Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 17 Jul 1956

Vol. 159 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1956—Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 8

I move amendment No. 1:—

Before Section 8 to insert a new section as follows:—

8. (1) Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act of 1952 shall as respects relevant grants allocated on or after the 17th day of July, 1956, have effect as if each of the amounts specified in paragraphs (i) to (iv) were increased by £104.

(2) Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act of 1952 is hereby amended, as respects relevant grants allocated on or after the 17th day of July, 1956, by the substitution of "the spouse of such person where such person is married" for "every member of such person's family who resided with him during that year and who may reasonably be expected to reside with him in the house."

(3) Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act of 1954 shall, as respects relevant grants allocated on or after the 17th day of July, 1956, have effect as if each of the amounts specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) were increased by £104.

Section 10 of the Act of 1952 enables housing authorities to make grants graduated on the following scale: (a) where the family income is up to £208 per annum, 100 per cent. of a State grant; (b) where the family income is between £208 and £312, 66? of a State grant; (c) where the family income is between £312 and £365, 50 per cent. of a State grant; and (d) where the family income is between £365 and £416, 33? per cent. of a State grant.

The scale of income was amended by Section 10 of the Act of 1954 in relation to houses situate in a county borough, the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, the County of Dublin or the district electoral divisions of St. Mary's Bishopstown, Blackrock and Douglas in the County of Cork, as follows: (a) up to £260; (b) £260 to £377; (c) £377 to £442; and (d) £442 to £520. Having regard to increases in living standards since the foregoing provisions were enacted, many of the persons for whom these provisions were designed would now be ineligible for grant or entitled only to a lower proportionate grant than formerly. It is proposed, accordingly, in this section to raise the scale by £104 a year at each point. The revised limits will apply to applications made to housing authorities in respect of houses for which the State grant is allocated on or after the 17th July, 1956.

The amendment of the definition of family income will make for simplification of administration. The revised definition will be more equitable to the classes of persons to be assisted in providing their own houses. May I say in passing, in relation to assessing family income and to the efforts that were made previously to trace the income of members of the family, some of whom were earning their livelihood out of the country and perhaps were not contributing to the family exchequer, that this definition of family income as being the joint income of the applicant and his wife or the applicant and her husband will simplify matters and clarify the position?

I am somewhat surprised at this amendment inasmuch as the Minister apparently has not seen fit to deal with Section 9 as well as Section 10 of the Act of 1952. In the Act of 1952, Section 10 of which it is proposed to amend here, there are these three sections which are designed for the guidence of local bodies, who may or may not decide to pay supplementary grants. I can quite see that the income limit, as set out in Section 10, entitling the applicant to a maximum supplementary grant, was fairly low. As the Minister has stated wages have increased and a case can be made for the revision which is set out in this amendment. However, when we were originally discussing in this House Section 9, 10 and 11 of the 1952 Act, Section 9 of which refers to farmers with a valuation up to £37 10s. and divides valuations into four classes—under £12 10s., under £20, under £25, and under £37 10s.— it was felt at the time that the rateable valuation as set out in Section 9 was much too low or, as was said then, much too conservative.

In one sense, as I say, it is difficult to be critical of the amendment which is proposed by the Minister but in another sense I can scarcely see the fairness of this amendment in relation to Section 10 when the Minister has not sought to amend Section 9. After all, the difficulties of those who live on small holdings have increased too. The cost of building, the cost of material and all the things they require affect them just as much as these costs affect those who are dependent entirely on their earnings.

There is another aspect of this which we must also consider. These are permissive sections. The supplementary grants provided in these sections need not be adopted at all by local authorities. It is a purely voluntary matter and the Minister knows, or he should know, better than I do that local bodies are experiencing quite a lot of difficulty about rates, the incidence of the rates, the annual increase in rates, and so on. In 1952 when this House was discussing these three sections I argued in favour of a modest approach because of my appreciation then of the difficulties of local bodies in these matters, and because of my anxiety not to make the burden too formidable—not to discourage them by raising the standards too high. I argued for hours in this House along those lines and my main reason was my appreciation of the difficulties of local bodies and of the fact that to be generous with what does not belong to you is not generosity at all, and to be generous to one class without being generous to another class which is similarly situated is not fair play.

It could be said that we as an Opposition Party could have put down amendments here to Sections 9 and 10. The Minister has an amendment to Section 10 and there is no amendment of any kind to Section 9. I would be hesitant to do this because I have the feeling that, much as we talk about the effect of these three sections, the local bodies may be shy about readopting them.

I concede that standards were very low even in 1952; they are, of course, lower now because wage conditions have changed. I admit quite freely that, if we were providing something ourselves from State revenue, something for which we ourselves would have to take responsibility and tax the country in order to meet, I would look upon this proposal in a far more kindly way. But we are not doing that. We are simply widening the scope of Section 10 in order that local bodies may pay these grants to a wider range of people, provided those local bodies decide to adopt these permissive sections.

I do not know what has influenced the Minister to insert this amendment. I do not know whether he has had any representations from local bodies in this matter. I must confess I have not had any. I did not have any such representations when I was Minister responsible for these three sections originally. I have not had any representations since. My hesitancy to put down amendments, although as an Opposition we would be perhaps freer to do so than would any of the Parties comprising the present Government, arises entirely because of my appreciation of the difficulties of local bodies, coupled with the fact that any further amendment following on the lines of that proposed by the Minister now, might have the effect of discouraging local authorities from adopting these sections. Naturally, I shall not say that we are opposed to this. We are not. I would be delighted if we could raise the standard still higher because the standards are still too low.

The points to which I have given expression are points which must be present in the mind of every member of this House who is also a member of a local authority, a member of a body which has to borrow this money and then pay it out in grants to the classes specified in the three sections. I would like the Minister to undertake to amend Section 9 by raising the valuation limits in the same way as he proposes to raise the income limits as set out in this amendment. If he cannot do that now, perhaps he would give us an assurance that it will be done on the Report Stage.

I cannot understand what is meant by sub-section (2) of the amendment where it is proposed to insert "‘the spouse of such person where such person is married' for ‘every member of such person's family who resided with him during that year and who may reasonably be expected to reside with him in the house'". I am afraid the Minister has not given us the complete justification for that amendment. I am not contending that it will not be better than what is there. I may be stupid, but I see no reason why the sub-section as it stood should create any difficulty for any local authority. It merely says: "the income of the applicant and all those members of his family living with him during the 12 months previous and who may be reasonably expected to reside with him in the future". I cannot see why any local body would find it difficult to assess the income of a household along those lines.

What exactly will be the position now when the sub-section is amended by the insertion of the word "spouse"? The Minister should give us more information on that point. I certainly would need more information in order to clear my mind. My main reason for objecting to this amendment inasmuch as it affects the income limits set out in Section 10 is because of the possibility of discouragement of local authorities in times like the present; because I am not convinced that local authorities have been seeking an extension along these lines; and, thirdly, because I feel that, if there is justification for a widening of the provisions of Section 10, there is at least equal justification for a widening of the valuation conditions as set out in Section 9.

I take exception to this because nowadays there seems to be a means test in everything. I am not saying that a means test is not sometimes either necessary or justifiable. Here we are dealing with the family. As far as the family is concerned one person, and one person only, is responsible, namely the breadwinner. I object to this kind of means test envisaged here because I do not think it is fair. I have a family and I know that one cannot take the family as a criterion. The earnings of the children should not enter into the picture at all because children to-day have to look after themselves, clothe themselves and perhaps make provision for marriage or taking up some other vocation in life. We are going too far in taking the children into calculation as a method of assessing means. It is for that reason that I object to this provision. The matter should be dealt with on its merits.

I take it the Deputy is supporting me as against Deputy Smith?

The Deputy cannot blow hot and cold. He must have it either one way or the other.

He is against both of us.

That is so. We have gone too far with this chasing up of the family.

But we have cut out the family by the amendment.

He is bubbling with generosity. One cannot stop that.

On the subject of grants, certain local authorities have interpreted the sections to their own advantage. Under the Dublin Corporation one will get a supplementary grant if one is a person whom the corporation would normally house. If the Dublin Corporation cannot normally house a person——

The Deputy may not discuss the administration of the Dublin Corporation on this Bill.

I merely relate it to this. If we had a clear interpretation of this subjection and a clear direction to local authorities, we would not have this ambiguity.

The Deputy is endeavouring to discuss Dublin Corporation administration. I cannot allow that.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Smith, I can appreciate his point of view as a representative of the farmers, particularly as a representative of a farming community such as that in Cavan. If, however, the Deputy will read the amendment, he will see that I am providing for applicants who are not farmers and whose wages have increased. With regard to Section 9 of the 1952 Act, provision is made there for applicants whose poor law valuation does not exceed a certain figure; each sub-section sets out the amount. But poor law valuation does not decrease or increase. It is static. That is where the difference lies. The wages of the applicant who is a non-farmer are increased and he is brought out of the class the Deputy provided for him when he introduced this Act. I am trying to bring him back into the class which the Deputy and the House had in mind when the Act was introduced.

The rateable valuation of a farmer remains static. If his rateable valuation in 1952 was £12 10s. he will still get the grant to-day. Consider, however, a man with a salary of £208 in 1952. If he has only that amount to-day he cannot possibly hope to build his own house, not to mind looking for a grant or a supplementary grant. Hence the increase. Again, the farmer has up to three-fifths derating on the first £20 together with an employment allowance. I think the maximum poor law valuation under sub-paragraph (iv) of Section 9 (1) of the 1952 Act—a poor law valuation of £35—covers the vast majority of the farmers of this country, particularly the farming community who cannot build their own houses without State assistance and who would build houses which would bring them within the floorage of a State grant.

I am at a loss to understand Deputy P.J. Burke. He does not want the income of the children taken into account. That is what I am doing by the amendment. As the law stands, the income of every child must be taken into account. I am amending that definition.

Not every child.

Every child residing with the applicant. In my county, we have a considerable amount of emigration. The sons and daughters go across to England and Scotland. Possibly they come home for a month every year. When the parent applies for a supplementary grant he has to procure a sworn affidavit from every employer in England and Scotland as to the family income although possibly those children are not contributing towards the family purse. I think that unfair. I am now defining "family income" as the income of the applicant and his spouse. If I did not include the spouse it is possible that the wife might apply in her own name and have no income despite the fact that the husband may have a substantial income. Therefore, I have included the joint income.

If there were two adult members of the family residing with the parents and if they were engaged income employment outside the place of residence and were paying to the spouse—to the mother—a weekly contribution, would that be taken into account?

No, I hope that this will also encourage the children to save their own money.

What sort of income would the spouse be likely to have?

One can distinguish between "income" and a gift. A gift is not income. Take, for instance, a teacher. Supposing the spouse were a teacher, he or she would have an income. Supposing members of the family wished to give a Christmas present or a weekly present to the spouse, in my opinion, that should not be taken into account.

If it is a weekly payment or a monthly payment, how is the local body to know whether that is income?

There is no difficulty in distinguishing income from gifts. Our income-tax code distinguishes between them and the revenue authorities have no difficulty in proving it. This will simplify the matter and convey a considerable amount of benefit on applicants in areas such as those represented by Deputy Bartley and other Deputies from which there is a considerable amount of emigration. It will also assist local government. They have great difficulty in assessing income. From practical experience as a solicitor——

And they will have it yet, as far as I can see from the Minister's statement.

It is quite possible, but I am simplifying the procedure. I am advocating the very amendment which was proposed on the Bill originally.

I did not trace the Minister in the discussion but I will take his word for it.

The Deputy will see that I was supported by my colleagues who said there would be difficulty in assessing family income and that there should be some definition of "family income". I appreciate Deputy Smith's point that we may frighten local authorities from adopting the scheme. There is always that danger and I know one local authority that did not adopt it. However, in fairness to applicants, where there are increases in living standards we must do this to bring them within the scope of supplementary grants.

We have not very many amendments to discuss on this Bill but I would advise the Minister to be as frank with us in the discussion as he can. It is all very well to reassure us that the amendments are designed for this purpose or that purpose but we shall have to be satisfied that they are in fact what the Minister claims for them. When I mentioned Section 9, and the failure of the Minister to appreciate the need for an alteration in the valuation limit, or limits, as set out in that section, I had given some thought to the very argument the Minister advanced as a reason why Section 9 was not being amended as was Section 10. I asked myself the very same question when I saw this amendment. I said: "Is there any difference between those who have a family income and those who live on holdings of the kind set out in these categories in Section 9? Is there any relation between the incomes they would be likely to derive from these holdings and the incomes set out in Section 10?" I quite realise that the valuation limit, except in exceptional cases where improvements are carried out to farm buildings, and so on, is static but I do not accept the Minister's contention that, because the valuation limit is static, there is not a case to be made just as there is a case to be made in regard to Section 10 where we are dealing with wage earners entirely. Have the costs of a man living on a holding with a valuation of £12 10s. not gone up just the same as those of a man whose earning capacity is under £312? Of course they have.

He is still entitled to 100 per cent. grant, even if his costs have gone up.

Suppose you brought the class up to £20 and said: "We will give £100 under £20"?

The Deputy is afraid we might frighten local authorities off.

Why do it in respect of one class and not in respect of another? The Minister is accusing me of looking at this with a farmer's outlook. I had not the farmer's outlook when these three sections were drafted. I had the outlook of a man who was anxious to provide machinery whereby people, whether landowners or wage earners, would get assistance both from the State and the local body to build their own houses. I tried as best I could at that time to relate the earning capacity to the valuation limits set up for those who were landowners. The limits we set out in Sections 9 and 10—for instance, the earning capacity of £208—were related to what the income of a man whose valuation was £12 10s. was likely to be from a reasonable working of his holding. I say now that, for the reasons given by the Minister, namely, increased costs, and they are good valid reasons, the Minister should give the House an assurance that he will amend Section 9 on Report Stage.

I admit to the Minister and to the House, and I will admit to the country, that I would not seek to impose these amendments in present circumstances. I do not want to have it both ways. If I had the responsibility, I certainly would not, in present circumstances, seek to amend any of these sections, niggardly as they may be, in so far as valuation and income limits are concerned, because of the fact I have mentioned more than once, that it might discourage local bodies from adopting them; but, when you touch one, you are bound to touch the other and I do say that the Minister is not fair in his approach to this matter.

The Minister has not given me the further information. There must be in his Department either a volume of correspondence from local bodies commenting upon these limits, or no correspondence at all. Has there been any resolution passed by county councils asking for an increase in these limits? Has the matter been raised through the General Council of County Councils? Would the Minister say who has asked for a revision of Section 10 without reference to Sections 9 and 11? The House is entitled to be told who urged the Minister to take this course on Committee Stage.

It is all very well for the Minister to fling something at the heads of local bodies that will cost the Exchequer nothing. It is all right to be generous about that which does not belong to you. When discussing proposals of this nature, I like to see the other person's point of view, in this case the local bodies' point of view. If the local bodies have been asking for this, I would give it to them. I certainly would.

The applicants have been asking for it all over the country.

Ah, well; the applicants —when was there an applicant for anything who would not ask for more?

I have respect for them.

We all have respect for applicants. The case of applicants is one thing; the money is another. I am anxious that county councils and local bodies throughout the country should continue to make these supplementary grants and I am naturally concerned that we should do nothing here that might dampen their enthusiasm for these three sections. If one of these three sections is to be amended in favour of one class, I am anxious to see that the sections that deal with the other class, who have an equal right, should be amended also.

The Minister proposes to amend sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act of 1952 by the substitution of "the spouse of such person where such person is married" for "every member of such person's family who resided with him during that year and who may reasonable be expected to reside with him in the house". I do not know what benefit that will be to a local body, unless it is covered by some regulation or other.

The Minister is a man—I am afraid to say it, a Cheann Comhairle—who is not in any way hesitant from time to time in giving an assurance on certain points about which I have a kind of suspicion that he is not too clear in his own mind. I have a kind of notion that this is one of the occasions.

If, as the Minister claims for this amendment, we are eliminating all members of the family, except the husband and wife, I repeat my question to the Minister: what will be regarded as income in respect of the spouse? Will it be a matter of some member of the household coming in on Saturday night and, in the case of a weekly payment, paying £2 or £2 10s. or, in the case of a monthly payment, £8 or £10 and, when the housing official from the local body comes to investigate the family income, all they have to say in regard to such payment is that it was a present from the son and there will be no further inquiry about it?

Will the Deputy object to that?

It is not a matter of what I object to. There is no use in this legal quibbling and trying to do the smart Alec here. We want to examine what the amendment will provide for and what the result of it will be. If I were responsible for an amendment such as this, I should like to be clear as to how it would operate. The Minister has said that a payment such as I have described will not be taken into account as income. I do not take that assurance from the Minister. I do not believe that a local body will take that interpretation of the income of the spouse. I am entitled to get from the Minister some clarity on that matter. I say again to the Minister that, for the purpose of getting the business done quickly, he should take this matter seriously and try to give the explanations to which we are legitimately entitled on these points.

My comprehension may be woolly or the Minister's explanation may be complex. He has explained that the income in one case is being increased, apparently in compensation for the change in the value of money. That is understandable. Then he says that, in relation to valuations, no change is necessary because valuations are static. Earned income in one case and rateable valuation in the other case have been taken as yardsticks of income. Will the Minister not admit that a valuation of £20 may represent a greater outgoing now as compared with three or four years ago, owing to the increase in rates? If the Minister can make a case that earned income does not go as far as it did three years ago, surely he must argue, conversely, that a rateable valuation of £20, for example, represents a heavier burden on the man who has to pay rates than it did three years ago. I cannot see the cogency of the reasoning that, because rateable valuation is static, it must be assumed that the income of the rated person has not changed, whereas, owing to the change in the value of money, a man who has an income of £208 is much worse off now than he was three years ago. I think the same reasoning applies in each case.

The only point I should like to reply to is the question raised by Deputy Smith in regard to sub-section (2). He wants to know what the definition of the income of the applicant's spouse is. May I refer him to Section 10 of the old Act which sets out:—

"A housing authority may make, to or in respect of a person (other than a farmer) in respect of a house for which a relevant grant is made, a grant of an amount equal to—

(i) if his family income ...."

It does not say what income is. It merely says family income. I am limiting that to the income of the applicant and his spouse.

What will be treated under the amendment as income?

What was always treated as income? Would the Deputy explain?

Does income mean earnings? Earnings are one thing and income is another.

Income under this amendment means exactly what it meant under Section 10 of the original Act.

What did it mean?

The Deputy introduced that Act and he should know better than I.

That was four years ago and four years is a long time. This is all very fine. The Minister will not get away with it and I again advise him just to cool himself.

If there is any water to be thrown on either of us, I think it should be thrown on the Deputy.

Cold water. If there has been difficulty in the administration of Section 10 of the Act of 1952, the Minister's Department knows about that difficulty. The Minister is in that office now for two years and I have been out of it for two years. I have not the contacts to enable me to understand what these difficulties are or to see them as they arise. The Minister is obliged to tell us in what way the difficulty in determining the income of the family arises as a result of Section 10 of the 1952 Act. He is obliged to tell us in what way the insertion of this amendment will facilitate the determination of the income limit.

I can assure the Minister that he is now dealing with a section which has caused considerable difficulty throughout the country in the manner in which it is dealt with by local authorities. There is the question of income or earnings. If it is the earnings of the spouse, that is quite clear, but if it is the income from members of the family that will count as income, on what basis is it to be assessed? Will it be the full earnings of the other members of the family which may be handed up for their upkeep to the heads of the family week by week?

Deputy Bartley referred to the question of the valuation of £20. In this connection, the rate in the £ is not static. It has gone up considerably in recent years in the various counties and, consequently, the charges made are increased in the same way as the responsibility of a person with income is increased. The Minister should consider that whole matter. The officials assess it in one way and then it comes before the members of the council who are dissatisfied, but nobody knows exactly what the basis is on which it is to be assessed.

That is what I am clarifying.

I am sorry I was not in at the start, but from what I have since heard, the amendment is anything but clear.

For the benefit of Deputy MacCarthy and other Deputies, may I refer to Section 10, sub-section (2) of the old Act which states:—

"In calculating the family income of a person applying for a grant under this section in respect of a house, it shall be taken to include the income received during the year ending on the date of such application by such person and by every member of such person's family who resided with him during that year..."

I am merely amending that. I am cutting out "every member of such person's family..." and merely adding the words "the spouse of such person where such person is married".

If both receive the sort of payment I referred to, how will that be regarded?

Suppose you had a grandchild now, how would it be regarded?

I am not talking about what is there now. The section may be wrong.

I appreciate the point.

The section, as it is, may be wrong. I am not objecting to the amendment, but I want to know exactly what the amendment will provide for before we pass it.

At the moment it says that income is the income of the applicant and every member of the family. I am amending that to income of the applicant and his spouse. I am making no change in the definition of the word "income".

If the grandchild was living with these people and made a payment to them, that would be termed income.

