Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 19 Jun 1952

Vol. 132 No. 11

Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1952—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Desmond

In discussing this Bill on the Second Stage many of us expressed the hope that it would be an advance on the existing legislation dealing with housing. Having raised various points and having seen that the Minister was prepared to introduce some amendments himself, we hoped that, while it could not possibly be expected that it would be an ideal Bill, it would at any rate be a progressive step in housing legislation. In view of the opinions expressed by the Minister on this particular section last night, it now strikes me that this Bill is not going to give us any of the advantages which we had hoped for.

In discussing this section, the Minister laid stress on the necessity for at least a certain amount of conservatism. I believe that as it stands this section is completely conservative and nothing more, and I further believe that it is a direction to local authorities to be conservative on the urgent problem of housing.

Doubt still exists about sub-section (2), the question of every member of a family. The Minister tried to convey that local authorities when considering the application of a single man may not consider the other members of the family with regard to wages or salary. On the other hand, when a single man applies for a vacant cottage or house, down the country at any rate, the county medical officer and housing superintendent are obliged to check on whether other members of the family are living with him. He cannot be considered suitable unless his father, mother, or other members of the family are living with him. If that is the case, surely the Minister cannot tell us that in investigating the financial position of a single man who applies for a reconstruction grant, the local authority officials must adopt a different system. If an applicant who is a single man has two or three brothers or sisters living with him, and they are earning, that fact will be considered in assessing the earnings coming to the family during the 12 months.

It is no use, perhaps, again to condemn the means test introduced in the section. Unfortunately the House has decided on it. Unfortunately the House has decided by a majority vote to take what is, in my opinion at any rate, a retrograde step. One advantage which we saw in the Bill when it was introduced was the increase in the reconstruction grant. We hoped that that would benefit rural Ireland, but what advantage will it be to an applicant for a reconstruction grant if a means test is to be adopted? What is the use of our saying that we will give more money when we are bringing into the Bill something which may prevent an applicant from getting not alone an increased grant but perhaps any grant at all?

We decided on that last night and I had thought that the Minister might have considered the views of the members of the Government Party who, from their own local knowledge, could see the difficulties but no, it is a question of take it or leave it. If that is the Minister's policy it will simply mean that people in the country will not get the advantages we had hoped for and we must face that fact. We must face the fact that the housing code is not what we should like it to be. We did not ask for any revolutionary changes in this Bill; we asked for advances which we thought would at least be helpful. When the Minister for Local Government himself tells us that local authorities should be conservative regarding housing what can we expect from them but conservatism? Surely the incentive should come from the Government and from the Minister. Surely they should encourage local authorities completely to abandon the old-fashioned idea of conservatism. Surely one of the outstanding complaints in this country was that in past years conservatism played too great a part in local affairs. The Minister's approach to this section will ultimately mean that local authorities will not advance one step regarding housing.

In his defence of that attitude he said that local authorities had not availed sufficiently of Section 7 of the 1950 Act. If that is so, should the Minister not try to encourage them and tell them that they were remiss in their duties as public representatives in not taking advantage of such an important measure? We realise the limitations of the 1950 Act but now we are faced with greater limitations and restrictions in this Bill. Surely we should advance, not go back in our housing policy. This section completely takes the good out of the Bill no matter what the Minister may say. It makes local authorities realise that they have the full support of the Minister in adopting a conservative policy on housing. I regret that we must now oppose a Bill which otherwise we would have had great pleasure in supporting, limited though it might be in its scope.

Last night, the Minister drifted into other sections and mentioned the advantages to be given to applicants for county council cottages. Of course, these grants have been given before whether the Minister wants to admit that or not. On no occasion am I prepared to drift from the matter under discussion to another matter to suit myself. We can discuss the other matter when we come to it. When, instead of encouraging local authorities to respond to the invitation offered in the 1950 Act, he has directed them to be conservative, he has come down to their level, to the level of those local authorities which refused to cooperate. It is a poor prospect for local authorities if their members do not realise that they are obliged as local representatives to advance even in a revolutionary manner with regard to housing the people.

Deputy Lehane mentioned that it would be more advantageous to have one central grant. I do not propose to go into that now, further than to say that, while we would be very much in favour of a higher State grant, we realise that there is no use in local authorities trying to throw the burden completely on to the central authority, because, if the central authority were prepared to double the present grant, it would mean that the local authority would ultimately get more in the way of rates, would have its position eased in respect of the housing of the people and, at the same time, not be facing up to local responsibilities. That is why I believe it is imperative that local authorities should prepare the way for housing and should be ready to accept their responsibilities in the matter.

There are many who can never hope to get the benefits of this section. Those of us who are members of local authorities realise that only a small proportion of the people will be able to avail of the full grant and only a small number will be able to avail of even the second or third grade grants on the basis of incomes under £312 and £365 and also incomes under £416. We know that we will still have to continue to provide houses for people who always have been anxious to build for themselves, if they can get the necessary facilities. There is no use in arguing, no matter what Government may be in power, that everything must come from the Central Fund, that the central authority must do everything for local authorities, and I believe that the attitude adopted by the Minister is one which is relieving local authorities of their responsibilities and encouraging them not to provide for people who are anxious to build their own homes instead of being tenants of local authority houses. Deputy MacCarthy, Deputy McGrath and many other Deputies know that there are many such people. What are they to do? This Bill will not give them the protection they desire.

Deputy Cowan last night mentioned the Local Loans Fund and the securing of advantages under the Small Dwellings Act, but we are faced with the position that, unless these applicants get two sureties, they will not get such a loan. What are they to do? They will have to continue to apply for local authority houses, and local authorities for years to come will be compelled to provide in their rates for such housing because these houses cannot be let at an economic rent. Members of local authorities and managers know well that most successful applicants for tenancies of these houses are not in a position to pay the economic rent by reason of low wages and the general cost of living. That being so, a continuing burden is placed on the rates to make up the deficiency between the rent paid and the economic rent. I believe it would be more advantageous and much better policy if, instead of adopting a policy of limited conservatism, the Minister spoke out more boldly and freely to local authorities which have not co-operated in the past, and put it to them that it would ultimately be to their advantage and to the advantage of the people living within their administrative area to embark on a revolutionary policy in the matter of housing.

In addition to the lower income groups, we have the problem of the middle income group, the white-collar worker. Surely we have a responsibility to these people as well. We cannot expect the ordinary white-collar worker to be able to build his own house without financial help, and if he cannot avail of the Small Dwellings Act, where does he stand? Is it going to be suggested that if such a worker, rearing a young family, gets a full grant of £275, he will be able to carry all the burdens involved in providing that house for himself? Under existing laws, these people will be entitled to apply for the tenancy of what we call down the country non-municipal houses, village or town houses, if they are living in condemned houses. But we want to give these people that truer sense of individual independence which they are entitled to, and if they are anxious to build their own homes, surely our policy should be to help them to the very utmost to do so. What will the local authority lose by it? Will they not get the rates every year from that person, and will the advantages accruing to the local authority not completely outweigh any advance the local authority may give by way of grant? Yet these people are to be denied these advantages, and a person hoping for a reconstruction grant will now have to undergo the narrow and restricted means test embodied in the Bill.

It is hard enough for us to have to listen to some members of local authorities who are ready to put before us such a policy as is here in Section 10, and hard enough for us to combat such a narrow, restricted view as may be put forward by these people, but when persons with incomes over the figures set out here, persons a little better off than those specifically provided for in the section, are to be denied these rights which we were told were being offered to them under the Bill, then I believe this section damns the Bill. It prevents people who for the past month or so had hoped for advantages from the Bill which were not available in the past from securing these advantages.

