Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Aug 1962

Vol. 55 No. 15

Housing (Loans and Grants) Bill, 1962—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

This Bill, as its long Title indicates, makes further and better provision in relation to grants and loans for private housing and it also consolidates the existing provisions of the Housing Acts on this subject. It is a first step in the simplification and modernisation of the general housing code.

Housing legislation at present comprises the separate codes of the Labourers Acts, 1883 to 1958, the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1960, the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1960, and the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, 1899 to 1958.

It is proposed in this Bill to consolidate and amend the various provisions in the latter two codes dealing with grants and loans for private housing.

The statutory provisions relating to the general powers of housing authorities in the Labourers Acts, 1883 to 1958, and the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1958, are also being reviewed for consolidation and amendment in new legislation which will be introduced as soon as possible. Future housing law will then be comprised in only two codes, the Loans and Grants Bill now before the House, and the remainder of the law as proposed to be consolidated in relation to local housing authorities.

The existing provisions relating to State grants for new and reconstructed houses expired on the 31st March, 1962. Section 2 of the Bill provides for the continuance at existing levels of the grants available for the provision of new houses. No terminal date for the completion of grant houses is specified and continuing and extending legislation will therefore be unnecessary in future so far as the payment of grants is concerned. While the housing law is thus being made permanent, this is, of course, without prejudice to the introduction of any amending legislation which may be found necessary from time to time.

The present rates of grants for new houses are being retained, subject to the qualification that a grant will in future be made for unserviced houses only in cases in which the provision of a piped water supply and sewerage facilities is not reasonably practicable. This amendment is in accord with the policy of securing the provision of sanitary services in dwellings wherever possible.

Section 3 deals with reconstruction grants and proposes to continue these grants at the existing rates. Hitherto grants under separate sections and subject to different conditions were paid for (a) the reconstruction of houses in the occupation of farmers, the total rateable valuation of whose holdings did not exceed £50 and to agricultural labourers reconstructing houses for their own occupation in a rural area; and (b) the repair and improvement of houses by other persons. Section 3 deals with both these classes of grants on uniform conditions, subject to retention of the basis on which the grants are at present determined, namely, two-thirds of the cost of the work in the case of category (a) and one-third for category (b), but subject also in both cases to the maximum limit as set out in the section. The expression "agricultural labourer" is not being retained in this context: the classes for whom grants of two-thirds of the cost are to be made are referred to as persons who derive their livelihood solely or mainly from the pursuit of agriculture. Thus, farmers and agricultural labourers are brought within the same qualification. The proposed amalgamation of the two existing sections is designed to secure a desirable uniformity and simplification in administration.

Section 4 deals with the payment of second or subsequent grants in respect of a house which had previously received a new house or reconstruction grant. The 1932 Housing Act contained no positive provisions allowing second grants and this situation was, in the earlier years of the housing programme, regarded as justified for the purpose of securing that durable and good quality work would be carried out when the house was being built or being reconstructed for the first time. The possibility of financial exploitation of a system of unrestricted successive grants had also to be guarded against. With the passing of time, however, and the ageing of housing stock either built or reconstructed originally with these grants, some relaxations were considered necessary to keep houses in repair, and improve them, to prevent deterioration, to allow for family expansion and to enable the question of storm damage to be dealt with.

Various amendments made in 1950, 1952 and 1954 helped the objective of securing durable and good standard work initially, while allowing subsequent grants for necessary reconstruction after the passing of a reasonable time or the emergence of circumstances outside the applicant's control. Under this section, the general bar to payment of further reconstruction grants, within a 15-year period of the first grant, is retained as is the reduced period of ten years where re-roofing is necessary.

However, as rigid application of a limiting period gave rise to hardship in certain cases where particular works became urgently necessary before the expiration of the period, it was decided in 1960, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, to pay limited grants for some of the more urgent works likely to arise under Section 12 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1954, which did not include a prohibition on the payment of further grants. Specific statutory authority for the continuance of the payment of these special grants is now being taken.

The existing legislative power to make a grant for works necessitated by storm damage is being re-enacted with the reservation that a grant for works of this nature will not carry with it a disqualification of the subsequent payment at any time of a grant for normal reconstruction work.

The maximum grants under the section will be as follows:— (a) For extra rooms to relieve overcrowding, involving an addition to floor area— £50 per room: (b) For provision of a bathroom, involving an addition to floor area—£50; (c) For storm damage, two-thirds of the cost in the case of persons deriving their livelihood solely or mainly from agriculture, including farmers with holdings not exceeding £50 and one-third in other cases, subject to the maximum of £100, £120 or £140, as appropriate. For works urgently necessary to conserve a house, one-third of cost subject to a maximum of £100, £120 or £140, as appropriate.

The aggregate of grants made at any one time under the section must not exceed the appropriate statutory maximum of £100, £120 or £140, which obtain at present. Payment of the grants will be made subject to regulations.

Provisions governing the payment of grants for the installation of private water and sewerage facilities are not being retained in housing legislation but will be dealt with in the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Bill.

As supplementary grants are closely connected with State grants, I shall now deal with the new provisions in this respect in advance of the order shown in the text of the Bill. Section 12 of the Bill discontinues the graded system of supplementary grants by local authorities for new houses, leaving housing authorities free to decide the type of supplementary grant scheme most suited to local circumstances within specified maximum limits of income and valuation for eligibility. The existing annual income limit is £624 for county boroughs and contiguous areas and £520 elsewhere but no limit applies to tenants of local authority dwellings or persons eligible for such tenancies. A uniform limit of £832 per annum is now proposed. An increase to £50 in the maximum valuation limit of £35 is proposed for farmers.

The proposals confer on local authorities a power to exclude categories of applicants to whom, although they come within the statutory income or valuation limits, the payment of a supplementary grant by the housing authority is not considered to be warranted. Similarly, a housing authority will be free to limit their scheme to houses of particular types. As regards supplementary grants for reconstruction, repair and improvement, there are no existing statutory maxima for income and valuation. Section 8 preserves this position.

Section 5 introduces a new type of grant to assist minimum essential preservation work in rural areas. This proposal is part of a planned approach to deal with the remaining unfit housing problem in these areas. The evidence available so far, from the survey of unfit housing, shows a manifest need for flexibility of treatment of this branch of the housing problem. There are many persons living in unfit conditions who are not and are never likely to be in a position to rehouse themselves and whose needs cannot or are not being met by housing authorities. Owing to such factors as the location of the houses and the age and circumstances of the occupants, local authorities cannot be expected to give a high priority to providing new houses for these classes. Private grants and loans procedure has up to now been generally ineffective in these cases.

The purpose of the section is to enable the occupant to carry out only the minimum essential works such as roof repairs, repairs of doors or windows and wall plastering. The work will be carried out on an economic and temporary basis so that the house may be reasonably fit for a limited period and so that its subsequent abandonment or demolition will not involve any substantial abortive expenditure. The proposal will not in any way relieve the rural housing authority of its obligation to secure the demolition or closure of unfit rented houses which, normally, are a feature of urban, rather than of rural, areas.

The State grant proposed under this section will not exceed £80, or two-thirds of the cost of the work, whichever is less. The housing authority may, in addition, make a grant sufficient to defray the balance of the cost or may contribute within this limit building materials or labour or other assistance in kind.

Housing authorities are also being authorised under this section to carry out the necessary works of repair with the consent of the occupiers and, in such circumstances, the State grants will be payable to the housing authority.

Section 6 introduces a new scheme of grants to philanthropic and charitable organisations for the provision of housing for elderly persons. It is hoped that the increased rate of grant (£300 per dwelling unit) will provide the necessary impetus to encourage the provision of this type of housing. Aspects of a social character which are normally outside the scope of housing policy attend the problem of housing old people. For that reason, it is desirable that philanthropic or charitable organisations should be encouraged as far as possible to provide the necessary dwelling accommodation. Generous public financial aid is justified for this purpose since the funds likely to be available to such organisations are normally limited.

The section provides for the payment of supplementary grants by housing authorities of amounts not exceeding the grants paid by the State, and provision is also made entitling housing authorities to prescribe such conditions in relation to the payment of supplementary grants as they think fit.

Section 7 introduces a new type of grant designed to encourage experimentation by architects, builders, co-operative groups and local authorities in the production of low cost housing suitable for persons in low income groups. The grant for the erection of the approved prototype will not exceed 50 per cent. of the approved estimated cost. Subsequent reproductions of a successful prototype will be eligible for normal new house grants and supplementary grants in the ordinary way.

It has been represented by architects that, given more freedom of design, house costs could be reduced. Local authorities also have occasionally sought sanction to experimentation in design and specification related to local needs and circumstances. No adequate machinery exists at present which would encourage development of these suggestions. Where departures from prescribed standards occur or are proposed in private grant cases, it is usual to reduce the amount of grant normally available in order to preserve the principle that fixed standards should be observed as far as practicable.

If co-operative or self-help housing, to which I will refer later, can be developed into a formal movement in any area, the erection of a specially designed experimental or "prototype" house would provide useful experience to the co-operative group and encouragement to the spread of such activity.

The section proposes that, if a house-type were evolved through the experimentation envisaged which necessitated such a departure from the present fixed standards as would normally warrant a reduction or loss of grant, the new house-type, perhaps with modification, will be brought especially within eligibility for normal rates of grant for the purpose of reproduction. This will preserve the existing principle of fixed standards to be applied to grant-houses in general and will also enable local authorities to pay supplementary grants in the normal course.

Sections 9 and 12 of the Bill authorise housing authorities to pay supplementary grants for the reconstruction and provision of houses under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts. Section 10 re-enacts and extends section 13 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1958, so as to enable a housing authority to make loans for the repair of (a) vested cottages; and (b) houses which have been or will be sold by housing authorities to tenant purchasers in urban areas, where the fee simple or fine is or will be mortgaged as security.

Section 11 provides for the making of loans by housing authorities for the acquisition or construction of houses. The section is intended to replace the existing provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts and will be brought into operation on an appointed day by Order made by the Minister. The section authorises the making of regulations to deal inter alia with the details of procedure relating to the making of loans, the classes eligible for loans, repayments, transfers, etc.

Section 13 is a re-enactment and extension of Section 10 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1956, under which housing authorities are empowered to guarantee advances to private persons for the provision of houses. This guarantee procedure has, however, been almost wholly ineffective. The amended section enables guarantees to be given in respect of loans for reconstruction work as well as for new houses and extends the type of bodies to which guarantees may be given. The new section may in this way be utilised to a greater extent than its predecessor. Section 17 is a new provision which authorises the Minister to withhold or reduce a grant where the conditions subject to which the grant was paid have not been complied with.

Section 20 of the Bill enables the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to vary from time to time the amounts of the maximum advances to be made to borrowers under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. I propose, on the passing of this Bill, to fix a uniform maximum of £2,000 which will govern advances by all housing authorities and which will replace the existing statutory limits of £1,600 and £1,800.

Section 21 and Section 26, subsection (2) make the necessary transitional provision for the payment of grants outstanding at 31st March, 1962, and authorised within the period 1st April, 1962, up to the passing of this Bill.

The remaining sections are necessary re-enactments of existing provisions of the Housing Acts dealing with private housing grants. I have now outlined the contents and the aims of this Bill, which is designed to encourage the elimination of unfit housing so far as positive legislation can deal with this problem.

