When I was speaking yesterday there were a few items which I was not able to reach, and in dealing with them now I will be as brief as possible. There is mention in this Bill of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act and some speakers drew attention to it. It is important to do so, especially as there is provision in this measure whereby a person borrowing under the Small Dwellings Act will have advantages additional to those available under the previous measure. As that is the case I should like to draw attention to what are, to my mind, abuses under that Act. In order to be able to borrow under that Act a person is supposed to be unable to build his own house without borrowing. I may be wrong but from my reading of the Act it seems that people who are solvent financially and well able to put up the necessary money, be it from their own bank balance or by any other means, are able to borrow under the Act. I believe that these people are not entitled to the advantages offered by it.
I have noticed on many occasions in County Cork persons, by manager's order, getting various amounts of money on loan from the county council —anything from £700 to £900 or £1,000, and maybe £1,200 and £1,300. There was one specific instance, to which I drew attention at a meeting of the Cork County Council, of a person—not a national of this country—who came to reside here. Because he was able to get two people living in the locality to act as guarantors he was able to get from the county council the advantages offered by this Act in the shape of a large sum of money. At the same time other people have been denied these advantages. The Minister may say, as any Minister for Local Government might say, that it is a matter of final arrangement by the local authority, but it is because it is mentioned in the Bill that I want to draw the Minister's attention to abuses and disadvantages which are so noticeable in connection with it. I want to give full credit to the authorities in some of the counties who are wise enough, sensible enough and businesslike enough in their approach to make such arrangements as to enable ordinary decent Irish people who are anxious to build their homes, but who are not in a position to put their hands in their pockets or draw on their bank balance, to do so.
In some counties, when an applicant lodges the title deeds of his house and plot of land on which he is building, and, I presume, provides an insurance policy indemnifying the local authority in case of fire, he will get, provided the local authority is satisfied that he is a safe person, an amount of money by way of loan under the Small Dwellings Act. Unfortunately in other counties, and particularly in County Cork, as well as giving the full title deeds, an applicant must also get two solvent sureties, two guarantors, to guarantee him for 35 years. I believe that is fantastic, because, no matter who the applicant may be, even if he is in a fairly safe job with good wages, it is scarcely possible to expect two neighbours, no matter how they may trust him, to guarantee him for 35 long years.
The result is, as I have already stated in Cork, that there are people now living as tenants of local authority houses who never wished to go into these houses. They wanted to build their own homes, but they were not facilitated by the local authority under this Act. As I say, in some counties people can get loans on handing in their title deeds. The local authority has a full mortgage on the house then and it is important to remember that, as they only give roughly 80 per cent. of the balance after the grant has been deducted, it means that the county council cannot possibly be at a loss. If anything could be done in this particular respect to help the person who is not financially able to go on with the building of his own house—it means that the local authority will not then have to house him in a house for which in many instances the tenant does not pay an economic rent because the rents are subsidised to a certain degree—it will have the effect, at least in County Cork—it may be difficult and some local authorities may say that it is a ministerial usurpation of their powers—of enabling many people, such as tradesmen and artisans, who at present have to be housed by the local authority, to go ahead with the building of their houses, without having to beg their well-to-do neighbours to act as guarantors for them and will eventually be a great help to the local authority and to the applicant.
Section 5 repeals Section 7 of the 1950 Act. There is a complication again in Section 7 of the 1950 Act and while normally it may seem that Section 5 of this Act before us in repealing that Section 7 will remedy things, my difficulty is that already so much confusion has been caused—and I am sure the Minister's Department is aware of the difficulties of prospective successful applicants for the double grant, that is, the extra grant from county councils— that the whole thing has been held in a certain degree of suspense for these people.
It seems—at any rate, in County Cork again—that many of the people who had built their homes within even the last 12 months or a year and a half were getting the grant not as individuals, but as paid-up members of a public utility society and the Government grants went through the utility society to them. Then, from a legal aspect, we have been informed—as such persons expecting the advantages of getting a local grant as well as the Government grant were informed also— that members of a public utility society should not get the benefit of the second grant. I am sorry to say that while the Cork County Council did, in principle, provide a certain sum of money, roughly £60,000, for paying a number of applicants, when they came up against this difficulty the whole thing was held up. What I would like the Minister to say is whether it is possible for us to get out of that difficulty, whether in view of the fact that these people were—indirectly, perhaps—informed that they could avail of the additional grant from the county council within the last 12 months or so—I am speaking of new houses and the improved grants here applied to reconstruction—in the case of newly-built houses, some provision may be made whereby we can straighten out this legal difficulty. If we cannot do that, it seems that a larger number of people will not be able to avail of the second grant. That, in itself, will be a grave disappointment to many people who have already completed their homes, and it will even in the future be a deterrent to people to build even through the system of the public utility society.