It is essential for us to be honest in our outlook with regard to such measures as this and I believe that it is important that we should be prepared to take the matter of housing completely out of the realm of Party politics. In so doing we still have an obligation to the people we represent. If we are not prepared to condemn a measure which we believe is restrictive we are failing in our duty to these people. Unfortunately at this stage I am forced to speak in such a manner against this section because I believe that people down the country who had hoped they would get advantages from this measure will be disappointed, because I do not believe what has been published in the newspapers about the advantages given under this Bill, and because a large number of would-be applicants who thought they would get benefits under this particular section will find that they were under a misapprehension.

Mr. MacCarthy

Having already expressed my views on the limitation set out in the first sub-section, of which the section is explanatory to an inadequate degree, I will not reiterate my views on these questions. However, I feel that conservatism in housing has been responsible for the fact that such slow progress has been made by some local authorities and by one in particular. I am referring to Cork Corporation, of which I am a member. Their conservatism now gets a new name; it is called prudence. It all boils down to this: "You are curing one problem. You are creating another problem. Let us hold on for a while and prices will come down. You will be creating a labour problem." The result is that nothing is done; prices have gone up; the obligations of the local authority have mounted year by year; the people are left without houses; two problems are left unsolved, the health problem of the nation, due to improper housing and the expansion in the rateable value of local authority housing, which expansion must be further provided for. I feel that the worst word the Minister could use is the word "conservatism" when the health of the people and the provision of houses for them are under consideration.

Deputy Desmond, perhaps inadvertently, went outside the section because it is specifically stated in sub-section (2):—

"if his family incomes exceeds £208, but does not exceed £312, 62? per cent. of the relevant grant."

That can only apply to this section and not to the other provisions of the Bill.

I say to the Minister that anything that tends to delay housing or any expressions of his used in this House which may be used by managers down the country to hold back the activities of the local authorities is a bad day's work for that particular branch of our activities.

Mr. Cogan

I can understand the views expressed by Deputy MacCarthy, but it is very difficult to follow the stand taken by Deputy Desmond. One would imagine that the Deputy, being a member of the Labour Party, would be particularly concerned about ensuring that people in the lower income groups would secure the maximum assistance towards providing them with housing accommodation. The whole purpose of this particular section is to ensure that the assistance given by the local authorities is confined to those in the lower income groups. We all know that the finances and resources of local authorities are not very extensive, that if there were no means test provided in this section the funds at their disposal to subsidise housing would be eaten up entirely by the wealthier section of the community and that the people in the lower income groups would be left unassisted. That is exactly what Deputy Desmond is advocating.

Mr. Desmond

That is nonsense. Do not misquote a person.

Mr. Cogan

I am not misquoting the Deputy.

Mr. Desmond

What person with an income under £208 per annum can build his own house? We are only asking for a ceiling of £600.

Mr. Cogan

You are asking to have the ceiling raised. The ceiling in the Bill is under £8 per week. As the Minister has said, he is approaching this matter in a conservative way by trying to confine this assistance to those with an income of under £8 per week. Having dealt with that deserving section of the community under this Bill and having satisfied their needs, it may be possible, at a later stage, to raise the ceiling a little higher. At the moment, the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that those in the income group under £8 per week will get the benefit offered in the Bill.

Mr. Desmond

No. They are only getting part of the benefit—33? per cent. of it.

Mr. Cogan

They are getting a subsidy at any rate.

Mr. Smith

When my amendment has been disposed of, they will get 50 per cent.

Mr. Cogan

I feel that the Minister was not wise in using the word "conservative". In this country that word has an unpleasant meaning. We associate it, perhaps, with the Conservative Party in Great Britain. However, in this particular section, what the Minister is trying to do is to conserve the funds that are being provided by the local authorities for the lower income groups. He is seeking to provide that such funds will not be swallowed up by people in the higher income groups. I do not think that this policy will be described as conservative. If you like, it is a policy designed to ensure that the people who can least afford to build their own houses will be assisted in so doing. In my view, the first task of the local authorities should be, as it was in the past, to provide housing accommodation for those who are unable to provide it for themselves. It should not be the function of the local authorities to subsidise wealthy business people, High Court judges and the like in the building of their houses. The main function of the local authorities should be to help the people in the lower income groups in this way. If, as a result of experience, we find that the limit is not high enough after having dealt with those people, then, perhaps, at a later stage, it may be possible to raise it to a certain extent. Our first concern, however, is for the poorer sections of the community as far as housing accommodation goes.

Deputy Desmond was quite wrong when he said there was a possibility that this section might exclude people in the lower income groups from getting a reconstruction grant. Of course, there is no restriction whatever in this Bill on people applying for and obtaining a reconstruction grant. The provisions under that particular scheme are as heretofore, except that the amount of the grant has now been raised. Therefore, I feel that we should accept this section and give it a chance to operate. I think nothing was more undesirable than the position which obtained in the past year in which some local authorities set out to give 100 per cent. grants to all and sundry irrespective of means but only allocated a limited sum for the purpose of making those grants. The net result of that would be that a limited number of wealthy people would swipe the entire sum set aside and the poorer sections of the community would be left unprovided for.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister tell us the names of the housing authorities which submitted schemes to him for sanction and the top limit of means in each such scheme?

Mr. Smith

I think the top limit would be £600. It would be from £600 down to £325.

Captain Cowan

I would like to say on this section that I have been somewhat surprised by the criticism of it. When this Bill was discussed on Second Reading, Deputy Keyes, the former Minister for Local Government, speaking for the Labour Party, welcomed it and paid a very generous tribute to the Minister for introducing it.

Everyone agrees that this State is making a very fine contribution towards the building of houses right through the country. Anyone who travels through the country will be surprised by the tremendous progress that has been made in housing in the last 20 years. Persons who went abroad 25 years ago and who returned have been amazed at the change in the country. Buildings have been erected in every county and in every area that are a credit to the people residing in them, and a credit to the country. We have reached the position in regard to housing in rural areas that very little extra push will complete the whole housing programme.

As I said last night when dealing with the amendment, we in Dublin are faced with this same problem that has been mentioned. Under the provisions of the law as it stands, and under the provisions that this Bill intends to continue, a maximum housing grant of £275 is being made available absolutely free by the State to any person who builds his own house. I think everyone will agree that that is a generous and a very desirable provision in regard to housing.

Under the provisions of the 1950 Act we, in Dublin, could have provided an additional £275 for every person who built a house in Dublin for himself. Having considered the matter, Dublin Corporation came to the conclusion that it would be undesirable to make such a provision in Dublin. Apart entirely from the cost involved, which would be very substantial, and apart entirely from the burden that would be placed on the ratepayers by so doing, which would be very substantial, we had to face the position that every person in Dublin who is anxious to build his own house realises now that it is necessary to have a deposit of approximately £200 or £250 to enable him to build the house himself. Everybody realises that. We felt that if we were to add £275 from the corporation to the Government grant of £275, making a total free grant of £550 in respect of housing, that extra £275, would go right into the pockets of the builders and that the financial provisions, in so far as they affected the individual buying the house, would be exactly as they are at the moment— that he would still be expected to provide a deposit of approximately £200 himself and that the other figures would be worked out in such a way that he might have some reduction in the amount of the loan he would borrow under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. The fact is that he would still have to pay his £200 deposit and the bulk of the additional money that would be provided by the Dublin ratepayers would go into the pockets of the builders.

For that reason, the Dublin Corporation decided not to avail of the provision in the 1950 Act that would entitle them, if they so desired, to give an additional grant of £275 in respect of each house. That provision operated all over the country. Deputy Cogan has very clearly stated—I am sure Deputy Desmond would agree with him —that local authorities throughout the country provided a sum of money for the purposes of these additional grants, and the bigger the additional grant was the less people benefited from the provision they made.