I might mention that a survey of unfit houses has been in progress for some time, with special reference to the extent of the problem in rural areas. In the last 30 years, the housing programme, particularly that portion of it undertaken by local authorities, has been more effective in urban than in rural areas, where the current survey figures up to the present indicate that some 30,000 houses need to be repaired and 20,000 more require to be replaced. The full completion of the survey will not materially alter the overall picture of the problem presented by these figures. The problem is a big one and obviously more difficult to solve than that section of the housing programme that has already been successfully implemented.

In rural areas, the unfit housing problem does not lend itself to the treatment possible in urban areas where blocks of unfit property, often in single ownership, can be dealt with by large-scale clearance operations. The outstanding feature of the rural problem is that of isolated and owner-occupied houses situated on holdings of varying economic categories. These categories range from those willing and able to meet the cost of new houses or reconstruction of their old houses with the aid of grants down to those who, for financial or other reasons, are either unable or unwilling to face the implications of even a very modest degree of repair. As Senators familiar with rural conditions are aware, many elderly single persons or elderly couples with little or no resources or a short expectation of life without assured succession for occupation of their dwellings are the classes least inclined or able to do anything for themselves. As I have already said, it is part of the problem that local authorities are not universally disposed to regard this problem as part of their housing functions or, where they do accept some responsibility, they can give only a low priority to the rehousing of these classes, as compared with others seeking new housing.

So far as legislative proposals can go, this Bill contains provisions specially designed to deal with the needs of the rural position. For rural as well as for urban areas, the removal of housing grants from the need for renewable legislation gives an assurance to all concerned that they may continue to plan and build without fear of the non-renewal of the legislation on which the grants depend. The recurrence of unfitness in housing, even in the best circumstances, is a perennial problem and not one that can be assumed to be finally eradicable in the sense that even the best houses decay in time. The proposed provisions in regard to loans and eligibility for supplementary grants made the way easier for the erection of new houses and the reconstruction of old ones. The introduction of the minimum essential repair grants provided in Section 5 for county health areas represents an important new principle of housing policy which, I hope, will do much at reasonable cost to restore the habitability of some of the worst houses in rural areas.

Housing activities in recent years have shown a marked trend in the direction of private enterprise. This welcome trend, which appears likely to continue, deserves to be nurtured not only by improved legislation but also by positive encouragement of both individual effort and co-operative action. The success which has attended the active help and advice given by my Department to persons desiring to organise private group water supply schemes convinces me that a planned approach on these lines to the rural housing problem may yield results which more official lines of action could not achieve. The approach by way of self-help will, I am certain, be considerably assisted by the general provisions of the Bill and particularly by the provisions of Section 7 which will encourage experimentation towards the production of low-cost housing.

The general pattern of this Bill fits therefore into the first part of the attack on the unfit housing problem which is of particular urgency in rural areas. There is still a wide and important field in which local authorities can continue to make, by the direct provision of houses, further valuable contributions to meeting housing needs. I propose to deal with this aspect of the matter in conjunction with my proposals for an up-to-date consolidated code for local housing authorities, which will, I hope, contain special provisions in relation to the rural situation. As I have already intimated, I hope to bring this legislation before the House without any great delay. When these two measures are enacted, we shall have in up-to-date form all the powers required for the effective prosecution of the housing activities of private and public enterprise.

The provisions of this Housing Bill can be divided into two main groups. First, we have the provisions which amend the housing code. These provisions are all welcome. They are welcome for what they do themselves and they are also welcome because they are an indication of what might be described as the maturity of our housing code; they are an indication that in tackling this problem, successive Governments, and the Department which has served them all, have now reached the stage where, crises having been overcome, activity can be diversified. Therefore we welcome these new provisions and congratulate the Minister for introducing them into our housing code. The second group of provisions is the re-enactment now on a permanent basis of the provisions in regard to grants and loans for new houses. Here again we have something which is a continuing process. The decision that these should be placed on a permanent basis, while it may give rise to some minor problems, is something we are glad to see.

Of these new provisions which are part of the Bill, all of them are matters on which there will not be any division of opinion here. We have new grants for re-roofing now being available after ten years instead of 15, and grants being made available for storm damage. These are things we have all looked to see and we are glad to see them now in housing legislation.

Section 5, which deals with minimum essential repairs, again is something which the housing code has lacked and which fills a gap that existed previously. As the Bill stands, this is being confined absolutely to rural areas. While there is a great deal to be said for the argument that there would be a danger in applying this provision, or a parallel provision, to urban areas, I do not think it would be very wise to exclude completely the idea of some provision in the future for minimum essential repairs in urban areas. There are urban areas which are not highly concentrated; there are urban areas in which the population is quite dispersed. If you take the town of Dundalk, it is probably something of the same extent as the county borough of Cork; yet the populations are very different. On the periphery of some of these towns which have not got a high concentration of population, it might well be that some provision similar to the present provision in regard to rural areas ought to be considered.

In regard to the provision whereby grants can be made for the housing of elderly persons, the most interesting thing that arises is the Minister's assurance that this could be done by local authorities—that the local authorities could form themselves, as it were, into a philanthropic body for the purpose of providing housing for elderly persons. Any Senator who has been a member of an urban authority will agree that here again there was a gap. There was a section of the community for whom very little could be done under the main housing code. Many of the urban authorities under this provision will be able not only to build new houses for elderly persons but will have scope for the conversion of housing, not suitable for the housing of families, for the use of elderly persons.

In the urban district I know best, the borough of Dún Laoghaire, there are many such housing schemes which, by virtue of the small amount of accommodation available, are an embarrassment to the local authority to endeavour to fit them into their scheme of the rehousing of families. It is difficult to house people in them and to create tenancies of any length in them. If you put a newly-married couple or a couple with a small number of children into such accommodation, later there will have to be a transfer of tenancy. The transfer will be from this small house with a low rent to a new scheme where they will have to pay a higher rent. We all know the difficulties of the reallocation of tenancies in these cases. These houses might fit well into a general scheme for the housing of elderly persons.

During the discussion in the Dáil, there appeared to be some criticism that this provision and its operation by local authorities might lead to the use of communal kitchens. We would all be agreed that in the housing of elderly persons, there should be individual cooking facilities in all the housing units. But I do not think in any scheme that would be drawn up there should be necessarily any exclusion of some provision for communal dining, perhaps in respect of the principal meal of the day. This is a feature of many of the schemes in other countries for the housing of elderly persons, whereby these persons can provide their own morning meal and their own supper in the evening, but the preparation of the main meal, which might be a burden to these elderly people, is provided on a communal basis by the local authority.

I should like to ask the Minister in this connection whether the local authority are enabled under existing legislation to provide such facilities in regard to the conversion of or provision of a scheme for elderly persons. I would also like to ask him whether a local authority have the power—this is not strictly within his province—to appoint a person who would be in the nature of a welfare officer in regard to such a scheme of housing units for elderly persons. The Minister is obviously receptive to experimentation. Here is an obvious direction in which the local authority could experiment with different approaches to this problem of the housing of elderly persons. There are pitfalls in doing too much for these elderly persons within the scheme, but there are similar dangers in doing too little for them and leaving them too isolated.

The Minister has in this Bill introduced a special grant for prototype houses with a view to the promotion of low-cost construction. That is very desirable. We need standardisation to a certain extent but we also need a variety of standards because needs are not absolutely uniform. Any attempt to impose uniformity under all conditions would be a sterile policy. We need a variety of standards and there is a continual need to revise standards. We may well have a movement in that direction as a result of this particular grant.

In regard to the second group of provisions in this Bill, we come to the question of new houses. Here, the Minister, as I mentioned, has put the legislation on a permanent basis rather than leaving it as a matter to be re-enacted every two years. There has been some discussion on the question of the level of the grants, the question as to whether people are entitled to express disappointment that the grants have not been increased. While I do not wish in any way to introduce any undue note of controversy on this point, I would ask the Minister to realise that conditions in 1962 in regard to the provision of new houses for the salaried classes are very different from the conditions in 1960 when these grants were originally fixed.

There has been in this Bill some adjustment of the position but, if we examine the circumstances of a person who is purchasing a house—I refer now to a person purchasing a house in an urban area or an area contiguous to it—the financing of this house and the burden of its purchase on this salaried person depends really upon four factors, and three of these are within the Minister's control. First, it depends on the grant which is available from the Minister, with the possibility in certain cases of a supplementary grant. The second factor is the maximum loan which is available. The third factor is the income limit which is set by regulation under the Small Dwellings Act, and whatever may succeed it under this Bill. The fourth factor is the rate of interest at which the money is lent. The first three factors in themselves constitute the determining factors as to the load which housing charges will place on a salaried person in a new house under the Small Dwellings Act.

In this Bill and, as the Minister has told us, in the regulations which will be made under it, the Minister has adjusted the maximum size of the loan. He has indicated that he does not intend to change the income limit of £1,040 a year and that he does not intend to change the grant of £275. I think that, when he has altered one factor here without altering the other two, he has introduced a disequilibrium into the position. I should just like to indicate what the position is. I will take the position, as I know it, of a person purchasing a house in the City of Cork or in the area contiguous to it.

If this person has to borrow £2,000 —the sum the Minister proposes to allow him as the maximum under this Bill—then his direct repayment housing charges will be £150 a year. His rates plus his ground rent will amount to about another £60 a year. Without any regard then to repairs or without any regard to maintenance, he will have housing charges of about £210 a year, or £4 a week. These are, as I say, the direct housing charges without reference to repairs.

In the operation of the Small Dwellings Acts schemes the Minister has told us he intends to maintain the income ceiling of £1,040 a year in regard to such loans. That is £20 a week. The position would be then that, operating under this particular section, we would have housing charges, excluding upkeep and repairs, of £4 a week on an income of £20 a week. In other words, we have a fifth of the total income going in direct housing charges without regard to repairs. I think that is a very high proportion. It is certainly a higher proportion than existed when a corresponding house was built two years ago, with building prices as they were two years ago. It is certainly a higher proportion of income going to housing than would be approved in any differential or graded rents scheme in relation to the housing of the working classes.

I would suggest to the Minister that, having increased the size of the loan to £2,000, it is only equitable, in order to keep things in balance, that he should at the same time put the maximum income limit for a loan up to about £1,200 per annum in order to retain the same relationship. This is completely independent of the question of the £275 grant. There is the question that, having allowed the loans to reach a new maximum, he should also allow the incomes which determine whether or not people should get these loans to reach a new level. There are important cases in which people could be caught by the Minister's limit, people who have received increases in salary, and, as the Minister knows, there is nothing like a salary increase to make people think that now is the time to set up house.

As things stand, people will be excluded under this. I should like to give an instance. I think it is a serious instance. Let us take the case of a principal teacher. He earns about £1,100 a year. He is excluded under the regulations the Minister proposes to make from the operations of the Small Dwelling Act loans, or whatever new name we will call them by in future. It is easy to say that this man has £1,100 a year and he can go to a bank or an insurance company and get the money. The principal teacher, outside of the large city or town, cannot do so because an insurance company will not lend money on a house outside a city or a large town. By maintaining his income limit of £1,040, rather than allowing it to go up, the Minister may well force a person, such as a principal teacher, to live within a large city and drive to and from his school rather than live in the immediate neighbourhood in which he is employed as a teacher.