The administration of the Act is entirely a matter for the local authorities. I am simplifying the procedure.

It is quite evident from what the Minister said that income means earnings. The income of the spouse will be the earnings of the wife, if she is earning, plus what will be got from other members of the family.

Definitely no.

The Minister is cutting out the members of the family?

Yes. That is what I am doing.

The Minister is doing two things in relation to income. Is he increasing the joint income of the married couple by £104 and is he also eliminating the income of the children residing in the household?

The Deputy has summed it up. That is correct.

That is what I understood it to be. The family living on earned income will enjoy two advantages now. The increase in regard to the limit is raised by £104. You may have a boy working as a carpenter and a daughter working in an office. These two reside at home and their earnings are not now counted.

They are excluded.

That is a very decided improvement in the position of a family living on earned income. I want to compare that very substantial improvement with the static position in regard to the farmer. The Minister said that because land valuation is static, it cannot be altered. Therefore, he does not propose to improve the position of the farmer applicant for a supplementary grant. The point we are making is that land valuation has been used as the yardstick for measuring the income of the farmers, just as the earned income is taken as the measure of the means of the family living in the towns. Is the Minister treating the man whose income is measured by land valuation quite fairly and does this desirable advantage in regard to the question of earned income not reveal a very grievous injustice to the other class?

I would ask the Minister to make this sub-section (2) clearer. In this amendment, the Minister is undoubtedly proposing to substitute "spouse" for "every member of such person's family". When an application is received for a supplementary grant by a local body the local authority will then have to proceed to discover the income of the man and his wife. There is nothing in this amendment to say what sort of payment will be treated as means, as income. As far as my reasoning goes, and irrespective of the assurances given us by the Minister, the local authority can send an investigator into a man's house and ask the applicant and his wife who is living with them——

That is just what they do.

Yes, but the amendment——

Does the Deputy not want the amendment?

I want to know what concession it is giving?

I have tried to make it clear.

The Minister did not even give it a thought. I am trying to elicit for the guidance of local bodies what is involved in this amendment. What is in our minds here and the points to which the Minister has referred will not be taken as law when the Bill becomes an Act. Is the Minister giving us an assurance here for the purpose of getting this amendment through that in future only the income of the man and his wife will be taken into account?

Can the Deputy make it any clearer or put it in simpler language?

I am not talking about clearness but about the effectiveness of it. That is what matters. My contention is that the amendment will not be effective. We know that a local body will be entitled to ask a man or his wife what payment or benefit they receive from any members of the family, whether grandchildren or otherwise. They will be entitled to ask about any money or payment received in the course of the year previous to the application.

You cannot get away from that.

There are members on the other side in this House that I believe understand and sympathise with some of the points of view to which I am giving expression. I am not making this a political matter in any shape or form. I want to try to get some clarity on this and I think members of the House, irrespective of their political leanings, should try to induce the Minister to lay down something that will be clear. A number of local bodies will try to take the Minister's interpretation and will say: "We will have regard to nothing but what the man and wife earn". We will have other local bodies who will say that the section does not commit them to that at all and who will take the view that they must have regard to what the applicant and his wife received from every other member resident in the house for the previous 12 months. I do not believe in pretending to confer a benefit as the Minister is doing. I am trying to get a definite answer from the Minister on this point but I suppose I shall not get it.

The Deputy is playing with words in this matter. He comes from a county where these cases must have arisen often and he must have had contact with them. I consider that it was grossly inequitable that a young boy or girl living in a house and earning wages, and who may have been saving for the purpose perhaps of setting up house for themselves—the girl might be getting married and arranging something for her bottom drawer; the boy might be planning to build a house for himself —should have their earnings taken into account. When the local authority came to inquire into the means of that applicant, of the person who was to be the owner of the house and the person who would be entitled to the grant, the income of these young people who perhaps were going out of the house in a short time was calculated and taken into account.

Was it not most unfair that that should happen? Income, of course, is quite a simple thing. The Deputy is pretending he is troubled about it. He is not troubled about it. He knows perfectly well what income is. These young members of a family may get their wages and put the money in the Post Office or in the bank so as to provide for their needs in future life, but when the local authority investigation officer inquires, he asks who is living in the house? How many are there? What are their names? Are they employed? Where are they employed and what are they earning? If the investigation officer is not satisfied about all that, the queries are sent to the employers in order to get the amount that is earned. Surely that is unfair and unjust?

The person who is affected and who should be answerable is the applicant for whom the house is being built, the owner of the house, not people who might be owners of houses of their own in six or seven months' time. Surely it is a wise provision to clarify that? It is not a question of income. If a young man is living with an applicant, whatever that young man earns is his income which he is getting for his own purposes. If he is planning to marry he has to make provision for that. A man has no use in going out empty-handed to get married nowadays. He needs to have a wad and a good stiff one, somewhere between £500 and £1,000 of his own along with the grant. In this case his income is calculated against his father, and is added to his father's income. The whole matter is quite simple and Deputy Smith knows quite well what the meaning of income is.

Deputy McMenamin misunderstands me entirely. I am not arguing the wisdom of the principle of this at all. He is talking about something I am not talking about. I want clarity. My contention is that this amendment will not give us clarity. If the Minister wants to disregard, as Deputy McMenamin is advocating now, the income of the other residents in the house—well and good. Let him set down an amendment which will say that, in determining the income, the local body will disregard any benefits or privileges or payments derived from the children resident in the house or from other residents. That will bring clarity. That is the kind of clarity I want. I am not advocating that principle at all. I do not believe in that principle, but if the Minister is claiming to provide what he says, then let us have it clearly. I know that when the section as amended will go down to the local bodies—I am not a lawyer and I am speaking to the Minister who is—they will proceed to do exactly what they have been doing, that about which Deputy McMenamin has been complaining.

The principle enshrined in Section 10 may be wrong but in how many other cases are local bodies doing the same thing even though it is supposed to be unjust? Do they not do it in regard to differential rents, in regard to scholarships, in fact, in regard to every scheme that operates, in colleges, schools and domestic science institutions? That is something that has been going on for years and these principles have been followed. I am not arguing against them, as Deputy McMenamin has been arguing.

I think the Deputy does not know what he is arguing.

I am arguing on the proposed amendment of the section which, as the Minister said, is designed to limit the income to the income of the applicant and his wife in the case of an application for a supplementary grant. I am asking the Minister to give me an assurance, and the only assurance I want is one that will set out a further amendment to the section and which will say that in determining the income of this pair regard shall not be had to any benefit they derive from any members of the family resident with them or from any other residents in the household. That will give me the principle that the Minister himself is claiming to introduce into this matter. It will also meet the case that has been advocated by Deputy McMenamin. I do not want the Minister to get away with the pretence that he is doing something that he is not, in fact, doing.

In my opinion, what he is doing is quite clear.

Are we to get no assurance, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, on the question of amending the section?

The earnings of the family are not the incomes of the applicant and the spouse and the Deputy knows that.

I am asking for some assurance as to what the Minister will do on the Report Stage on Section 9.

Would the Minister say, in regard to the question of income, that if a son is contributing £2 10s. a week towards his maintenance at home, and if a daughter is contributing likewise, and between them the two contribute £5 a week, would this payment for their maintenance at home be regarded as part of the income of the parents?

No. The mere deletion of the words is evidence that it will not be taken into account.

It is not.

The words of the section say the earnings of the members of the family are not to be taken into account?

They are to be taken into account in the old section.

The Minister, in reply to me a few moments ago, explained that two items of improvement were taking place in regard to people living on earned income. The limit is to be increased by £104 a year and the earnings of their children are not to be calculated for the purpose of deciding what are the earnings of the applicants. Can I get a categorical "yes" or "no" to what I think is a plain question? If two members of a family are paying £5 a week for their maintenance at home, is that £5 to be reckoned as part of the income of the mother and father, who are applicants for the supplementary grant?

No. The earnings of the family are not to be taken into account.

That is not an answer to the question.

Would payments, as I have outlined, be catalogued as earnings of the family?

That is a matter for the local authority, not for me.

That is going to create confusion because it is already being done in regard to the allocation of cottages. If a man has a certain income and if a son and a daughter have certain earnings and if, when these are totalled up, they come to a certain sum, the man is supposed to be a person who is able to build a house of his own. Unless we clarify the matter, it will end up in a muddle. The local authorities and the various managers are going to have one interpretation and the members of the councils will have another, and nothing can be done because the law is not clear. Deputy Bartley has touched the kernel of the matter. I agree that earnings will not be calculated but if weekly or monthly contributions are made to parents, is that going to be considered?

Definitely, no.

Is there any reason why the Minister himself, from the point of view of clarity and aiding the local authorities to interpret the Act, would not put in the words "the earnings received from other members of the family shall not be taken into consideration"? I believe the Minister himself——

I have deleted that from the original Act and the mere deletion should be evidence of my intentions.

If they are not included they are excluded.

I rather feel that the Minister is trying to do something which is intended to be an improvement on the past, and in order to secure that I am urging him to amend his own proposal to the effect that the earnings received from other members of the family shall not be taken into consideration. That would clarify the whole position and make it certain that, when local bodies were getting down to the interpretation of the section, they might be satisfied as to what they were doing.

The Deputy, as a previous Minister himself, knows that I have no responsibility for the words used by the parliamentary draftsman. I am informed by the draftsman that this wording serves the necessary purpose.

The Minister is very neat in this and again I accuse him of not being frank. We are admitting that this amendment will exclude the other members of the family but it does not define what will be taken into account as income, so far as the husband and wife are concerned.

Their earnings.

What will be regarded as earnings?

I am not teaching a kindergarten.

Suppose we have the case of a man and wife who have two boarders who are each paying the wife £2 10s. a week for staying in the house, and suppose there are two members of the family who are also paying £2 10s. a week each, making a total weekly payment of £10. I want the Minister to tell me what part of that £10 will be taken into account by the local authorities when determining the income of the applicants.

It is a very fair question. If a wife is keeping boarders, she is keeping them for the purpose of earning money. They are being boarded there. You keep boarders for the purpose of earning money. Whatever profit she makes will be part of the income, but at the same time if she is charging two members of the family £2 10s. a week each, that becomes income as well. But if it is a voluntary contribution it does not.

Who is going to determine whether it is voluntary or not?

The local authority.

I knew the Minister had not given any thought to this matter.

I gave it a lot more thought that the Deputy did when drafting the original section.

The Minister is trying to push this through the House. It comes down to this, that if the four persons, two outsiders and two members of the family, each pay 50/- a week——

Would the Deputy like me to withdraw the section?

The Minister is too agreeable.

The Deputy is not very agreeable.

Apparently the Minister is in a shocking hurry to get this through, but the Minister is in the wrong mood to induce me to allow him do that.

I would like to see the Deputy in some other mood some time.

If the Minister were more co-operative he might make more progress. I am asking the Minister again, because the records we are making here now will be interesting to local bodies——

I thought the Deputy said they did not pay any attention to them?

It will be interesting to see what they are thinking of this in six or 12 months's time, if this amendment is put through as it is. I put this to the Minister again. These two outsiders are residing in this house and paying 50/- per week. The Minister says: "That is a payment; that is income, and may be treated as such." There are also two members of the family working out and they are paying 50/- per week. The housing officer, or whatever person is charged by the local authority with the responsibility of making a report on the income of applicants, visits this house. According to the Minister, all the applicant and his wife will have to say, when it comes to the admission that they are getting 50/- a week each from these four people, is: "Our own two children make this to us voluntarily."

That is the correct answer.

Whether it is true or not? Suppose it is not the truth?

There is a very simple method of testing it.

A sworn affidavit. That is the method you have at the moment. Surely the Deputy will not tell me that he has no respect for a sworn affidavit?

I do not know.

My goodness. I thought an oath was one of the things we respected.

I have never followed the high standards set by the Minister in his time.

I was never on oath in court.

I have doubts about these affidavits.

I think that is a very, very unfair statement to make about the citizens of this country— that the Deputy will not accept the sworn affidavit of an applicant for a supplementary grant because he has doubts about the validity or truthfulness of a sworn affidavit.

I do not think we should be putting temptation in the way of people to tell untruths. My contention and my objection to this amendment all the time is that, without clarification, the Minister is putting temptation in the way of such people.

Does the Deputy state that a person will take a false oath to procure a supplementary grant?

Whatever I say will be on the records and the Minister will not put into my mouth something I have not said. I am saying that I would not put temptation in the way of people to the extent that is being done here. The Minister gets up and glibly says that all the applicant has to do is to contend to the housing authority that this payment, made by the children of the house residing there, is made voluntarily. Does everybody not know that there will be abuses in that case? Does everybody not know that it is a source of encouragement to abuse? What I want is clarity. If the Minister wants to amend the section, I want him to say that no benefit or privilege derived by the applicant for a housing supplementary grant from any member of the household will be taken into account when calculating the income. That will make for clarity and will ensure that there will be no question, either here or any place else, of false affidavits being made.

I am very much afraid that the interpretation of "regular payments" will be now what it always was, that if sons and daughters make regular payments, those payments are considered as obligations for services rendered in the way of giving accommodation, food and so forth. If gifts, so to speak, of varying sums are made in the interim periods, they are not interpreted as income.

That is right.

But where there is a regular payment, that is considered an obligation and, in consequence, is included in income? What will be the position of the people down the country who will have to interpret this? The Minister referred to the records of the House, but the records of the House will not be presented to the members of local authorities when they are interpreting this, nor will they be presented to the housing officer when he is making his investigations. He will interpret these things in the same way as they have been interpreted under other Acts; he will not give a different interpretation under this Bill.

Perhaps I might explain to Deputy MacCarthy some of the benefits of my amendment? Take the migrant who goes to England and sends home £2 or £4 per week. Under the law as it stands that is regarded as family income——

That is right.

——but under this amendment he can send back £2, £5 or even £10 per week and it is not regarded as family income and is not taken into account. Even though he sends it back regularly every week, he comes back to reside for a few months of the year——

That is not the law.

I beg the Deputy's pardon. It is the law as interpreted by local authorities all over the country.

The fact is very clear:

"Every member of such person's family who resided with him during that year and who may reasonably be expected to reside with him in the house."

If he is absent he is not residing in the house.

If the Deputy wants to be dense he has two methods in which to display his ignorance. I think he is doing it of his own volition in this case. If the member of the family is away and returns for six months, the entire income which that member earned is taken into account in assessing the family income. Under the amendment, that applicant will benefit. Take the case of a boarder. A boarder in a house should, in my opinion, have his or her income taken into account whether that boarder be a son, daughter or anything else. If he or she contributes £1 this year and £4 next year he or she is giving a present. We have very good authority for assessing it in that way. We have the income-tax code.

These are not regular payments.

Supposing they are not an obligation. Remember, the investigating officers and the local authorities are very good judges and will be able to say whether or not it is income or a gift. If any Deputy can tell me how I can amend the phraseology of the parliamentary draftsman, I shall be very glad to do it. As I have said, I have a very open mind. The Fianna Fáil Deputies appear to oppose the section. I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if the Opposition do not want it. I do not propose to say another word on the section, which we have discussed now for an hour and ten minutes. If there is opposition to the section I am prepared to withdraw it.

There is no need for the Minister to take that course at all. When I rose first to ask the Minister to explain the amendment now before the House, I merely wanted to have placed on record here what we were doing. I thought it was the duty of the Minister to do that, but I saw from his explanation of the amendment that he apparently was not anxious to do it. I wanted to get from him an assurance, but he has attempted to side-step this question of giving the same facilities under Section 9 as he is proposing to give to wage-earners in Section 10.

I am surprised, I must confess, that the members of the Minister's Party, many of whom are farmers and members of local bodies, when they saw fit to approve of an amendment to Section 10, did not insist on the Minister also amending Section 9 of the 1952 Act and raising the valuation limits from £12 10s. to £37 10s. We discussed what is proposed in sub-section (2) of the amendment and all I wanted was some explanation from the Minister as to why the amendment was necessary. I tried to convey to the Minister that he is now in the Custom House, in contact with local bodies who have had the responsibility of administering Section 10 of the 1952 Act since 1952.

If local authorities, with four years' experience, have had difficulties then let the Minister tell us what these difficulties are. How many local authorities have had these difficulties and how often have they had them? If he is satisfied there are legitimate difficulties, he must try to amend the situation, but I must ask myself will what is proposed here in sub-section (2) of the amendment effect what the Minister professes it will do? He wants to eliminate the incomes of members of families; he wants to have taken into account only the incomes of the man and wife. I then asked him what is to be looked upon as income where they are concerned and he got all hustled and bustled and said he would withdraw the amendment.

I did not say anything of the sort. I said I was prepared to withdraw the amendment if the Opposition were opposed to it.

I am not opposed to anything. I want clarity. I do not want to have us passing an amendment here that will be supposed to achieve a certain thing and which, in three months, will leave local authorities in the position in which they will not know what we had in mind when we agreed to this amendment. The Minister read out Section 10 of the 1952 Act, which sets out that the income of every member of the family residing with the family would be taken into account in calculating income. Then he cited the case of a man who might be a migratory worker. Surely it is obvious that if a member of a family were a migratory worker he would not have resided with the family during the previous 12 months.

That was the interpretation the local authority in my county gave it.

Here is the point. Are we doing anything in this amendment to give a general direction as to what will be the interpretation when this section, as amended, is passed? My contention is that, when this amendment is passed, there will be more confusion than that which exists at the moment. I may be wrong of course. It is, however, the duty of the Minister when he comes here after four years' experience of the operation of the section, and with the benefit of the experience of the officials of his Department who have been in contact with local authorities, to clarify the position and not just to say that he will withdraw the provision if Fianna Fáil want him to do so. When he was convinced that an amendment was necessary, it is his duty to tell the House the reasons for it.

Deputy MacCarthy told us a few moments ago.

Deputies MacCarthy and Bartley and all the other Deputies who have spoken have been very helpful, but I now ask the Minister to give us a clear line as to what will be regarded as income in the future if this amendment is inserted in the section. I am asking the Minister to say in what way is it provided in this section that if a migratory worker in Donegal sends home a payment over six months the local authority will be prevented from regarding such payments as income. These are the points on which I want the Minister to be clear.

I am not opposing this section and I do not want any withdrawal. I want to make my contribution to ensuring that when this Bill goes through it will improve matters. If there is confusion let us know what it is and whether there is any method by which we can eliminate it.

On the matter of the affidavit to which the Minister referred, he suggested that Deputy Smith was impugning the character of the average citizens who would make such affidavits: I do not think there is any substance in what the Minister says on that matter. I think that, by his very ambiguity, he has left the matter open to a person making an affidavit to say that the payments to the parents are in fact a contribution and are not a fixed figure for maintenance at home. What the Minister seemed to suggest was that if a son or daughter were paying so much per week for maintenance at home and that if an affidavit were made dubbing that payment a contribution, in some way or another they would be guilty of a very shady interpretation and that doing that in the solemn form of an affidavit was a very grave offence indeed. It would be, if such an offence could be substantiated but surely if one in making an affidavit has a choice of calling what he gives to the family budget at home a contribution or a payment in the ordinary sense of the word, he will be entitled to make a genuine legitimate choice as between the two appellations.

The Deputy knows very well that is not true. In an affidavit they will be making statements in solemn form.

The Minister said, in reply to Deputy Smith, that if it is a contribution it is not to be reckoned as part of the income of the applicant for a supplementary grant. If, on the other hand, it is payment for maintenance at home, then it must be reckoned as part of the income of the applicant. On that there is no ambiguity in the Minister's words; his words were quite clear. Here is the snag: it does not matter what the Minister says about it, the local authority will say and will do something quite different. Let there be as many affirmations as you like on the part of the Minister that such payments are merely contributions; I have no doubt in my mind that the investigating officer of the local authority will, in the future, dub these payments as income of the applicants for grants and it will be reckoned in making up the limitation of income which decides the amount of supplementary grant which is payable. I think the Minister himself has thrown Deputy Smith off the main point which Deputy Smith seemed to me to be pursuing, that is, why the Minister does not amend Section 9 as well as this section and give a corresponding benefit to those whose incomes are measured by rateable valuation. I think that was the main purpose of Deputy Smith's contention here, but, because of the Minister's ambiguity, he had to contend with the position as stated by the Minister.

I want to support Deputy Smith on this question of Section 9. I do not see why, if there is now going to be an alteration in the limit of earned income, corresponding advantage ought not to be given to people living by agriculture whose means are measured by rateable valuation. The Minister will have to say a good deal more than he has already said about Section 9.

I should like to ask the Minister if he proposes to accept evidence by way of affidavit.

That is what the local authority asked for.

It seems to me that any extension of that would not make for improvement. The Minister, as a lawyer, knows that two people can get up in court and swear exactly opposite things and he is also aware that these two people may not be perjuring themselves at all. It is possible for a person to convince himself that something he would like to be may, in fact, be. It is possible for a person to believe, or lead himself to believe, that what is not, is, in fact, so. I think Deputy Smith was right in asking that we should regulate any extension procedure such as this in a manner in which it would be regulated by any competent draftsman.