That was not desirable. The situation, as everybody knows, was not desirable. The provision that was made by this House was not operating satisfactorily. Of course, it is the easiest thing in the world for us in the Dáil to say that local authorities may grant £500 if they wish. There is no trouble at all in that. We could do that in a minute, but I think we have got to face up to realities, and the reality is that the central authority itself is giving a maximum grant, in proper cases, of £275. Nobody can say that is ungenerous or mean.

Instead of simply saying that local authorities may grant an additional £275 or £ for £ with the central Government grant, this Bill tries to put the position in such a way that there will be a headline for local authorities which says where the family income does not exceed £4 per week and a man has the courage, in those circumstances, to build his own house, you may, if you wish, give that man a grant equal to the amount of the central Government grant.

I think every Deputy must realise that that is a desirable thing, and the Bill provides that different amounts may be granted to persons whose income does not exceed £8 a week. What Deputy Desmond wants is this. He wants to wipe out the headline that is set out in the Bill and simply to say that, if the central authority grants £275, the local authority may grant an additional £275 to any person whose family income does not exceed £12 a week.

Housing, as I have already said, has made substantial progress. This Bill, if it is operated by local authorities in the way it is intended by the Minister that it should be operated, will encourage people in the lowest income groups to build their houses by guaranteeing them a grant from the Central Funds, and by guaranteeing them a sliding scale grant, depending on their income, from the local authority if the local authority will make the provision. I do think that our people and local authorities are what one may term house conscious. I do not understand the situation that has been mentioned in Cork by Deputy Desmond. As I understand it, in other parts of the country, local authorities are anxious in every way to encourage the building of houses, and this section sets the headline.

Mr. Sweetman

With all respect, it does not. It sets restrictions. If it set a headline and gave the local authority power to go over the headline, it would be a very different matter.

Captain Cowan

I look at it in this way, that it does set a headline for local authorities. I believe that local authorities will adopt the provisions in the Bill, and that there will be uniformity of practice because of the headline in the Bill.

We discussed housing in 1950, just two years ago, when we brought in a Bill. We find it necessary, two years afterwards, to amend and extend that Bill, and to bring substantial amendments to it. If a genuine effort is made by the local authorities who operate this Bill in a satisfactory manner it may be that pressure from local authorities may convince the Minister and convince the Dáil that there should be certain alterations or improvements in the position in the future. I think that where a genuine effort is being made to deal with the problem and to encourage local authorities all over the country to operate this additional provision to encourage the building of houses we ought to give it a trial. If we do that, I am sure we will have satisfactory results.

I think that if the central authority were to give £275, as they are doing, or the maximum grant to persons entitled to it, and if the local authorities, in a reckless sort of way, were to give £275 also, or the maximum grant or whatever it should be, that would not be the best way to deal with the housing problem. I believe that, if you are going to create the correct spirit of ownership, the person who owns the house, as he will under the provisions of this Bill, should put something into it, however small. If he does not put anything into it, he will not have the same spirit of ownership at all. I think that, in the matter of housing, it is the duty of the Government and of the local authority to encourage as many people as possible, by the generous provisions that are in this Bill, to become the owners of their houses, but I think it would be entirely wrong if so much financial provision was to be made that instead of persons desiring themselves to become owners one would find some group of builders advising people to become owners not so much for the benefit of the individual himself as for the special benefit of the group of builders or of the individual builder concerned.

I would ask the House to look on this Bill as a genuine effort to help in the building of houses all over the country. I think if it is looked on in that light, it will be seen to be a beneficial Bill. It will be seen to be a Bill that does not deserve the criticism or condemnation that it has received here from Deputy Desmond, who should really be concerned with the lower income groups whom the Bill seeks to assist.

Mr. Sweetman

I had not intended to say anything on this section this morning, having said what I wanted to say last night, but for Deputy Cowan's speech. It seems to me that the Deputy is building on an entirely false and incorrect premise. He first of all tells us—I am not going to argue with him on it because I am prepared to accept it that the point of view he puts forward as a member of the Dublin Corporation is their view—that the Finance Committee of the Dublin Corporation came to the conclusion that no person could build a house without having to deposit £200. In the next breath he talked about this section being beneficial, despite the fact that in certain cases the 100 per cent. grants are limited to people with £4 a week. How are people with £4 a week going to be able to put down a deposit of £200? What it means is this, that, on the figures which the Deputy gave, this section, so far as the 100 per cent. grants are concerned, is not going to be of the slightest use to the Dublin Corporation whose line, I am sure, will be to say that it is not worth bringing in a scheme at all under the section. That is if the figures given by Deputy Cowan are correct.

Mr. Smith

It is not desirable that they would bring in a scheme.

Mr. Sweetman

If that is the view, and, mind, there is a lot to be said for that view, it would be a damn sight more honest to say so in the Bill, and a damn sight more honest for it to be said by those people who are advocating this section as something that is an improvement for Dublin City.

Mr. Smith

I never said so.

Mr. Sweetman

I absolve the Minister from having said that, but that is the only way in which one can interpret the speech that has just been made.

Captain Cowan

That is what was decided on under the old Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

It is quite obvious that under this Bill the same thing is going to operate.

Captain Cowan

I was speaking of the rural areas.

Mr. Sweetman

If you agree that this section is not going to be operated in Dublin City, then we can pass on to the rest of the country.

Mr. Smith

The slum clearance provision is designed to help places like Dublin City.

Mr. Sweetman

Then we can go on to discuss Section 10 in relation to the rest of the country. The case has just been made that the section sets a headline. It may set a headline for those counties that have not already adopted a scheme, and are not prepared to carry through and complete on the same lines the scheme they have already in operation, but it does not set a headline for those countries where there is a scheme in operation that is better than this section, and in respect of those counties where the housing authorities are prepared to carry on a scheme that is better than this section, with the wisdom or perhaps with the lack of wisdom—I am not going to argue that—that the local housing authorities may have. This section does not provide a headline. It provides a footline, if you like to use the word.

Mr. Smith

A sound line.

Mr. Sweetman

If the Minister is going to argue that those councils were wrong who brought in a scheme that had better provisions than are contained in this section, then he is welcome to that argument.

Mr. Smith

But they say now themselves they were.

Mr. Sweetman

We certainly do not.

Mr. Smith

Most of them do. Limerick, for instance.

Mr. Sweetman

We certainly do not say we were wrong and the Minister must remember that when he is making a case for this section he must make a consistent case. At one moment he makes the case that he wants to bring this section in because it is the most he can expect the general run of housing authorities to put into operation and because he is not prepared to ask the general run of housing authorities to do more. At the next minute he makes the case that he is introducing this section because those housing authorities who formulated more generous schemes are now anxious to retract and retrace their steps. Speaking for Kildare, I can say quite categorically that the Minister is wrong in that respect.

Captain Cowan

Would the Deputy say how many grants were authorised in Kildare?

Mr. Sweetman

£20,000 was put up and when it came before the county council again in the last week in March that that amount was not quite enough, that there was a matter of £4,000 more required, we agreed to give that £4,000 more required and further moneys as soon as we got the power under this Bill. At that time the Bill had not been circulated and we knew our power was expiring on the 31st March.

Captain Cowan

That would mean about 100 houses.

Mr. Sweetman

It meant an average of approximately £200 a house.

Mr. Smith

Would the Deputy say what class of person obtained the first £20,000 in Kildare?

Mr. Sweetman

About 50 per cent. of the type of person for whom the housing authority were bound to provide and about 50 per cent. of the type of person for whom the housing authority were not bound to provide. On the original applications the estimate that we were given by our officials was that following the Minister's circular the Local Loans Fund grants would be for half the £20,000. About £10,000 would be granted from the Local Loans Fund and about another £10,000——

Mr. Smith

My information is somewhat different. The amount we provided was £3,895 from the Local Loans Fund, and the amount to be provided by the council's treasurer was £21,376.