These limitations are real. It is sometimes said that these limitations by the banks and insurance companies do not exist but, when it comes down to hard facts, there are cases in which they do operate. In order to deal with these, and similar cases, I think this income limit should be raised. I think also that the Minister could — I think it is reasonable to hope that he should —have made some small adjustment in the Departmental grant. A house, the gross cost of which in 1960, when these grants were fixed, was £2,000 would today cost £2,250. We need not argue about the precise figure but this is the general nature of the increases in housing costs over the past two years. If there is to be any relationship between the grant and the money which has to be paid, the gross amount or the net amount, it does not matter which way we reckon it, then I think we must admit costs have increased and, in cases where gross costs have been held, they have been held at the expense of reduced standards.

There is a case here for an adjustment to be made and it is very difficult to avoid concluding that either the Minister is not being as generous now as he might be or else the Minister was too generous in the past two years. I do not think those who received housing loans in the past two years will accuse anybody of generosity in that regard. This is a serious matter because, not only is the Minister saying that he is satisfied that these grants are generous enough now, but he is coming in here not with a two year measure but with a permanent measure, with the £275 written into the Schedule of the Bill. He has said he is bringing in this Bill now to avoid bringing in a Bill every two years. He is saying, in effect, that not only does he feel that these grants are adequate now, but they will be adequate for, say, three years ahead. I think there is a case for reconsideration here and I hope the Minister will consider, in regard to this problem of the housing of the salaried classes, that, if he is to bring these people into the same position as people were in two years ago, some adjustment needs to be made.

The Minister mentioned, during the passage of this Bill through the Dáil, that he was instructing his housing inspectors to ensure that higher standards would be maintained and that he had some degree of worry about the housing standards in some private housing. One of the best ways to ensure that these standards are maintained and also to ensure that there is no decline in standards within the next few years is to maintain the existing equilibrium in regard to grants and the income limit. Accordingly, I should like to say that I welcome the new provisions of the Housing Bill but I feel that the Minister or whoever made the effective decision in this regard was less generous now compared with two years ago in dealing with housing of the salaried classes.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on having introduced such a comprehensive measure of housing legislation. I am particularly glad that the Minister has changed the original definition of agricultural labourer and those engaged in agriculture. Both titles are brought into a desirable uniformity in the Bill. The word "labourer" should, as far as possible, be deleted from any phraseology in regard to housing legislation. The time has come when people formerly in that category shall be described as they are in this Bill.

The Minister is also to be congratulated upon taking what I regard as a very necessary and bold step to ensure that no grants will be passed for new houses except they are serviced. I sincerely hope the Minister will adopt a very conservative attitude in that connection. The time has arrived when houses should be serviced. In this modern age and because of the very many developments which are likely to take place in the economic structure of this country in the very near future, it is most desirable that dwelling houses should be serviced and thereby establish a standard long wanted in this country.

The reconstruction of houses was mentioned by the Minister. He indicated that local authorities are being generally exhorted to introduce a scheme of supplementary grants of a rather wide variety for that purpose as well as for the construction of new houses. The Minister indicates that he is prescribing no particular scale of grants for the local authorities in determining the amount of supplementary grants which they might introduce.

It might have been more satisfactory if some general scale were laid down. Present experience in that regard is that some local authorities have a very generous scheme of supplementary grants, whereas in other local authorities the scheme is not so satisfactory. Indeed, in quite a number of local authorities there is no scheme of supplementary grants for reconstruction purposes. However, I take it that the Minister has some particular reason for leaving that aspect of the matter an open question with the local authorities. Perhaps, he might indicate if there is any general recommendation or pressure he can put on local authorities to have uniformity in the matter of those grants. It will be a very embarrassing situation in those local authority areas where a low scheme of grants prevails in comparison with the position in adjoining areas where larger grants are available.

I am particularly glad that the Minister has taken a very practical step in regard to the provision of houses for aged couples. This has been a problem with housing authorities for many years and they have not been able to do very much about it. The difficulty, as the Minister explained, is that the type of persons who require such accommodation cannot get a very high priority from the housing authorities. The result is that housing authorities have not been able to do anything practicable or worthwhile to relieve the appalling situation that exists.

The Minister mentioned that philanthropic and charitable organisations will in future be eligible for a composite grant for the purposes of housing that type of persons. I take it also that the local housing authority are not precluded from participating in that development. It might be difficult in many rural areas to get philanthropic or charitable organisations to engage in this very praiseworthy work. In that case the local authorities could come into the picture.

I am a member of a local housing authority. We have been endeavouring for years to deal with this problem without much success—indeed with hardly any success at all. Now, because of its being in the scheme of grants, we could make some worthwhile progress. Naturally, if charitable organisations would be prepared to step into the breach we would be very happy to leave the job to them but if they are not prepared to do so, I take it the housing authority will be regarded as a competent organisation to deal with the problem.

In the case of new houses and particularly in regard to the obligations which the Minister is imposing on applicants to have them serviced, I would bring one point to his notice. Nowadays an applicant for a grant for a new house has to get a variety of clearances. First, he has to get town planning approval; secondly, he has to get a certificate of valuation and, thirdly, he has to get a sanitary certificate if the house is being serviced.

The securing of a valuation certificate does not present much difficulty but to get town planning approval and sanitary service approval does create difficulty to some extent. Local authorities come into the picture very prominently in that connection and I am sorry to say that they do not seem to have set up any satisfactory type of office organisation to deal with the matter. In a number of local authorities the office may be situated not in the main town but in one of the other towns. That means that an applicant has to write to three offices to get three certificates. I would earnestly request the Minister to ensure that one clearing office, if I may call it such, would be established in each local authority organisation to provide those certificates.

Also, a considerable delay takes place in obtaining the town and regional planning certificate and the sanitary service certificate. That is something that could be speeded up by the local authorities if they were prepared to be co-operative.

The Minister referred to the loans that will in future be available for the repair of vested and unvested cottages. I am not quite clear as to whether the scheme of loans will enable eligible people to purchase vested cottages on the mortgage available on such a property. The problem of the housing authorities would be relieved to some appreciable extent if it were possible for some of the applicants, who have been lined up for rehousing, to purchase vested cottages which become available in the locality in which they wish to live. The difficulty was that they did not have the money and that type of prospective purchaser would not, in the ordinary course of events, be able to get a loan from a bank. The result was that these vested cottages were purchased by people who were in a position to get money to acquire them. I see no objection to the local authority being able to finance the purchase of a vested cottage for a person who is eligible to buy through the loans system, any more than to financing the purchase of a private house if it were available in the district. I trust the scheme of loans will cover these cases.

In connection with reconstruction grants in rural areas, there has been a tradition that when the roofing was being replaced it was replaced either with corrugated asbestos or corrugated iron which was a satisfactory type of roofing. The main reason why it was used was that with this type of roofing the valuation of the house would not be adversely affected. When this roofing job was being done the thatch or straw, as the case may be, was left intact and for some years the Department accepted that. However, in recent years grants are being refused unless the inside covering or straw is removed. I take it the reason is that the engineers do not regard it as a good job otherwise. That may be and without in the least finding fault with the engineering views in that regard, I think a certain amount of commonsense must be used. This method of roofing, with the inside material I refer to being left intact, has proved over the years to be a good job. It creates a certain amount of warmth in the house. It might tend to create some hazard from the point of view of fire but otherwise it is satisfactory. I would seriously suggest to the Minister that he might reconsider allowing that type of roofing to be done in future.

I am glad the Minister has sanctioned this scheme of grants for experimentation on a cheaper type of house. We have all been talking for many years about the cost of housing and saying there should be a cheaper type of housing, but there has been no serious approach made to the problem. This scheme of grants will enable local authorities to deal with this problem with a view eventually to producing a type of house which will come on the market at a reasonable price and, of course, a reasonable rent.

The scheme of grants contained in this Bill in connection with the provision of extra rooms to eliminate overcrowding is also a generous one. There are many houses throughout the country which lend themselves to that type of improvement and even though it is being done in a piecemeal fashion it is a step in the right direction.

I regard this Bill as a continuing measure and a consolidating measure. Senator Dooge has covered all the points in this Bill very fully and anything that could be said subsequent to Senator Dooge's remarks would be repetition. I should like to say, however, that I welcome the Bill. There are one or two points I wish to raise but which, in the interests of expedition, I shall hold over until the Committee Stage.

This Housing Bill is assured of a welcome because in spite of all that has been done, there is still quite a lot to be done in order to provide adequate and suitable housing for our people. All of us would like to have had more time to examine this Bill and it is a pity that we are dealing with it in this very rushed way. Some of us would have liked to put down amendments but, as in the case of the other two Bills with which we have been dealing recently, we find that at this stage that is impossible.

The first thing that strikes me in connection with this Bill is that there is no increase in the grants. This is one thing to which most people looked forward in the Bill. It is a long-promised Bill and many of us felt there would be an increase in the amount of the grant because building costs have gone up considerably and continue to rise. This one aspect might be a deterrent to young people who might want to avail of the opportunity of building their own houses. They will hesitate to take on the payment burden when there is no increase in the grant. As a result they will be more inclined to stay on in their present, maybe unsuitable, surroundings, eventually as their families come along and get bigger they will become a liability on the local authority. They will be living either in condemned houses or overcrowded conditions and as a result the local authority will be faced with the necessity of providing accommodation for that type of family.

The stipulation in the Bill in regard to unserviced houses is one which I particularly welcome. It should be welcomed by all who wish to see the end of houses without water or sanitary services. The extension of the provisions of the Bill to include loans to persons in vested labourers' cottages who wish to repair and, if necessary, to extend their houses is welcome. However, it would have been better if the Bill had fixed the repayment period over, say, 50 years or given an option to the person concerned to pay over that period. It is something which we in the Labour Party feel should have been included in the Bill.

There is a section in the Bill dealing with a new scheme for housing elderly people. This also is very welcome. The newly-weds and people about to be married could have been dealt with in this way and specified accommodation could have been arranged for them in the same way as for the elderly people.

We all know the difficulties facing newly-weds who have either to live with in-laws or in unsuitable accommodation. When young people want to get married, the last thing they give consideration to is accommodation. Eventually when they do get married, they go to live with the boy's relatives or perhaps with the girl's. We all realise by now the clamour there is for houses for this type of family in all local authority areas. Sometimes one gets the impression it is the fault of members of a council that such people are living in overcrowded conditions with in-laws. This is something we who are members of local authorities want to impress on the Minister. We hope that in future when it is well known that young couples are about to get married every possible means will be used to enable them to live in decent conditions so that they may be able to start married life in the proper way.

Ceist atá im aigne a chur ar an Aire—agus ceist géar go leor ar fud na tíre—baineann sé le feirmeoir, teach leis, agus líontí cúigear nó seisear ina gcónaí ann. Tá mac ann a mbeidh an fheirm aige amach annseo. Tagann na blianta anuas ortha agus tá ar an fheirmeoir sin socrú a dhéanamh nuair a phósann an mac sin, nuair a thagann bean óg isteach agus, b'fhéidir, líon-tí nua. An bhfuil sé in aigne ag an Aire ceist mar sin a fhúscailt i mBille mar seo agus tithe nua a chur ar fáil ag na sean daoine? Ba mhian liom go mbeadh sa Bhille seo údarás chun an tarna teach a chur suas sa bhfeirm sin nuair atá an sean-fheirmeoir chun scarúint leas an talamh. An féidir an fheidhm sin a scríobh isteach sa Bhille seo? Más féidir, fúscailt an-mhór a bheadh ann ar chúrsaí tithe a chur suas ar son sean-mhuirín mar sin chun compóirt a thabhairt dóibh in a seanaois. Nó an mbeadh feidhm i mBille mar seo teach a chur suas do'n líon-tí nua ar an bhfeirm céanna?

