to now, and I hope he will continue to maintain it. Apart from anything else, the cost of repairing substandard houses is so high that I am sure the people in the Department of the Environment have headaches from trying to keep them in a habitable conditions.
The Minister of State at the Department of the Environment is in the House. I should like to remind him of statements he made when he was on this side of the House. It was usual for him to say county councils were not getting enough money. He had a favourite one about Kerry County Council and the small number of houses being built in Kerry, about 300, or something like that. The next time he goes into the Department he should look at how many houses were built in Kerry last year and how many will be built this year. When he is in Opposition again he may be a little more careful about making those charges.
He is not the only one. People from Dublin suggested all they had to do was to get into office and millions of pounds would be made available for housing. The effort we made was a good one and it should be kept up, but it looks as if it will not be kept up. The Taoiseach said in December 1976 that we were building too many local authority houses in relation to the number of houses being built. He has lived up to this word.
Quite a number of sections in the Bill deal with things done from 1970 on, and legislation had to be introduced eventually to legalise them. The Minister of State, Deputy Lalor, asked why we did not do this when we were in office. That sounds a little hollow having regard to the practice which has built up over the years. At a certain stage the officials say: "It is time this was regularised. A Bill should be introduced."
I am interested in section 2 dealing with devolution of the administration of house grant schemes. I devolved it to the local authority in County Meath because it was the one I knew best and to Longford, Westmeath and Donegal for water and sewerage schemes to have them administered at local level. I felt this would lead to an administrative saving. I also felt it would speed up the inspection of the work, because the engineer who is going along the road every day is most likely to know whether the housing scheme or the water and sewerage scheme is being done properly and this saves bringing somebody down from Dublin to inspect it. The Minister would be well advised to consider devolving the administration of these schemes again. I did it on a pilot scheme and I would advise the Minister to do it on a general scale. I know there are difficulties. I know certain officials would feel they would be put out of a job. Knowing how understaffed the Department are, I am sure there would be no difficulty whatever in finding adequate employment for them.
I have already dealt with co-operative housing. I would be prepared to give the Minister any help I possible could in assisting these bodies because I believe they are doing a great job. They are pioneers. I am very proud that the first co-operative scheme was carried out in the village in which I live, Laytown. It was an excellent effort. The co-operation of the local authority and the officials of the Department was forthcoming. A site was got from the local authority at a reasonable cost. The houses are there and will be there long after all of us have passed on. A number of other schemes have been carried out in the area since. All over the country we have these co-operative schemes.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 replace sections 15, 16, 18 and 21 to 32 of the Housing Act, 1966, as amended by the Housing Act of 1970, and sections 2 and 3 of the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1952. That may be all right, but I am always very doubtful about giving any Minister the right to do things by order which previously were done under legislation passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas. While in this case some of the things referred to are necessary, I do not believe this is a good thing generally and I would be a little careful about supporting it. The question of the provision of the grants and so on could be dealt with specifically rather than including them in a blanket section as has been done in this case.
Section 4 provides a statutory basis for the new house grants payable by the Minister. As I pointed out, the Minister has drawn the long bow, because he stated that between July 1977, when he introduced the £1,000 new house grant scheme for first-time owner occupiers and the end of May 1979, 17,389 grants were approved and 9,874 were paid, and 4,674 grants were approved under the old scheme during the year ended 30 June 1977. There was a means test then. It appears from my reading of the Bill that it is again proposed to introduce a means test. If not, perhaps the Minister will say so. According to the wording it appears some type of means will be introduced.
The regulations which govern the payment of the £1,000 grant have been tightened up considerably. Many people complain to me that they have been ruled out for one reason or another. Before the £1,000 grant scheme was introduced those engaged in agriculture, under a certain valuation, farm workers and people in substandard houses could get a grant of £900. So, for those people who need a grant, all that is involved is an extra £100. This makes the £1,000 which dazzled so many eyes before the 1977 General Election look very small. When we compare the £1,000 grant with the cost of a new house, it is a very small State contribution and offers little encouragement. At the time when it was £325 and there was supplementary grants from local authorities up to £700, one could build a house for £3,000 which at present would cost about £15,000. If one relates those two, one can see how much use the £1,000 grant is even if somebody qualified for it.
