Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Dec 1961

Vol. 55 No. 1

Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Bill, 1961 (Certified Money Bill) — Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Bill is designed to raise the statutory limit for issues from the Local Loans Fund and to simplify the procedure for making issues. Issues from the Fund from the 1st May, 1935, when it was established, up to the 31st March, 1961, amounted to close on £120 million. The great bulk of the issues related to housing. Slum clearance and other rehousing schemes of urban local authorities under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts accounted for £33 million, while the corresponding schemes of rural local authorities under the Labourers Acts accounted for £30½ million. This gives a total of £63½ million for the provision of houses by urban and rural authorities. These authorities have provided some 60,000 dwellings for tenant occupation since 1947.

In the private housing sector, issues totalled £31¾ million. Most of these issues—£27 million in all—related to loans under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, the moneys being issued to local authorities for relending to persons purchasing their houses. Of the balance, £4½ million represented loans to local authorities to enable them to make supplementary grants to persons in the lower income groups acquiring new houses or improving existing houses.

Issues for the various housing services aggregated over £95 million. This represents a very substantial contribution of loan capital from public funds towards the cost of providing better housing for our people. Exchequer grants for new houses and for the improvement of existing houses are additional to the loan issues. The grants amounted to some £35 million in the period from 1935 to the 31st March last. They are estimated to cost £2½ million this year, which gives a cumulative total of £37½ million up to the 31st March, 1962.

Of the remaining issues from the Fund, totalling about £24 million, county homes, hospitals and dispensaries took almost £5½ million. Sanitary and other health services absorbed £14½ million, a large part of which went to meet expenditure on water supply and sewerage schemes. The balance of £4 million or so was spent on vocational schools and miscellaneous services, vocational schools taking over £2 million.

In addition to the issues actually made, the Fund also has substantial outstanding commitments in respect of loans sanctioned for projects in progress or to be started. Additional commitments of this kind brought the total liabilities of the Fund as at the 30th September last to £133 million, that is only £2 million less than the present statutory limit.

The total demand for loans is currently running at an annual rate of around £8 million and there are indications that it may increase. As was expected, requirements for local authority building have declined from the very high level of some years ago following the completion or near completion of the main re-housing programmes in many areas. Nevertheless, housing still accounts for by far the greater part of current issues. Rising costs have added to requirements and the revival which has taken place in private building has created a continuing demand for loans under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. Total requirements for housing are now at an annual level of some £6 million, while requirements for water supply and sewerage schemes are running at about £1½ million.

It is proposed, therefore, to raise the statutory limit for issues from the Local Loans Fund from £135 million, as fixed by the Local Loans Fund (Amendment) Act, 1957, to £170 million. The Bill provides accordingly. This should suffice to cover commitments for a period of about four years.

The Bill also contains provisions aimed at simplifying the procedure for making loans from the Fund. Under the existing arrangements it is necessary to execute a separate mortgage deed for each loan to a local authority to secure the repayment of the loan and payment of the interest. The procedure is rather slow and unwieldy, and I feel that it could be shortened and simplified by statutory provisions as included in Section 3 of the Bill. These provisions envisage what will, in effect, be a statutory mortgage securing the loans on the rates or other appropriate revenues or funds of the local authorities and binding the authorities to repay the principal and to pay the interest in accordance with conditions which they have accepted beforehand. It will be possible to dispense with separate mortgage deeds in most cases, thereby saving time and expense for the local authorities and for the Commissioners of Public Works by whom the loans are issued on behalf of the Exchequer.

It is intended that the new system should apply to loans to town commissioners, health authorities and vocational education committees as well as to county councils, county borough councils, borough councils and urban district councils. No change of principle is involved as regards the charging or repayment of loans. Both borrower and lender will continue to have the same rights and obligations as at present, and borrowing powers reserved to the councils or committees of local bodies will continue to be reserved. I commend the provisions of this Bill to the House.