I am rather disappointed that there is not in this Bill anything more for any section of the community. I had expected a general increase in grants, having regard to the rise in the cost of living in the past few years. Of course I do appreciate the value of Section 6 and I am glad the Minister introduced it. I hope the local authorities will avail of it to the full. I should like to avail of this opportunity to appeal to the Minister to allow grants of two-thirds of the estimated cost of the work in cases where persons reconstruct or improve houses, in cases where the occupants derive their livelihood from the pursuit of agriculture and whose valuations do not exceed £40

In subsection (2) of Section 4 and in subsection (1) of Section 12, dealing with supplementary grants, we find that a farmer with a small valuation on land and a rather high valuation on buildings is victimised. I submit a combined valuation of £50 on a farm does not nearly equal the £832 limit allowed on salary. From that point of view I do not think the farmer gets a fair crack of the whip.

Five or six years ago the National Farm Survey found that an average farm comprised 52 acres of land. In my area the valuation ranks at £1 an acre for prime arable land and taking that as a basis we will find that a farm with £50 combined valuation would have only about 35 acres of land. That cannot be regarded as an economic holding and we therefore have too many borderline farms as far as the provisions of this Bill are concerned. The Minister should amend this provision so that only the valuation of the land would be considered for qualification for grants. The increase in the valuation is far too steep and I can see it acting as a deterrent to wider applications for grants and this merits further consideration for the Minister.

I agree with Senator Carton that many of the criticisms could be left over for Committee Stage when the Bill will be taken section by section. Anybody connected with the housing of the people must welcome this measure as at least an assurance that the Minister and his Department are aware of the problems. Unfortunately, too many people expect the local authorities to take complete responsibility for housing them. It is rather unjust to expect local authorities to build houses for young couples even before they are married. Where I come from, such a proceeding could not be visualised because there are too many pressing problems for people already living in houses that are really uninhabitable. There are many people that I know in good permanent employment and I welcome the fact that in this Bill the Minister has made it possible for them to obtain loans and facilities to become owners of houses. The Minister and his Department should encourage that trend. No local authority should aim at becoming the biggest landlord in the country. If people have a stake in the country, it makes for better citizens and no stake is better or more beneficial than ownership of one's home. For that reason, I welcome the provisions the Minister has made to that end.

Housing of elderly people has always been a problem. I hope the Minister's ambitions will be realised and that philanthropic and benevolent organisations will undertake this work which is a social necessity and a great charity. Many elderly people are in mental hospitals because there is no other accommodation for them. That is appalling in a Christian country and it is a real problem.

In one section of the Bill, the Minister makes provision for storm damage. In urban areas, there are houses which are already earmarked for clearance for future development, perhaps in ten or 15 years' time. That is the proposal of the town planning experts and architects but nobody knows when it will happen. In the meantime, people have suffered storm damage and the houses are not habitable. If some assistance, such as is suggested for rural areas, is not given, it means that the local authority will have to provide alternative accommodation at much greater cost. I asked the Minister to see that, if possible, that situation is covered in the Bill.

Finally, I am sure we shall not be able to please all sections of the people but, generally speaking, most people will welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on its introduction.

I want to make one general point concerning matters mentioned before in this House by my friend, Senator McGuire. Senator Dooge this evening referred to the maturity now reached in regard to housing. We all welcome that maturity and this Bill and the Minister's interest in the matter.

Section 7 of the Bill deals with the building of prototype houses and it was rather interesting, and perhaps a little alarming, to hear the Minister say that the aim of this section is to cheapen production of houses. There seems to be no question anywhere of appropriate designs for houses and housing schemes, not only with regard to surrounding houses but with regard to surrounding landscapes. The general question of siting of houses has not been dealt with, apparently, or attention paid to it. That is quite understandable because we are all aware of the legacy and burden left to Irish Governments here in 1922 and it is very comforting and satisfactory to see so many of our people now housed in clean surroundings with baths and water supplies, particularly in the cities, and whose very bad conditions have been very materially improved by successive Irish Governments.

I should like to put to the Minister that our anxiety to make up the leeway made for haste and I think also for lack of plan and particularly, I think, for lack of thought about beauty or aesthetic surroundings. In the main, we have taken a utilitarian and practical viewpoint but it is true that a good appearance, harmony of one house with another and with the surroundings, also has its use. There seems to be no reference in Section 7 or in the Minister's mind when dealing with that section to the design of houses and the question of house design in this country has very largely been left to people who, in the nature of things—they cannot be blamed for it—have neither training nor mind nor aptitude for proper design.

Similarly, in another section there is reference to reconstruction. Reconstruction or repair and improvement very often mean that the house, an oldish one, is improved from the point of view of the people living in it but from the point of view of the landscape a reasonably good house becomes ugly and from that point of view very much disimproved. The siting of houses should be dealt with and also, particularly in the cities, the question of open spaces. If you look down from Dublin Mountains on our city now, housing schemes look rather like a red rash upon the landscape.

I went for a walk on Tuesday evening with a foreigner who remarked that there was a curious similarity between our housing and British housing and that there was the same lack of any consideration for beauty. That applies, for example, to the preservation of trees. In spite of legislation that we have, apparently a builder can get hold of a site, knock down all the trees he likes and build houses, without any regard being had to what is happening. Beauty of landscape is a great asset, the preservation of which would not only help the tourist trade but would also help in the education of our own children. Children who grow up in certain surroundings are improved by the actual beauty of their surroundings. On that point, perhaps the Minister would tell us when concluding what progress has been made in regard to derelict sites and their clearance about which we had a Bill some time ago.

I know that the Minister and his predecessors were preoccupied with the provision of houses and the Minister's efforts in that direction are praiseworthy but the Minister is thinking of the provision of houses alone, the provision—if I may say so —of shelters rather than houses. If more thought were given to the particular type of scheme and the appearance of each house, the whole job would be better done and there would be good results for those reared in those houses and for those people who pass by and look at the houses and also for visitors to the country. The whole character of the country may be shown in housing, the appearance of the houses, their character and condition and their place in the landscape.

I do not want to labour that point or put it forward by way of severe criticism of the Minister. I do not say he is responsible any more than his predecessors but I should like to put it to him, particularly now when we have reached the point when a great deal of housing has to be done, that more attention should be given to the placing of houses, to their position in the landscape and to trees than unfortunately has hitherto been the case.

Many people will be keenly disappointed with this Bill. Great things were expected of it and many people deferred operations until the terms of the Bill were announced. The coming of the Bill was so long delayed—until March of this year, I think—that people expected vast improvements. They are now bitterly disappointed that the grants have not been increased. The mountain has been in labour and has produced a mouse. The Minister knows—and Senators have alluded to it—that due to the increases in costs of labour and materials, many people believed, and indeed were led to believe at local authority meetings—if not by the heads of Government—that the grants would be increased.

All this Bill does is to continue the existing grants. The local authorities were given permission in 1949 or 1950 to give supplementary grants. At that time the grants were fixed at £300 or £310 if they were operated through a building society. The amounts are now out of date and completely inadequate, because when the grant of £300 was given in 1949 or 1950, it was possible at the cost of materials and labour at that time to build a nice five-roomed house for around £1,000. A similar house today would cost at least £1,500 or £1,600 to build.

Therefore, there is no extra incentive or encouragement in this Bill. At that time a person building a house costing £1,000 could get a State grant of £300, plus a county council grant of £300, that is, £600 out of £1,000, or three-fifths of the cost. Today if he gets £600 for a house costing at least £1,600 to build, he is getting only three-eighths of the cost, so there is no extra incentive or encouragement.

House building needs a shot in the arm. The Minister has said:

Housing activities in recent years have shown a marked trend in the direction of private enterprise. This welcome trend, which appears likely to continue ...

et cetera. I cannot see where we have that marked trend, or any welcome trend, in house building, because the statistics prove the very opposite. On 29th May, 1962, at columns 1579 and 1580, Volume 195, No. 12 of the Official Report, the Minister told Deputy Jones that the number of houses built by the local authorities was: in 1954-55, 5,267; in 1955-56, 4,011; in 1956-57, 4,784; in 1957-58, 3,467; in 1958-59, 1,812; in 1959-60, 2,414; in 1960-61, 1,463; and in 1961-62, 1,238. We find that during the three years from 1954 to 1957, 14,062 houses were built, and in the past five years a total of only 10,394 houses were built. As a matter of fact, 4,000 more houses were built in the three years I have referred to than were built in the past five years.

Let us take houses built with the aid of grants by private individuals. We find there the very same trend. In 1954-55, 5,006 houses were built; in 1955-56, 5,436; in 1956-57, 5,647; in 1957-58, 3,629; in 1958-59, 2,684; in 1959-60, 3,740; in 1960-61, 3,952; and in 1961-62, 4,049. In the three years 1954 to 1957, a total of 16,089 houses were built by private individuals with the aid of grants, and in the past four years the figure was about 14,000. As a matter of fact in those three years which we are often told were disastrous years, 2,000 more houses were built than were built in the four years the Minister was in office. I do not see the welcome trend there because we are still an average of 1,000 houses below the figure for the 1954 to 1957 period.

Let us take the total number of houses built with State aid by the local authorities and private enterprise. We find the same trend. In 1954, 11,179 houses were built; in 1955, 10,490; in 1956, 9,837; in 1957, 10,969; in 1958, 7,480; in 1959, 4,894; in 1960, 5,992; and in 1961, 5,748. Last year the number built was only half the number built in the three years from 1954 to 1957. The figure then was in the eleven thousands each year, and it is now only in the five thousands. I cannot see any trend there of which anyone can be proud.

The number employed on house building has decreased by over 66? per cent. If we look at the statistics published in connection with expenditure by local authorities for each of the years ended 31st March we find that in 1955 the figure stood at £12,559,000; in 1956, it was £12,260,000; in 1957, it was £10,814,000; in 1958, it was down to £7,069,000; in 1959, it was £5,961,000; in 1960, it was £6,061,000; and in 1961, it was £6,389,000. If we take the three disastrous years, we are told about a total of £35,651,000 was spent by the local authorities under the heading of "Loan and Stock Accounts of Local Authorities". That was the expenditure in those three years.

Let us take, then, the following four years when we were supposed to have this welcome trend. A sum of £25,479,000—that is, £10,000,000 less was paid out by the local authorities. That means that in the three years, "the three disastrous years", according to Fianna Fáil, £10,000,000 more was paid out than was paid out in the succeeding four years.

The Minister deals with housing in rural areas. I think it is admitted that our small farmers are the worst housed section of our community. There is no encouragement for them in this Bill. In his concluding remarks, the Minister refers to the urgency in relation to housing in rural areas and continues:

I propose to deal with this aspect of the matter in conjunction with my proposals for an up-to-date consolidated code for local housing authorities, which will, I hope, contain special provisions in relation to the rural situation.