House improvement grants could have been increased. I was speaking to a widow a few days ago. She wanted a very simple thing done. She lives in a three-bedroomed council cottage and wanted to build a small bedroom, kitchen, put a septic tank in—she already has water—and build a small porch in the front because she lives close to the sea. The air is strong particularly in spring. The quotation for the job was £9,000. To say to her she would get £600 of a grant is not a lot of encouragement to get her to improve her housing conditions. That is what we should relate the grants to and not to the fact that they were £300 or £400 before and are now £600. The question is, what incentive is it? With the cost of building materials at present it is very small. Having improvement works instead of reconstruction is like changing the name of the Department of Local Government to the Department of the Environment: it does the same thing. It does not matter whether it is improvement works or reconstruction, it will not put another shilling into anybody's pocket. When it is called something in 1960 it should be called the same thing in 1979.
Section 5(1) will enable the Minister to pay a grant to a housing authority for improvement works carried out to their rented houses. That is an excellent idea. I would like to see it in operation and know what the grant will be paid for. Will any improvement be made in it? Will this apply to houses where no fireplaces are provided? I introduced a grant which helped—between the local authority and the Department it reached £400 on a £600 job or two-thirds—to provide a fireplace in a number of these houses. Is it now proposed to update that? Will something be done to increase the amount of money available and allow the local authority to put fireplaces in their own houses? At present they do not do so.
I remember the taunts from this side of the House about how backward we were on 16 May 1974 when I made an order regulating that every new house would have to have a fireplace. I was told about the wealth of oil in the country and in the world and that it was stupid to put a fireplace in a house. It would contaminate the atmosphere and who would want a fireplace instead of central heating? Now who wants central heating instead of a fireplace? I should like to know whether the Minister intends to include this in the grant which he is prepared to pay for improvement work.
Deputy O'Brien referred to a rented scheme owned by Guinness Trust. If they are taken over by the local authority can any provision be made?
Will the Minister consider that and ensure that this Bill will be wide enough to cover that? Old houses which have not received a lot of attention from landlords for many years may require a lot of repairs. I would be glad if the local authority would take them over and ensure the necessary repairs are carried out.
As far as consolidating the existing stock of houses is concerned, no Government have ever done enough about that. There are a lot of houses that could be made habitable if the necessary effort was made. It would eventually save the State a lot of money. Enough thought has not been given to that. I do not mean that another committee should be set up to look into it. Committees are there when nobody wants to take any action. They are a grand way of giving an impression that something is being done. We must take the bull by the horns and do the job. We started it in the inner city and I ask the Minister to continue it. There are houses which need to be repaired or they will fall down. If the people who own them are unable to repair them, the onus is on the local authority and, through the local authority, on the State, to have the repairs carried out.
The Bill can affect rented accommodation in a big way. A lot of accommodation is wasted. People who own houses are sometimes living themselves in appalling conditions because their houses are let at a low rent to someone who could afford to pay much more. One the other hand, there is the rack-rent landlord who is charging more than he should for poor accommodation. I am disappointed that some effort has not been made to grasp this nettle. Now is the time to do it. If we put it on the long finger it means that in a few years somebody else will bring a new Bill before the House and someone else will be making the same suggestion.
There was a sensible suggestion made a few years ago that young people and families living in Ballymun should be rehoused and places like Ballymun Towers should be used to house young people coming from the country and living and working in the city who would be prepared to pay a reasonable rent for decent accommodation. That is a pipe dream now and we will not get very far with it. The loan of £200 which can be increased to £600 is a help but it is only a small one. Some local authorities have been giving loans which allow people to repair old houses. However, not enough local authorities are prepared to do that.
On the question of subsidies to local authorities towards the annual loan charges incurred by them for sites for private houses, it is wrong for local authorities, when they get such loan charges, to charge those who are building houses on those sites. They should charge them a reasonable amount compared with sites outside. If the people had a few pounds a week less and, instead of having £81, had £79, the local authority would be responsible for rehousing them. It is a bit much when the local authority, after pointing that out to the applicant, charge £1,500 or £2,000 for a serviced site.
The Minister spoke about having made arrangements to increase the supply of serviced land by increasing substantially the allocation for sanitary services this year. He said that local authorities had been asked last August to consider possible land reserves with a view to making serviced sites available for private housing. If the Minister would like me to go through it, I have got the answer to a question I asked last week. It directly contradicts his statement about giving more money for sanitary services. The amount of money given for sanitary services this year is very much lower than in previous years. I will take my own constituency, Meath. In 1976 the figure was £585,000; in 1975 it was £468,000; in 1978 it was £446,000; and in 1979 it was £475,000. Talk about inflation.