Mr. Sweetman

The original information given to us by the housing officer at the initial meeting of the county council was that he expected the figures to be approximately half and half. Apart from that, even supposing the position was as stated, if the Minister's own case was right, it is further evidence that so far as Kildare is concerned this section is not going to be the slightest use to us. It is further evidence, if the Minister's case is right, that under this section there will be no applications worth while at all for a scheme that restricts our county in the manner in which it is restricted here. I make no secret of the fact, and I made no secret of the fact last night, that when the income limit in the Kildare scheme came before the council the proposal I put to the council was a lower income limit than the one that the council ultimately adopted but it was very much higher than this. So far as this limit is concerned, the position is perfectly clear that in regard to our county the effect of this section will be that we might just as well not have any scheme at all. I tried to find last night when I went home a relevant minute; I could not find it but speaking from recollection, I think that the original scheme brought in by the county council was increased by 50 per cent. at a meeting of the council as a result of a proposal put forward by a very prominent member of the Minister's own Party in the county council.

I am quite prepared to accept the Minister's point of view that there are some areas for which this section would be a sound provision, but there are some areas for which it is not a provision at all. I am thrown back again to the point of view that I have already expressed and about which I did not intend to annoy the House again were it not for the speech of Deputy Cowan. It is no good trying, on a very limited income basis, to make the same provisions in respect of places as different as the County Borough of Dublin and the western seaboard. It is no good trying to suggest that the conditions are the same in Kerry as they are in Kildare.

You have in Part VI of this Bill a provision by virtue of which you can have one set of circumstances in the county boroughs of Dublin and Cork and a different set of circumstances in the rest of the country. That does not entirely meet the argument that I put forward but it does go a substantial part of the way towards meeting it. It would be much better that there would be a difference between the county boroughs and the country areas rather than that there would be, purely for the sake of uniformity, purely for the sake of streamlining, a similar provision for every part of the country.

Mr. J. Brennan

The previous speaker said that this section will apply differently to different counties. The limitations set out in Section 10 are, in my opinion, inevitable when one considers the application of Section 7 of the 1950 Act. At the time the 1950 Act was submitted to the local authorities I remember it was only out of sympathy for those with limited staffs who would have to administer it and out of consideration for the administrative difficulties which it was bound to raise that we decided not to have a means test in the application of that section in so far as we adopted the scheme. In fact, most of our members were in favour of a means test and it was only to avoid the administrative difficulties that we foresaw that we agreed, when the section enabled us to do that, to go the whole hog, so to speak, and adopt the 100 per cent. scheme.

I am afraid that as time went on it became obvious that some means test should be applied. A local housing authority is concerned mainly with those who are most in need of housing. In Donegal, at least—I am sure the same does not apply in a wealthy county like Kildare—the majority of our people are living on uneconomic holdings, 75 per cent. having a valuation of £5 or under. These are the type of people who in many cases live in the small thatched dwellings which are, on an average, 100 to 180 years old. If they are to replace these houses they require substantial assistance from the local authority and the central housing authority. In so far as the section will benefit these people, we welcome it.

In so far as the section sets any limitation to the grants payable, one can only say that there are not unlimited funds available for anything in this country, let alone housing, and if we are to tackle the problem of housing, it is only natural that we should start with those who are most in need of a grant. I am afraid that under Section 7 of the 1950 Act many people whose houses were not quite so bad but who felt that there was provision available that they might never have an opportunity of getting again, were encouraged to do a little building and to take advantage of the section while the going was good. In that way, a good deal of money that was available for housing was diverted to the pockets of people who could easily afford to build within their means and with the assistance of whatever limited grant would be available from the local authority.

The question of the ceiling has been discussed. No matter how high the ceiling would be raised people would be left on the margin who would not be satisfied. When one considers ability to repay a loan, the ceilings arranged in the various categories in Section 10 permit of those people taking advantage of a loan which they would be in a position to repay over the prescribed period. In that way it does not act unfairly against the people in those income groups.

I welcome the section in so far as it has a very definite rural bias and tends to conserve the funds available for the people who are most in need of housing.

There is one matter which the Minister should have taken cognisance of in the section, in so far as it applies to Gaeltacht housing. This Bill makes provision for the Gaeltacht which the 1950 Act omitted but I would like that the limitations set out in Section 10 should not apply to people building houses in the Gaeltacht, for this reason, that in many cases people, on retirement, go to live in the Gaeltacht so that the members of their family may gain a competent knowledge of Irish. I refer to people such as retired Civic Guards and schoolteachers. They are inclined to build in the Gaeltacht. That applies in Donegal. Such building would take place to a greater extent if houses built in the Gaeltacht were not subject to the limitations expressed in Section 10 of this Bill. In that way people would be encouraged to move into the Gaeltacht in greater numbers.

Unfortunately the tendency is for the young people who are reared there to move out. It is only those who are anxious to take advantage of the facilities for learning the native language, and those who can afford it because they have some pension or income on retirement, who are inclined to move in. Fortunately there is a number of people who do that. It would be a great encouragement in that direction if the limitations in Section 10 did not apply in the case of building in Gaeltacht areas. I am sorry the Minister did not see fit to make that provision

Otherwise those of us who have had experience of administering Section 7 of the 1950 Act must regard Section 10 as inevitable. I know that various local authorities will always find fault with the ceiling.

Mr. Sweetman

That is true.

Mr. J. Brennan

No matter how high it is raised, some persons will be left out. The line must be set somewhere. People will always complain that the ceiling should have been £100 more so as to bring in a particular group. As far as it applies to some of the western seaboard counties, such as Donegal, it will not set any brake at all. It will reserve the funds so that the local authority may concentrate on the most necessary type of building, which would be for the purpose of slum clearance and clearance of the thatched cottages that have been standing for a century because the owner, out of his uneconomic holding, was not able to carry out reconstruction or rebuilding. I think the Bill will mean the end of that type of house. If so I cannot agree with those who say that it will not be a great success.

Mr. Sheldon

I find myself in very general agreement with Deputy Brennan. We do not always agree in the local authority on matters, including housing, but we have had the same experience of the section in the 1950 Act and I must say that I agree with him that, from that point of view, these limitations were necessary.

My own view is that in so far as a local authority has to pay anything out of the ratepayers' money towards housing, that must be limited to the provision of houses for those for whom the local authority is normally supposed to provide. These provisions are designed to assist a local authority in carrying out the duty of providing houses for certain types of people. It is very often difficult for a local authority to proceed with many of its schemes and sections such as this will help by making provision for those who do not have to wait for the local authority to go the whole hog and provide the house. There will be people who, with some measure of assistance, can begin themselves.

Having said that, I must say that I still find myself in this much disagreement with the section that it will put an intolerable burden on the administrative staff of the local authority. The determination of means in categories such as these four will mean a very great deal of work and, as I said earlier, I doubt if the Minister's Department would care to undertake such a means test themselves in the administration of the State grant. However, it is easier to say that than to find some way out of the difficulty.

On balance, I find myself in agreement because I think it is very wrong that the ratepayers' money should be handed out to those who are not in real need of it or that the local authority should be asked to contribute from the ratepayers' money to the provision of houses for those outside the classes that a local authority is by law expected to provide for.

If I might make a slight reference to Section 11, I do not quite understand how the provision made in Section 11 will tie in with the provision in paragraph (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 10. It appears to me that persons whose family income exceeds £416 will, under Section 11, be able to get a 50 per cent. grant, whereas those below £615 and above £365 will be limited to a 33? per cent. grant. That may not happen but at a glance it seems it could happen. You could easily have a person living as a tenant in a dwelling provided by the housing authority whose family income is £416 and that person will now be entitled to a grant from the local authority of 50 per cent., whereas if his income was between £365 and £416, and he was not a tenant of a house provided by a local authority, he would be limited to a 33? per cent. grant. Whether that is a fact is a point which I should like to hear the Minister explain.