I hope you are not going to say anything derogatory about the draftsman.

I am quite sure that the draftsmen are competent enough to draft a section which would meet the requirements of this side of the House and, at the same time, give the reliefs provided in this amendment. Deputy Smith did not say that people do not take an affidavit seriously. What he did say was that we should not put temptation on them in that way. This introduces a type of means test that can be met by a person who knows the conditions. I ask the Minister to redraft the section in such a way as to cut down the margin of error.

I did not intend to intervene in this matter at all. If a son or daughter is earning £10 a week, that is now taken into account in assessing family income. If I accept what the Deputies state, then it means that if a person says he contributes £2 10s. of that £10 to his parents, that £2 10s. will be taken into account. No matter how you look at it, there is a saving of £7 10s.

That is an advantage.

Is that not very fair? To go back to what Deputy S. Flanagan has said about affidavits, I can only speak of the experience I have had in my own county where every applicant must have an affidavit, sworn by himself and by every member of the family earning an income, as to the amount of that income, as to the amount contributed to the family purse. Statements must also be taken from the employers and sometimes there is a multiplicity of employers during the year in the case of a migrant. I cannot for the life of me see how I can clarify the position more than I have already clarified it by the amendment of the sub-section and the elimination of the words "...every member of such person's family".

The elimination of those words is an indication to the local authorities that they should not ask for an affidavit from every member of a family, but, if they think, in a particular case, that this is a hotel or guest house or boarding house, they might ask if this is a gift or if it is, in fact, an actual contribution for board and lodgings. Deputy S. Flanagan knows the difference between a gift and a contribution. There might be some doubt as to what form the payment took, as to whether it was an actual gift to the family purse or as to whether it was a contribution on foot of board and lodgings. There is a big difference between that and what is being earned by the members of the family.

If the Minister is putting it that way, I feel satisfied. That is a concession as against the taking into account of the entire earnings of a family. That would have been a sensible approach to make to this whole question and I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that, in interpreting this section, local authorities will regard such payments as income for the family. I am not giving any direction as to what I think they should do. I do not suppose that they would follow any such direction I might give any more than they will follow any direction which the Minister might give. They will follow the section as laid down, advised, as they will be, by their own lawyers, and will say that they were entitled to regard such payments as income.

Since the Minister has veered round very slowly to that point of view, we can regard the amendment as being some improvement inasmuch as it excludes the earnings of an entire family and enables the local body to treat such payments as income.

There are two points which I thought the Minister should have referred to and which he did not refer to. I asked him two questions. I asked him from what source has the pressure come since the draftsmen prepared this Bill to amend Section 10 and to exclude a similar amendment in the case of Section 9. I am asking the Minister if that is as a result of pressure on the part of any local authority.

There was no pressure of any kind?

I was just thinking that. There was not pressure even in this House for an amendment on the Committee Stage?

There was no reference whatever of a critical nature to Sections 9, 10 or 11 and we have the extraordinary position now that nobody seems to have asked for this amendment to Section 10.

I did not say so. I said "no local authority".

It is they that pay and it would be useful to consult them. The Minister at one time was very much concerned about consultations with local bodies.

This is purely optional. They need not operate it if they do not wish.

On coming into office, he was supposed to set a good example for all those who might succeed by keeping intimate contact with local bodies and having the greatest amount of consultation in matters like this. On asking, I have got an admission that no local body has requested an amendment of any of these three sections. No member of this House in the course of the discussion on the Second Reading asked for it. Yet we have Section 10 taken out from the others and there is a proposal here to amend it, one to which I am not objecting but one which, I am complaining, should also be applied in the case of Section 9.

I mentioned before that there are members on the other side of the House who understand this matter as clearly as I do, who know the problem of people with small valuations in the provision of houses for themselves, whose rates, expenses and general costs have gone up and whose income has not increased but has decreased. We are providing here for higher grants for those whose income limit has increased since 1952 and we are failing to provide increased valuations for maximum grants in the case of the large section of our people whose income has decreased. If that is the course of justice that the Minister has decided upon without a request from anybody——

I did not say "without request from anybody".

I am anxious to find out from whom.

A number of applicants and those representing them.

In what way did they make their contacts?

Absolutely verbal contact with me.

The Minister must have been a busy bee, to have met all those applicants.

I usually am. I broke precedent in that, too.

But it is an extraordinary thing the Minister did not meet any of the applicants under Section 9.

I will be honest and say I did not.

The Minister should be in touch with many such applicants in County Donegal because I would say that about 95 per cent. of the holdings there would be under £20.

No, under £12 10s. and they are entitled to full grant.

But there are probably others over £12 10s. who are not entitled to a full grant. I am surprised that, as well as meeting those from the wage earning groups, the Minister did not meet some of those who would say: "Why not amend Section 9 and increase valuation limits?". When these sections were being discussed before in 1952, the present Minister for Finance kept me here a whole day with two amendments, one raising the valuation limits from a scale of £25 to £60 and the earning capacity of those affected by Section 10. Although we discussed this matter for a whole day in 1952, the Party of which the Minister is a member has forgotten about this question and now the Minister arrives here with an amendment because he has met somebody.

The local bodies who have to pay are not to be considered at all. The members of the House who are supporting the Government have not even been consulted and I see chairmen and members of county councils who have not expressed one word of support or hostility although I know from their faces they are hostile because they realise the conditions of the ratepayers of the country and they know that when these three sections come before the council a discussion will take place as to whether, having regard to the financial position of the council, they should adopt them at all. Some of them who represent rural people will say the Minister saw fit to amend Section 10 as it affected the wage earner but, of course, did not happen to make contact with any of those who are affected by Section 9, the small farmer.

Nobody made any representations in this House. The Deputy himself did not open his mouth on this question.

Because, as I said, I know the position of local bodies and while I have not the same degree of responsibility to them as the Minister has, I would act in a responsible way. If we wanted to we could have come in with amendments to Sections 9 and 10. We could have proposed raising the valuation limits to £20, £30, £50 and £60 and made great fellows out of ourselves.

The Deputy knows it would have been out of order.

We could have advocated it anyhow on the Second Reading discussion but, of course, the enthusiasts for higher valuation limits in 1952, the enthusiasts for a higher earning capacity in 1952, the enthusiasts for consultation with local bodies in 1952, when they were out of office, the enthusiasts as represented by the Minister for Local Government, now admit that the local bodies, who will be called upon to pay the piper, were not even consulted. He did not even send a solitary line from the Department to any of the county councils in regard to raising income limits. The Minister says he met somebody.

No, a good many.

How am I to know?

The Deputy could accept my word.

I shall not ask the Minister to make an affidavit. I do not wish to put temptation in his way.

The Deputy has more experience of being on oath than I have.

The Minister has greater experience of affidavits than I have.

The Deputy has been on oath several times.

Not too often.

The Deputy would be more particular about what he says if he were.

The Minister proposes to amend Section 10 as it refers to the wage earners in order to keep them in line with present-day circumstances and he ignores the large section of people who are affected by Section 9. He proposes to do this without any consultation although it was always held out by the Minister and others in years gone by as the be-all and end-all. There is nothing wrong with raising the income limits. Certainly they were low. They are still low.

I am glad to hear that anyway.

If the Deputy had been in the House during the course of this discussion he would have heard my arguments in this connection, but a Deputy who is interested in housing and in the welfare of the people finds it inconvenient to be here during a discussion, drops in and makes a smart remark in an endeavour to show that I am partial to one section of the people as against another. I am not, because these three sections which we are discussing now were designed by me. They are sections that have stood the test of time. They have stood the test of time because the architect of these three sections was a man who understood what the problems of local authorities were. He was not one of those who would simply come along——

Hear, hear! Give yourself another clap on the back.

Of course I will.

Nobody else will.

I would not, in fact, appreciate a clap from Deputy Rooney and I have tried to convey that to him on more than one occasion. I do not know whether or not it is possible to convey it to him. It is a wonderful thing to hear the present Minister, a man who was loud in his praise of consultation with local bodies, admitting now that he is trying to make himself the big fellow with that section of our people already covered by Section 10 of the 1952 Housing Act. It will not mean any payment——

I apologise to no man for being the friend of the poor.

This will not mean any payment out of the Exchequer because we are taking steps to ensure that, so far as housing is concerned, every payment that can be curtailed will be curtailed. When it is a matter of letting the ratepayers hold the baby we can, of course, be generous. I invite the Minister now to extend his generosity to another section of the community, namely, those who are covered by Section 9 and who are equally entitled to the same generosity.

What does the Deputy want? Does the Deputy want to throw a bigger burden on the ratepayers? Is that what the Deputy wants?

I am anxious about uniformity of interpretation in so far as that is possible. I concede there is an improvement. The position is clearer now than it was when the discussion started. Nevertheless, I am not satisfied that we have got anything nearer to uniformity of interpretation. If there are boarders in a house and they pay £2 10s. per week, the profit on that is regarded as income. If they are a son and daughter, or two sons, or two daughters, and they contribute £2 10s., is it the £2 10s. or the profit on it which will be regarded as income?

The income-tax code defines that.

Now, an inspector goes around to ensure that tenants are qualified for cottages or for village type houses. As the law at present applies, the earnings of the family are taken into account. An inspector goes around under the Health Act and he equates a valuation of £50 to an income of £600. We are altering the income for housing. One inspector comes along and interprets income in one way.

Surely, that is administration?

It is, but I do not want any confusion in this matter. If £50 is equated to £600 income and the income here is being altered, why not make the appropriate equation apply also in valuations? The Minister knows rates are increasing every year. Rates are not static. Valuation may be static but, because rates are increasing, obligations are increasing likewise. Valuations should be increased in proportion in this section. I want two things; I want uniformity of interpretation and the equation of valuation to income or earnings.

The Minister said in reply to Deputy Smith that a proposal to amend Section 9 would be out of order. I do not know why he should say that but I take it that it would not be out of order for the Minister himself to do it. Perhaps he might consider doing it.

I want to add my voice to what Deputy Smith and Deputy MacCarthy have just said. Why, if the Minister has decided to raise the income limits for one section of applicants for these supplementary grants on the basis that the purchasing power of money has gone down, does he make the case that the value of money has not decreased in relation to another section of applicants simply because their land valuations are, as he said himself, static? How can he reason that, because land valuations are static, the income of the farmer has not changed when, on the other hand, he can make the case that the income of the wage earner has changed? Can the Minister give us some explanation of his reasoning in relation to differentiation as between these two categories of applicants?

Deputy MacCarthy was anxious about interpretation. I, too, would like to know whether it is gross or net income which will be taken into consideration in assessing means under Section 10 of the 1952 Act.

We are not discussing Section 10 of the 1952 Act. We are discussing an amendment.

I would like if the Minister would take this opportunity of clarifying the position. I think it is quite in order to give a lead to local authorities in relation to the question as to whether they should base their means test on gross or net income. In the case of a man and his wife, each of whom is in receipt of £10 per week and where there are no dependents——

I cannot give an interpretation.

The section has been interpreted in different ways by local authorities in the past.

That is purely administration. I have nothing to do with administration.

This is an opportunity on which that matter could be cleared up.

That is what I am trying to do.

The amendment is not satisfactory.

It does something that both Deputy Smith and other Deputies want.

I am dealing with a matter which the amendment does not do. The Minister should not assume the role of Ceann Comhairle as well as that of Minister. I am quite entitled to raise this matter. I am dealing with the case where a man and his wife have a joint income over the statutory amount which would entitle them to a supplementary grant and they have no dependents. Now it is not fair in the case of a man and his wife and six, or five, dependents to assess their income at the same figure as those who have no dependents. That has been the position in the past. Irrespective of the number of dependents, there was no amelioration of the means test.

That was the 1952 Act.

In other words, some local authorities are basing their means test on gross income instead of net. Dependents are not taken into consideration. I would like the Minister, apart from trying to assure me that the matter is not relevant, to clarify the position.

Ba mhaith liom a rá go gcuidighim leis an méid a dubhairt an Teachta MacGabhann. In the last six months, anyone living in the country knows that the income of the farming community has fallen and that they have been hit very hard. Whether it be the small beast or the big beast, there has been a drop in what the beast was bought at——

The butchers did not take down the price of meat in rural Ireland.

In my part, they did.

The same percentage as the cattle price dropped.

How much was that?

What the butchers did does not arise on the amendment. The Deputy should deal with the amendment.

Trick questions are coming across the floor of the House. I was dealing with the point that the farming community have lost very considerably in their income, no matter what their valuation may be, so much so that, when my county council met recently to consider a circular from the Minister as to whom we would give loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, we departed from the accepted interpretation of "farming income" from £12 per £1 valuation and reduced it to £10. That was done unanimously by the Westmeath County Council. The Party which the Minister represents are in the majority in that county council. They pulled down their assessment of the valuation of income from £12 per £1 valuation to £10.

In his amendment to Section 10, the Minister has approached this matter in relation to earned income, to cash income. If that is true about cash income, it is more than true about the farming community because the cost of living has gone up to the same extent and by the same percentage for them as for the wage earner. Their earnings have been hit very hard. They have had to fall back on reserves in the past six months. They did not get what they paid for live stock at the sale of these live stock after fattening them for six or eight months. That drop has continued up to to-day. If ever a section of the community wanted help it is the farming community at the present time. To skip by Section 9 and give relief under Section 10 is a city man's approach to the question of housing.

The Minister should, on Report Stage, do the same for the small farmer as he is doing for the wage earner. He should now give an undertaking to bring in a section that will bring up the valuation of the small farmer in relation to new housing grants and reconstruction grants in the same ratio as he has dealt with Section 10. Otherwise, there will be this continued flight from the land. The man on the uneconomic farm, the man on the small farm, unless he is helped out and well helped out, will just sell out the farm and go to England or somewhere else. Every time you raise wages in the cities and towns, and those of rural workers employed by local authorities, you establish a standard of living which, in contrast with the standard of living of the smallholder, is miles ahead. He naturally seeks the same standard of living as the wage earner. Here, you are weighing down the scales in favour of the wage earner and ignoring the smallholder.

I spoke of a figure of £12 income as interpreted on a well-run farm for £1 valuation. If Deputy Larkin and those city Deputies who so glibly interrupt, and who know a standard of living that many of our people will never know in the country, were put on those small farms to live, the whole lot of them would die in 12 months and, after a very short while on the farms, they would be looking for social welfare benefits of one kind or another. They are living in luxury compared with the people whom I have in mind. That is the pattern of life not only in Donegal, Galway or Kerry, but it is the pattern of life of the majority of farmers in County Westmeath. The majority of our people, first of all, live on the land and 63 per cent. in that comparatively rich county live on a valuation of £20 and under. I should like to see some of the city Deputies placed on these farms to see what kind of a living they would get out of them.

Deputy Corry says you never till an acre in Westmeath and that all you do is look at the cattle.

The Minister is wrong in that. I have not the statistics about our tillage——

It does not arise.

Naturally, it does not arise. I am very glad somebody is in the Chair because it is a very difficult position when one is up against a lawyer. When a simple person from Westmeath is up against a keen northern intellect, he is in a very difficult position in debate.

I should like to reply to Deputy J. Brennan. He raised the question of family income. In case he does not understand the position, I would explain that, under the 1952 Act, every applicant for a grant had taken into account not only his own income but the income of his wife and of all the children who were over in Scotland or England, even at the potato gathering for a few months of the year. Their income was taken into account and the applicant had to swear an affidavit as to the amount of income received—not the amount they contributed but the amount of income. I tried to eliminate the earnings of the family and to confine it to the income of the applicant and his spouse. I was personally aware of the amount of trouble and hardship imposed upon these applicants, particularly in West Donegal.

I was pressed by Deputy Smith as to the source from which I received representations to amend the Act. He criticised me and said no representations were made here on the Second Reading by fellow Deputies from Donegal or the West or anywhere else. He said I should not have introduced this amendment because I had received no representations. I pointed out I had personally received the representations and that, as a result, I was introducing the amendment. It should not be necessary, if the Minister is aware of the sufferings and harships which people endure, to wait until some Deputy——

I am well aware of what the amendment of this section proposes to do with regard to family income. I should like the Minister to clarify the position with regard to gross and net income. As it stands now, the income of the man and his wife jointly arises. In cases where there are one, two, three, or more dependents, will any relief be given in respect of the same income as against cases where there are no dependents?

I am not amending the old Act in that respect.

The Minister is still leaving it to the local authority to place whatever interpretation on the means test——

The Minister should give a directive to those people by means of a further expansion of the amendment which he has already introduced. In many cases, it might be more beneficial than what he proposes doing here. I am sure he is aware that the income referred to in Section 10 of the 1952 Act relates to the income of the applicant during the 12 months immediately preceding the date of his application. Therefore, those members of the family who are abroad are not taken into consideration.

If they are abroad for a few months, yes.

Only if the applicant's income for the 12 months immediately preceding the date of application——

I wish the Deputy would tell that to the Donegal County Council.

I am more familiar with the administration of that section than possibly anybody in the House. That is exactly the position. I have never been able to elicit a suitable reply from anybody in relation to the question of net income as against gross income.

I did not hear the Minister justifying the position that ratepayers, who pay well over three-fourths of all the grants, are being penalised as against another section of the community. I do not understand why they should be penalised as against another section, while, at the same time, they do not get the same benefit.

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

I was inquiring from the Minister as to why he is proposing an injustice in this section. He is well aware that at least three-fourths of all the grants made by a local authority outside the urban area are raised from the land. Landowners who apply for a grant, although compelled to pay for another section of the community, are not entitled to any increased grants. I am sure the Minister fully realises that fact. He is proposing to increase the grants to those who apply on the basis of income, but those who apply on the basis of valuation are not entitled to any increased grant, although they will be forced to pay towards the grants given to the income earning class. That is what this section means.

Has it been shown up to the present time that there was unfair discrimination towards the income earning class in any rural area as compared with the ratepaying class? The person with a valuation up to £37 can apply for a supplementary grant from the local authority for the building or reconstruction of a house. A scale was laid down in the 1952 Act, and a scale was also laid down in respect of the income earning class. Now it is proposed to increase the scale in respect of the income earning class and to force the ratepaying applicant to pay more in rates in order to supplement the other man's grant. There is a grave injustice in all this.

I am very surprised that the Minister can give no justification for this. None of this money will come out of the Exchequer. We can be very generous when we are legislating to make the ratepayers pay more, but if the ratepayers are forced by this legislation to pay more, at least they should be entitled to a fair share of the extra rates that this House proposes to put on them. That is the argument of Deputy Smith. It is one that should be considered by Deputies sitting behind the Minister before they walk into the division lobby to vote for increased rates, when those who pay the greater part of the rates will get no benefit whereas those who are income earners and pay no rates will benefit.

A Minister who would make such proposals and ask the House to accept them does not realise the problem in rural Ireland to-day. I am sure the Government are aware that the income of those who live on the land has fallen by a good 30 per cent. recently and, unfortunately for everyone in the country, when the count is taken this year, it will be shown that the income of those who live by the land will have fallen by a minimum of 30 per cent., and, in many instances, by a much higher percentage. The Government are proposing to give local authorities power to give higher supplementary housing grants to people who own no land. It is a grave injustice and I suggest that the Minister should withdraw the amendment. If there is justification for giving increased grants to one section, he should at least give the option to local authorities to give it to the other section who will pay the money.

We have been discussing this section for nearly two and a half hours and, in order that progress can be made, I ask the Minister to undertake to re-examine the matter on Report Stage in order to meet Deputy Smith's very reasonable suggestions and his requests for clarification. The kernel of the matter is that the onus is being thrown on the local authorities to interpret this section. The Limerick County Council could give one interpretation and the Westmeath County Council another. The Minister has power on the Report Stage to add a clause to this so that the position will be clear beyond yea or nay or else he could use the powers vested in him under the Act whereby he can make regulations so that we could make some progress. I would ask the Minister to meet Deputy Smith's request and clarify the amendment on the Report Stage.

The Minister said he received representations on behalf of the wage-earners whose incomes govern the amount of the supplementary grant to which they are entitled from the local authority. He also said he received no such representations from people whose incomes are measured by rateable valuation but then he added later on, quite properly, that he himself would be perfectly entitled, and, in fact, would feel it a duty upon him, to bring in whatever amendments he thought justice demanded.

It is just on that issue that we want the Minister to say quite definitely, seeing that he has provided no improvement for the rateable valuation class, why it is that he has made an exception of them. What is the meaning of the statement he made earlier on, that their valuations are static? The implication I gathered from it was that the Minister wanted the House to deduce that their incomes had not been affected by the change in the value of money. Of course, I do not believe that he could be so naïve as to suggest that we might swallow any such implication.

After all, valuations with a changeable rate do not produce the effect of a static income. If a man has a static poor law valuation of £20 that does not mean he is paying just the same amount of rates that he paid three or four years ago. The Minister knows he is paying a far higher rate than he was three or four years ago. If the changing value of money is the case which he now offers to the House for the amendment he has brought in, can he give us a reason as to why he is not providing an equivalent improvement for the ratepaying class?