The irony of it is that, as every Deputy here who is a member of a local authority knows, when there is a legal quibble or when a legal question crops up at any council meeting, everyone is going to suffer by it. In our county, as well as those who have been told they are not eligible, there is a large number who get their grants as individuals and not as members of a utility society, but just because the legal question has arisen everybody has suffered by it. Therefore, I should like if the Minister could help us in this matter by saying if there is any way whereby we could get over this difficulty. Financially, it will not make any difference in the amounts, but it will make an awful difference to the recipients, the people who had hoped they would get this double grant and who have been denied it and who, perhaps, in the future, as well as in the past, will be denied it. It is no use for us here in discussing impending legislation to hope for the very best, while at the same time we may see difficulties or some problem which will mean that, in spite of all our efforts to help in the case of improving legislation, there is a hindrance to the people concerned.
There is also an item to which I would like to draw attention in Section 32 (1) (c). It mentions there— which in itself is excellent—the right of local authorities to sell or to lease land. I mentioned this from one angle last night, showing the advantages of that, and certainly they can be many. There is, however, one point I would like to have clarified. They can lease or sell to utility societies or to private individuals. That in itself may be an advantage to county councils, as naturally such people will not sell at any price which means a loss to themselves. Could there be a danger there, however? In the case of a private individual buying land from a county council, according to my reading of this there seems to be no provision whereby the county council will have any say whatsoever regarding the rents that he as a private individual may charge tenants afterwards. It may be difficult to get over that.
I said last night at the very outset that in the remarks I would offer to this measure I was simply asking for information or trying to help in any possible way. I consider, as a member of a local authority, that the obligation is on the local authority in this respect. If the Cork County Council were to facilitate in the future any group of individuals or any single individuals, the onus would be on us to see that since that person or group was getting certain advantages through the efforts of the local authority, that person should be in such a position that he could not play on the market just as it suited him, according to the supply and demand for houses. That is why I should consider it important to have some protection. We all realise that in the case of building and letting houses a person is entitled to a fair return. That is natural. However, if the local authority is to facilitate such a group or such an individual, the local authority should be in a position to see that the person getting these advantages is not going to charge rents which will be prohibitive. Some of the rents already being charged in the Cork suburbs are definitely prohibitive. It is no use for us to offer advantages to people who are just simply out to enrich themselves at the expense of the individual in the State and also at the expense of the local authority.
Another point I should mention is the question of loan charges. Again, it is only a matter of my inquiring for information. This Bill states that the charges will be governed by Local Loans Fund limit. As far as I can see, there may be a difficulty there again. For instance, when a local authority is offering money or is advancing loans to prospective tenants or builders, their difficulty is that if they raise the money through their own banks that bank, or group of banks as the case may be, will probably be charging a higher rate of interest than the Local Loans Fund. It means then that, while it is not the fault of the county manager or of the members, that local authority is not being recouped to the degree it should be recouped. The answer the Minister may give may be a genuine one. I am simply drawing his attention to it in order to find out what exactly might be done in regard to it. Could there be some compromise in the case of a local authority having to secure their money through the banks, such banks charging a higher rate of interest than allowed by the Local Loans Fund? I would like to know where we stand in regard to that.
I now want to draw attention to something about which the Minister and I have differed for a long time. Everyone is entitled to his view. The Minister, as any Minister of State must, depends on the information given to him. Members of this House or of local authorities have their responsibilities to the people that they represent and, when we are given information which has been verified time and again, there is an obligation on us to draw the attention of the responsible authorities. I refer to the question of the delay in sanctioning grants, reconstruction or otherwise.
This Bill has advantages. The 1950 Bill had certain advantages. The difficulty, of course, is that a local authority cannot pay up until the person reconstructing or building is in a position to secure the Government grant. I have had reports which I have checked in the local authority offices in Cork and I repeat what I have stated on other occasions in the Dáil that there are extraordinary delays in dealing with claims.
I am not blaming local officials. I am not blaming the inspector. As I have said in this House, I know their difficulties. The amount of work involved in such a large county as Cork is so great that it is impossible under the present system for an inspector to carry out his duties as we should like them to be carried out. The Minister informed me some time ago that where there is a large amount of work to be carried out additional help is given. That may be so. The difficulty is that the persons who are awaiting grants have not gained one iota. I have had complaints that these people are being pressed by builders' providers and contractors for the money, and that they cannot pay because they are themselves held up.
If there could be more co-operation between the local authority engineers and the local inspector of the Department, it might help somewhat but, if the people are to obtain the advantages of this Bill, it is imperative that there should be as little delay as possible in giving this money. People who are anxious to obtain the benefits of the Bill discover that in the case of their neighbours there was a very long delay, and that militates against the work that could be carried out under the Bill.
I repeat what I said at the beginning that any criticisms I have to offer of this Bill are offered sincerely. I have tried to be constructive in my criticism. I wish the Minister and the staff concerned with this Bill the best of luck in bringing before the House a measure that will help to relieve those who are anxious to carry out reconstruction or to build houses. No matter what Minister or what Government brings in a Bill of such an important nature as this is, they are entitled to the greatest possible co-operation. If we could get the information which we should like to have on the points that I have raised we would know whether it is possible to have any of these matters cleared up by the Minister. If we are wrong in our approach, and if we are assured by the Minister when he is replying that our approach is not correct, I can assure the Minister that we will accept the Minister's word, and will continue to give a full measure of sincere co-operation.