Mr. Burke

I just want to say a few words on this section.

Mr. Smith

I do not want to curtail the discussion on Section 10 but I notice that in the course of all the speeches made this morning we seem to continue to talk about matters that were, by vote of the House, decided last night. I suppose everybody desires to reach finality some time and I should like to get the Committee Stage to-day if I could.

Mr. Burke

I shall not delay the Minister. All I want to say on the section is that I welcome it. It is an advance on Section 7 of the 1950 Act because Section 7 was adopted only by certain county councils. One of the points mentioned to me by a few people in my constituency had reference to the desirability of raising the ceiling, as has already been urged on the Minister. I suppose no matter how high the Minister may put the ceiling, somebody will be left out.

Mr. MacCarthy

I think it might be put to the same level as that mentioned in the Social Welfare Bill.

Mr. Burke

That is the point which has been put to me but I did not get an opportunity of speaking in the House yesterday. I just want to ask if it is possible to have the ceiling raised slightly. Another point on which I should like some information is whether children's allowances will be taken into consideration in the means test. I do not wish to delay the House longer as the Minister is desirous of getting on with the work but I hope this Bill will be obligatory on all councils because it was left to the discretion of each council as to whether they would adopt Section 7 of the 1950 Act and the result was that only a few councils adopted it.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 11.

Mr. Crotty

I move amendment No. 12 on behalf of Deputy Sweetman:—

Before Section 11 to insert a new section as follows:—

In the computation of income under the preceding section, deduction shall be made for all charges which are proper to be deducted for income as assessed under the Income Tax Acts.

Mr. Sweetman

I explained the case for this amendment last night when we were discussing sub-section (2) of Section 10. I would suggest to the Minister that if he is not prepared to accept the amendment in the form it appears here, he would give greater freedom in sub-section (2) of Section 10 on the Report Stage to make it quite clear that the local authority itself can define what they mean by "family income" in their scheme. The difficulty of the position as I see it is that, though a local authority may wish to define "family income" in a certain way, the officials of that authority, when it comes to the administration of the scheme, may be afraid that they are limited by the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 10 and that they are not entitled to pass a grant made under the scheme because the scheme may be in contravention of the statutory authority given in sub-section (2).

The Minister said that he wanted to give a certain fluidity to the local authority and I agree that that is desirable, but I want to be sure that the fluidity is such that there will be no danger at a later stage of the auditor coming along and saying that the scheme contravened sub-section (2) and that the local authority was not entitled to interpret income in the way it had decided to interpret income, because of the provisions of sub-section (2) of the section we have just passed. I would be quite happy to have it done either way, by the local authority or here, so that there would be no doubt about it.

Mr. Smith

In an effort to get Section 10 through last night, I went as far to meet what I thought the Deputy had in mind as I could. I told him we would re-examine sub-section (2) of Section 10 but that still I felt it was unlikely, in view of the way it had been gone into before the Bill was introduced, that we would be able to get the clarity about which he had spoken. That is as far as I can go now.

Mr. Sweetman

I am quite satisfied for the moment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Sweetman

I move amendment No. 13:—

Before Section 11 to insert a new section as follows:—

A farmer may, if he so desires, elect to qualify for a grant by the housing authority on the basis of family income, as computed under the preceding section.

This is another amendment to meet a case which I put to the Minister on the Second Stage. I think the Minister will readily agree with me that a farmer with a valuation up to any of the limits he suggests—let us take the top one of £34—and who holds that farm unencumbered, is in a much better position than the farmer who has a load of debt upon him. I want to provide some way by which such farmers of the latter type can take advantage of this Bill. We provided in our scholarship scheme in County Kildare a way by which a farmer could deduct from his means mortgage interest so as to equate so far as we can the farmer who held his land unencumbered with the farmer who had a bank debt on it. The only way in which I could do it within the framework of the Minister's section was to give the farmer concerned the option of going either on the valuation or on income. If he had a load of debt on the farm, then the interest on that debt would be deductible from his income, and in that way he would be able to get an advance, because obviously if he had a heavy debt on the place in relation to its size he would not be in a position to take advantage of Section 9, even within the low limits suggested by the Minister.

Mr. Smith

There was a character in my county who went to a fair to sell a sow, and the man who came to ask him the price said: "Is she with young?" The seller was not sure whether the intending purchaser would like her to be with young or without young, and his reply to the query was: "If you like, she is, and if you do not, she is not." In putting down this amendment Deputy Sweetman is trying to achieve a position that I do not propose to permit him to achieve, namely, that a farmer can, if it suits him, be described as a wage-earner or vice versa. The recognised rule for applying the means test is the method of valuation. We all know of its weaknesses. If we were to adopt what is suggested in the amendment it would not only be a complete and absolute departure from the procedure in the past but it would create complications that it would be impossible to overcome.

Mr. Sweetman

Does the Minister know that the Department of Education have accepted it?

Mr. Smith

I do not know anything about that, but I know that it is not a workable proposition.

Mr. Sweetman

It does not make you any more enamoured of it?

Mr. Smith

No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 14:—

In line 23, to delete "eligible for a grant" and substitute "to whom a grant is made".

This is a drafting amendment. Its object is to prevent a person whose family income exceeds £365 but does not exceed £416 a year and who is eligible for a supplementary grant under Section 11 from being rejected for a grant under that section on the grounds that his income limits render him eligible for the grant in paragraph (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 10. Under that paragraph the supplementary grant payable is 33? per cent. of the State grant whereas the supplementary grant payable under Section 11 amounts to 50 per cent. of the State grant.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 15 not moved.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 16:—

In paragraph (a), line 28, to delete "tenant" and substitute "the occupier, on a monthly or lesser tenancy,".

This is also a drafting amendment. It arises from the deletion of Section 8 which prohibits payment of a supplementary grant under Sections 9, 10 or 11 of the Bill to a person living in a local authority house where the house has been sold to him by the local authority. It was not the intention that such a person would be prohibited from obtaining a grant under Section 9 or Section 10. For drafting reasons, it has been decided that it would be neater to clarify Section 11 and delete Section 8 rather than amend Section 8.

Mr. Sweetman

I am not quite clear about it. Section 8 provided that a grant could not be paid to a person living in a housing authority house because we presume the housing authority had already contributed to that house by subsidisation from the rates in the ordinary way. But I do not understand why the Minister deals with it in Section 11 and not in Sections 9 and 10.

Mr. Smith

Because there is a distinction between a tenant purchaser and an ordinary tenant.

Mr. Sweetman

Between a vested cottage and a non-vested one?

Mr. Smith

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sheldon

Will the Minister clear up a point which I made earlier? I notice that amendment No. 14 does make a change but I am not very clear as to the effect of it. It appears to me that this section is to encourage tenants of local authority houses to get out and build houses for themselves by offering a better grant.

Mr. Smith

The point is covered by amendment No. 14.

Mr. Sheldon

I do not quite see that. A person to whom a grant is made under Section 10 will not get a grant under Section 11. Apart from that, why is it that a person with an income of over £416 will now be in a position to get a 50 per cent. grant whereas a person with an income under £416 will only get a 33? per cent. grant?

Mr. Smith

That will not be so as the result of the amendment which the House has accepted. That is what the amendment is designed to prevent. It is rather hard to understand and I found great difficulty myself in regard to it, but when you have a good look at it you will see that it covers the point made.

Mr. Sheldon

Do I take it that Section 11 will allow a grant of 50 per cent. to be paid to a person whose income exceeds £416?

Mr. Smith

In certain specified cases.

Mr. Sheldon

That means that a person whose family income exceeds £416 can get a 50 per cent. grant, while a person of the same class will be limited to 33? per cent.