I will answer both Deputy Allen and Deputy Smith on that point. I am not changing the class. Any person with a poor law valuation of £12 10s. is still entitled to a 100 per cent. grant irrespective of the value of money. Let us take the class which had a family income up to £208 per annum. That class is not being changed. In my opinion, we have no person now with an income of £208 per annum. In other words, the rise in wages has moved those individuals out of that class and they do not now qualify for the 100 per cent. grant, but the valuation of the farmer, irrespective of the rise in the value of money, is static. His class, with a valuation of £12 10s., is still the same and is still entitled to a 100 per cent. grant if they wish to apply for one.

We will have no person in the class of wage earners with £208 who would be entitled to a 100 per cent. grant, so that to try to keep that section of the community within the 100 per cent. grant range, we have to step up the figure of family income to £312, but in respect of the farmer who is entitled to a 100 per cent. grant his valuation has not changed and he is still entitled to it. He is still entitled to apply and he still exists.

The valuation limits of £12 10s., £20, £25 and £37 were decided upon having regard to the earning capacity of those in occupation of holdings in regard to these categories.

Would it not be the value of the farm or rather the acreage?

We decided upon the income limit of the wage earners in relation to the earning capacity of a man with a valuation of £12 10s. and so on. The Minister is perfectly logical when he says that because of the increase in the earning capacity we are driving a number of people outside the limit in all catagories. But if you are doing that in relation to one class covered by Section 10, you are also doing an injustice to the other class. It is on the basis of earning capacity that they too had their standard set. The Minister is preventing those from enjoying the benefits of grants at a higher maximum level than £12 10s. Their income limit has decreased. In one case the Minister is conferring a benefit on those whose earning capacity has increased and he is depressing those whose earning capacity has decreased.

That is the point we are making. That is the injustice we have exposed here and that is the injustice we are asking the Minister to agree to remedy. As I say, I would not ask the Minister to do that if he himself had not proposed to amend Section 10. There would have been no protest from this side of the House because of the reasons I gave but once the Minister set out to amend Section 10 he is bound in justice—if the Minister is anxious to do justice to the sections of the community covered in these cases —to alter the valuation limits. I am pressing the Minister for an assurance and if he gives us that assurance the discussion will come to an end now.

We have discussed the matter of the spouse and all the rest of it and we have at least reached some little agreement, although I am still satisfied that confusion will prevail there as it existed before. However, it may be better than what was there. We are not anxious to discuss the matter any further and we would like to bring it to finality. I should like to ask the Minister to give us some assurance that he will do justice to the classes of people who are covered in Section 9.

After all, the Minister confessed to the House that a number of applicants approached him who were affected by Section 10. The Minister did not hear any case for it in the House. The Minister agreed to amend Section 10 by the introduction of this amendment. I think we are fairly responsible people and we are urging that no injustice be done to these other people. If the Minister is going to amend Section 10, he should also agree to amend Section 9. If he does that, we will have no further discussion on the matter.

What I am asked to do is to step up the poor law valuation of the people who may come within the scope of the supplementary grant class. Deputies Allen and Smith are asking me to bring in more farmers into the supplementary grant class. Is that not so?

What would happen if I stepped up the poor law valuation of a farmer? At the moment the maximum amount is £35. The Deputies are asking me, say, to double that. What limit would the Deputies put on it, £50?

All we ask is that the Minister relate the £104 increase to the valuation and give a similar increase to the other class.

If we put up the poor law valuation by £5 that would bring the maximum up to £40 per annum and that would bring in more farmers. It would add to the burden on the taxpayers. By increasing the money, I am certainly bringing no more of the working class into this. Although wages have gone up, the same number of applicants will be affected.

You are putting a burden on the ratepayers.

No, I am not adding one additional person to the class who will benefit but you ask me to put a severe burden on the ratepayers by bringing in more farmers. There is the difference. There would be no additional applicant by my amendment but there would be additional farmers were I to accept an amendment to Section 9. I think that is quite clear. Deputy Smith rightly pointed out that by my amendment alone, there would be an addition on the ratepayers. There may be a slight extra charge but I am adding no person—not one single individual—to the class or to the numerical strength of the class that is going to benefit. But were I to increase the poor law valuation of farmers I would bring further applicants within the ambit of the Bill.

Surely the Minister is not seriously asking us to accept that reasoning. The contention now is that in his amendment to Section 10 he is not bringing in any greater number of people.

But, surely if you prevent people from going out of a category, is not that in effect increasing the number?

That is bad mathematics.

Never mind about the mathematics, it is good, solid argument. Suppose that the income limit for the maximum grant—

But there is to be no increase in the numerical strength of the class affected.

The income limit for a maximum grant under Section 10 was £208 and in the case of a farmer it was £12 10s. valuation. These two figures were related. It was felt that the occupant of a holding of £12 10s. valuation would have an income of around that figure. I admit that. The £208 is now being increased by £104 and it becomes £312. If the amendment were not inserted, those people over £208 would not secure a maximum grant from the local body as a supplementary grant—is not that right?

That is right.

Therefore, when this amendment is inserted here, it will mean that those people who would formerly have been excluded from the maximum grant will now secure the maximum grant and in that way you would be increasing the number of people.

Those are people who had £208 in 1952 but wages have gone up by £2 a week.

You are increasing the number of people under Section 10 who will obtain the maximum grant by inserting this amendment. I am not saying that we are opposed to that, but our contention in regard to the man whose valuation was £12 10s. or over £12 10s. in 1952 is that his earning capacity, related to that figure, has gone down.

You want to bring in more farmers?

We want to ensure that, if you keep in people who would not otherwise be kept in under Section 10, you will bring in a similar number under Section 9, that is under valuations. That is a perfectly genuine, logical and just case and there is no use in the Minister now attempting to pretend that he is not discriminating between two sections of the community. He is doing it, as I say, without any apparent justification and without any urge from those who will have to pay. I want to ensure that the council of the county I happen to represent, if confronted with the task of deciding whether or not they should adopt this scheme, will not have a discussion between two councillors, one of whom will say: "Here is the Act we now have, setting out the scale of grants for different classes of people. The Minister, the Government, and the Dáil have discriminated in favour of one section and we will not vote for the adoption of this scheme as a result of that." I want this House, if we are to send down a scheme to county councils, to send a scheme that can be adopted by them if they like, and if they do not like it, it can be rejected; but I want to make sure that it will be a just scheme.

The Minister knows that there are councils that have not so far adopted this scheme. He knows there are councils who feel that the scheme, even though limited as it was, has imposed——

Deputy Allen's county did not adopt it, or would not adopt it.

I do not know whether Dublin County adopted it or not.

Well, it must have been in recent times, because in the early stages they did not adopt it. That goes to show there was hesitancy on the part of county councils as to the wisdom of taking that course. I am pressing the Minister now since he is proposing an amendment with which we are not disagreeing, to amend the section in order that those councils that have adopted the scheme will not be using such arguments as those I have mentioned in order not to adopt it in future. I want to ensure that the ratepayers of the county that has been paying the grants that have been made since 1952 will not be in the position that they will get no benefit themselves although they may contribute.

I put it to the Minister that it is a serious matter for the ratepayers because these grants are paid entirely from rates even though the money is borrowed. The annuity has to be met until the borrowed money is repaid. I hope the Minister will appreciate the justice of what I am pleading—that it is unfair to come along and say to these ratepayers: "You must pay for the increased grants to those who are getting increased income in order to keep them in a certain class but you yourselves are to be kept in the same class even though your income has gone down." There is no justice in that.

There is a danger that we will depart from the kernel of the whole thing which, as I see it, is to encourage people to reconstruct their own houses——

——rather than having to provide subsidies for new houses of a rather substantial nature.

If it is practicable to reconstruct a house, we should encourage people in that way. Sometimes we hear people say that the middle-income group is hard hit by the circumstances of life as they are at the moment. To my mind the middle valuation people are equally hard hit in many ways and any help that can be given to them in regard to the construction or reconstruction of houses should be given to them. In doing that, we are providing a health safeguard by having better housing and, as well as that, we are building up a national asset because no sooner is a house reconstructed or a new house built than the valuation officer goes around to know what additional charges he is to put on the person who does it. To my mind, if you are to help out to the extent that is intended here, and in equity, I think——

Is the Deputy speaking in favour of the amendment to Section 9? He thinks the municipal authorities will be called upon to house farmers of £10 valuation?

No. I am arguing that other people——

It applies only to farmers.

If a person with a valuation, say, of £12 10s. wants to reconstruct his house, he will be entitled to certain supplementaries and at the moment would benefit. My view is that income and valuation have been related under certain Acts, say, £1 to £12.

But you still have the £12 10s. man.

I know. I am talking about the middle valuation group.

Anything over £12 10s. is in the labouring class.

I think many of them in our towns and villages require this encouragement to-day to reconstruct their houses. We are talking about valuations other than those of farmers.

No; Section 9 deals with farmers.

I know, but what I am trying to argue on equity is that we have related, under certain Acts, £1 valuation to—in some cases—£10, £11, or £12.

Remember Section 9 deals only with farmers.

We can keep the same relationship and try to have an equitable result from what we are now attempting to do. If one class of people get this advantage it should apply generally, because you are only giving local authorities the power to put more taxes on the people they represent. A person who builds a new house will have increased charges placed on him after a certain number of years.

In sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the 1952 Act, where there was a one-third grant for a new house, the maximum income was £416. If this Act becomes law, the maximum income will be raised to £520 and it is completely wrong for the Minister to state that there will be no addition to the number of people who will be serviced by the passing of this Act. Of course there will be. It seems that the £10 a week man who did not qualify heretofore for grants, or supplementary grants, will now come in.

The £8 is gone up to £10.

There is many a £10 a week man in the country who does not qualify now, but if this Bill becomes an Act he will qualify and he will apply. We are not objecting to him; we are contending that the small farmer should equally qualify. If there is an increase in the number of beneficiaries of the wage-earning class as a result of the passing of this Bill, it should not be lopsided and weighted on the side of the wage earner in contrast to the small farmer and the middle-sized farmer. The Minister should make an addition to bring them to the same level as the wage-earners. The burden, I contend, would be less on the ratepayers and on the State.

As the Minister knows, and as we all know, the farmer is a conservative man. He weighs everything up before coming to a decision. He is very slow to come to a decision to build a new house. The pros and cons are weighed up and down before the decision is made, whereas the wage earner will take a chance. He is living in a town or village and, seeing the benefit, he rushes in and builds a house. Therefore, the beneficiaries will be more on the wage-earning side than on the farming side. All we are asking is for a reasonable approach and that the Minister will promise to examine the farmers' position and bring them the same benefits as are proposed in this amendment.

We are getting a fair amount of instruction as to the incidence of hardship caused by the depreciation of money. It is true that if you raise the valuation limits to qualify applicants for supplementary grants, you do bring in more farmers, but the Minister seems—although he has not said so in so many words—to suggest that a man who has, say, £20 valuation has the same earning power to-day as he had when money was at a higher value, say four or five years ago. That argument, as far as I can see, only holds water in the case of a farmer who can be made out to be 100 per cent. self-sufficing. How many farmers have we who provide all their needs from their own agricultural resources? Do we not know that this earning capacity has been affected by the increase in wages where he employs labour? Is it not affected by the amount of rates he pays, and above all, is he not affected by the price of the articles he buys in the shops, just as the wage earner is affected? Surely it cannot be contended that the man with a valuation of £20 has the same earning capacity as he had formerly? That seems to be the fundamental line upon which the Minister is going.

In my opinion, it is certainly necessary to increase the total number of farmers who should now, in justice and equity, be made potential applicants. Can the Minister give us any clear explanation of the effect of the depreciated money on the earning capacity of a farmer, of any given valuation, now, as compared with five or six years ago? We do not accept at all the statement that the earning capacity is the same. This measuring of income by a figure of rateable valuation is not at all a guarantee that the person who has property that is rateable in that way is immune from the consequences of devalued money, such as happens to a wage earner.

And increased rates as well.

He has increased rates and wages to pay. He has increases to pay for his fertilisers, and in the case of one very important section of producers, the producers of wheat, he has had the price of his product reduced by 12/6 per barrel. We cannot see where the equity is. We should like the Minister to apply himself a little more diligently—even if his equity is sound enough—to see that he is not doing an injustice in this matter.

I was surprised to note that the Minister was somewhat alarmed when the question of the farmer was mentioned. To-day, compared with the period when money was more valuable and its purchasing power was greater, it makes a very great difference to farmers, particularly small farmers of £20, £30 or £35 valuation, if some relief is given. Recently, in regard to one local authority, we had a case where farmers were informed they could receive a certain grant from the State. They applied for a grant from the local authority, but the little extra made all the difference to them, and they could not proceed. I know the Minister is a reasonable man and he appreciates what it is to live in a rural district. Kerry and Donegal are comparable——

There are very few farms in West Donegal of over £12 valuation.

It makes all the difference to the small or medium sized farmer of £30 or £35 valuation——

We count him a rancher.

—— and it makes a very great difference to the man with £10 or £12 valuation. That is why I join with my colleagues in making this plea to the Minister. Seeing that he is catering for the wage earners, he should also include the farmers and amend Section 9.

Will the Minister give us no assurance at all on Section 9?

To be honest, I really cannot.

I think the Minister should.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."

I wanted some information about Section 9, but the Minister has not been too anxious to give it. First of all, I should like to know is Section 9 designed only for two local bodies—Dublin and Cork?

No, the whole country.

If that is the case, I should like to know if the Local Loans Fund will be available to all local bodies for the purposes of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts?

To what extent?

Each local authority will get an allocation.

This is what produces the confusion. If local bodies are to get advances from the Local Loans Fund to finance house purchase and the erection of houses under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, there will be nobody to apply to a building society or insurance company.

Those people, who I expect should have applied, namely, people of modest means, will always have access to the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts.

It is a matter of either giving us information or not. We have been on Section 8 since 3.30 simply because the Minister did not even attempt to give us information and we had to drag it out of him. Section 9 is either an important section or it is not an important section. If it is not an important section, it does not serve any purpose and there does not appear to be any reason why it should be here. In the course of the debate on the Second Reading, the Minister gave us to understand that local bodies will be as free as before to borrow from the Local Loans Fund to finance transactions under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. I began to wonder did that statement mean that all local authorities, with the exception of Dublin and Cork—Dublin and Cork never had access to the Local Loans Fund up to recently and have not had such access even yet—would be entitled to go to the Local Loans Fund to get the necessary finance to operate under these Acts. Now the Minister tells me that that is not the case. He assures me that all local bodies will be free to go to the Local Loans Fund to enable them to continue their activities under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, but the Minister interjected a remark which seemed to suggest that there will be some question of the type of people to whom these moneys, when borrowed by local bodies, will be allocated.

Would the Deputy suggest that every person in this country——

I am not suggesting anything. I am suggesting the Minister is in this House in charge of a Bill. That is what I am suggesting.

Res ipsa loquitur.

It would serve the passage of this Bill if the Minister would take some interest in this and tell us what Section 9 means.

It is usual in this House, when a Housing (Amendment) Bill is introduced, that some forward move or some little progress is made beyond what had been accomplished in the previous Acts. For the first time in the history of the State we are now confronted with a measure which, instead of making some advance, is actually a retrograde measure.

We have now reached the most controversial section of the whole Bill. Everything else fades into oblivion compared with this section. This is the famous, or, should I say, the infamous section whereby local authorities are entitled to come to an arrangement with the building societies. What the man in the street wants to know is exactly what this means. What exactly does the Bill which hinges around this section mean? It is very simple. The Minister could have stated the facts and given the full truth in his introductory remarks. The position, for the benefit of the man in the street, in simple language is that the Government cannot get the money from the public and as a result there is a recession in house building.

There will be no recession in house building, absolutely none. I am making available for house building a source of funds never before available.

I shall prove, before I sit down, how there will be a recession in house building. Not alone will there be such a recession but it is there at the present time, not only in Dublin and Cork but in Limerick and all over the country.

I read that the Deputy tried to make that case in Limerick last night but that it was denied by the city manager.

The Minister has only to look at the statistics and he will see the tremendous reduction in employment.

I see also a tremendous number of houses going up.

We are talking about two different things. We are now discussing Section 9, the section making provision for the building of houses by people for their own use. In the other sections, we have scope for dealing with the erection of county council cottages and so forth. The 7 per cent. people are being brought in now. Is it any pleasure for the Minister to have to make arrangements with the societies on behalf of the local authorities? I am convinced it does not give him any pleasure in the world.

Might I ask the Deputy a question? Would he suggest that every person in this country should have access to the funds of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts?

The Deputy would suggest that the system whereby the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts have been administered up to now should be continued.

For people of modest means?

They have been administered for people of modest means.

Rich people had access to them.

That is quite possible.

Would the Deputy agree they should have access to these funds?

I am not the Minister; I am not on that side of the House.

I am making certain that rich people will not have access to these funds, that the money will be reserved for the smaller people, the poorer people, the people of modest means.

That sounds terrific. It will make great reading in tomorrow's newspapers, that the money available for people who want to build houses for themselves will not be available for millionaires. Where are the millionaires? I have not seen excessively wealthy people availing of the provisions of the Acts. If the Minister says that during the years wealthy people availed of the provisions of these Acts, why does he not cut out the housing grant of £275 which is available to these people? If you build a house of 1,400 square feet, be your income £10 or £10,000, you will still get a grant of £275 under this section.

Provided you build the house for yourself.

Under this Bill, you need not build the house for yourself. You can get a grant for the house and then let it; or I could get a grant for a house and sell it to you.

You could always do that.

Under certain conditions.

And it was always considered good policy.

I do not want to get away from the point I was trying to make. The Minister now finds himself in the position that the last public loan was a failure and that in order to provide moneys from the Local Loans Fund and keep things going as best he can, he has had to seek outside sources. Is it not fantastic to say that the Government cannot get money at, say, 5 per cent. or 5? per cent. but that the building societies, some of the 2½d. societies can, at much lower interest rates, attract capital? Is there not something seriously wrong? A Government loan, with an interest rate of 5 per cent. at 98, fails. The building societies offer lower rates of interest than the Government offered on a public loan.

The position now is that the Government, through the Minister, have said: "We will have to call a halt to private building under certain categories." The Minister suggests that people have been raiding the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts funds throughout the country, people who could well afford to build their own houses. Of course there is not the slightest truth in such a statement. Every Deputy knows that the ordinary man in the street is put to the pin of his collar to find the 5 per cent. statutory deposit, not to talk about finding sufficient money to put up his own house. We have the admission for the first time that the Government cannot get money to keep private house building going on in this country. Local authorities are asked to enter into an agreement with building societies under which certain terms will be agreed on between the two parties. The Minister, when speaking on the Second Stage of the Bill, said:—

"The same amount of money under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts will be made available this year under these Acts as was made available last year."

Is the Minister serious in stating that?

Yes, and I gave an undertaking to that effect.

The Minister has given an undertaking, mark you, that the same amount of money will be made available this year to such bodies as the Limerick Corporation and Cork County Council as was made available last year. Right. We are satisfied in Limerick; the demand for houses is on the decrease. That being so, possibly we will need next year only as much as we asked for this year. Therefore, what is the need for a deal with the building societies? Could the Minister answer that? If he intends to make as much money available next year as this year, why bring the building societies into the scheme at all?

To help the people who have not got the 25 per cent. deposit.

If people want to go to the building societies, that is their own business, but if the facilities are there under the Small Dwellings Acts, why not let him continue?

Is there not a growing trend to get money other than through the Small Dwellings Acts?

At the outset, when introducing this Bill, the Minister said that to meet the need for 40,000 houses, as estimated in the White Paper of 1947, approximately 35,000 had been built under the Housing Acts administered by his Department. Would not that suggest that the demand is falling?

I am anxious to see that every person who wants a loan will get it.

We do not deny the fact that everyone who wants a loan will get it. Why we are going to vote against Section 9 is purely and simply that we want to show up what can only be described as the treachery and deceit to which the Government has descended in introducing this ignominious section, whereby people in this country will have to pay 7 per cent. for their money. We have in the past heard criticism from the Tánaiste when we paid, in 1952, according to him, 5 per cent. for money we borrowed.

What was the world rate at that time?

The Minister interrupted with that same remark on the last occasion here and I will deal with it later. We had the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, with his usual cant, saying that such rates of interest would not be paid by a banana republic. I do not want to indulge in anything of that kind. I want to bring home to the House the serious plight that people are going to find themselves in. This is permissive legislation which any local authority, if they so wish, can adopt. In this section we are holding out a bait to the local authorities and saying: "If you do not adopt Section 9, you will not get sufficient funds from the Local Loans Fund to pay for private housing."

I will give the same amount this year as last year.