The sooner the Minister introduces that, the better. What this means now is that even if small farmers are inclined to build they will wait for a further six or eight months or a year until the Minister introduces the new Bill.

We are all aware that many small farmers and their families are living in houses which are no better than hovels. These dwellings should have been knocked down long ago and good houses erected in their place. Unfortunately, small farmers of up to £30 valuation have not the money to erect houses for themselves. In some families, members who had emigrated to America or to Britain sent money home and in that way some farmers of the kind I have in mind were able to build fine houses for themselves. However, the vast majority of those who remained at home have been unable to provide suitable housing for themselves.

I am a member of a local authority. I have had the application forms of those people before me on numerous occasions. I have helped some of them to fill them in. When they inquire about the loan, and so on, they are frequently afraid to go ahead because the rate of interest represents a very large sum over a period of 35 years. It is a pity that, in conjunction with the Minister for Lands, a scheme could not be introduced to build houses for those people. Let the Land Commission build them. Let the Land Commission get all the existing grants. Let the cost be added to the annuity and spread over 70 or 80 years. I do not see any other way of getting houses built for those people because the majority of them are not in a position to build. Many people in rural areas cannot be connected to the electricity supply. They are unable to avail of these grants and loans. They are paying high rates, high taxes and are faced with a soaring cost of living. They have roads which they cannot travel. There is no provision in this Bill to house them.

I welcome the Bill. It contains some very good innovations to meet the social requirements of modern society. Some Senators found fault with the Minister because he does not propose to increase the grants to private individuals. We should all like the grants to be increased. In recent years, the Minister has done fairly well. Compare the present grant of £275 to private individuals with that of £70 less than 30 years ago. It represents almost four times the amount. I think I am correct in saying that in those days the terms of the grant were regarded as fairly generous.

I think it was Senator Fitzgerald who said that the cost of building materials has gone up considerably in the past two years. I do not think so.

Labour costs.

My information is that there has been no increase in building materials for the last couple of years.

On a point of correction, the Senator may be sure there was.

Certainly. The Minister himself knows that.

The Minister does not agree.

Does the Minister say there was no increase in building materials?

Since 1958, there has been no worthwhile increase but there has, of course, been an increase in the cost of labour. That must be conceded.

That reflects on the cost of building materials.

The price of cement has gone up three times.

Senator L'Estrange spoke about the wonderful work done in the period 1954 to 1957 when the Coalition Government were in office. He gave a mass of figures to show that the building rate in those years was much in excess of what it has been since. Reference was made to that in the Dáil. I do not want to go back on it again. I do not like too much comparison or too much repetition. Senator L'Estrange did not make much reference to the payment of grants in those days——

They were paid.

——especially the supplementary grants.

I heard the Minister tell the Senator that bit.

We all know that these grants were not paid.

The Westmeath County Council paid them all.

Eventually.

It is very easy to boast about building so many houses but it is not easy to explain why the houses were not paid for.

They were paid for. That was Fianna Fáil propaganda.

They were paid for when Fianna Fáil were returned to office.

They were paid for long before that.

There was a deficit of £16,000,000 after the Coalition Government. No less than £3,000,000 of that was in respect of housing commitments.

Yes, but £7,000,000 more was spent.

Section 3 deals with reconstruction grants. I want to refer to the valuation limit of £50. There is a discrimination against farmers with a valuation of £50 and over. In certain parts of the country, a valuation of £50 would represent a smallish holding. The time has come when that particular problem should be re-examined. Senator McDonald, who referred to this matter, seemed to be under the impression that there was no grant at all available to farmers with a valuation of over £50.

He said a supplementary grant.

Was that what he said?

Section 12 of the 1960 Act provides for the payment of a reconstruction grant to the farmer with a valuation of over £50 but the terms are not the same. I think the Minister will bear me out in that. The reason I mentioned the matter is that there seems to be a certain amount of confusion——

That is a State grant.

I am talking about a State grant. There is a certain amount of confusion in the minds of people as to whether there is any grant available to farmers with a valuation of over £50, but, as I said, Section 12 of the Act of 1960 provides for that.

Reference was made to supplementary grants by local authorities. This system of the payment of supplementary grants has been in operation for some years. Some local authorities have adopted the scheme and others have not. The Minister is wise to leave it to the local authorities themselves to make their own decisions in this matter. Today some Senator advocated uniformity in the amount of the supplementary grants to be paid by all local authorities. That would not be feasible because the financial circumstances of all local authorities are not the same and the Minister is wise to leave the amount of these supplementary grants to the local authorities themselves.

I come now to deal with subsection (3) of Section 3 under the heading of reconstruction grants under which it will now be possible to get a reconstruction grant to repair a house damaged by storm. I welcome that provision very much but the terms should be widened. Instead of using the term "damaged by storm", it would be better to use the term "damaged by act of God" because a house could be damaged in other ways. Lightning could strike a house and damage it just as much as if not more than a storm. I do not know whether lightning would come under the heading of storm—I do not think it would. Of course it would be accompanied by a thunderstorm but the thunder would not cause any damage. It would be the lightning which would damage the house. I should like that matter to be considered some time. Damage could also be caused by flooding which would be an act of God, so that if the term I suggest were used, it would be much more satisfactory than the term in the Bill. That is all I have to say. If there are any further points, we will be able to discuss them on the sections.

I am very disappointed that the amount of the grants has not been increased. Quite a number of people were waiting for an increase and I held up some people from going ahead with their reconstruction work in the hope that the new Bill would bring greater relief. I want now to deal with the difficulty people who are in vested houses or cottages have in getting loans. The local authorities do not give loans because they say they are debarred from doing so by Section 21 of the 1936 Act. I am sorry the Minister did not repeal that section. The Minister cannot direct the councils to give the loans and if there is any flaw in the Act, the council will not give the grant. I cannot see how they can give the loan because I cannot see how they can get the security. Until the house is fully purchased, the council has a mortgage on it and I cannot see how they would see their way to placing a second mortgage on it.

Vested houses are usually overcrowded with big families living in them and extensions to these houses involve quite an amount of money. I know of houses which are three-quarters finished and the people have not got the money to finish them because they cannot get a loan from the council. Originally, they were under the impression that they would get a loan. If we look around to see what people are badly housed, we will see that they are small farmers on small valuations. Some of those who are the worst off are those on valuations between £20 and £35. If there is a married man with a family living in a house with a valuation under £20, the local authority may build a house for him. In our county, we build houses for people with a valuation of less than £20 but we do not build houses for anyone with a valuation in excess of £20, no matter what the family circumstances may be. The only people living in thatched cabins in the Midlands are the small farmers. I cannot see that a great lot is done for them in this Bill.

I do not think the grants for old people will be availed of because old people will not take on the liability of building a house, no matter how small it may be. That section of the Bill will never be availed of to any great extent. I can see abuses creeping in under the section. If the grants are greater for old people, I can see the situation arising where a nephew, a son or somebody else will stay away until the house has been completed and then come home and take possession of it. That provision will not mean a great deal.

I should like the Minister to define what he means by an old person. No age is specified in the Bill and I think an age should be specified. When a man applies to become a rate collector or rent collector, if he is over 45, he is told he cannot apply. Is the Minister thinking of a person of 60 or 70 years of age or an old age pensioner? I should like to see 60 years of age stated, because I think if you stated a particular age, you would get somewhere.

Grants and loans will be given for the cheaper type of house. I do not think that will get us anywhere. No Department has ruined so many good plans as the Department of Local Government. Recently, we built 14 or 15 new houses in Mullingar. The plans were up with the Minister's Department ten times before they were eventually sanctioned. Every time they went up, the Minister replied that the cost was too great and back they came again. There had to be a reduction in floor area, alleyways instead of halls, a reduction in the amount of timber. Before the houses were sanctioned, there was an increase in the cost of materials and wages, with the result that we had to pay more for the bad type of house than we would have had to pay for the good one. Our rural houses have been ruined because of the demands of the Department for reduced standards. We had a scheme of houses which had been praised highly throughout the country, but there is nothing right about our new houses. The halls are only three feet wide, which is not at all sufficient for a main hall. The Minister is continually advocating water and sewerage supplies for houses, but in the new houses he is sanctioning, we can find no place to put in a bathroom. I do not know why that is so. The making of such provision would not mean that the local authority would have to put in the bath and the water and sewerage. We have done a good day's work by allowing people in non-vested houses to get grants for water and sewerage. These people in non-vested houses cannot get reconstruction grants and you will, therefore, have no progress as regards the installation of water and sewerage.

I want to raise another matter in connection with the income limit for SDA loans. I understand the Minister is retaining the figure of £832. I cannot see any reason for doing so. Last year, we sent a resolution to the Department asking that that figure be increased to £1,200. Yet we have this Bill retaining the figure of £832. The people who get money from local authorities pay it back plus six per cent. and plus a half per cent for costs. A question was asked in Westmeath County Council the other day as to how many bad clients we had in view of the fact that something over £1,000,000 has been paid out in SDA loans. The answer was one. There was only one defaulter in the whole county. That is extraordinary. We are cutting out the better-class people, people like engineers, school teachers and white collar workers of all description. Some of these people find it very difficult to make any arrangements to secure money from insurance companies or banks. I should like the Minister to consider that.

But it is increased.

The amount of the loan you may get is increased but not the income.

It is increased to £1,120.

I could not find that. I do not think it is high enough yet. We are glad to see some of the improvements made but we are sorry the Minister has not given greater grants and made other changes which have been advocated.

I entirely agree it is desirable that private building should be encouraged, but the Minister could have gone considerably further in this Bill to encourage private building, especially as the Bill is in the nature of a permanent measure. On the question of supplementary grants, the ceiling fixed by this statute for local authorities is £832 in the case of wage-earners. That means that, if a man is earning more than £832, the local authority are not permitted to give him a supplementary grant. As we know, these supplementary grants are made on a sliding scale, and by the time £831 is reached, it is probable the grant would be only one-third of the maximum. A man earning £832 or even £1,200 needs a lot of encouragement before he embarks on providing a house for himself. The more of this type of housing we have provided, the less will be left for the local authority and the State to do.

I intended to make the very point just made by Senator McAuliffe. I know, of course, that within the past couple of years, the ceiling has been increased from £800 to something over £1,100, but I think that is still too low. The ceiling should be up to £1,500 or £1,600. In that way, you will encourage the type of person likely to build his own house to get on with the job. A married man earning £1,200 with no collateral security will find the greatest difficulty in going into a bank and raising £1,000 or £1,500 to enable him to build a house. The bank simply will not do business, especially over a long period. Insurance companies and building societies are very slow to advance money to private individuals to build houses outside the cities and very large towns.

Before this last increase in the ceiling came, I knew a schoolteacher living beside a country school—I have a feeling the Minister might know the man who wanted to build a house. He could not get a loan from the county council because they had not authority to give him a loan. He applied to insurance companies and building societies and they would not accommodate him. It was only after a great deal of pressure brought to bear on someone or other that his needs were met. These people should be encouraged to build their own houses, and the ceiling for the granting of loans and the making of supplementary grants should be raised still higher.