Mr. Smith

The result of the acceptance of the amendment is that really nobody will receive a 33? per cent. grant at all. It might as well not be there almost.

Mr. Sweetman

I thought I understood it until the Minister said that.

Mr. Smith

No person who belongs to the special classes set out in Section 11 will be confined to a 33? per cent. grant. It is not as sweeping as I put it, but you will find when the local authorities come to operate it that that will prove to be the position.

Mr. Sweetman

As I understood the position, a person who is a non-vested tenant as a result of amendment No. 16 can now apply for his grant and get it under Section 11. Before this he was eligible for a grant under Section 10 and, even though he did not apply under Section 10, he was ruled out from applying under Section 11. The position now is that a non-vested tenant of a cottage comes in under Section 11 and does not come in under Section 10 at all. Is the position limited purely to the tenant himself? For instance, if there is overcrowding in an existing local authority house the extra families that are in that house are sometimes eligible for consideration for another local authority house. Will they now be entitled to apply under Section 11 or are they thrown back on Section 10? It says here: "the occupier on a monthly or lesser tenancy". Does the occupier mean the occupier of the whole house provided by the local authority or does it mean the occupier of any portion of a dwelling provided by a housing authority? I understood Section 11 was for the purpose of giving greater ease to a housing authority by enabling them to have a somewhat wider scope in giving higher grants to people to whom they would normally have responsibility for housing rather than the people that are mentioned in Section 10.

I took Section 11 to be more in ease of the person whom the housing authority would normally be required to house, and that by giving a 50 per cent. grant, even though such person may be slightly over the limit for the grant provided in Section 10, the housing authority would in that way lessen the demands made on it. If that is so, surely one should include not merely the occupier of the whole dwelling but also the sub-tenant of such occupier, who is really a local authority non-vested tenant.

Mr. Smith

I am informed that such cases as that would be covered by sub-section (b) of Section 11.

Mr. McGrath

Would the Minister tell us if the people who had applied for a corporation house and who were in receipt of more than £416 per annum but were waiting so long for a house that they decided to build for themselves will come in under this? As regards the income level for people eligible for corporation houses in Cork, we have many cases in which the family income is over £20 a week.

Mr. Smith

They would come in under this. There is no income limit in such a case as that.

Mr. McGrath

Then the cases we were talking about under Section 10 would be covered by this?

Mr. Smith

That is so provided they were people for whom the local authority would have to provide houses in the ordinary way. That is what I meant, in fact, in my reference to the narrow class that would be covered under Section 10.

Mr. McGrath

In that case I am quite satisfied.

Mr. Sweetman

Had we understood that we might not have been so long on Section 10. Perhaps we have learned something in the process.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 12.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 17, in the name of Deputy Hickey, has been ruled out of order on the ground that it would impose a charge on State funds.

Mr. Davin

I submit that is not correct. The effect of the amendment would be a reduction of the charge on State funds.

Mr. Smith

That is another way of looking at it.

Mr. Davin

The existing rate of interest charged to local authorities is 3¼ per cent. The amendment proposes to reduce that figure to 1 per cent. or to whatever represents the cost of administration.

Mr. McGrath

That is a queer kind of an amendment from a man who supported the increase from 2½ per cent. to 3¼ per cent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment has been ruled out of order. Deputy Hickey has been informed accordingly and he has raised no objections.

Mr. McGrath

The Deputy did not object to the increase from 2½ per cent. to 3¼ per cent.

Mr. Sweetman

There was no such increase for local authority housing.

Mr. McGrath

There was under the Small Dwellings Act.

Mr. Sweetman

There was no such increase for local authority housing and that is what we are dealing with in this amendment. I know my facts in this connection and Deputy McGrath does not.

Mr. Davin

We regard this amendment as a most important one. If it is ruled out of order, I shall have to have it clearly and plainly on the record as to why it is so ruled. I submit it does not suggest an added charge on State funds. That could not possibly happen because the existing rate of interest is 3¼ per cent. and the amendment suggests it should be reduced to 1 per cent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is of the opinion that it is correct to rule this amendment out of order. If the State has to borrow at a low rate of interest as against the current rate of interest, certainly that will impose a charge on the State.

Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Davin

On the section I appeal to Deputy McGrath, who is so intolerant when he believes anyone is saying anything against a Minister in his Coalition Government, to treat this matter objectively and not be jealous of the fact that this was conceived by a colleague of his, Deputy Hickey. As I understand the section it proposes to give what is in effect a blank cheque in relation to borrowing powers. I have already indicated the position to the Ceann Comhairle. He said he would facilitate me in raising the matter on certain sections of this Bill. I have already indicated that it is my desire and that of my colleagues to ascertain from the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, the effect on the cost of building and on the rents to be paid by the prospective tenants of local authorities which the increased rate of interest will have following the coming into law of the Finance Bill. The Finance Bill which was passed by this House on Tuesday last gives power to the Minister for Finance to raise the interest rates on loans by 1½ per cent. The existing rate of interest charged by the Local Loans Fund to the local authorities is 3¼ per cent. I do not pose as a financial expert but I have it in writing that if £1,000 is borrowed by a local authority under the existing regulations it means that at the end of a 50-year loan period a sum of £2,030 will be repaid in respect of the £1,000 which was borrowed. That means that, under the existing interest rate charged by the Local Loans Fund, more than half the economic rent paid by the tenants of houses built by local authorities, if they pay the economic rent, goes on the service of interest.

Perhaps Deputy McGrath will defend the system whereby local authorities buy land, develop the housing site, pay architects' and engineers' fees, pay the cost of material for building the houses and the wages to workers for building the houses, and whereby that valuable service will be less than 50 per cent., whereas a few gentlemen who sit down in Foster Place and who, apparently, have the right under existing conditions to regulate the rates of interest, are going to get 50 per cent. for the service of printing Treasury notes which help to pay the workers and all concerned for the erection of those houses by local authorities. That is bad enough but it will be much worse on the coming into operation of the Finance Bill, when the rates of interest will be increased by another 1½ per cent.

I am not a financial expert. I can be corrected by the Minister and his financial advisers and experts in this matter if I am wrong, but I am informed that if 1 per cent. is added to the existing rates of interest by the Local Loans Fund for a house costing, in round figures, say, £1,000, it will mean an extra charge of 2/4 per week to the tenant who pays the economic rent of the house. If the existing interest rates are increased by 1½ per cent., I am informed that it will mean an extra 3/6 per week in rent to the tenant of a house built in the future by a local authority. That is a frightful state of affairs. I am not a member of a local authority but I study the operations and activities of the local authorities. Under every Government for a long period of years past these local authorities have been doing their best to provide the houses so badly needed, not alone in my constituency but in every other part of the country as well. The Minister and his predecessor in office know that there is an agitation in several centres throughout the country by organised bodies of tenants occupying local authority houses against what they regard as the excessive rents they are called upon to pay, either under the differential rent system or under the standard rent system. That agitation has been going on for some time past in several towns in my constituency. I do not want to exaggerate the position but, as I see it, the effect of the increased loan charges upon the cost of building and upon the rents that must be paid arising out of the higher cost of building will be worse in the future than it is at present.

Previous to 1939 I was informed—and it is on the records of this House—in answer to parliamentary questions, that the average rent paid by a tenant of a house built by a local authority represented roughly one-eighth or one-ninth of the weekly income of the head of the family. Deputy McGrath knows more about this than I do——

Mr. McGrath

It would not be hard for me.

