It is perhaps rather pleasant to change over from the grim subject of death in its most grim form to the subject of life in its most pleasant form, if you like, that is in the form in which it is lived by the most important section of our community, the people in the rural areas, particularly the smaller farmers. Last night we were discussing this question of grants for the reconstruction of dwelling-houses and, while the motion demands an increase in those grants, I was suggesting that the case made by Deputy Finan was not so much for an increase in the grants as for a reform in administration that would ensure that the people would get the State grant and the supplementary grant to which they believe they are entitled.
Deputy Finan made the case that in a great many instances the inspectors, in estimating the cost of the proposed work, rather underestimated the full cost and as a result the applicant for a grant, while hoping to be recouped to the extent of two-thirds of his expenditure, is not actually so recouped. Therefore it would seem that the demand put forward by Deputy Finan was not exactly that which is implied in the motion but rather that there should be a revision in the methods of inspectors in making out their estimate of costs. On that point I am in considerable agreement with Deputy Finan because I have known quite a number of cases in which there had been what appeared to me a complete understatement of the cost of the proposed work. I have known cases in which the applicants have been able to prove to my satisfaction any way that they incurred expenditure of over £200, while in actual fact the estimate of the inspector was in or about £120.
This is a matter which might be reinvestigated and examined. It might be suggested to the inspectors that they should be a little more realistic in making their estimates. Nobody would suggest that they should overestimate the cost as that would be an injustice and would be a violation of the law as it stands. But what is required is an absolutely accurate and fair estimate.
There are a number of cases in which a person setting out to carry out reconstruction work on his dwelling-house may decide that he is going to do a certain amount of work. The inspector who estimates the work makes out an estimate which appears at the time to be reasonable enough. But it may happen that, in the course of carrying out the work, the applicant may find he is compelled to do other work which he did not originally anticipate would be necessary, and thereby his costs might be substantially increased. In a case like that, it should be quite justifiable for the inspector to come back and revise his original estimate and, if necessary, increase it.
That is the first request which I should like to make, because when there is underestimation it means that the person does not get the full State grant to which he is entitled. It may also mean that he is completely debarred from securing the supplementary grant to which he would be entitled. It has been pointed out that the supplementary grant cannot be paid unless it is proved that the applicant has incurred expenditure himself to the extent of one-third of the cost. Therefore the supplementary grant cannot be paid if from the inspector's estimate it appears that the applicant has not contributed one-third of the cost. I should like this matter to be reinvestigated. It is not so much a question of giving an increased grant as of revising the administration of the existing law.
There are other matters about which Deputies of all Parties receive complaints. One is in regard to the vexed question of the second grant. The second grant is available at the expiry of 15 years from the date on which the first grant was paid, and in many cases there is some doubt, perhaps, in the mind of the applicant as to when he actually received the first grant. In some cases, the applicant, believing he is entitled to the second grant, undertakes the reconstruction work in anticipation, perhaps, of inspection and the grant being awarded, and finds he is completely debarred. There is a good deal of heart-burning over that kind of decision. There is also, of course, the other type of circumstance in which a second grant is paid, and that is in the case of a thatched dwelling-house. A second grant to reroof that dwelling-house may be paid within a period of ten years.
Then again there are sometimes disputes as to whether the house actually was thatched or not. You have the case perhaps of a house that was originally thatched and which was covered with galvanised iron over the thatch and it would take the Supreme Court to decide whether it is actually a thatched house or a galvanised roof. You have disputes in these matters, and over and above all that you have frequent complaints of delays in regard to inspection. It will be admitted that the inspectors do their duties conscientiously and well, but perhaps in some cases they have large areas to attend to and in other cases some circumstance may arise such as illness of the inspector which may cause delay. All Deputies have those delays brought to their notice. I suppose it is only natural that people with rather limited means, when they incur expenditure in connection with reconstruction of their houses, are very anxious to get the grant at the earliest possible date, and there is always a good deal of impatience if there is any delay in regard to inspection and final certification.
Delays in regard to inspection also give rise to another form of dispute and complaint. That is where an applicant has applied for a reconstruction grant; inspection, of course, is necessary before the work can be undertaken but if the house is in a very bad state of repair the occupant may decide that he has to start the work in order to have some living accommodation perhaps before the winter sets in. Very often it may happen that the house shows signs of rapid deterioration and the applicant may feel he cannot wait. Then if there is delay in regard to inspection he may think he is justified in going ahead with the work, and he may find that he has debarred himself from securing a grant as the inspector may claim that the work was undertaken before instructions were given for it. Those are all cases of complaint and sometimes of bitterness on the part of the people concerned. I think every Deputy would be anxious to see them removed as far as possible, and therefore this motion has served a useful purpose in enabling Deputies to ventilate those grievances and in bringing to the notice of the Department the fact that they feel that those complaints should not be allowed to occur. I feel very strongly that in the case of the second grant which becomes payable after ten years there should not be too much quibbling if the person entitled to the grant does not wait the full ten years before starting the work. After all it does not make very much difference to the State whether he has carried out the work in nine years in the case of a thatched roof, because it might happen that he might have no roof at the end of ten years. It does not matter very much if the person carries out the work, where he is qualified for payment in ten years, some time before the expiry of that period. Those are cases in regard to which the Department should take a lenient view. The essential fact is that Dáil Éireann by legislation has provided that a person who reconstructs his dwelling-house in accordance with the law shall secure a grant of two-thirds of the cost up to a maximum of £120, and if a good job of work is done in regard to reconstruction we should not hesitate in paying that grant without quibbling about dates or little matters of that kind.
I pointed out that relatively speaking these grants are fairly generous. They are more generous than the grants given for the building of a new house. An applicant for reconstruction of a house, if he gets what he is entitled to and what this House intended that he should get, will get two-thirds of the cost, but in the case of a new house he can hardly expect to get more than one-third.
Last night Deputy Madden made a rather strong case in regard to a person who was refused a reconstruction grant on account of his house being in too bad a condition for reconstruction. The inspector advised him to build a new house. I think that was on the whole sound advice, but, as Deputy Madden pointed out, that particular person might not have been in a financial position to undertake the building of a new house. In this matter I do not know what the attitude of Deputy Madden's county council is, but most county councils are prepared to take a lenient view and to provide a county council cottage in the case of persons of low valuation who are in poor circumstances. The governing factor in this as in all other matters is the Christian standard of ensuring that a family will not be left without a home, and if a person has a very small farm and is in poor circumstances there should be no hesitation on the part of a county council in providing a cottage for that person just the same as they would provide it for an agricultural labourer. I know to my own knowledge that the county councils with which I am familiar in Carlow and Wicklow have provided cottages in such cases.
As far as I can see the purpose of this motion is to bring these matters before the attention of the Department to see that as far as possible the grievances which have have been ventilated will be removed, and in so doing the motion has served a useful purpose.