There is another point. It may be peculiar to Cavan, but I am sure not peculiar solely to it. I refer to the position of the very small farmer with ten, 12, or 15 acres of land. He cannot house himself. Now there is some scheme whereby the county council can take a transfer of a piece of his land and build a labourer's cottage on it for him. He is not a labourer in the strict sense, though he does, on occasions, work for hire or reward. It is essential for that small farmer that, if his house is to be any good to him, it should be built on his own farm. Within the recent past, the county council have not been permitted to provide a cottage for such a farmer on his own land unless the land adjoins the county road. That means that such farmers now just cannot be housed. They cannot house themselves. That is out of the question.

The Minister should, I think, look into this matter and revise the regulation. The regulation is quite sensible where it applies to a labourer's cottage, properly so-called, because that cottage may have to be sold or may be needed for another labourer tenant. What I have in mind is the cottage which will be used by the occupier of the land on which it is built. If we do not house that man up a lane—it may be one hundred yards, or so, up the lane he travels, and his people before him travelled for generations—that will be tantamount to telling him he will not be housed at all and that he had better sell and get out.

Senator Hayes touched on the layout and design of houses. Something should be done to encourage private individuals to lay out the grounds of their houses properly. I have not in mind any grandiose scheme of landscape gardening. What I have in mind is the prevention of the building of a house in the middle of a field, with no fencing, and not even a few shrubs, an ornamental hedge, or a proper entrance. There may be two causes for that. There is a general belief in the country that, if a house is left like that for a few years, there will be a smaller poor law valuation. I do not think there is anything in the point, but it is fairly generally accepted. The other point is that they merely qualified for the grant and then left the rest. Giving a small supplementary grant of £25, a year or two after the house has been built and the grounds properly laid out, would be one way of providing an incentive to people to improve the external surroundings. Another and less popular way might be to withhold a small part of the grant, say £25, until the housing engineer certifies the grounds have been laid out in a reasonable fashion. What I want to avoid is blots on the landscape.

I would, of course, have been much happier, as would everybody else, if the grants had been increased. Seeing this is a permanent measure, a grant of £275, which was sufficient some years ago, is certainly not sufficient now to encourage more private building.

My main purpose in rising is to correct what I feel are some misapprehensions in the minds of some Senators. With regard to the amount of the loan, the income which a man had to have in order to qualify for a loan up to the passing of this Bill was £1,040. Secondly, under this Bill, it is up to the local authorities themselves to decide what the income should be of the person to whom they propose to give a loan. That seems to be the construction to be put upon Section 11, subsection (2)(b)(i) —"the class or classes of persons to whom loans may be made under this section and the minimum contribution to be made at the time of the acquisition or construction of a house". In other words, the local authority decide who are the class or classes of persons to whom they propose to give loans. They decide how much must be put up by the person who is buying the house or building the house. That deals with the amount of the loan given; it also deals with the class or classes of persons to whom the loan will be given. That is how it appears to me.

There seems to be also some misapprehensions as regards the purpose or purport of this Bill. As I construe the Bill, it does not purport to be a solution of all the evils in relation to housing. It does not purport to be the final solution. It purports to be what it states it is, namely, an improvement in the situation in which persons may get supplementary grants. Now persons with an income up to £16 a week will qualify. As well as that, farmers who did not formerly qualify because their poor law valuation exceeded £35 will now qualify under this measure. They will qualify for the full supplementary grant where their PLV is up to £50.

The Bill, on the whole, purports to remove the terminal date for the giving of supplementary grants. Up to this, if a man were erecting a house and wanted a supplementary grant, he set out the date upon which his house was to be started and the date upon which it was to be completed. Subject to correction, I think the right of local authorities to give supplementary grants terminated under existing legislation on 31st March last. This Bill simply says that, in future, supplementary grants may be given. They may be given in full to farmers with a poor law valuation of under £50 and to persons whose earnings or incomes are mainly derived from agriculture. They may also be given to people who have an income up to £802. These figures may from time to time be changed. The terminal period is removed.

In deciding what the primary grant is to be, the Minister and the Legislature must, of course, have regard to the spending capacity of the country as a whole. Reading a fairly recent copy of the Financial Times, I noticed that the principal fear of many countries in Europe today is the fear of inflation. That fear is particularly strong in West Germany, Denmark and even in Japan, a most progressive country. We all know that if a country, as in the case of a private individual or a family, overspends, it is bound to result in inflation, which, in turn, is bound to cause hardship for a very large section of the community, for those who live on fixed incomes, for widows and, perhaps, orphans living on fixed incomes and for people living on pensions. A Government, in deciding on what can be spent or what should be spent out of the public purse, must have regard to that factor and must also have regard to the capacity of the people to pay it.

While the Bill is not—and I do not think anybody claims it to be—a solution of all our ills at this stage, it is a very good step forward. I personally feel that it is the limit to which the Minister or the Government could go by way of grants or loans, unless they were to run the risk of causing hardship or injustice to other substantial sections of the community.

On a point of explanation, I should like to point out that I think I was correct in my earlier statement. Section 11(a) provides that the regulations are not made by the county council but are to be made by the Minister for Local Government, with the approval of the Minister for Finance. I understood the Minister stated that he proposed to retain the present ceiling in respect of a small dwelling loan.

We all welcome the Bill. We welcome any measure which improves the housing position of our people. No more essential measure could be brought forward than a measure of this kind which affects the housing and the health of the people. There is no difference of opinion about that at any time. I am glad to see the attention that has been given to the matter and the discussions that have taken place, in spite of a comment that it would not take so much time. A matter of this sort should take up time. It took up a good deal of the time of the Dáil.

Section 5 of the Bill deals with grants for essential repairs. I think the Minister is allowing grants only for county health authorities, that is, rural authorities, and that urban authorities will not benefit from that section. That would need to be amended so as to be applicable to all sections. A matter of that kind should be uniform because the urban authorities have as great a problem, if not a greater, as the rural authorities so far as housing is concerned, despite the fact that immense headway in housing has been made in the big industrial areas like Dublin and Cork. As a matter of fact, that is how it should be. Housing has a priority on the agenda of the local authorities in the big industrial areas.

The Minister refers to accommodation for elderly people but he does not specify who elderly people are. There should be some age guidance for local authorities there—perhaps 60 years and over. In any event, some indication should be given because there might be different views by different local authorities as to how that would operate.

We might also require a section in the Bill dealing with loans to contractors obliging them to finish the job completely and look after the footpaths and roadways. I do not see how that is provided for here, unless it is already provided for in a previous Act. Final payments should not be made to contractors until they have properly carried out all the essential finishing of the roadways and footpaths because sometimes there is some difficulty about that matter.

The Minister should have the question of grants examined because it is a fact that the cost of building a house over the past two years at least has moved upwards. Indeed, I think it is still moving upwards. A house costing £1,600, £1,700 or £1,800 in an industrial area has today moved towards the £2,000 or £2,200 figure. The person who builds the house has to try to find the extra money because he still gets the same grant. He finds that a hardship.

Of course, a great number of new houses are built by newly-married couples. Either before or after getting married, they make the arrangements. They have to find the deposit which is pretty steep. They find that pretty difficult if the grant is still only the same. They get a reasonably fair house which they are anxious to have when they are starting off in life. They are entitled to any consideration they can get. If they build their own houses, they are making it somewhat easier for the local authority which has to keep on building houses for the masses of the people, especially the working class people, but it takes some burden off the local authority if people build houses for themselves.

Then there is the problem of the loan. Of course, the loan is not the end of it. They have to start paying back the loan. They have to meet an interest charge of 6½ or 6¼ per cent. The result is that a house costing £1,800, by the time payment is finally made, costs about £3,000 because of the repayment of the interest and the capital. From now on at least, that type of house will move into the £3,000 figure before the purchaser finally completes his payments.

That is something over which no Minister has control but it would be an advantage if money for loans could be secured by the Government at a lower rate of interest. There are organisations through which this could be arranged but unfortunately there are difficulties. There are savings banks and institutions of that kind who have a good deal of capital but who do not appear to be allowed to use it in this way. If they could it would ease the burden on the person who needs the loan.

In regard to the period of repayment there appears to be a maximum of 35 years. A person may pay over a shorter period but generally people are not able to do so. It has been suggested that it would ease the burden if the repayment period were 50 years. It would mean a lower bill to meet each week and there would not be the same hardship. It is very hard for a young married couple who have a family growing up and who have undertaken a rather costly house, to find a large amount of money each week to meet rates and rent. Sometimes they find they have to give up the house when it is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters paid for because of some domestic or health problem. If the burden were eased they might be able to retain their house.

I shall not delay the House except to make a few brief remarks. I should like to join with the other speakers in congratulating the Minister for Local Government on having introduced this housing measure. I fully appreciate the great help which public bodies and private individuals have received from the Minister in the matter of housing.

Much has been said about housing and various suggestions have been made as to how we can improve the lot of the people who are still in need of houses. Over a long number of years I have considered the question of housing from every aspect, in regard to people living in both urban and rural areas, and I am satisfied that there is only one section of the people who are in need of special attention in regard to housing and that is those members of the farming community between £10 and £30 valuation. The people in the lower income group, the labouring class, have ample opportunity of providing themselves with houses. No man earning a livelihood need be without a house in any county in Ireland today. Public bodies have all the financial resources necessary to provide houses for people in that category. Big farmers and other people of independent means can always provide for houses for themselves.

About two years ago when the Minister had introduced the previous Housing Bill I made a special appeal to him to give a little more consideration to the small farmer. I am personally acquainted with thousands of smallholders who are afraid, even with the facilities that are available at the moment, to put themselves into debt in order to provide houses for themselves and their families. The incomes of small farmers are not static. They can be up or down and they are afraid that if they get a loan, say, of £1,000 for a house they might not be able to meet their obligations. There are many such cases in the midlands and they are mostly people in the rural areas who have valuations of between £10 and £30.

I am not quite sure whether to start with the relevancies or the irrelevancies but I shall take the points as they came. In the first contribution made here today, Senator Dooge brought out a number of useful points. However, there were some misunderstandings in his mind as to what this Bill contains and I should like to clarify the position.

The Senator has taken exception to the statement I made in the Dáil in regard to the fall in standards in private building and suggested that this should be remedied by increasing the grants available from the Government. What I said in the Dáil was not to be taken as suggesting a fall in the standards of private building as such by people building their own houses. What I had in mind was that there is a boom in building and it is our sad experience that booms in the building trade lead to jerry building as it is commonly known. I made this statement in the Dáil that contractors who are in speculative building in a big or a small way were not, because of the boom period, to take advantage of that boom just as some of them did not so many years ago. In order to ensure that this would not be done my inspectors were instructed to be even more critical in the future than they have been in the past. It is not a question of giving a greater amount of grants to remedy that situation and I actually said in the Dáil at some stage or another that to increase grants following increasing prices, which in all cases are not justifiable, is merely adding to the inflationary tendencies in the building trade.

We are all quite well aware that although there have been very substantial increases in labour costs there has been relatively no increase in the past four years in general building material costs. Despite that there has been a disastrous increase in some of the tenders being produced by our contractors at the moment. The reason for that is that they have not got the men or the organisation to cater for all the work that is available to them. The result is that although they may tender for practically all jobs that come up they put in a price they never hope to get; they merely do it as a routine measure, but if it does happen to come off, they will put on the long finger less well paid contracts and do those for which they will get a better price.