Mr. Davin

I do not know what the position is in Cork but it is a fact that in certain cases in my area the rents are now so high as a result of the increased cost of building—in Portlaoighise, Birr, in particular, and Edenderry, to mention but three towns— that some of the workers occupying houses built by local authorities and let to them in the last couple of years are paying as much as one-third and one-fourth of their weekly income. I do not blame the working class tenants of local authority houses for their annoyance at that position. I may be wrong, but as I see it the position is going to become much worse. The increase in the rates of interest which will very likely be charged in the future to local authorities for whatever moneys they may have to borrow under this section will have the effect of putting up the cost of building and of putting up the rents that will have to be paid as a result of the increased cost of building. I say seriously to the Minister that the increased rate of interest is going to provide money to bankers over whom this House has very little, if any, control.

Mr. McGrath

On a point of order. Is there anything in the section advocating an increase in the rate of interest?

Mr. Davin

This is a blank cheque, if the Deputy can read it clearly.

Mr. Smith

It has nothing to do with the matter which the Deputy is discussing. It has nothing to do with housing by local authorities.

Mr. Davin

I will sit down and say no more if the Minister will give an assurance to the House that, following the coming into operation of the Finance Bill, there will not be another increase in the rates of interest charged by the Local Loans Fund to local authorities. Will the Minister give that assurance?

Mr. Smith

I will give an assurance that this section is designed merely to permit local authorities to borrow from the Local Loans Fund for the purposes of Sections 9, 10 and 11, which have nothing whatever to do with houses erected by local bodies for the working classes.

Mr. Davin

I know, but does the Minister, here and now, give the House, the country, and particularly the local authorities an assurance that the interest rates charged by the Local Loans Fund will not be increased after the Finance Bill comes into operation?

Mr. Smith

That has nothing to do with the section.

Mr. Davin

Am I having the assurance which I asked for? I asked the Minister a straightforward question. Will he reply to it?

Mr. Smith

There is no mention of interest rates in Section 12.

Mr. Davin

This section was deliberately drafted in a loose fashion. It is clear to me that the Minister is asking for a blank cheque. I have asked a sensible and reasonable question. Will the Minister answer that question? If he answers "No" to it, I shall say no more.

Mr. McGrath

I raised a point of order. I did not get any reply to it.

Mr. Davin

Even before I said that, Deputy McGrath tried to get me ruled out by his loud-speaking voice.

Mr. Smith

Deputy Davin has not a bad one himself.

Mr. McGrath

Is it not very hypocritical for men who voted for an increase in the rates of interest to local authorities to come in here now and talk as Deputy Davin and Deputy Hickey are talking? They voted to raise the interest from 2½ per cent. to 3¼ per cent.

Mr. Sweetman

There was no such raising of interest for this type of loan.

Mr. McGrath

For loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts.

Mr. Sweetman

It does not deal with the acquisition of small dwellings.

Mr. McGrath

It does.

Mr. Sweetman

It does not. If the Deputy will read the section he will see that it does not.

Mr. McGrath

I asked the Minister a while ago about sub-section (b).

Mr. Sweetman

We have passed sub-section (b). We are now on Section 12.

Mr. McGrath

You did raise the interest and Deputy Davin did not calculate then what it cost.

Mr. Sweetman

We have left Section 11 a long, long way behind.

Mr. Davin

We should get somebody to play the piano for Deputy McGrath so that he could keep his voice in tune.

Mr. McGrath

Keep your hair on.

Mr. Davin

I am not asking Deputy McGrath to answer a question. I am asking the Minister to answer a straightforward question, and I think that he should give a straight answer in the interest of local authorities.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Interest payable by local authorities does not arise.

Mr. Davin

It does not arise at the moment but wait and see.

Mr. Davern

Deputy Davin voted for it.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present—

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Sweetman

I would like the effect of Section 13 explained by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not quite clear what exactly is provided by it.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I regret that I was not here for Section 12. Deputy Hickey is the most regular member in this House and he was not able to be here to move the amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment was ruled out of order. The section has been passed and we cannot have a further discussion.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Is it because Deputy McGrath and the other Deputies associated with him did not want to face the facts involved? This is the first day that Deputy Hickey was absent for the last 12 months.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister not oblige me? I am not quite clear about the purpose of Section 13.

Mr. Smith

It is a very long story.

Mr. Sweetman

Could we have it please?

Mr. McGrath

The Minister can give Deputy Sweetman a break.

Mr. Davin

Deputy McGrath will explain it.

Mr. Sweetman

Not more than he could give Deputy McGrath—that is quite certain—or any other Minister or any other person. This section is retrospective to 1950 and that is why I wanted him to explain it.

Mr. Smith

The powers contained in this section existed in all the Housing Acts up to 1950 and were allowed to lapse in the 1950 Act. The section is intended to provide some assistance for philanthropic societies in certain limited circumstances.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I would like some information from the Minister. Will a person who has applied for either a construction or reconstruction grant and has got approval but has not yet commenced work be entitled to the benefits of the Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise.

Mr. Smith

It does not arise but——

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I want that information.

Mr. Smith

The Deputy has asked a question and if he would wait I would answer him. That type of case is being provided for by an amendment to which we will come shortly.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 18:—

To delete sub-section (1) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—

(1) Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act of 1932, as amended, is hereby further amended by the substitution for sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of the following:—

(i) not exceeding sixty-six and two-thirds per centum of such annual loan charges, where the Minister is satisfied that such houses are used for the accommodation of persons displaced by the collapse or destruction of their former dwellings or by any operations of such local authority under the said Acts or Sections 75 to 78 of the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, 1847, as incorporated with any enactment, Section 20 of the Dublin Improvements Acts Amendment Act, 1864, or Part II of the Dublin Corporation Act, 1890, or are used for the accommodation of persons in need of rehousing on medical, compassionate or other similar grounds if the circumstances of such last mentioned persons would not permit them to be so rehoused otherwise.

This is a drafting amendment. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the 1932 Act was amended by Section 23 of the 1948 Act. Those amendments are now being carried into Section 14 of the Bill following further consideration of the drafting of this section.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 19 has been ruled out of order. It is not relevant to the matters contained in the Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

Cork again.

Question—"That Section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Section 15 put and agreed to.

SECTION 16.

Mr. Smith

I move amendment No. 20:—

Before Section 16 to insert a new section as follows:—

Paragraph (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 19 of the Act of 1948 is hereby amended, with effect from the passing of that Act, by the insertion immediately after "sell the house" of "within a period of 15 years from the date of the undertaking."

Section 19 of the 1948 Act provided that letting grants shall not be made unless the person erecting the house undertakes with the local authority that, subjct to regulations made under the section, he will not sell the house and will let it subject to such considerations as may be prescribed. The object of this paragraph is to prevent the sale of the house at any time with vacant possession and it limits the period of sale for 15 years.

Mr. Sweetman

It prevents the sale of a house with vacant possession but it does not prevent the sale of a house as an investment with the tenant in it.

Mr. Smith

That is right.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Desmond

I move amendment No. 21:—

In line 28, after "direction", to add "provided the local authority concerned is satisfied that the rent being charged is a fair rent."

Our views are again at variance with the Minister's but are on somewhat different lines from those which we expressed last night and this morning. We believe that it is essential that local authorities should have a vital say in this respect. Other Deputies will bear me out that there could be extraordinary abuse if the section is allowed to go through as it stands. We have had cases in Cork of people building and applying for grants. The section says that there could be an appeal to the Minister and that can be a great danger. When we did not see our way to give the full grant to these individuals we knew, of course, that they had the right to appeal to the Minister and that they took advantage of that right, but the reason that we did not agree to give the maximum grants was the rents charged to the tenants by these landlords—in fact, we gave the very minimum grants. We know that the law is such that we have to give them a grant, but we also know that some of these individuals went to the very last extreme to get the maximum grant from us. Are we now to say that a person building a house and letting it to a tenant is to get the maximum grant, notwithstanding the fact that he, a new type of landlord which is cropping up in this country, can charge as much as £3 10s. per week in rent? It is unjust that we should give them such facilities as a maximum grant when they charge such prohibitive rents.