If the Minister gives Limerick Corporation the same amount this year as last year, there is no need for this section. If we get £100,000, that will do us.

What is the reason for Section 9? I have already pointed out the necessity for it. The reason is that the Government, for the first occasion, confesses to the public of this country that the Government has broken down, although the Taoiseach and Tánaiste have said that nothing will stand in the way of speeding the housing drive. The Minister has my sympathy. He is the Minister for Local Government. He can only do his best with the funds at his disposal and in the circumstances in which he finds himself. However, the Minister is a member of the Government and therefore he has to be responsible, along with that Government, to the people of this country for having the audacity to bring Section 9 into this House and to suggest that local authorities should enter into deals with the building societies, on behalf of the citizens, at 7 per cent. We had a meeting of Limerick Corporation last night at which Senator Reidy, a supporter of the Government, said——

What was said at that meeting may not be discussed.

It was said that the rent of an ordinary £1,200 or £1,300 house, if increased by 7/- or 8/- per week, would mean nothing. Does the Minister realise that an increase of even one shilling per week is a very substantial amount? To people who embark on building their own houses, every shilling counts. The day will come when the two-thirds remission of rates will end and they will have to make some form of saving to provide for the serious impact of that additional two-thirds on them. The ordinary individual comes along and makes arrangements to build his own house. He has x shillings a week for his repayments, and he calculates what it will cost him for his ground rent, for one-third of his rates, for insurance, for wear and tear and so on. I defy the representatives of local authorities on any side of this House to say that they will be able to do it. What a millstone to put around any unfortunate individual's neck!

We can imagine a young, timid man coming along, just after getting married, to look for a Small Dwellings Acts loan. A "buff" comes out and tells him to take himself away and that all he can get, under Section 9, introduced by the Minister for Local Government, is a loan on which he pays 7 per cent. in interest alone. How is he going to pay 50/- or 70/-, or whatever it may be? The whole thing is fantastic.

We have limits of £1,800 for houses in Cork and Dublin under the Small Dwellings Acts. We hear the Minister saying that the purpose of the section is to ensure that rich people who are getting money under the Small Dwellings Acts will now be debarred and that the poor, who are in need of houses, will, instead, be encouraged. That is all very well if those were the facts, but they are not. The position is entirely ludicrous. I defy anyone to-day to make out what is at the back of the Minister's mind in this section. It means one thing, and one thing only, and that is that the Government are "broke" and that they have no idea of where they are to get the money to keep the Local Loans Fund going.

The Minister's main reason for bringing in this section is to soften the blow next year if he should happen to occupy the same seat as he now occupies, which I doubt. The reason is that the Government would not have to announce next year that they cannot give money for private housing development.

The third matter I wish to deal with has to do with Dublin and Cork Corporations, which up to last year had floated their own loans and were allowed into the Local Loans Fund for the first time. Why had they to come in? Because like the Government they could not get the money from the public of this country. The Government could not get the money but building societies can get money from the same public who refused the Government.

Because the public had no confidence in the Government.

Because the building societies pay a higher rate of interest. Is that not the answer?

We will come to that point. Building societies can get money from the same public who refused the Government and then the Government who is refused has the audacity to say to the building societies: "We will guarantee you with the local authority." They could not raise the money themselves and another party comes along and the Government says: "In case you lose we will see you will be all right."

The Minister suggests that the reason the building societies get the money from the public, and that the Government does not, is that the building societies offer a higher rate of interest.

I have not seen the newspapers to-day but if the Minister looks at the back page of any of the newspapers he will see an advertisement from the Irish Permanent Building Society, the Educational Building Society and those other societies to this effect: "3¾ per cent. free of tax". Would the Minister go to the trouble of calculating what that is equivalent to and then compare it to the last National Loan issued by the Government? The last National Loan was at 5 per cent. for stock issued at 98½, equivalent to approximately £5 2s. 3d. per cent. per annum. The building societies, the Minister suggests, are offering such attractive rates that they can get the money, but the Minister had better re-examine those figures. It is an extraordinary thing, to which I draw the attention of the House, that in this so-called deal which the Minister has negotiated with the building societies the insurance companies opted out, not that they ever opted in, but they would have no dealings whatever with this set-up for, as the Minister said in his speech, certain reasons about which we did not hear.

We have heard from the Minister to-day the most extraordinary statement, that what a local authority got this year under the Small Dwellings Acts loans they will get next year. In Limerick we got £100,000. I do not know what Deputy McQuillan got in Roscommon or what was obtained elsewhere throughout the country, but we are quite satisfied. Our housing position is very satisfactory from the point of view of private building being solved. If we get the £100,000 next year, as the Minister says, there is no reason at all why Section 9 should appear on the agenda of the Limerick Corporation. The Minister says in good faith that to the best of his belief the local authorities will get next year what they got this year.

That is what I said.

How do we know that when the Minister goes to look for that money from the Local Loans Fund the well will not have run dry? Where will the Minister for Finance get the money to give to the Minister? I am sure before the Minister made that statement he consulted the Minister for Finance. When the individual gets his loan from the local authority through the building society, he will be paying for it at the rate of 7 per cent. I am not saying whether he is paying £2, £2 10s., £3 or £4 a week nor can the Minister say. All we know is that the rate is 7 per cent. The next thing that happens is that the individual must employ a local solicitor to act on behalf of the building society's solicitor in Dublin. The local solicitor will send up the title and all the usual documents, and by the time the unfortunate individual concludes his business with the solicitor he will find that it would have been far better for him to seek a higher percentage deposit and look elsewhere for the money. That might be an exaggeration but the legal costs in building societies are very heavy indeed.

Just as they are for the small dwellings loans also.

They are in certain counties where the county councillors are lax but every local authority throughout this State has the power of appointing a solicitor on a full-time basis at a salary, and he can only charge the amount of his out-of-pocket expenses. If I get a loan in Limerick to-morrow my expenses to the law agent will not be 45/- but if I cross the border into Clare they will be around the £60 mark, not that I am criticising the gentleman in Clare, who is within his rights with the powerful trade union known as the Incorporated Law Society——

The Deputy is travelling very far from the section.

I am coming back from Clare to the intervention of the Minister on this point. The legal costs will be one of the greatest burdens in this connection. In his Second Reading speech the Minister, in his introductory remarks, made no reference whatever to the terms he came to with the building societies. He made no reference as to the fixed charge, if any. How can the local authority be expected to underwrite the legal charges of a building society? I do not think there is a local authority in the State who would bother their heads about adopting this, and I do not think it will concern very many local authorities in view of the assurance given by the Minister.

We were at the stage where the person has got the loan, the papers have gone to Dublin and he has to bear the legal costs. He has paid the society's fees to become a member. There is nothing now but to execute the mortgage and start the house. Where does he find himself? He finds himself in the position that he has to pay 7 per cent. for his money. Mark you, here is the bogey. I cannot say it will cost him only £2 per week and the Minister cannot say it will cost him £4 per week, because neither the Minister nor anybody else knows whether the period will be 35 years, 30 years, 15 years or 20 years. The Minister admits that. The Small Dwellings Act is spread over 35 years. The period is a statutory one. No local authority can say: "These are our rates. This is what you will get and this is what it will cost you." The building society may make a loan over 35 years in certain circumstances.

What are the circumstances? Surely before the Minister introduced such a measure he should have ascertained what the circumstances are. At column 586 of Volume 159 of the Official Report the Minister said:—

"A lot of talk has been made about the percentage which the building society can charge. I have no control over that, other than that I have received a guarantee that they will charge the same rate of interest as they charge a private individual who procures 75 per cent. and in certain cases the term for repayment will be 35 years. I think that is very fair indeed."

Does the Minister now think it is very fair indeed? In certain circumstances, the building societies will grant a repayment period of 35 years. In possibly 10 per cent. of the cases, a period of 35 years will operate.

If this is adopted, the position will be fantastic. People will hang millstones around their necks, paying 60/-, 70/- and 80/- per week for houses. This is putting temptation in their way, and the Minister knows that quite well. If the building societies charge 7 per cent. to-day and find they have not sufficient funds at their disposal this time next year—mark my words—the first thing they will do will be to increase their rates on borrowed moneys in order to get in more money and then the Government will find itself in the position of underwriting the local authority, which, in turn, will be underwriting the difference between what the society would normally give and what they will then give to the unfortunate applicant. There will be a vicious circle through the next few years if this Government—of course, I am only wasting the time of the House; this Government will not be here, so what am I worrying about?

I am, however, worrying about this Bill and the time local authorities will spend in discussing it. Here and now, will the Minister withdraw this section altogether? I have not heard any Deputy say he wants it. Even those newspapers which are not in love with Fianna Fáil have criticised this measure very strongly in their leading articles—a most foolhardy piece of legislation. If the Minister gives to every local authority, as he says he will, the same amount of money next years as this year from the Local Loans Fund for private building, then I do not know why we should spend our time on Section 9.

The Deputy is spending a fair amount of time on it then, if he is not interested.

I am trying to get the Minister to answer my question. The Minister himself has said that the demand for housing is on the decline. This year in Limerick we got £100,000.

The Deputy said that three or four times already.

Would the Minister state what the purpose of Section 9 is? Why should Limerick Corporation adopt Section 9 if we are to have adequate funds at our disposal under the Small Dwellings Acts?

There are men down there who would like to apply to private building societies for a loan, but they could not put up the 25 per cent. deposit. They could put up 5 per cent. but not 25 per cent.

There are men down there and the last people they would have dealings with would be a building society.

Then they need not bother about the section at all.

There they have the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts.

Other places may bother.

There are many places in which circumstances are similar to those in Limerick. The majority of the applicants in Limerick could not make any headway out of their own resources towards building a house. However, I had better get away from that. The Minister gave no information on the very relevant points raised by Deputy Smith. With respect, I have never seen anyone with such a capacity for saying so much while, in fact, saying so little, as the Minister for Local Government. He is certainly full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The Minister issued a circular letter to local authorities. To what type of person will building societies give loans? Where is the line of demarcation as between the person who can avail of the Small Dwellings Acts loan and the person compelled to leave the Small Dwellings Acts classification at 5¾ per cent. and take on the burden of a building society loan at 7 per cent. with, perhaps, 15 years less repayment period; instead of having 35 years in which to repay he will find himself saddled with 20 years? Would the Minister tell us, as he was requested to do by Deputy Smith, is there to be a means test? Is there to be a scale? Will we get the usual answer that it is a matter for the local authority? As far as my local authority is concerned, I hope we will pitch it out, lock, stock and barrel.

Look at the Labour Benches. There is not a member in them while we are discussing this important measure. They are the people who are crying out for housing. They are the people crying out for houses for the white-collar workers and not one of them has seen fit to listen to this debate on this important section, even when the Minister was speaking. It is a scandal.

On the last occasion on which we discussed this measure, Deputy D. Larkin stated at column 157 of Volume 159 of the Official Report:—

"...if somebody has £10 5s. per week, or for that matter £11 per week, under modern conditions, he has too much money to justify getting a loan under the various Acts and that he should be deprived of assistance from the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts is, I think, a hardship."

Deputy Larkin is, of course, right. There will be grave hardship. Will this be like the Health Act? Will the lower income, the middle income and the higher income groups have to have a white ticket in order to get a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts? Will they have to have a particular kind of card? Will there be a kind of slur on those who have to avail of a Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts loan? Will it be the snobs who will avail of the building societies, the 7 per cent. people?

We will be voting on this to-night and we will see what the Labour Party will do on Section 9. They will answer to the public in the election in November, or whenever it is, if this piece of legislation goes through this House. Of course, they will not turn in; the usual stunt—we will not see them here.

At column 518 of the Official Report of the 10th instant, Deputy D. Larkin, speaking for the Labour Party, is reported as saying:—

"...I would impress on the Minister the importance of a definite statement from him as to the future of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and whether the passing of this Bill will not lead to the actual disappearance of these Acts as we have known them."

Unfortunately, if this matter goes through, his fears will be realised.

I was at a meeting of a certain local authority and building societies were mentioned. The city or the county manager, as the case may be, said: "I am satisfied with our present financial position but, to play ball with the Department of Local Government and the Minister, we had better adopt it or they might cut us down on the amount of money from the Local Loans Fund." That is the mentality. Are local authorities to be coerced into saddling this thing on the backs of the citizens? The ordinary man in the street knows very little about the finances of building. He depends for a lot of advice on Deputies, members of county councils, and so on, to tell him the exact implications. It will be like other things It will be like the raiding of the Road Fund. It will be like the Racing Board's having to pay a tax of £140,000. The Minister for Finance will say: "These building societies are financing private building; we will cut this provision by a couple of million pounds for private building." Is that not what will happen?

I was on the point of the type of person who will get this loan. Every local authority is evidently being allowed, to use the Minister's own words, to decide what category will continue to get loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and what categories will be thrown over to the building societies. Here is what the Minister said when replying to the debate on the 10th instant, as reported at column 589 of the Official Report:—

"These Acts and the various amending Acts will continue. It is a matter for the local authority to decide who shall be the successful applicant. It is a matter for the local authority to impose any screenings they may wish to impose. I do not wish to intervene. The same amount of money will be made available this year under these Acts as was made available last year. I have gone further. I have told the Dublin Corporation that they will receive the same amount of money next year as this year, and in the succeeding year, in order to enable them to plan for the future so that there will be continuity of acceptance of tenders for building in the City of Dublin."

It was very decent of the Minister to tell that to Dublin Corporation—a body which raided the Local Loans Fund, along with Cork Corporation, and you and I and the rest of us are paying for it now down the country. The Local Loans Fund has been steadily depleted as a result of the failure of the last loan the Government tried to raise. If they could not raise it, Dublin Corporation and Cork Corporation could not be expected to float public loans successfully either and, as a result, they were allowed into the Local Loans Fund.

The Minister, the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, and the Minister for Finance were setting themselves up as big fellows. They sent the emigration expert, Deputy O'Donovan. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, with his safety value around the country to say what they had done for Dublin Corporation. We all know what they did for Dublin Corporation —nothing at all. They simply allowed them to obtain moneys from the Local Loans Fund which otherwise would have been made available to local authorities to bring their own housing drives to a conclusion. We shall pay for that now. As a result of the Government's incompetence and their failure to get money, we are faced with this farce, Section 9. I do not think that in any Legislature in the world would such a section or a deal—an undertaking by a Government Department to underwrite an outside body— take place in circumstances such as prevail in this country at the moment.

Never in the history of the Housing Acts was a measure brought into this House of which the Minister introducing it knew so little. This Minister knows absolutely nothing, good, bad or indifferent and he cares less about Section 9. We are witnessing the usual attitude: "Throw it all on to the local authorities; do the best you can; I will underwrite you." Just fancy that a Government that could not raise money themselves will underwrite the local authority. They certainly have some cheek. It is as if I went into a bank for a loan and was refused and then you went in for a loan and got it and I put my name down to guarantee you although, in the first instance, I was refused. God bless us and save us.

Every local authority will be faced with questions like this at the next meeting of the county councils or the corporations. Who is the person to get the loan? Is it the man with £9 a week? Is it the man with up to £12 a week? If he has £12 1s. per week, what will his position be? Will it be his family income? Will his salary be the total family income? Will it, as we had on the amendment to Section 8, be the income of himself and his spouse, if married, whatever that means? Where are we to draw the line? Suppose there is a limit of £520 a year which the Dublin County Council evidently, with the Minister's assistance, got it into their head to suggest they might adopt in giving Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts loan. What happens the man with £521? What happens the man who has two or three children, bringing up his wages, say, from £400 to £600 a year? In what way is the income to be worked? In what way are the supplementary grants to be worked? No one knows.

The Minister talked about his love for the poor; I forget the name of the Saint who was very fond of the poor. However, on Section 8, the Minister spoke of his love for the poor and now, on Section 9, he says his reason for bringing in this measure is to keep the rich from raiding the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts Fund and putting up houses because they can well afford to go to the building societies. He was worried about the poor but yet, to the very people who, he says, can well afford to build their own houses, he gives £275 of your money and of my money. If they are so well off, if abuses have taken place in the past and if people with plenty of money obtained loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, why is the Minister not consistent? I am not advocating it, but let him be consistent and operate a means test also in respect of the Government grant, or let him scrap the Government grant and throw the £275, plus the £137 10s., on to the local authority to be administered by them. But no; he will continue and the man with £10,000 a year can get the full £275 grant as long as the floor area of his house is under 1,400 square feet.

That does not arise on this section.

I am relating it to the whole position of these guarantees.

It could be more relevantly discussed on Section 18.

I am relating it to the two sections, with respect.

We have not come to Section 18 yet.

Another question is: is this whole building society arrangement to be worked by the building societies themselves or to be worked by the officials in the local authorities' offices who are at present administering the Small Dwellings Acts? Is it to be done from Dublin? Where does the county council or corporation come in? What work have they to do, apart from guaranteeing the difference between their normal advance and the advance which they give under Section 9? The position is obscure.

The phrase "the normal advance" is used by the Minister. Who is to say that the building societies will not club together or, without clubbing together, who is to say that the building societies will not call on a local authority to give an increased amount under the guarantee by saying "£1,200 is our normal advance," whereas their normal advance might be £1,500, and the local authority might be called on to guarantee the difference between, say, £1,000 and £1,600 and the State underwrites 50 per cent. of that. What is the normal advance? The building societies have no information.

The Minister speaks of an agreement he has entered into with them. He has entered into no agreement. He had a chat with them, a talk, an exchange of views, but he did not enter into an agreement because he had not the authority to enter into an agreement. He had discussions with representatives of the building societies, from which discussions the insurance companies withdrew and said that they would not have any dealings with the scheme, good, bad or indifferent. The Minister thanks the building societies. What is he thanking them for? What great benefits have they bestowed on the community? They have agreed to lend money and there is a guarantee from the Government and the local authority to make up any loss sustained by them over a certain amount.

Of course, the building societies will be anxious to work it and, of course, the building societies will have to lend money next year, not at 7 per cent. but at 8 per cent. and the next year they will be lending money at 9 per cent. because they have not sufficient funds at their disposal at the present time to cater for houses, apart from houses which come under the Housing Acts, that is, houses with a floor area over 1,400 square feet and old houses. Most of the houses dealt with by building societies are not grant-type houses. Grant-type houses represent a very small percentage of their transactions. People go to building societies because they cannot buy an old house under the Small Dwellings Acts. Supposing a house comes on the market in Dublin to-morrow, if it is not a new house, the only source of credit for the purchase of that house is the bank or a building society. It is in respect of such houses that most of the building societies' business up to now has been done.

The position is that the building societies have not sufficient funds to cater for applicants for old houses on sale in Dublin, Cork and Limerick, not to talk of finding funds for this great scheme under Section 9. I have discussed the matter with a member of a building society and he told me to have sense, that that was only talk and that no one in his right mind would take it seriously.

That is all very well in the light of existing circumstances, but, next year, if we are cut down in the payments from the Local Loans Fund for private building under the Small Dwellings Acts, what will we do? We will be forced into this provision, if we adopt it, or we will have to stop building altogether. Is that not the position? We in this House to-night, acting on behalf of the people who sent us here, are being asked to put through a measure which might force them to pay, not 7 per cent. or 7½ per cent., but 8 or 9 per cent. on their money.

The rate of interest does not arise under this section. There is a special section dealing with the rate of interest.

I am speaking now of the building societies and the deal the local authority enters into.

We are dealing with Section 9.

The rate of interest in Sections 18 and 19 relates purely to interest rates under the Small Dwellings Acts.

That can be discussed when we come to that section.

I am discussing building societies' rates which come under Section 9.

The rate of interest does not arise on Section 9; it arises on Section 19.

The rate of interest referred to in Section 19 relates to the Small Dwellings Acts.

Which the Deputy is discussing.

Which I am not discussing, with respect, Sir. I am discussing building societies' interest rates which arise, not on Section 19, but on Section 9. The local authority has to guarantee the building society the difference between their normal advance and what they do advance and I am discussing the hardship involved for an individual who has to enter into such an arrangement.

The points on which we want clarification from the Minister when he is replying are: who will be allowed to get Small Dwellings Acts loans; what is the limit; what is the tie-up between Small Dwellings Acts loans and the supplementary grant? That is most important. Does it mean that a person who has to borrow from a building society will not qualify for a supplementary grant? That is important. In the case of Limerick Corporation, a person can have £14 per week or approximately £700 per annum in relation to family income. He then gets the £137 10s. In any event, he gets the Government grant of £275 and he gets a supplementary grant, if his income is under £700 a year or £14 a week. He also gets his small dwellings loan.

In Dublin, the matter is much more stringent. For instance, you cannot get a supplementary grant if you have an income of over £500. Is all this to go by the board in Limerick and other places? Are we to say to a man with £14 a week getting a supplementary grant: "You have too much. You should not avail of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. You should avail of the building society plan, under Section 9, introduced by the Minister for Local Government. It will confer great benefits on you"?