I want to ensure that public money will not be put into that channel further to inflate building costs which is the only purpose it will serve. There is no point in our chasing this inflationary tendency in the building trade brought about by a boom in the availability of building jobs and the relative unavailability of building operatives. That is the position we are facing today and it is one which we should not use public money to extend still further to our disadvantage.

There is, of course, another way of looking at it. I did explain it in the Dáil fairly exhaustively but I unfortunately feel constrained to do it again because of the parrot-like repetition here on exactly the same lines as occurred in the Dáil where, apparently, I might as well not have bothered to explain it.

In respect to this question of increases in grants, when we have had a level of applications and allocations of grants over the past three months— April, May and June—for which I have figures showing an increase of 25 per cent. over the corresponding period last year, surely no one in his senses would suggest the grants are inadequate, that they are unattractive and that people have been discouraged and have been standing in queues from 31st March waiting for the bigger grants on a promise which nobody has heard anything about and which I certainly never hinted at as being included in the Bill.

In those three months, we have allocated 25 per cent. more grants than last year, which was a record year in our history since we started paying grants in the Department of Local Government. That is the background against which I looked at this matter of using the taxpayers', and indeed the ratepayers' money for the provision of supplementary grants where they would apply, and I asked myself was there a need for further increases at this time or would it be possible that the money given in additional grants would not go to those who find it difficult to provide the deposit for a new house, that instead it would go to further inflate prices for building— even further than obtains at this moment. Lest anybody might think this is far-fetched, Senator Ó Ciosáin did mention earlier—I do not blame the Senators who felt he did not know what he was talking about—that the cost of building materials has not gone up since 1958.

Cement has gone up.

I said building materials. The figures I am about to give are from the Central Statistics Office. The base figure is 100 for 1953 and I think it is no harm the public should know about them and that the House should appreciate their significance. Taking the base year of 1953 at 100, these figures emerge: wages in January 1958, were 110.8; in January, 1959, wages were 116; in January, 1960, 123.6; in January, 1961, 126.6; and in April, 1962, the latest figure available, 144.3. Materials, in January, 1958, were 113.3; in January 1955, 110.5; in January, 1960, 107.5 and in January 1961, 110.4. The most recent figure, which we have got by phone, is for April 1962—115.3. Those are the figures.

They are slightly up.

Is that not what we said?

Wages have jumped.

I quite agree.

Then the cost of building has gone up.

Do not forget that the people about whom most of us are crying as being in the greatest need are the people who contribute the greatest proportion of labour towards their own building and if labour costs have gone up and building material costs have not, then the rate in respect to the people of rural Ireland has gone up very little. I am not using those figures for any purpose other than to bring the minds of our people around to the fact that building material costs have not gone up at all in keeping with costs in general and wages in general. That is the point I really want to make. It might be to our benefit outside, if not here, fully to appreciate it.

On the suggestion as to why there should not have been an increase in grants, we had Senator L'Estrange talking about a house costing £1,000 in 1950 in respect of which two grants of £300 each, one from the local authority and one from the Department, could have been received. In the first place, the total grants then available would have been £550, but of course the £50 is very little in a calculation of this kind. Senator L'Estrange now comes along and says that the £600 in grants now obtainable in respect of such a house would represent only three-eighths of its cost. I heard only the tail-end of that argument here today.

It would be £1,500 to £1,600.

The Senator said three-eighths. I did not catch the figure at the time.

I said £1,500 to £1,600.

Of course £1,600 would not be three-eighths.

I said that was approximately the figure.

A round figure.

That they would be up all round.

We are now told that £600 in grants would be only three-eighths of the total cost. Allowing for a certain discrepancy, we are bound to arrive at a situation, when these figures are given in round form by the Senator, that these grants should be increased in value. The grants were set in 1950 at £275 for a new house. A reconstruction grant was set at £80. Then supplementary grants, unlimited up to the total value of State grants, operated for three months and those local authorities foolish enough to adopt the scheme practically went bankrupt. We were brought by sanity to the situation where we realised we would not pay supplementary grants from our rate-payers' money to people who could not only afford to build their own houses but who could afford to build houses for half the neighbours in the street they lived in. They were the people who reaped the benefits of those supplementary grants, introduced, I have no doubts with the best intentions in 1950.

The Government who were taking credit for what they did in 1950 returned to office in 1954. Strangely enough, although nobody will suggest costs had not risen between 1950 and 1956, six years after the setting of the grants at £275 and also the mid-point between 1962 and 1950, the Senator has not told us why, after those six years, the same Government did not increase these grants.

There is a further period of six years. It is 12 years now.

That is not the point. Between 1950 and 1956, costs increased but no increase in grants was suggested or proposed up to 1956 or the beginning of 1957. It awaited the Housing Bill of 1958 to bring any new increase in new house grants. But in 1952 there was a significant change in the reconstruction and repair grants. Instead of the flat rate of £80, available under the 1950 Act, the 1952 Government—a different Government, I need not add—provided that £80 would be paid in respect of a three-roomed house, £100 for a four-roomed house and £120 for a five-roomed house, with corresponding supplementary grants according to a scale.

It was not that Government who gave the supplementary grants first.

I was in a county council who very nearly ruined themselves in two years by adopting the scheme highly recommended by the 1950 Government with whom we were co-operating to the full. The only benefit we got from that is that for the past ten years that county council have been paying and will pay for the next 25 years back money borrowed from the Local Loans Fund to pay people who were well able to build their own houses and should have been doing so but who jumped on the bandwagon while the going was good.

You could have put a ceiling on the amount. It was left to the local authorities.

Subject to the approval of the Minister.

But you could have put a ceiling to it.

It was in 1952 we did it. Let us not depart from the argument. In 1952, we made those changes and improvements in construction and repair grants. They remained until 1958 and then there was a change under this heading as well as in the new house grants. In 1958, a Government were in power—and there had been a few changes between 1952 and 1958 but no changes in the grants—the same Government as did the job in 1952 and they brought in a Bill increasing the reconstruction and repair grants from the 1952 scales and for the first time gave £100 for a three-roomed house; £120 for a four-roomed house and £140 for a five-roomed house.

The increase in emphasis which we are now placing very strongly on servicing houses was brought into play with a graduated scale of grant in 1958 whereby, if a house were being built serviced in a non-serviced area, an extra £25 was added to the existing grant of £275, which is the grant we are now operating. These grants have made significant progress up to the point that today we have a level of grant applications never before attained under any Government and it is still rising. Because of that and the inflationary tendency in the building trade at present, I feel that the Government and I had to have regard to the usage of public money to boost further the inflationary tendency in building and the fact that it was unnecessary to encourage something already booming in record proportions, the allocation of grants in the past quarter.

Taking all that into consideration and also that a great deal of money is needed for many other services, some of which have been increasing pretty substantially particularly in the recent past due to wage increases—which are very necessary and helpful—and because of moneys required for other very necessary developments which we must keep in mind, I think against the general background of what I have said, our grants are pretty encouraging and attractive. It is a fairly good start to get up to £300 or £310 into one's fist as a down-payment, as it were, on one's own house which will be one's home in the future. That may also be supplemented by a like amount from the local authority.

I do not think anybody could say that this Government—or any Government—have been in any way niggardly in encouraging private initiative in the building sector. We have been doing exceedingly well, having regard to our resources generally. We are going ahead at a good rate at the moment. If the number of new houses taken in isolation, is less than in respect of a given year that might be picked out— as has been done for the sake of argument—we should not judge on that alone. What we should have regard to is that we are doing more jobs on houses today, putting them into proper shape, than have ever been done before. If that is so and if we are spending less money doing it, we are getting a better return for the money spent on housing than ever before, despite the fact that labour and building costs have undoubtedly gone up. We should judge by the number of housing units we provide each year or the provision of which we encourage by our grants. That is what is most worthy of note. Measuring our progress on that basis, we are doing more now than in the past for less money and if we can continue in that way, I think nobody will have reason to complain.

Senator Moloney referred to the question of re-roofing with corrugated iron or asbestos on top of scraws on old roofs from which the thatch might have been removed. The complaint is that while this was allowed in the past, it is not allowed at present. If it happened in the past, it happened without the knowledge of the Department and should not have been allowed at all. We do not encourage it or wish to encourage it. It is not in the best interests of the person doing the job and if we come to know of it, we shall not pay the grant. Anybody who may have friends who have done this had better say nothing about it and should warn those who may be about to do it, not to do it because they will not get the grant.

I was asked by Senator Ó Siochfhradha whether the section dealing with the housing of elderly people would apply to farmers of a type of which we have too many, the farmer who is getting on in years and has a son also getting on in years to whom he will not assign his property—perhaps he is right. They are all living together but the son cannot marry, or his prospective wife refuses to come into the house and the question is whether this section applies in such circumstances to provide, as it were, a sort of dower house of which much could be said. It does not apply in the sense that the son or the father can get money to provide that house on his own land for his own use but it does not exclude the local authority taking the elderly couple from the old home, after they have assigned the property to the son who would continue to reside there with his young wife, and providing them with a house of the nature which is being discussed and getting the grants outlined in the section. That may be done, or some philanthropic body or charitable institution might be interested, although I cannot see such a body being really concerned in such a case. The section can be applied, but it is not directly applicable to the son or the father who does the job himself.

I think it was Senator McDonald who said that the £50 valuation was not comparable with the £832 income level. As I have said, the £832 replaces two figures which existed in the past. One was a £624 income limit in the county boroughs, £520 being the figure which operated in the remainder of the country. Those figures are now being replaced by a single maximum income limit figure of £832.

On the other hand, the £50 valuation limit figure, which is new in the Bill, is an increase on the £35 valuation which has operated up to the present. Taking the two figures together, it may be asked whether the £832 income limit or the £50 valuation is the more valuable. I will not say which. I will just say that the £15 increase on the £35 valuation is more generous than was the increase from £624 to £832 in the income limit. I shall leave it at that and not enter into a controversy as to whether the £50 and the £832 can be equated £ for £. There are very many factors to be taken into account in that argument. I think Senators will agree that increases from £35 to £50 and from £520 and £624 to £832 are not too far out of line with each other. There is nothing unreasonable about the two figures. Both have gone up fairly substantially.

Senator Healy said he feared that the storm damage section would exclude any operation under the storm damage heading in other than rural areas. I am glad to assure Senator Healy that there are no grounds for his fears. The storm damage provision will apply to all areas within and without the urban areas.

Another point which I think has been completely misunderstood, and possibly understandably so, was mentioned by Senator Hayes. He suggested that the emphasis in these new prototype grants was on the provision of cheaper houses and, taking the normal sort of deduction from the phrase "cheaper houses", it means worse houses and less attractive houses.

I did not say that, Sir. The Minister is making the enormous deduction, not Senator Hayes. I did not say that. I said that the Minister had made the argument that the section would provide cheaper houses. That was what I understood—maybe I was wrong.

That is still what I am saying but probably not quite as the Senator said it.

I do not want to misrepresent the Minister.

I may be misquoting the Senator's words, but at least I am not misrepresenting his intention in the statement he made. He decried an emphasis on my part on cheaper houses rather than better planned houses. That is what I gathered. I took a note at the time but I could be wrong.

The Minister could be wrong. We will settle for that.