The amendment seeks to leave the decision to the local authority. Members of local authorities know local conditions and they are not extreme in their attitude with regard to these matters. They are willing to say that a person building and renting a house is entitled to a fair return, to an economic rent from the tenant, and if such a landlord is charging a fair rent, we say that, in all justice, he is entitled to the maximum grant, but we certainly do not agree with these people charging exorbitant rents to people who are not in a position to build houses for themselves. There are certain people who will not be able to build their own homes because they may be in employment which involves them in being changed from one area to another. There are many such people. They have no hope of building a house, say, in Cork when, within a few years, they may be transferred to some other county. The difficulties involved for these people are immense and they have no alternative but to rent a house. If the people building and renting these houses are so materialistic in their outlook that they are determined, because supply cannot meet demand, to charge exorbitant rents, I say that the local authority should not be compelled to meet their demand for the maximum grant. That is why I ask that the local authority be allowed the right to decide whether the rent being charged is a fair rent. This is a burden which is being placed on the local authorities and on the ratepayers and if Deputy Cowan, who pleaded this morning on behalf of the ratepayers, is genuine in his arguments, he will agree with this amendment.

Some Deputies tried to suggest that the views expressed by me as a member of the Labour Party were in favour of the higher income classes rather than in favour of the working-class people in the lower income group, but it is because we realise our responsibilities to all sections that we are prepared to argue the amendments which we have here. All sections must be catered for. We believe that it is only a particular section of the community that will be able to rent some of these houses, and even though some of these people may have incomes of £10, £12 and £13 per week, we know that with present money values and the present cost of living—not merely for the past 12 months but for some years back—these people cannot possibly pay up to £3 10s. per week on rent and keep themselves and their families. We consider that any rent as high as some of those which are being charged is not just or fair and we are not prepared to hand over the right of a local authority to a Minister or any other executive authority to decide whether a person who appeals is to get the full grant or not. Where is local authority when the Minister for Local Government in the Custom House in Dublin can come to a decision against the wishes of the combined members of a local authority and can decide that an aggrieved person shall get the maximum grant, although he may be an extortionist in the matter of rent?

We believe it to be a fundamental principle in local government that when a combination of the members elected to local authorities, together with the manager, decide that they will not give the maximum grant, their views will be properly considered. We do not intend to surrender the right of the local authority to such an extent as to agree that a person in County Cork or in any other county can, in defiance of the wishes of that authority, get an Order from the Minister saying that he must get the maximum grant. We are prepared and anxious to give the maximum grant but only on condition that the landlord is not charging an unduly high rent to the tenant. We are willing to give the fullest co-operation in this respect and to do everything possible to help people by giving as high a grant as possible, but only on that condition. Who will say that greater wisdom can be brought to bear on the matter at the centre of Government in Dublin as to what is a proper rent in various counties than can be brought to bear on it by members of the local authority?

This right of appeal may not operate to any great extent in many parts of the country, but there are areas where the difficulty will arise, and it is because we realise our responsibility and are prepared to face up to it as members of local authorities that we say the right of deciding the question of a fair rent should be left to the local authority. Deputies have pointed to the danger that some well-to-do people may get too much from local authorities and that, if local moneys are to be expended in such a way, we will not be able to meet our commitments in respect of other people. If that is true in regard to other sections of the Bill it must be much more true in this regard. How could anybody in this House say that such a person should get the maximum grant? We are aware, of course, that those who advocate that policy produce the line of argument that ultimately the State will benefit through rates. In the long run that may be true.

We are faced with the problem of dealing with present-day difficulties with regard to housing. What protection has the tenant of such a house? If the tenant is paying the landlord an exorbitant rent, what is the former's position with regard to the payment of rates? We want to ensure that the tenant, who is already paying an exorbitant rent, is not saddled with the burden of high rates, because there are such instances. If the landlord will get the advantage of a maximum grant, it means that the full rate must be paid. However, in very many cases, it is not the landlord who pays the rates, but the tenant. It is no use saying that agreement can be made between the landlord and the tenant as regards the payment of rates. We are not going to discuss something that may happen. We are faced with the discussion of something which we have before us in print. We feel that the local authority should pay the maximum grant to the landlord only when they have ascertained that the rent being charged is a fair one.

Mr. McGrath

Even though I agree with Deputy Desmond about Section 10, I certainly disagree with his attitude with regard to this section. I believe this is a very necessary section due to the attitude of local authorities, especially Cork County Council. We had the case of people building houses in the Cork County Council area for letting purposes. They were very expensive houses, to suit a certain type of people, many of whom were described by Deputy Desmond as a floating population, people who were transferred from time to time—bank clerks, insurance officials and the like. Such people would not go to the trouble of building houses themselves because they were never sure of a permanent residence. Some persons built houses to suit this category or to suit any other person who wanted a decent house and could pay a decent rent. They applied for a letting grant to the Southern Committee of the Cork County Council before I became a member of it. Instead of paying them £40 a year, the council allowed them 5/- a year. If such action is not ridiculous on the part of a local authority, I do not know what to say.

Afterwards, when I was a member of the county council and when cases came before us, I pointed out that the people who would get the letting grant would not be entitled to the remission of rates allowed to people who ordinarily built houses and that two-thirds of the money would be recouped by the Department. It was decided to refer the cases to the assistant county manager and to have his engineers and officials examine the costings of these houses and determine what would be a fair grant in a particular case. The officials agreed that a grant of £35 a year should be given instead of the grant of 5/- a year which I mentioned above. The local authority were not losing ¼d. by that. They did not contribute anything. I feel it is hardly acting within the spirit of the Act designed to encourage house building to have assessed the letting grants they made so that they would not lose anything. This matter has led to a lot of arguing on the part of some local authorities. I can understand people who are used to paying 1/6 per week for cottages or 4/- per week and 10/- per week for houses coming to the conclusion that £2 10s. per week or £3 per week seems an exorbitant rent. When the interest which people have to pay on borrowed money and other matters were inquired into, it was clear that there was no exorbitant profit and that if the people concerned had put their money into any branch of industry they would have received a very much higher rate of interest. I believe that those people who are building houses for letting would be much better provided for if the Minister gave them the ordinary grant of £275 and the remission of rates for a period. I feel that, at the end of ten years, the builder would have benefited much more by the lump sum of £275 and by the remission of rates than he would by receiving a letting grant of £40 a year for ten years. Then we would not have any of these ridiculous discussions in county councils and elsewhere. However, bearing in mind the fact there is no such provision in the Bill, I feel that people who put their money into the provision of houses for certain sections of the people and who have to raise such money should be afforded protection and that there should be some means of ensuring that they will be given the benefit of this Bill. When an appeal is made to the Minister, I feel sure that the officials of his Department will inquire into costings, into rents and so forth, just as did the officials of the South Cork Committee of the county council.

Mr. Desmond

May I ask, having moved this amendment, if the Minister will give us some information on it?

Mr. Smith

I would not expect that any information I might be able to give to the Deputy would be likely to alter his point of view. To put it another way, any information I might be able to give would not alter his approach to this matter. Section 19 of the 1948 Act was inserted in that Act by the late Deputy Murphy, who was a member of the Labour Party. When that section was inserted in that Act all these industrialists and commercial people were circularised, encouraged and urged to provide houses. Regulations were made under that section enabling a Minister for Local Government to adjudicate on any appeals from the decisions of local bodies in regard to these grants. My immediate predecessor, who was also a member of the Labour Party, made certain decisions on certain appeals that came from County Cork. The legal advice that was secured by Cork County Council would seem to suggest that there was not any power to make such regulations under Section 19 of the Act of 1948. I am merely seeking to have it established beyond doubt that the invitation extended by a Labour Minister and the decisions given on appeals by a Labour Minister will be honoured.

Mr. Desmond

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.