The individual concerned may ask what are the benefits and he can be told that he may switch from a lower percentage to the percentage of 7 per cent. When he asks whether he will get the loan for the 35-year period, of course he will not, and he will be very lucky, indeed, to get it at 20 years. There are newly-married couples in this country facing the appalling prospect of paying 60/- or 70/- a week for their houses. I do not exaggerate. The figures are there. Any Deputy who cares to write to a building society and ask for their repayment figures, principal and interest, in respect of the following sums: £1,800, £1,600, £1,400 over 20, 25 and 30 years will discover that my statement is more or less correct. It is very hard to understand the reasons why this section is being brought in.

If people are getting money under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts who have plenty of money themselves, cannot the Minister bring in legislation—not permissive legislation—and compel a local authority to put a limit on the total family income a person may have in order to avail of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and who can get a supplementary grant? If the Minister wants to be consistent, let him do away with the giving of the Government grant to people who could well afford to do without it.

Let him face the facts and say: "From 1st October next, no local authority will be empowered to make a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts to any person having an income in excess of £850 a year." Let us put any figure we like on it, let it be £1,000 or £700, but let a figure be stated. The idea of asking the local authority to do this deal with a building society will not materialise.

The Minister in his introductory remarks stated at column 500, Volume 159 of the Official Debates:

"It is intended that local authorities should continue to operate the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts for persons willing to provide their own houses and who are unable to provide the necessary finances otherwise but many persons have been availing of the facilities provided under the Acts who either did not need to do so or who would not have needed to do so if commercial agencies would advance a higher percentage of the purchase price and would allow a longer repayment period."

The Minister goes on to say:—

"I have investigated this matter in recent months and, as already announced, discussions have been held with the principal commercial agencies engaged in house financing. I am pleased to say that the representatives of these agencies gave ready and generous co-operation in those discussions."

The Minister is the only person who is pleased about this measure. The Minister further said:—

"The principal building societies were willing to widen the scope of their loan activities by making higher proportionate advances than hitherto, and by extending the period of repayment as far as practicable, on the understanding that they would not be required to bear the full risk of the higher loans and longer repayment periods and they have now agreed to the terms of guarantee schemes which will enable them to extend their loan facilities in these respects."

The Minister at the end of column 501, even though some of the assurance companies had withdrawn, stated:—

"I may mention that some assurance companies, as well as continuing to make advances to individuals for house-purchase, are making or have offered to make direct loans to local authorities."

The point I want to make is—I trust it is constructive—that if the assurance companies and the building societies give these loans to individuals with the guarantees, why cannot the local authority consider the building society as its local loans fund and say: "Right; we will borrow from you?" Could the Minister not cut out this farce of underwriting, guarantee, and so on? Could he not say: "Right; you can borrow from the building society and with that money you can administer, as you have administered so competently, the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. There is no change. Possibly, the interest rates will be higher"? Would the Minister consider that point?

The Minister states that assurance companies have made loans to local authorities. That is true. Some time ago in this House, I said an assurance company made a loan of £49,000 to the Limerick Corporation. Deputy Carew will bear me out in that matter. We accepted the assurance company's rate, even though it was higher than that offered by the bank which was 4¾ per cent. We accepted their rate of 5¼ per cent. to pay the £49,000 when we were extending the borough in Limerick. We accepted the assurance company's offer at 5¼ per cent. because they offered us a 25-year period, whereas the bank offered us only 15 years.

The deed of mortgage came up for signature on Monday night and there was a letter from the Minister for Local Government who now lauds the deal that local authorities can make with assurance companies stating that the period of 25 years for the loan was too long. He would not sanction affixing the seal to the agreement between the Irish Assurance Company and the Limerick Corporation, unless the period was reduced to ten years. Where is the consistency in that? As reported at the end of column 501, the Minister made a very interesting statement:—

"The minimum deposit required from the borrower will be 5 per cent. Some of the societies are prepared to make advances repayable over 35 years."

My information is that none of the building societies will lend money for more than 25 years. They do not want this type of business, because they lose, of course. The terms offered by the Minister appear to be "a good thing", but as I say the position from their point of view is that 95 per cent. of the business of the building societies at the present time is devoted to lending money to those who purchase second-hand or old houses, not grant type houses. Not even .5 of 1 per cent. who buy grant houses to-day avail of building society rates—they all purchase under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. The position is fantastic. The Minister now asks us as members of local authorities—in fact before we go to the local authorities, as members of this House—to bring in a section here empowering local authorities to enter into negotiations with the building societies at 7 per cent. for a start, not knowing what the interest will ultimately be.

The building societies are at present undertaking a continuous campaign for more funds. They have not sufficient funds at the present time to deal with applicants for old houses and they are seeking funds now to deal with the building contemplated under the arrangement now suggested. As one member of a building society said to me: "We will not get sufficient money. We have not sufficient money for the needs of one county, not to talk of the whole Twenty-Six Counties." I asked him what would happen, and he said: "It is quite obvious what will happen. We will have to offer increased interest rates next year, and the result of that will be that instead of lending money at 7 per cent. it will probably be 8 per cent. this time next year."

All this goes back to the point that this measure was brought in because the Government failed to get the money from the loan. Dublin and Cork Corporations failed and yet we have the extraordinary position now that, where the Government failed, a small body corporate or a company such as a building society can get the money at the same rate of interest. After all, looking at the advertisement in today's papers of the building societies' offer of 3¾ per cent. free of income-tax, we can recall that the Government went to the country with a 5 per cent. loan issued at 98½, I think, equivalent to £5 3s. 2d. per cent., approximately, per annum. Yet they could not get the money. But the building societies are getting the savings of the people in this country, the reason being that the people have no confidence in the Government. They have lost confidence in the Government and would not trust the Government to put the money to the best possible use. Therefore, they have said to a lesser body about which they might not know a great deal: "This is a building society; they offer such and such rates; we will invest with them."

The Minister was not truthful with the House. I suppose the shrewdest voter in the world is the Irishman who, when he reads something in the papers, can sum it up, and he knows in his heart and soul that there will be a further recession in house building —not a recession, a further recession. Any Deputy may go to the Library and see the figures there. He can see the number of carpenters, masons and plasterers and the number of labourers employed in work associated with the building industry. He can appreciate that those numbers have fallen in latter months and see how great is the fall since this time last year, due to Government policy.

The Minister, in his introductory remarks, lauded himself and the Minister for Finance for the help they were giving towards getting Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Larkin out of their troubles in Dublin Corporation. They have got no one out of their troubles. They allowed Dublin Corporation into the Local Loans Fund and they got members of local authorities down the country into trouble.

That is not Section 9.

If the Deputy would read Section 9, he would appreciate that what I am saying at the present time can be related to the deal which the local authorities are contemplating with the building societies. On the agenda of Dublin Corporation for the next meeting, I understand, is the circular letter from the Minister for Local Government recommending to Dublin Corporation—and, indeed, to us and to Cork Corporation and to the county councils—that we should consider the possibility which he strongly recommends, of entering into negotiations with the building societies in order that we may come to terms with the societies.

I think that of all the measures that have been introduced, or the introduction of which has been attempted, by this Government since 1954, since they came into power, this is the most evil, ludicrous and farcical. I can think of a lot of other stronger adjectives which, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you would not allow me to use. I say that I was never more interested in an amendment than in this Section 9, because if the Labour Party have the audacity to go into the Division Lobby —and we will be voting on it very shortly—in the light of what Deputy Larkin has said on this Bill and vote against it, it will be very interesting to the people. These are the people for whom the Labour Party have recently been crying out, the white-collar workers and the newly-weds. I wonder how the white-collar workers will feel to-morrow morning if they find members of the Labour Party have voted for a measure which enables local authorities to tie the millstone round their necks of having to pay interest at 7 per cent.? Does Deputy Denis Larkin know that, not alone must the local authorities give the building societies 7 per cent. but that there is no guarantee that the period will be over 35 years, and that, as one member of a building society said to me, it will probably be 25 years? Does the unfortunate man who is to get a loan know that he will also get a bill for £60 or £84 for costs from the building societies for legal fees——

The Deputy has already said that on more than one occasion.

I was trying to impress on, or remind, the Labour Party of their attitude towards the Minister on the Second Reading of this Bill. I have often said in this House that any fool can get up and talk and criticise but that there should be a certain amount of constructive criticism. I always say to myself: "What would you do if you were there?" The position, as I have tried to point out to the Minister on previous occasions, is that there is absolutely no necessity for Section 9 if he will do one or other of two things. First of all, he should tell the truth. He would then get the sympathy of this House if he came along and said: "The Government cannot get one shilling; we are faced with the position that in order to keep private housing going we must get money; it may be a temporary difficulty, or it may not." But no, the Minister for Local Government could not do that. He has to come along and bluff. He would like to make me feel a fool and all the rest of you feel fools and let the people think that he was omnipotent and the only person who knew anything about housing.

The attitude is: "Never mind O'Malley and the others who interrupt; what do they know about it? These people are only up from the bogs. We will get the section through; ring the division bell quickly." That is the attitude to one of the most important Bills ever to come before this House. To-morrow morning the public will read the names of those who voted on Section 9. We will take down their names and we will publish them in November, or whenever the general election will be, if the Labour Party does what I expect them to do, and they have done peculiar things in the past, and we will also take down——

The question of taking down names does not arise on the section.

I was on the question of what the Minister would do, or could do, in the circumstances in which he finds himself, that he possibly has not sufficient moneys at his disposal to continue private building. He could, once and for all, bring in a measure, the Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1956, to amalgamate all the Housing Acts.

Unless the Deputy can relate his remarks to the section I must ask him to resume his seat.

I must admit that I was going a bit away from the section. Under Section 9, relating to building societies, I would point out to the Minister that there is nothing in the world—and I am sure he would get co-operation from all sides of the House —to prevent his setting up an investment board to deal solely with the administration of housing, on the same lines as the building societies obtain their money, and divorce that body entirely from the House. The Post Office can get the public to invest their money, and make good use of that money. The Irish people are investing in building societies and the building societies are getting a high rate of interest for the pleasure of lending money to the people. Is there anything wrong with suggesting that we should have, as in America, Denmark and Sweden, a house investment board which could deal solely—whether it was Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael or a Coalition that was in power—with the finances of something that should be far above Party politics, namely, the re-housing of our people? I cannot see anything against such a board and if we had people investing in it, say on the lines of saving certificates, we could revolutionise the building position in regard to interest rates. If we had such a board it is not a section like Section 9 that would be coming before us to-day. I would ask the Minister to look into that matter.

There is another aspect of Section 9 which is very important and neither the Minister nor any other speaker has made reference to it. If Section 9 is adopted, I see the gravest of difficulties in regard to the ability of speculative builders to carry on. At the present time, a builder may embark on a scheme of 20 or 30 houses. Some local authorities, strange as it may seem, such as Limerick, Kilkenny and Waterford, are empowered to make earlier payments to the builders; they do not have to wait until the roof is on. They can pay them six, seven or eight times. In Waterford, a builder can be paid every month. Deputies can appreciate the saving of, perhaps, £50 or £60 in banking interest alone. A builder can thus build houses more quickly. He can get more staff, get credit with the merchants and he can get on to the job and out of it more quickly. Down the country, builders will have nothing to do with the building societies. There are builders in this House—Deputy Belton will bear me out—who, if they were to have any dealings with the societies, would have been in the bankruptcy courts long ago, because they would be obliged to have the houses completed before they could draw any money.

I would draw the attention of members of local authorities in this House to the fact that the Minister's circular letter is on the agenda for consideration by the local authorities whenever they next meet. The Minister is asking us to adopt this section. I would advise such members to be very careful of the burdens they may impose on the people they represent. The Minister has said earlier that the same amount of money obtainable this year under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts will be available next year. I have said to him, and I got no reply: "All right, drop Section 9; the demand for houses is coming down." In Limerick, we got £100,000 this year from the Local Loans Fund and the Minister says we will get the same amount next year. If we get it next year, what are we worrying about? What is the point in this section? It is like the City and County Management Act, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

What is all the talk about, then?

That is what we want to know from the Minister. The Minister makes these momentous statements about housing and the great Section 9 that he has produced, at these meetings in Tallaght, or wherever these mothers' meetings are. Deputy Esmonde congratulates him on its forthrightness, and in Sligo we had the Taoiseach saying that they have young financiers——

Government policy may not be discussed on this section.

There is another small point which I want to draw to the Minister's attention. Let him take this House and the country into his confidence and tell us whether the finances of the country are so bad that this measure is necessary. I, for one, am quite satisfied if we get the same amount of money in my area next year as this year. What will happen is this. The Minister will say this time 12 months—I am always using the phrase "this time 12 months"; I forget they will not be there then. It is inconvenient for us to be coming back here and tabling amendments to Bills which have become law. We could make the one job of it now.

I am asking the Minister, first of all, to give us that information. I am asking him to give that to every member of a local authority. It will save us all a certain amount of trouble if the Minister's statement can be backed up by the Minister for Finance. It is fantastic to think that the Minister for Local Government can make the statement that the same amount of money will be available next year under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts from the Local Loans Fund as is available this year. He cannot say that; the Minister for Finance cannot say it. They can only hope and pray that the same amount of money will be available, but it is completely misleading to say that Limerick Corporation and Cork Corporation will get the same amount next year.

Suppose we do not get the same amount? What will the Minister say then? I suppose he will say that "he thought at the time"—that is a very happy turn of phrase used by the Minister for Local Government—or "he was of the opinion at the time he made his statement that such would be the case, but outside circumstances etc., etc...". We know it off by heart. What will happen if Limerick Corporation and every other local authority in the country lend money to unfortunate individuals next year under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and guarantee the building societies? Where will we find ourselves, with the Local Loans Fund depleted as a result of further raids by Dublin Corporation and Cork Corporation, who could not secure the money themselves and had to be allowed in? Then the Government boasted that they helped the corporations out of their difficulties.

The principal matter on which there is no clarification is the Minister's statement—in my opinion, it is a very unfair statement—that it is purely for the local authority to decide the type of person who will be thrown on to the building societies' books or who will be kept on the small dwellings scheme list. Would the Minister tell us where the line of demarcation is?

Were you not told by the city manager last night?

The city manager did not tell us last night. This question of Section 9 is on the agenda for the next meeting. The only thing we had last night was a letter from the Minister strongly recommending Section 9. Now that the Minister is giving us the same amount of money next year as we are getting this year, I do not see any reason for discussing Section 9 next Monday night. I do not know the purpose of it. Supposing Section 9 comes up for discussion, where is the line of demarcation between the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and the building societies? If the Minister says that is a reserved function, that it is for the members of Limerick Corporation, Cork Corporation or Donegal County Council to decide it, it may be said that they can also decide to push this section out altogether. This is permissive legislation of the worst possible nature. Does it require the Minister's sanction? Is there a statutory obligation on the Minister to sanction this Section 9 as adopted by a local authority?

Under this section, moneys of this House are being risked, because the State is underwriting the losses to the extent of 50 per cent. of the difference between the normal advances and advances given under this section. The Minister says there is no onus on a local authority to submit a scheme to him, but at the end of a year there might be £x. The Minister might be asked in this House to account for the deficiency, and he might say that that is as a result of the incompetence of the Limerick Corporation in this scheme with the building societies. Somebody might ask if the Minister's Department had not seen that scheme. The position is ludicrous. There is not even a suggested draft scheme.

We have formulated a scheme. We have left it to you to decide to adopt it or otherwise.

Is it not quite obvious that the Minister has not formulated a scheme? If a scheme had been formulated, would an agreement not have been arrived at between the two parties—the Department of Local Government and the representatives of the building societies? Is it not a fact that only discussions have taken place and that there is not one thing in writing as yet?

There could not be until the Bill is passed.

But under certain sections of the Bill the building society or local authority has power to anticipate legislation?

I will read it out.

I thought the Minister said that a scheme actually existed?

Yes, subject to its being adopted.

Would the Minister not tell us what it is?

I am only asking you to adopt the section; the local authority will have to adopt the scheme.

We would like to see the scheme you have prepared.

It makes this matter retrospective——

Providing the section is passed. If it is not passed, it goes by the board.

We are going to vote against it. It is in the Minister's hands. Why is this retrospective? It is a bit thick. A building society is an ordinary commercial concern. The Government and local authority are underwriting a risk. Surely they can stand on their own feet and undertake that risk, if any risk there be.

Why is it retrospective?

To enable people to get on with the planning and building of houses.

Suppose the House does not pass the Bill, what is the position then?

I cannot help that.

The position is that no local authority has yet adopted this section, even in anticipation. I do not know exactly what the Minister had at the back of his mind. He gives a warning that the days of money for private house building are coming to an end, but, in answer to me earlier, he said there were certain sections of the community who were availing of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts loans who could well afford to build their own houses and who should be thrown on to a building society. He talked about poor people who could not get the means to build their own houses.

Since 1899, right down through the years, the Small Dwellings Acts have been amended for the better, but now we have a retrograde step. The Minister has been asked by Deputy Smith, by Deputies on his own side, including Deputy D. Larkin, if he will state once and for all the type of person who will be allowed to draw the Small Dwellings Acts loan and the type of person who will be thrown on to the building societies. I hope the Minister will not say: "This is a matter for the local authorities." We have a position at the moment, in Limerick, where a supplementary grant will be paid to a person who has £14 a week. In Dublin, the grant will not be paid to anybody who has over £520 a year. Go down to Clare and you will get nothing but abuse. The whole thing is farcical.

I wish the Minister would not have us wasting the time of the House any longer; I wish he would tell us if he contemplates the making of regulations, because he has the power under this Bill, under Section 9, to make regulations as to the type of person who will continue to qualify for loans under the Small Dwellings Acts, who will continue to qualify for loans from the Local Loans Fund. Is a person who is compelled to obtain money from building societies to be debarred from qualifying for a supplementary grant? If there is to be an income limit of £520 a year what happens to the person with £521? The Minister could not care less. I suppose he is as well off not to be worrying here about this measure. There is building going on, as he said——

The Deputy may not discuss building in general on the section.

If this section is adopted, the hardest hit people will be the Dublin people. Deputy D. Larkin gave a very fair criticism of the Minister's Second Reading speech. If the section is adopted, there will undoubtedly be further unemployment. At the present moment, the whole business is a vicious circle. The corporation owes money; the clients owe money; the builders owe money to the builders' providers, and the builders' providers, in turn, owe money to the bank. You have the complete vicious circle, due to Government ineptitude and inactivity. The result will be that everyone with over £10 a week will be at the behest of building societies and will be obliged to pay 7 per cent. interest, if it stops at that. What young married couple can pay 63/- a week in repayments? The onus has been taken off the local authorities.

Since June, 1954, we have done a lot of talking on both sides of the House, but the most evil proposal—I am not casting any aspersions on the Minister in this regard—that has appeared before us is this. It is departing from all the ambitions of Ministers for Local Government in the past. Deputy MacEntee, Deputy Smith, the late Deputy Murphy and Deputy Keyes, in their amendments to the Housing Acts, made some move towards advances on previous legislation. Here we are confronted with the frightening proposition of bringing private building to a halt. People are frightened in this country. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture may laugh.

I am not laughing. I was not even listening to the Deputy.

The Parliamentary Secretary should clear out and stay where he has been. What brought him in here, if he is not listening?

People are frightened. I quite agree that Deputy O. Flanagan was not listening to me. He does not care. He is not very interested in the housing of the white collar workers or of the newly-weds. There are no worries like that down in Laois-Offaly— not at the moment at any rate. I hope that Deputies who vote for this section will remember the day they voted for it because they will be committing themselves and those whom they represent to unprecedented interest rates. Next year, the Minister for Finance can come along and say: "This crowd are doing fine with the building societies; we will let them off and utilise the Local Loans Fund moneys for other purposes." It will be like the grabbing of the Racing Board's £140,000; it will be like the grabbing of the Road Fund.

Who took it first? Ask the Deputy on the Front Bench.

That is not so.

The suggestion of the Minister about Deputy MacEntee is entirely wrong.

Would the Minister check on it?

The question of roads does not arise.

It was not I who brought in the roads.

It was the Deputy who mentioned the Road Fund.

To conclude, I ask Deputies opposite to keep the straight road. I will bet that Deputy Coogan has not even looked at the Bill.

Maybe I could tell you a few things yet.

Please God, he will enlighten us for once, and not sit there for his nuisance value. I seriously ask each Deputy to examine carefully the implications of this section. I ask the Minister to withdraw it in its entirety. I cannot envisage the Labour Party going into the lobby to vote for this provision.

We do not want to continue this discussion unduly. We do not want any more long speeches on this section. We want, as I tried to convey to the Minister on another section, and as we are entitled to get, a free explanation of what the Minister has in his mind, and what the Department has in mind regarding this section. We have the assurance from the Minister that all local authorities will be able to borrow freely from the Local Loans Fund for the purposes of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. Later we have this assurance from the Minister: "I will make sure that the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts are not available to rich people." That is No. 2. No. 3 is that I know a local body that, when they made an application for £20,000 under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, were told that they had been granted £10,000. No. 4 is that I have heard it reported that a conference has taken place with the managers where they were told that the amount of money under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts would be limited this year.

