The first matter mentioned by Senator Murphy was this question of the right of appeal. I do see the point he has made and it was made also in the Dáil. I think, too, that it has been sufficiently met there and the Senator in what he has said here admits the right of the local authority finally to determine matters of this nature. It does appear, all the same, somewhat strange that in Section 1 we provide for the inclusion of a number of matters on which there was apparently some doubt when the local authorities are determining the valuation of the house.
I am told that the need for Section 2 arises in this way. It may arise in a number of ways but it serves a purpose in this way perhaps more than in any other. A builder is developing a site on which to build 50 or 60 houses. He has all his plans ready, but not a stone has been laid upon a stone. He wants to get some idea of what these houses will be valued at, when erected. He wants to be able to tell me, as a potential purchaser, what a house is likely to cost. He gets a valuation in respect of a house and when the scheme is developed he may not be satisfied with that sample valuation. He can go back and appeal in the manner set out here in Section 2.
I do not anticipate wrangling between the builder and the local authority, but it would be useful in a case like that to have the right of appeal to the Valuation Office in order to get what the builder might think was a more proper determination of the actual valuation of the house. While conceding that and making provision for it in Section 2, I still contend, and in fact so did the people interested in the amount proposed here, that the local authority should have the final say. I do not think the local authority would be anxious to have any wrangling about these matters, but misunderstandings might arise in the manner I have described.
Another point which was raised by Senator Cole was in regard to the right of others, as well as the builder, to appeal to the commissioners. Such right is provided for. The county manager, as far as I can understand, may appeal. Any private citizen may appeal and there is no hindrance as to the type of interest that may appeal against undervaluation or overvaluation. Senator Cole also mentioned the point that we were providing here for legal coverage for a letter which issued as far back as November, 1956, indicating to local bodies that, while the law was not at the moment as we were proposing to make it, they could operate as if the law at the moment were actually what we were proposing and we would give coverage in that situation. It may not be the most desirable thing, but it is not an unusual thing. I remember another occasion when on the expiration of a Housing Act on 31st March a new Bill had not been passed and the provisions of the expiring Act ran on until the following July or August. In that case, even though the provisions of the new Bill might be somewhat different, nobody was allowed to suffer and nobody was penalised. All those who were building houses got the benefit of any provisions contained in the Act which expired on 31st March up to the time the new Bill became law. Such provisions were applicable in all cases. There is, therefore, nothing unusual. Indeed, not only does that apply in the case of housing, but it also applies in a number of other matters. It may not be altogether desirable, but it is the practice that has been in operation.
I was asked how much money was available out of the provision in the Estimate for the Small Dwellings Acts. Out of the £2,000,000 provided in the Estimate, only £200,000 would have been available for operations under the Small Dwellings Acts. If we were to confine ourselves to that figure, we would not get very far in the provision of loans to those people all over the country who might wish to build or purchase houses. As a result of a permission given to me by the Government recently, there is now no limit in that regard and moneys are available under the Small Dwellings Acts from the Local Loans Fund to the full extent of the public demand.
Senator O'Quigley referred to the price limits set by some local bodies. I think that applied mostly in Dublin, where a price limit of £2,000 was set. Beyond that, no loan would be given. That decision caused a great deal of dislocation. Not only did it cause dislocation, but it resulted in a great deal of injustice over the past 12 months or so. It was clamped down upon the builders without notice or warning. Some builders were building houses the sale price of which was £2,150, £2,200 or £2,300. The houses were in course of erection when the decision to revise the price limit was taken. In so far as builders were affected by that decision and in so far as prospective purchasers were affected, where they can be located, I have been trying to have this position met by the local authority concerned and ultimately there will not be many who will not be covered. Whatever injustice was done as a result of that decision will, we hope, be rectified.
We have not the right to say to a local authority what ceiling they will fix. I understand there is no price ceiling in Dublin City. There is a price ceiling in County Dublin and the matter has recently been discussed by the Dublin County Council. I am informed that they have confirmed that price ceiling. It is not for me to express an opinion as to whether or not that is wise. They have the right to make the decision and they have the right to fix that ceiling, irrespective of whether or not it is wise, or whether or not I like it. It has been done following consideration and discussion by that body.