I have been following the Minister's speech from the Dáil Reports for the 29th of November, 1961, and the content of both speeches is substantially the same. As the matter was comprehensively and adequately dealt with in Dáil Éireann in the first place, and in the second place, as we are approaching the season of goodwill, I do not propose to go into the merits or demerits of the proposal before the House. I might add that I am literally overawed by the gentlemanly atmosphere of this Chamber and I hope by time and usage I shall develop along the same lines.

This is a permissive piece of legislation to provide money and it does not say where the money is to come from, at what rate it is to be borrowed, or at what rate it is to be lent. The question of how the money is to be used was fairly well debated in the Dáil and I do not want to go over the same ground again. There are, however, just two matters upon which I should like to touch.

In the first instance, I should like to express a rather personal opinion that, in housing undertaken by local authorities, we have tended to set too low a standard. I grant that the Minister is not responsible for this but appreciate that the Minister for Finance can influence many things and certainly he can influence how the money is being spent. For example, we have the situation throughout the country in which you find villages which obviously, with an increase in population, could do with new houses. You see children playing about the place but you do not see many such new houses. Maybe a mile or three quarters of a mile away, you find labourers' cottages built by the local authority. It may be convenient that the occupants of those cottages should be near their employer's farm, but I think we forget about the inconvenience to the wife and to the children in being a distance from the shopping centre, the schools and the church.

For the life of me, I could never understand this policy of building labourers' cottages throughout the country, instead of trying to build up the local communities where there is already a centre with shopping facilities, church and schools. I could never understand why the building could not be done there instead of a mile or a mile and a half away. That policy could well be changed to the benefit of the rural community, the occupants of such houses and indeed for the general betterment.

The second point I want to make is in regard to the supplementary grant. Here I will shift to the cities and express my concern at the limitations which are put upon supplementary grants by some local authorities. They impose a residence qualification. This is unfair to certain people who, because of their occupation, are transferred around the country. For example, people who are transferred to Dublin in the course of their employment find they cannot get the supplementary grant the same as people who have the residence qualification. Of course, they come to pay for those grants by way of taxes and rates the same as any other occupants going into a neighbouring house.

I do not think that is a good policy. It seems to discriminate against a class of people who, because of the nature of their employment, are liable to be transferred around the country. I would ask the Minister if he would use his influence to stop that, because it is something which I regard as an objectionable practice.

I should like to ask the Minister one question in connection with this Bill. If the answer is in the negative, I shall have nothing more to say; if it is in the affirmative, I shall have something more to say. Will any of the money which is being granted under this Bill be available for university scholarships? The Minister has told us that some of it will be for vocational schools, but will any of it be available for university scholarships granted by the county councils?

I do not think so.

In that case, I confine myself to welcoming the Bill and I hope the money will be well spent.

Some of the observations made by Senator Lindsay make me dread the day I should have to seek admission to this House, but I hope that with a little experience Senator Lindsay will not feel too tongue-tied.

The Minister is looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Senator Murphy thinks it is a mistake that local authorities should build cottages with an eye to the people being near their employers rather than near churches, schools, and shops. I am afraid I have no influence in that matter, nor have I many views on it, either. Being reared in the country, I found that people like living away from the village rather than near it, and perhaps they will continue to have that view.

Senator Stanford asked me about scholarships. I do not think any of this money could be used for that purpose.

I should like to know could an organisation such as the Cork Savings Bank, which has considerable assets, lend money to the local authorities at a cheaper rate of interest than the commercial banks, if they are willing to do so?

As matters stand, a savings bank is not permitted to use money for such a purpose, but we have been making slight changes in that respect and that may develop. In the case of the last loan, we did issue £2,000,000 for ways and means advances under that head. The intention was to issue some of that money to savings banks so that, if we pursued that policy, they could have funds for any purpose they might think well of. However, there is only an indication of that policy at the moment. There is no provision under which they could lend money to the local authority at the moment.

No provision whereby they could lend money at a cheaper rate than the commercial banks?

Not at the moment.

I should be anxious to know why they cannot do so.

It is hardly appropriate on this Bill.

If they are anxious and prepared to lend money to the local authority for important work at a lower rate of interest than that of the commercial banks, why should they not be allowed do so?

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee, reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.
Top
Share