We have the Minister's assurance that the local authorities can borrow freely; we have his assurance that he will not allow the rich to avail of the Acts; we have the proof that a local body applies for £20,000 and gets £10,000, and we have the report that representatives of local bodies would not get money as freely as before. The Minister did not make a clear statement on the section during the Second Stage. I invite him to make a clear statement on it now. Remember, I am not making this in any way as a threat, but I would be encouraged to keep this House going for a long time unless the Minister faces up to his responsibilities. I suggest that the Minister really did not know what he was talking about on the Second Stage and that is why I am asking him for an explanation now. If it is the position that the Minister cannot get the money we shall discuss Section 9 on a different basis but, for goodness' sake, do not try to treat us as children.

I have given an undertaking to this House, and I now repeat it, that any applicant of modest means who requires a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts will get it from the Local Loans Fund.

What does the Minister mean by modest means?

Builders like Deputy O'Malley, builders such as he, have defeated the Act and have succeeded in having local authorities depart from the intention of the original Act. We all know that people who could have, and who should have, procured the money elsewhere were throwing an unnecessary burden on the local authorities by procuring loans from local authorities that should never have been given to them.

Then why give them a State grant?

They why get a State grant provided they build a house of less than 1,400 square feet. That is to encourage them to build their own homes.

A rich man.

A rich man if you wish. It is not I who introduced that legislation. I am trying to ensure that the rich man does not build his house on State funds. I am trying to do that but the opposition to that effort is coming from over there. This, I hope, is the thin edge of the wedge.

Who are the people of modest means?

The people who should have access to it, the people of modest means.

Who are they?

That is a matter for the local authorities.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he means by the expression "modest means"?

I am telling the House in the phrase which was used when the Act was originally introduced. There are people of modest means and people who may have access to the funds which the building societies have. In my own county 95 per cent. of the applicants for loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts are school teachers. I do not think that the school teacher is a man of modest means.

I hope they do not hear you saying that.

I do not think they are men of modest means.

I think they are.

A school teacher is a man with between £700 and £800 a year and I am telling the House that in my county 95 per cent. of the applicants are school teachers.

You gave them 10 per cent. extra three months ago.

I do not grudge them that. I am referring to the men of modest means within the terms of the Act. I do not say he is a rich man.

He is very rich, according to the Minister.

I do not think he is a rich man but at the same time he is not a man of modest means. It is quite possible that he could not put up the 25 per cent. of the capital necessary to build his house. He may not have that readily available capital and as a result of this section such a man will be able to go to a building society and merely put down 5 per cent. and borrow the remaining 95 per cent. from the building society.

That wealthy man can do that.

He is not a wealthy man but he is not a man of modest means. He is in between. I think we are doing a good turn by making available now for the building of houses a fund that has never been tapped before. We are now giving such a man a way out. He can now put up his house by putting down a deposit of 5 per cent. of the price. Deputy O'Malley is talking about paying 7 per cent. I do not know what the rate will be but, whatever it is, he would also have to pay it on the 75 per cent. if he borrowed that amount. Deputy O'Malley is the builders' man. Deputy O'Malley knows that I do not mean this for him personally, but these are the gentlemen who have ruined the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. I am referring to builders generally.

Here in Dublin.

All over the country. They succeeded in getting local authorities to grant loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts to people who should never have qualified for them. This section is for the "in-betweens", the men of modest means, the white-collar worker, such as the school teacher. I think they should not be expected to put up 25 per cent. of the capital cost of their houses. I do not think they have got the money to put up but under Section 9 I think we are doing something to meet the needs of this particular class. I do not know what the percentage will be but I will take Deputy O'Malley's word for it, that it is 7 per cent. Suppose that we did not have this section, they would still have to pay the 7 per cent. but they would get only 75 per cent. of their capital outlay. I think this section confers considerable benefits on that particular class of people.

In regard to the question of interest, Deputy O'Malley wanted to know why it was that the Government could not get money for 98½ per cent. stock at 5 per cent. and building societies could. The difference is that a depositor to a building society is guaranteed interest at the rate of 3¾ per cent. tax free.

I said that.

That is equal to 6 per cent. The building societies are holding out a greater inducement.

Why does the Government not offer 6 per cent. and cut out the building societies?

You object to giving 5 per cent.?

We are not objecting at all.

We have heard sufficient talk about that.

We heard it from the Minister himself.

The Deputy heard it in 1952. I agreed that in 1952 5 per cent. was too high because it was much higher than the percentage in every other country in Europe. To-day compare our 5 per cent. and it is much less than any other country in Europe.

And you did not get the money.

Of course we could not get the money simply because other countries were offering higher rates. Is that not so?

The Deputy cannot act the ostrich and stick his head in the sand. He knows exactly what occurred. May I quote what I said in my introductory remarks on the Second Reading of this Bill? I am quoting from column 500, Volume 4, of the Official Debates of the 10th July, 1956:—

"It is intended that local authorities should continue to operate the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts for persons willing to provide their own houses and who are unable to provide the necessary finances otherwise but many persons have been availing of the facilities provided under the Acts who either did not need to do so or who would not have needed to do so if commercial agencies would advance a higher percentage of the purchase price and would allow a longer repayment period."

That is what I am trying to provide for now.

Does it lie now with the local authorities to find what is meant by the man of modest means?

Yes, absolutely.

In other words, if the local authority says a man of modest means is a man with a large family with an income of from £200 a year, that man in the opinion of the corporation or the county council, as a man of modest means, will be entitled to get a loan under the ordinary Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts?

It is absolutely at the discretion of the local authority to decide who will have access to this fund or otherwise.

If they decide that those who availed of it heretofore will be free to avail of it in future, the Local Loans Fund will be available to them?

Deputy Smith did not hear what I said to Deputy O'Malley. I said that builders procured admission to these particular loans for people for whom they were never intended and I am now suggesting to the local authority a method of weeding those out, so that people who would not have access to these loans and who would not be in a position to put down 25 per cent. deposit would have this opportunity to provide a house for themselves. I am not trying to ram this section down anybody's throat. I merely want to explain what this section means. Supposing the section were not included in the Bill and a local authority decided that John Brown or John Smith, or whoever he might be, is not a person who should have access to a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, what would happen? This man may have a fairly decent certified or guaranteed income but unfortunately he cannot put down 25 per cent. of the purchase price of a new house. Therefore, he must do without a house. I intend to encourage him to build his own house despite the fact that the local authority may not give him access to a loan. If I take this section out, as Deputies on the other side of the House are requesting, we are depriving that unfortunate individual of the chance of building or procuring his own home. I think the section confers a considerable benefit on a number of people, the class in between those of modest means and the rich.

The Minister has endeavoured to give a definition of people with modest means and apparently he is leaving matters to the discretion of the local authorities in this respect. Does the Minister think that that is fair in view of what has happened in Dublin? The Minister stated here on the Second Reading of this Bill that small dwellings loans were available. Is he aware that the Dublin Corporation have refused to accept applications for small dwellings loans no later than a few days ago?

Did I not answer that by way of parliamentary question?

The Deputy may not discuss the administration of the Dublin Corporation.

Furthermore, the Minister stated that money is available for small dwellings loans just the same as it was heretofore.

I said no such thing.

The Minister said the same amount of money would be available——

Next year as this year.

The Minister said, at column 584 of the same Volume:—

"Again some Deputies referred to the fact that the 1954 Act had ceased to exist on 31st March last. That is not so. One small section, Section 6 of the 1954 Act, is the only section that expired on 31st March and I made it very clear many months ago in this House that, if there was to be any reduction in the grants for the building of new houses or the reconstruction of houses, due notice would be given to the House. No such notice was given; therefore I took it for granted that every person was well aware of the fact that there would be no reduction."

In housing grants.

He stated also that housing loans would be available and surely the Minister——

The Deputy purported to quote me and he is not able to do it now.

Let me quote from column 589 of the same Volume where the Minister said:

"These Acts and the various amending Acts will continue. It is a matter for the local authority to decide who shall be the successful applicant."

The Minister stated that he would definitely make small dwelling loans available as heretofore. Notwithstanding the Minister's instructions to the local authority, will he ensure that those instructions will be carried out?

Will the Deputy read the instructions?

The Minister's instructions are very clearly defined. He has stipulated a particular class of people. He has referred to very wealthy people and I put it to the Minister that if any man is able to purchase his own house, he will not look for a loan for it. I do not know of any wealthy man in County Dublin who got a Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts loan to purchase his house. The only people who look for loans, to my knowledge, are those who are unable to purchase their own houses without some assistance. It would be a rather strange thing to have anyone applying for a loan, if he were already blessed with sufficient wherewith to purchase a house. Surely, such a man would not be so foolish as to pay the high interest rates involved in the repayment of loans for house purchase.

The Minister states he will look after the poor people. As far as the Dublin County Council and the Dublin Corporation are concerned, the poor are those with £9 10s. per week, or under. If a man has £10 per week he will not get a loan. I live in County Dublin and I know of a number of applicants who were told they would not get a loan because they are in receipt of £560 per annum. They are occupying their houses under caretaker agreements. They have been misled by statements made by the Minister and other people here. Now, they will be left in the lurch. I am sorry I have to speak in this way, but I feel that neither this House nor the Minister has been honest with the people whom I represent. I regard Section 9 as fraudulent in conception because it does not meet the position good, bad or indifferent of those people whom we wish to protect. If the Minister told us quite honestly that the money was not available, we, as responsible Deputies, would say: "Then we shall have to meet the position in some other way." But the Minister is trying to shove it down our throats that money is available for these people. I know that money is not available for them.

Speaking here, for over an hour last week, on the Second Stage of this measure, I read out particulars of cases wherein people had contracted to purchase houses in good faith and the contractors had built the houses in good faith. Those people are occupying those houses now under caretaker agreements. They are nobody's children. Nevertheless, we are asked to swallow this section; we are told that everything in the garden will be lovely. But we are leaving thousands of people outside. The contractors who purchased land and built the houses are on the verge of bankruptcy. We are told this section will cure all ills. I have a certain responsibility to the people who sent me here and those people are not being properly treated under this Bill. This section will not meet their position or help them in any way. There is no use codding ourselves.

The Minister told us about the poor people and the "rich poor", shall we call them; he referred to school teachers. I certainly do not know any wealthy teachers. Some of them may be in receipt of possibly £700 per year, but I think very few of them would have that. Even with £700 per year, their commitments are heavy. Here we have a means test and all the rest of it. Will the Minister come clean and tell us exactly what the position is? If he does that he will receive loyal co-operation. It is not our purpose to disrupt. The Minister has told us that everything in the garden is lovely and that Section 9 will cure all ills. I say that it will not.

I am opposed to this section. Furthermore, there is provision in this section whereby the local authority will give a guarantee in relation to loans. I want the Minister to define the type of person who will get that loan. The Minister has told us that it is the man who is above the section. What type of man will get it? Will the decision on that be left to the local authority in the same way as it was in the case of the supplementary grants in the City and County of Dublin? I hold that we should be very definite about this and not leave it to be interpreted by local authorities at will. The section as it stands is a deception on the people whom we are trying to protect. I do not say that as a personal reflection on the Minister; nevertheless the section is a deception on the people. It will not cure any ills. It is one of the most ambiguous pieces of legislation with which we have ever found ourselves confronted.

Will the Minister amend this section to ensure that those people in my constituency who have entered into commitments in good faith and who are now occupying their houses under caretaker agreements, together with the contractors who built the houses in good faith, will be in a position to honour their commitments, commitments entered into on or before 10th March last?

That does not arise on this section.

The Minister may say it does not arise, but I hold it is inherent in the section. Deputy Larkin knows that what I am saying is true. Constituents have approached me and every other Deputy in both the City and the County of Dublin. We are sent in here to do our job to the best of our ability on behalf of our constituents. If it is a case of not being able to "get blood out of a turnip", then I suppose we shall have to accept the position.

The Deputy is repeating himself.

I am sorry for being so vehement this evening. I have spoken on this matter before and I have spoken then with all the coolness at my command. I would be long sorry to introduce any element of discord into the debate but, when I am told repeatedly that this section will cure all ills, I am not going to swallow that.

The Deputy should not repeat himself. He has said that several times.

Will the Minister take the people who committed themselves out of the lurch now? Will he tell the House in all seriousness that small dwellings loans will be available as heretofore? Will he tell the House what section will get these loans? Will he tell the House what section——

We are dealing specifically with Section 9 and these general questions are not relevant.

It is here under Section 9.

The Deputy is asking general questions as to what section will give power to a local authority in respect of certain matters. That surely cannot arise under Section 9. The Deputy should confine himself to Section 9 and he should deal with it.

I have confined myself to Section 9.

That is not my opinion.

I shall read the section:—

"(1) A housing authority may, in accordance with a scheme approved of by the Minister, guarantee part of an advance ... by a building society or an assurance company for the purchase or erection of a house together with interest thereon.

(2) For the purpose of a scheme under this section, a housing authority shall have the like powers of borrowing as are conferred on them for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts or the Labourers Acts."

I do not see why the Minister wants to introduce this ambiguous section. I want to refer again to the reason for his wanting to introduce it—trying to tell the people that things in the garden are lovely when, in fact, they are not.

If the Deputy does not deal more specifically and more succinctly with the section, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

I want to protest in the strongest possible way against the introduction of this section, because I feel it is dishonest and ambiguous and does not meet the position which exists to-day.

The Minister said that this section does not in any way put a brake on private building. I have yet to hear any arguments adduced to show that that is true. In my view, it is the first attempt to put a real brake on private building. It is an attempt to pass on a section of the community who desire and require loans to build their houses to building societies who may or may not give them the necessary loans.

The Minister said it was not fair that everybody should be able to secure a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and that, therefore, a scheme was being drafted whereby some persons would procure loans through the building societies. If that is so, as Deputy O'Malley pointed out, why give these people grants from Government funds? Secondly, why go to their further assistance by having the housing authority guarantee that portion of the loan which they may require over and above the normal amount which would be paid by the building society? That is further testimony, if such be necessary, that this scheme was not designed to compel the better-off classes to confine themselves to procuring loans from the building societies. The Minister also said it had not retarded private building in any way. I do not know what effect it may have had generally, but I think it is true that it has created a serious recession in private building in cities, particularly Dublin City.

This section is of little or no use, so far as rural Ireland is concerned. In rural areas, those who qualify for a supplementary grant from local authorities have to show that their income is under a certain figure. They must, in order to qualify for a loan, show that their income is above a certain figure. Therefore it is impossible to qualify for the supplementary grant from the housing authority and, at the same time, to qualify for a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. The type of people in rural Ireland who were accustomed to benefit by Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts loans were white-collar workers who would not, under the means test, qualify for a supplementary grant from the housing authority. By virtue of the present imposition on them, as well as the ambiguities surrounding this proposed scheme, they will be put in a position in which they will not apply for loans from a building society.

I was late for the Minister's opening statement and I do not know whether or not he explained the principles of the scheme in any broad terms. Usually, a building society requires a first mortgage on the property. In the past, when local authorities granted a loan, not merely did they require a first mortgage on the property, but they also required two personal solvent securities. If the building society advances portion of a loan and the housing authority comes in to guarantee the portion over and above what would be the normal amount paid by the building society, will they also seek a charge on the property on which the building society will already have obtained a first charge? Will they look for a second mortgage or will they be content with two solvent securities only? Since the amount to be repaid, in the event of default by the housing authority, can only be two-thirds of the amount in excess of the normal loan which would be paid by the building society, will the building society be prepared to give loans under these conditions at all? The whole thing is in the melting-pot.

I have a copy of a letter which was written to the Minister by the standing sub-committee of the Dublin House Builders' Association. I do not know whether or not anything has resulted from this correspondence. That body wrote to the Minister on 12th instant as follows:—

"We wish to refer to a letter dated 22nd June, 1956, to which no reply has been received. The conditions existing at the date of our letter still persist and our members are extremely concerned and feel there is not likely to be a change in the situation for some time."

It is a sensible letter written by a responsible association which, naturally, is perturbed at the present situation. The letter continues:—

"It is understood you have recently made available to the Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council the suggested terms of agreement with the building societies under the guarantee scheme. From our information, it would appear that these matters have yet to be dealt with by the committee of Dublin County Council in the next few weeks and by the Dublin Corporation Housing Committee in August and, providing these local authorities are satisfied, the terms will have to be accepted by the building societies. We are again informed it will not be possible for the building societies to approve of any application under the scheme, let alone advance moneys thereon, until this stage has been reached."

That would seem to indicate a complete deadlock.

The Deputy is lengthening the deadlock the longer he speaks here.

The extra time we will spend here in exposing the shortcomings of Section 9 will not be time wasted. The building trade in Dublin has had to wait for the past three or four months——

Since last November.

——in a period of complete indecision. They will welcome any complete exposure of the shortcomings, which are many, of Section 9 of this Bill.

I want particularly to refer to the last paragraph of that letter which really sets out the situation which exists:—

"As you are no doubt aware, it is the custom for the building industry to pay off the entire labour force at the end of July, the time of the annual holidays. Unless our members are certain that purchasers will be able to take up loans, it is a fact that very few of these employees will be re-engaged after the holidays. In view of this, it is sincerely hoped you will be able to give us as soon as possible the information that sufficient funds have been made available to the local authorities to enable them to continue the operation of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts.

That has nothing to do with the section.

It has this much to do with it: the building trade in Dublin are not in a position to-day to know what is likely to happen to-morrow with regard to the building trade. The Minister has already given us an assurance that Section 9 will in no way interfere with private building as such. That copy of that communication is in itself sufficient proof that, not merely is Section 9 likely to interfere with the building trade, but has already created chaos in that industry. Therefore, there is no question of doubt about the implications of this section. It has already put the brake on private building.

Borrowing from the Small Dwellings Acts Fund has been of little assistance to a particular section of private builders in rural Ireland, because, as I have already explained, they cannot qualify for a supplementary grant and at the same time obtain a loan since the income that is sufficiently low in one case will not be accepted if it is too low in the other case and the people concerned were not likely to turn to the building societies for a loan. Building societies are very wary about touching property in rural Ireland. As a matter of fact, I do not think they do give loans in many instances to rural communities.

That is not true.

They may in the provincial towns in respect of business properties.

That is not true. All over rural Ireland they give advances for dwelling-houses.

I should like to know the number of farmers who within the last ten years have obtained grants from any of the building societies in Dublin.

I am giving you a guarantee now that they will operate this scheme in any part of rural Ireland.

I should like to know if any guarantee scheme has been arrived at between the Minister and the building societies.

The Deputy saw the circular of the 29th June sent out by my Department to every local authority in the country, including the association whose name he has just quoted.

I have seen a copy of the circular but it does not set out that any specific scheme has been arranged.

Will the Minister make available the replies he received from the local authorities and the number that are in favour of Section 9?

I have a number of local authorities who have approved of the scheme.

Deputy Brennan must be allowed to proceed.

While this conversation was going on between the Minister and Deputy McQuillan I unearthed a circular issued by a particular county council in relation to the Minister's circular of the 29th June. It is not Donegal County Council. This is a memorandum issued by way of explanation of the circular dated the 29th June in which they make some references which are striking and which show the indecision which prevails even after the receipt of that circular of the 29th June. The memorandum says:—

"Arising out of the recent circulars from the Department of Local Government in relation to these schemes, there are a number of points to be noted——"

Which scheme?

The scheme under Section 9.

This is in relation to the circular of 29th June.

What is the Deputy quoting?

I am quoting from an explanatory memorandum by a certain county council.

Unless the Deputy gives the name of the county council I do not think he should be permitted to quote it.

Wicklow County Council.

And the date of the memorandum?

The date of the memorandum is 6th July, 1956.

I take it that the Deputy will read the entire memorandum?

I will read the relevant portion.

Ah, now. To whom is this memorandum addressed?

To each member of the Wicklow County Council.

From whom?

The county manager probably.

The county manager, a very wise county manager, who sent out an explanatory memorandum because one would need to break down many of the circulars that we get from the Department of Local Government or any other Department and to issue them in plain, commonsense language. That is what this purports to do. Let us see what it says. The heading is: "Scheme for Guarantees by Housing Authorities of Loans by Building Societies." It says:—

"Arising out of the recent circulars from the Department of Local Government in relation to these schemes, there are a number of points to be noted.

In the circular of 28th June, 1956, it was mentioned by the Department that regard should be had in considering applications for advances to not only the income of the applicants, their capital resources and value of lands occupied, but also the need for new housing accommodation."

If the existing housing accommodation is held to be good enough the applicant may be refused a loan.

Is that not quite natural? If his house is good enough, why should he want a loan to build another one?

One could easily understand a member of a family thinking about branching out on his own.

Let him apply and, if he does, he will get the loan.