If that is in the mind of anyone, I should like to disabuse him of the idea. It is not our intention merely to get cheaper houses to the detriment of planning or layout. We are looking for as good as we have and better, if possible, at a cheaper figure than we are now asked to pay. That is all we are hoping to get from this rather extraordinary offer of half the cost of the house to anyone who can get a new house approved, with a new design which is not merely a copy and at a fair price. It must not be conventional. It is an experimental house, if you like, but one which in terms of the future would incorporate good planning and durable construction. Half the total cost of such a house will be paid, provided that the over-all cost ultimately is within economic reason. What we are emphasising in the section is that if the house ultimately proved to be uneconomic, even though it was a most exceptional type of house, well constructed and well planned, if it were repeated throughout the country, we would pay the grant if we were already committed to it, but we would not pay a grant on that type of house in any future operation.

Senator McAuliffe was rather worried about there not being any loans available for a cottage that was already mortgaged. That is not the case. We are making provision in this Bill for loans for cottages where charges already exist on their title, but those loans can be made only through the local authorities. The Senator can be satisfied that we have remedied a situation which has been there as a stumbling block for many years. We have got around certain of the difficulties in connection with Section 21 and Section 36 of the Labourers Act without actually repealing it. We would have repealed it but it carries many other consequences in its train. For that reason, we had to find a way around it, rather than wipe it out. It is quite possible that it may be wiped out in time, but for the moment it serves many other purposes as well as the one we got around in this Bill. We left it over for general consideration in the housing legislation which we hope to bring forward in the near future.

Senator McAuliffe said that in his county the local authority build houses, and I take it they are specifically built for an applicant of the small farming class whose valuation does not exceed £20. He went on to say that they did nothing for people over £20 valuation, regardless of the most exceptional circumstances of those people. The fact is that if they can go to £20 valuation—and they are one of the few counties who go that far— there is nothing to stop them from going further, if there are exceptional circumstances which they feel warrant the building of a house under the specific instance procedure, which is all too little used in all too few counties.

For those who say that they are not in a position to do anything for the small farming group, that is something which was available for many years and of which very little use was made in most counties. Rather than bemoaning the situation, it would be much more fitting if members of local authorities were to try to do what they can to build specific instance houses for a great many of the small farmers who are now so badly housed. It would be far better for all concerned if more were done and less were said in regard to this group. Furthermore, it would be far better for the community as a whole if those thinking about building houses did not wail that there is not enough being done for them. There is far too much talk about what is not being done for people and too little thought and publicity are given to the great amount that is done for so many people.

Senator Hogan rightly said it is not good to breed the idea that everything should and must be done by the local authority or by the Government, if people can do it for themselves. By and large, that applies in many walks of life today. Regardless of what side of the House we may be on now, we are only making trouble for ourselves in the future because we may be on the other side on another occasion. I do not think it is good for the morale of our people that it should be drummed into them that they should make no effort for themselves because the Government or the local authority or some other benevolent agency is there to help them, that they are entitled to be helped and that they need do very little for themselves.

We have been doing a great deal, down through the years, in regard to housing. I admit that there is quite a problem yet to be solved. I disagree with those who say that all that we can do within the law and the resources available to us has been done. That is not so. It is evident that the effort made by certain local authorities is relatively poor in comparison with that made by other local authorities to solve the problem of the small uneconomic holder who is living in bad circumstances. We hope to get a clear picture of that aspect in the near future and, having evaluated the entire situation, we should be able to get our local authorities, through the present scheme or some new scheme, to put more emphasis on the housing of the people who are most needy at the moment, namely, by and large, the small farmers in the isolated parts of the country.

We hope to be able to do something in that way and I am sure we shall have further discussion on that matter in the not too distant future.

Useful suggestions were made advocating some additional incentive to people to lay out the surroundings of their new houses which have been built at very great cost to themselves, to the local authority and to the State. It would be very nice if the Department of Local Government could say to people: "If you lay out your garden nicely, plant so many rose trees and a few nice shrubs we shall give you so much more." I should be delighted to do it if we had nothing more urgent on hands. The idea is very good and sound. It would help to clean up the surroundings of some very fine houses which have recently been built but which were not properly finished or laid out by their owners. Nevertheless, I do not think we can afford to offer that sort of incentive as yet. Let us hope we can live to the point when we can say that the housing job has been completed and that we should now start cleaning up the surroundings.

That ties in with what was said by Senator Hayes on planning generally and landscaping. I am very much at one with him on this matter. It is being very carefully and adequately dealt with under the new Town and Regional Planning Bill about which I am sure we shall have much discussion in this House and in the Dáil. It is an elaborate measure.

I hope we shall not have it in August.

The Minister is not all powerful in these matters. He can only get the ideas. Somebody else has to put them together. Then comes the most difficult of all tasks. The legal people have to draft them so as to give effect in law to what a layman such as myself thought about 12 months ago. That is not easy. If we are late in August with these measures that sequence of events has occurred this year. Let us hope it will not occur next year. That Bill has been circulated. It will be down for discussion when we return. Therefore, we shall have ample time to discuss it. It is in that context that I should prefer to discuss landscaping, planning and general lay-out of housing schemes.

Deputy Desmond mentioned the section on limited repair and said that it should apply to urban areas. There was a very good reason why the limited repair scheme was initiated. There are houses in very poor condition in isolated parts of the country which are occupied by one or two elderly people who have no means of their own. It is obvious that no house will be built nearby by a local authority because the life expectancy of the occupants of the bad house is not long and there is no obvious successor to settle in the house. In that event it would be a completely uneconomic proposition and it would be unfair of my Department to ask the local authority to provide a new house. Therefore, limited necessary repairs are carried out so that the house may be made habitable for two, three or ten years, not expecting the life of that house to be any longer and not spending any more than is absolutely necessary on it. It would be a problem to house those people if they live in a bad house at the moment.

This special facility does not arise in an urban area where in a similar case if the house is replaced or if the occupant is rehoused in a new or a reconstructed house either on the old site or on a new site then, even if there are no successors, the house being in an urban area, will be in demand by many prospective tenants and will not be a loss to the local authority. That is the distinction between the two sets of circumstances.

Another suggestion was that the Department of Local Government, in the exercise of its jurisdiction in regard to grants, should ensure directly or through the local authority providing the loan that the contractor will do the job properly. We could not undertake that the Department of Local Government would become the virtual clerk of works to every prospective private builder in order to protect him from the rampaging building contractor. Our inspector visits the site before building commences to have a look at it. Usually he inspects it for the first payment when the roof is on the house and then he makes a final inspection when the house is reported to us as completed. Those two inspections, particularly at the half way and the finished stage, while they cannot be regarded as a warranty of good value or good workmanship by our inspector, must be of considerable advantage to the owner of the house inasmuch as if things are not right and are obviously not right to the inspector, they must be put right.

The unfortunate feature is that things can be radically wrong within the walls or under the floors of the house, or in some part of the roof and are not detected during the inspections, good though the inspector might be. These faults may only emerge through wear or with the passing of time. We cannot possibly give any guarantee that our inspections, though we would wish them to do so, would guarantee good workmanship in all aspects. The local authorities, in the exercise of their jurisdiction in regard to the payment of loans and supplementary grants could inspect and could again inspect subsequent to our final inspection and before paying the final part of the loan. That is entirely within their discretion and could with benefit be undertaken.

I suppose I have missed a number of points raised by Senators. Some may have been raised in fun and others in earnest. Those who raised them in fun will not mind if I have not answered them and those who raised them in earnest will probably raise them again.

What an idea. It will be next week at that rate.

Of course I would love to be here next week but I shall say no more in case we might be.

One point which I raised was the possibility of sanctioning the erection of labourers' cottages on small farms even though the cottages were some 100 yards perhaps from the county road. In the past that was sanctioned but recently plots have been acquired and people were led to believe houses would be built and then they were told they were not eligible for the small dwellings loan.

I had a note of that and I forgot to mention it. In so far as this specific instance procedure is concerned, with regard to building on the roadside, it is only to be used with reasonable discretion. One cannot build in the middle of a bog if there is a road running at the end of one's farm. If there are cases, and I have reason to believe there are, which I have not been aware of, then if any member who is aware of them would let me know I should be glad because I feel we should not be too stringent in the matter especially in cases where it means the difference between building and not building.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next Stage?

Now, if there is no objection.

Are we bound to take the Committee Stage now? What is the position if any member wishes to put down an amendment, despite the fact that the Minister has given us a very full and a very useful reply? A point that I raised was in regard to the repayment of a loan. I asked if the Minister could extend the period from 35 years to 50 years.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I do not wish to interrupt the Senator, but is he agreeing to the Committee Stage being taken now?

Perhaps if the Minister answers that question——

If I may reply to that point, an amendment of this legislation is not necessary for extending the loan repayment period. That may be done administratively between the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance. That is not to say that we propose to do it but it can be done.

Question put and agreed to.

In regard to taking the Committee Stage, I understand that time is allowed in the event of any Senator or any group of Senators wishing to examine a measure from the point of view of submitting amendments, if necessary. I understand that is the procedure in the Dáil. We are not an overworked body. The reverse is the opinion generally. While I should like to facilitate everybody, we have to be reasonable and act in a proper manner. At the moment we are inclined to rush measures through which perhaps do not need to be rushed. I do not know of any measures which are so important that they could be regarded as emergency measures. If they were, everybody would realise that was so.

There is no more important measure than the one we have been discussing, dealing with housing and the health of the people. That has been evident from the discussion. I should like the Seanad to agree to fix a date for taking the Committee Stage rather than to take it just now. It would be better for the Seanad and we would be less likely to be regarded as a rubber stamp. Is it the reason that the Dáil has adjourned and that we should adjourn right away? When the Dáil was working hard, we were able to relax. I exclude the Minister from that statement because he was working hard all the time.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Do I understand that the Senator is objecting to the Committee Stage being taken now? Does the House agree to take the Committee Stage now?

I have conveyed my view on it. My view is that it should not be taken now.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Desmond will be recorded as dissenting.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Because of this race through the sections, I found it hard to keep up. I wish to raise a point in connection with Section 6, which deals with grants towards the provision of houses for elderly people. Is there any provision which states that in the case of large buildings converted into flats, the flats should include one large room, a bed room, a toilet and cooking facilities? I know of cases where large residences were converted into flats with a small number of apartments in each flat. There should be a clause to the effect that there would be so many apartments of a certain kind.

No, there is no definition of the word "dwelling" in this section and neither is there any definition of the word "elderly". Both those omissions are by design. It is felt that the proposals which may come from bodies throughout the country will indicate much more clearly what we need and that this is preferable to trying to define statutorily something which may later prove to be an obstacle to the attainment of the ends for which the section is designed.

We have not defined the word "elderly" because again these cases will have to be treated on their merits. We believe it is better to leave it in this loose way, to be determined when the need arises, rather than have a fixed age. It is likely that the fixing of the age by the definition of the word "elderly" would defeat the purposes of the section. These two words, therefore, are not defined because we feel that by defining them we might defeat projects brought forward later by any philanthropic body or any local authority. It is not because we want to allow anybody to get away with a poor standard or to exploit elderly persons. In fact, the very reverse is the case. We feel that the best interests of elderly persons will be served by leaving these things undefined and leaving it to the discretion of the Minister and his Department to deal with these cases as they arise.

Question put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.5 p.m.sine die.
Top
Share