If he is a single man and a member of a family and has not already committed the deed, he may be regarded as living in good enough housing accommodation.

Not necessarily. He would be the applicant, not the householder.

The question may arise, is he entitled to a house or does he require a house?

This debate may not develop into a cross-examination between two members from Donegal as to a circular from Wicklow.

I will give the Wicklow circular to a Wicklow Deputy who will read it.

Section 9 is before the House. I hope Deputy Brennan remembers that.

I have rigidly kept to the section. While it does not greatly concern rural Ireland, it is a section that is bound to produce chaos, if it does not already exist, in private building in the cities and larger towns. Under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts we have found difficulty enough in obtaining loans without complicating matters further. As I pointed out when speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill, it was necessary to give a first charge on the property and two solvent securities had to be provided. I should like the Minister when replying to let us know, when the local authority are underwriting a loan or giving a guarantee for portion of a loan given by a building society, will they also seek a charge on the property?

Will they seek personal securities?

The first charge on the property by the building society will be accepted as sufficient?

And no personal securities will be sought?

That is an important matter because we have been accustomed in the past in the matter of obtaining loans to the procedure that not merely was there a first charge on the property but two solvent securities were also required and the investigation of the guarantors was such that they were very frequently turned down, held not to be suitable, with the result that many people did not go to the trouble of looking for these loans at all. The Minister states that all that will be done away with. I think it introduces a new aspect into Section 9, which may not be as bad as I thought it would be.

It took the Deputy a good while to see that.

If the Minister can give us a guarantee that we can get loans by means of a first charge on the property only, that will be a great improvement——

At 7 per cent.

——on the schemes we had, if the interest is given at the same rate. With all due respect to the Minister's statement, I very much suspect that the regulations in regard to the granting of loans will be waived by some of the county managers whose duty it is to see whether or not they require personal sureties. There is nothing in this Bill to change the situation as it was under the 1952 Act which left it in the hands of the county manager as to whether or not he required personal securities. I take the Minister's word. It is on the record of this House and I will take great pleasure in using it elsewhere, when the necessity arises.

It is not binding.

I, on one occasion, made a very strong effort to get loans.

That does not arise under this guarantee section.

It arises very much under Section 9. What we are really concerned with in the section and in the amendment of Section 10 of the 1952 Act is the availability of and the method by which loans will be procured in the future. That is what I am discussing. I submit it is relevant and absolutely so. I should like to hear the Minister's statement on this when he comes to refer to the section and, as Deputy O'Malley says, I should like to have the views of the Labour people, who are in their hearts opposed to this section. I should like to see if their feet will follow their hearts when it comes to passing this section this evening.

At the risk of protracting this debate, may I point out that every Deputy who spoke so far— they are all on the Fianna Fáil side of the House—represented a rural constituency, with the exception of Deputy O'Malley?

I have not spoken yet.

We have been discussing this section for the past three hours. Again, at the risk of protracting this debate, may I point out that every Deputy who spoke said this section would not affect his constituency?

I did not.

They said they were thinking of Dublin. They were concerned about the City of Dublin.

I did not.

I will accept Deputy Smith's word. Every Deputy who spoke represented a rural constituency in spite of the fact that we have three prominent representatives of the City of Dublin here—Deputy MacEntee, an ex-Minister, the Lord Mayor and a third Deputy.

But I was not here.

I am not referring to whether the Deputy was here or not. Not one of the city representatives of Fianna Fáil spoke against this section. Every other Deputy who spoke, with the exception of Deputy Smith, said that it did not affect rural Ireland, but that they were concerned about Dublin, but the Fianna Fáil speakers representing Dublin were not here to say one word against the section.

I speak as a Deputy from a rural area. The Minister assured Deputies from rural areas who spoke that this section would have no adverse effect on housing in rural areas. Personally, I should like to believe that and I think I am entitled to accept the Minister's word as given in this House. I only hope that the Minister's specific statement in this House will have as binding an effect as the legislation that will be enacted.

This matter was included in a circular from the Department recently to local authorities. I presume that the members of all local authorities in Ireland had an opportunity of discussing at their meeting the changes proposed to be made by the Minister in new housing legislation. The council to which I belong and in respect of which I have the honour to speak, namely, Roscommon County Council, discussed this proposal in detail and the unanimous opinion of all members of that council on which there is an inter-Party majority, was that this would not be of benefit to the rural areas.

They need not adopt it.

That is what I am coming to. Notification to that effect was sent back to the Department. I feel sure that what suits a local authority like Roscommon suits the majority of rural constituencies. On every rural local authority, there are members of this House: Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and Clann na Talmhan. That being the case, I presume that the Fine Gael members, the Labour members and the Fianna Fáil members of the local authorities gave attention and thought to the implications of this Bill, with particular reference to this section.

I also presume that when the legislation was introduced into this House, each Party met and discussed the implications of this section. I cannot understand why there is not a unanimous viewpoint expressed from all sides of this House from rural Deputies in regard to the dangerous implications attached to this section. Let me point out what they are.

The Minister stated that so far as the local authorities are concerned, especially in rural areas where the majority of local authorities are, it is optional on them to adopt this. If it is optional, does that mean that, as far as the local authority in Roscommon are concerned, they can ignore completely this section and that we in Roscommon can carry on exactly as we have carried on in the past, that we are entitled to make loans available to any citizen within the local authority area on the same basis as we have given those loans in the past?

Provided the person is a person of modest means.

Now we have got the snag. In other words, the county council in Roscommon need not adopt this scheme, but when they try to carry out the former scheme, they must not put forward to the Minister for sanction a loan on behalf of an individual who, in the opinion of the Minister, does not come within the interpretation of a man of modest means. Is that not what it means? In other words, each case has to be sanctioned by the Minister.

The local authority have the sanctioning of the loan.

Nobody knows what "modest means" is, apparently.

I have nothing whatever to do with it. I allocate a certain sum and it is a matter entirely for the local authority to decide who are to get it. I suggest that they should see that the people who deserve it—the people of modest means— should have first claim to it.

I do not want to criticise the Minister as he is going to get plenty of criticism from other members in this House. I want to satisfy myself in regard to what the Minister said at the beginning, that the local authority in Roscommon can carry on exactly as it did in the past on the same basis. Now the Minister, by means of an interjection, stated they can, provided the loans are given to people with modest means. As far as modest means are concerned, their interpretation of that could be completely different from the Minister's.

They have the last word. I have no say in it.

In the case of a man who has an income of £1,000 per annum —not a school teacher; I do not know of any of them with that income—who is making an attempt to send his children to a secondary school and perhaps a son or daughter to a university—all of which has to be paid for because the fact that the father has £1,000 per year prevents them from getting a scholarship—does it mean that that man, if he wishes to build a new house, will be entitled to obtain from, say, the Roscommon County Council the same facilities as he obtained in the past with regard to a loan? I do not think that there is any answer to that point.

The Minister's way of getting over this problem—in other words, sidetracking the issue, or, to put it bluntly, pulling the wool over the eyes of rural Deputies—is that he says there is no change if the local authority does not wish to adopt this Section 9. Immediately afterwards, he reduces the amount of money made available to that local authority. Mark you, the Minister has stated clearly that only next year will the same amount be made available for these loans for house building to the local authority. That means that the next year—there is no question in the world about it— there will be a complete reduction in the amount of money made available to the local authorities to fulfil their requirements.

I think that this is a backward step, and I regret to have to say it. I think that each Bill that has been brought into this House in recent years by different Governments, whether legislation of a social character or bearing on economics, was a step forward, a progressive step. Some of us may at all times have believed that the steps were painfully slow, but at any rate there were steps forward. This, to my mind, and I regret to have to say it, appears to me to be not even a marking of time—bad as that would be—but a step backwards. I suggest to Deputies on all sides of the House who are acquainted with housing problems in rural areas to be on their guard against this section.

I do not know whether the implications of the section have been brought home to them at Party meetings; I presume if they have been taking an interest in the Bill since it came in they have made themselves familiar with the point at issue now. What does the Minister mean by telling local authorities: "Carry on as you are; do not mind this Section 9 if you do not feel inclined to mind it"? He thereby gives the impression to each of these local authorities that everything in the garden is lovely, and suggests that they can carry on in the future as they did in the past. I think rural Deputies would need to sit down and examine very carefully the Minister's promises in connection with that point. If they do, they will discover for themselves that they may be helping to pass legislation that will not be of benefit to those people who want to build their houses in rural areas.

The Minister took an example, perhaps an unfortunate one in some respects, and said that teachers could not be put in the poorer class. Nobody suggests they can be. He said they should be in the class that can afford to go to insurance companies in order to get the new loans. He also tried to make it appear an attraction that the deposite rate would be reduced when they take advantage of this procedure.

He did not, of course, mention that the interest rate would be, and is now at the moment, 7 per cent. as far as these companies are concerned. That is an important point. Why pick on that section of the community?

I merely quoted them as an example.

The Minister quoted them as an example. If we take the salary scale for married teachers there are very few of them, to my knowledge, earning salaries in excess of £500 or £600.

I think each case would have to be taken separately.

If it is a matter of taking each case separately, how can it arise that the man with £800, £900 or £1,000 could be considered a man of modest means?

It is possible.

If the local authority decides—when I say the local authority, I mean the local authority and not the county manager—does the Minister agree with me on that? When I say local authority I refer to the elected members of the county council. If they decide that a certain ceiling should be placed with regard to the giving of loans will that decision be carried out by the county manager? May I take it that is what the Minister means, or will it be left solely to the county manager to decide what a man of modest means is? We have in the health services a figure of £600. Apparently the Department had no difficulty in clarifying that and in giving the figure of income which they believed would be appropriate in the case, shall we say, of white-collar workers, and under which certain privileges and treatment would be made available.

Is it not possible for the Minister to decide here for the House and for local authorities what in his opinion should be the ceiling or the appropriate figure under which building loans would be made available with the adoption of the new Section 9? If there is no known figure to aim at, the position will be intolerable in regard to defining what a man of modest means is. Perhaps the Minister can satisfy me in this way. If the local authority draw up a scheme which they say they will put into operation they may say: "We will keep the present system in operation for all those whose income is under £800. For those whose income is above £800 each case will be dealt with according to its merits." Can the Minister tell me whether the local authority, as such, will be entitled to formulate a scheme on those lines and put it into operation?

I want to know this because, if I find it will work out satisfactorily in that respect, I am not going to walk into the Division Lobby to oppose this section but if I find the Minister telling me that in this important case it is the county manager who will decide what the man of modest means is, I shall have to go into the Division Lobby to oppose it.

I was merely about to reply briefly to Deputy McQuillan who did put a very definite question to me. I think he is entitled, and the House is entitled, to a reply to the question which he put. Let me say at the outset that the granting of loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts does impose a certain burden on local authorities. The local authority must borrow money and I am most anxious to see that everybody who needs a loan will get it. I am also anxious to see that those who can borrow elsewhere than from the local authority should go elsewhere. Further, I am anxious that in the case of those who must go elsewhere, in deciding that question of fact in individual cases, the local authorities should have regard to the following points:—

(1) The circumstances of the applicant including income, capital resources, valuation of lands occupied and the need for new housing accommodation.

(2) The amount of the advance sought and the purchase price or cost of the new house.

(3) Availability of finance from commercial lending agencies including assurance companies and building societies.

Local authorities will, no doubt, have regard to the difference between the annual repayments on advances by building societies and the repayments on advances under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts in considering applications for advances under those Acts. Regard should also be had to the fact that income-tax relief is available in appropriate cases (1) on the interest content of the repayments in respect of house purchase advances and (2) in respect of life assurance premiums.

These are some of the considerations which will govern the decisions of local authorities and I hope that local authorities will take each application on its individual merits. I can imagine a man who is single and advanced in years with an income of £800. He is not a man of modest means. I can also imagine a man with £900 and a large family and, in my opinion, he would be a man of modest income. Each will have to be considered on its own merits.

What would such an old man be doing with a new house?

I had better not say anything.

I should like to ask will the county manager have absolute authority in deciding who is entitled, and who is not, to a loan under the Small Dwellings Acts or from a building society?

In conjunction with the local authorities.

And the Minister?

The Minister does not come into it at that particular time. He does not sanction a loan in an individual case. I see I have provoked the Lord Mayor.

The Minister has not provoked me; it is the section which has provoked me. I will be brief, but I will be very clear.

I do not want to interrupt, but before the Deputy rises, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, there was agreement last week, and I would like to know if it still stands, that all stages of this Bill would be taken by to-night.

I am very anxious to see them taken. I thought we would be finished with this Bill at six o'clock easily. The Minister has not been as co-operative in this discussion as he should have been.

I do not think that is fair.

There is an obvious desire on the Minister's part to hedge on questions about which there should be no difficulty at all.

Deputy Smith knows that, with the exception of Deputy McQuillan, nobody else spoke from this side of the House. Any question put to me I have tried to answer.

I have asked whether the Minister was going to interpret for us, and for local bodies, what was meant by "modest means". The Minister gave us an example, but later, when shown the effects of the example, he started to hedge and to cite cases of a married man who was old, and so on. I asked the Minister were local authorities to be given a direction by him, or his Department, as to the type of person who would get a loan. I cited a case of a local body which sought £20,000 and who were given £10,000. Does it mean that local bodies will get 50 per cent. of what they obtained last year, or does it mean that they will get 80 per cent. or 100 per cent., and that they can do what they like with that money? We want an answer and it is the Minister's duty to give us the answer. If he gives us the answer, we will not hold up the debate for 20 minutes.

I endeavoured to give an answer as best I could. I cannot say what a man of modest means is; that is a matter entirely for the local authorities. They know the circumstances better than I do. A man in a rural area with £500 or £600 may be a comparatively wealthy man, but a man in a town with the same figure may be a poor man and a man of modest means. It is a matter for the local authorities to investigate each case and say what the position is. I am not going to give them a directive. I am advising them what they should take into consideration in coming to the conclusion as to whether an applicant is a man of modest means. We are in the experimental stage. If we get the opportunity of experimenting, we can see what happens. I take Deputy Smith's word that it was Cavan County Council which applied——

I did not say Cavan County Council. I said a local body.

The Deputy knows that the position is that when a local authority applies for a certain amount, it may be that they are offered a lesser figure. It is only by experience that both they and the Department will know what exactly the figure will be. We are anxious that the amount sought should be for the coming 12 months; that it should be confined to 12 months and not spread over two or three years. As Deputy Smith has not given me the name of the local authority, I cannot check for what period the £20,000 was asked for.

The authority in question have already commitments to the extent of £10,000 which means that the £20,000 they applied for was to meet the commitments already entered into. The result of this decision is that the £10,000 will meet the commitments and they do not know if they will have money for anything else.

There are two different things—withdrawals and commitments. While they may have commitments for £20,000, there may not be withdrawals of £20,000. Is that not quite clear? We have asked all local authorities to distinguish between them. You may have commitments for £20,000, but they will not all be paid in the financial year. There may be withdrawals for the following years. That is all we have asked local authorities to do—to confine themselves to what they consider will be the withdrawals for the 12 months.

I should again like to ask if we are to get all stages concluded to-night. The Seanad has been summoned for to-morrow.

When Deputy Briscoe has spoken, I do not propose to prolong the discussion any further. We shall have to put it to a division. We shall do so as quickly as possible. We have no anxiety to break any understanding, I can assure the Minister and the House. This matter should not have lasted as long as it has lasted.

I appreciate what the Deputy says.

In his last attempt to meet the attitude of mind expressed over here the Minister has shown that he does not know how a local authority works or what commitments mean. If a local authority have entered into agreements to advance £10,000, they must know that they are going to be able to get that £10,000, to be given to the building people as and when the houses have reached the stage where the building people can ask for money. Until they know that there will be more money available for them for future transactions, they cannot enter into these contracts.

The Minister is talking nonsense in his arguments. Any member of this House who has had the slightest experience of how a local authority works knows that they are all in the same position. We in the Dublin Corporation have been given for this financial year a sum of £1,000,000 to complete our commitments in regard to Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts loans, but we have no indication whatever that we will be able to get more for future loans. That is the reason we recently applied, having passed a resolution, for another £500,000, in order that we could continue loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts scheme, but we have not yet had a reply, and until we have a reply that that sum will be made available when needed, we cannot commit ourselves to a single transaction.

Has the Deputy seen my reply to Deputy Mrs. Maureen O'Carroll's question on 12th July?

What did the Minister say?

I was asked:—

"Why the Dublin Corporation have not since the 7th June accepted applications for loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts from persons who are qualified for supplementary housing grants."

I replied:—

"The only information I have in this matter is that contained in Press notices published by the corporation to the effect that applications for loans in hands at the 7th June were estimated to require the balance of capital moneys available for the purpose of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, including the £1,000,000 which the Minister for Finance agreed to issue from the Local Loans Fund for that purpose in the current financial year. Since that date, however, the corporation have been informed that the Minister for Finance is prepared to afford them financial backing for capital expenditure to the same extent in 1957-58 as in 1956-57. The application of the funds to be thus made available is a matter for determination by the corporation in the first instance."

On the 6th July, 1956, a letter was sent to the local authority. I do not know if the Deputy wishes me to read it or not?

It was as follows:—

"I am directed by the Minister for Local Government to refer to your letter of the 29th June and previous correspondence regarding the financing of the corporation's capital programme and to state that the Minister for Finance will be prepared to provide from public funds such a sum as, with any money that may be obtained by the corporation from other sources, will enable them to discharge capital expenditure of £4,000,000 in 1957-58. This intimation is now being conveyed so that the corporation will, having regard to the undertaking contained in the Taoiseach's letter of 16th April to the Lord Mayor and to the undertaking now given, be in a position to plan in advance their capital programme and to regulate the commencement of schemes and the incidence of expenditure thereon as between the current and the next financial year.

Any advance approval of any capital undertakings in this and the ensuing financial year will not imply sanction to capital expenditure in these years, save in accordance with the assurances now given. The Minister would be glad, therefore, if you would be good enough to furnish, in the light of this letter, an estimate of the requirements to be met from public funds (allowing for borrowings from other sources) in each quarter of 1956-57, together with such estimate as can at this stage be furnished for 1957-58. The estimate should be compiled under the headings (i) Housing of the Working Classes Acts; (ii) Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts; (iii) North Dublin Main Drainage; and (4) other capital expenditure."

Of course, these answers read by the Minister and that letter are deliberately misleading. The Minister knows full well that the letter of the Taoiseach, to which he refers, confined the capital expenditure, for which the Government undertakes liability of guarantee and supply, to certain specific types of obligations and excludes Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts loans, except in so far as the special £1,000,000 which was made available is concerned. The Minister is not talking to a lot of schoolboys——

The Deputy's statement is not true at all.

It is true. If the Minister reads the Taoiseach's letter——

The Deputy has got my letter of the 6th July.

What does that mean? It means this: that we have not been given sanction to borrow from the Local Loans Fund a sum of £500,000 to enter into new commitments for building under the Small Dwellings Acts—

That is not true. I asked for an estimate to be compiled under four headings inter alia Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts.

The position has been reached where we get our money through the Department of Local Government from the Minister for Finance as a result of a monthly estimate of our payment demands for the coming month.

Surely that does not arise on this section?

The Minister has thrown that in to try and misrepresent the situation and to create the belief in people that something exists which does not exist. The position is that we have to go every month asking for our payment requirements, which includes Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts payments in respect of the £1,000,000 which we are promised——

We asked you for them every quarter in that letter.

Is it fair that the Minister should take the line of arguing like that? I am saying categorically that the facts are, that whether we ask for the money monthly or quarterly, it is only in respect of that money which has been promised to be made available and does not include any of the commitments by us under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts.

That is not true.

Deputy Larkin, the Chairman of the Housing Committee is here, and I challenge him to say whether the Minister is right or I am right. He is here in the House and he knows more about this subject than any other member of the House. We know what we are talking about. Section 9 is put there again as a smokescreen. We know, we have been informed and we are quite satisfied that the vast bulk of applicants for small dwelling loans hitherto available will not be accepted under any circumstances by the building societies to which the Minister refers in this section. We also know that the building societies have not sufficient capital available to meet the requirements of building loans for small dwellings in the City of Dublin. We know from them that they depend on people depositing money with them as to the extent that they can make it available, and we know that, when the competition for these moneys to be made available to them by way of deposit becomes keener, the deposit rate will increase and will have the consequence of a situation developing where the charge of interest to the borrower will also rise.

I say that Section 9 is purely a "cod" section. It is purely to try and mislead people, and will throw on the local authority, in Dublin, anyway, the responsibility of providing an increased number of houses for letting. We are confined under the present financial situation to a limited maximum sum. The Minister knows that we have reached the stage in Dublin where we are now attempting to build up the centre of the city by the erection of flat-type dwellings. They will cost, per dwelling, far more than the ordinary house, with the net result that the number of dwellings made available for letting purposes will be on the decline and will fall substantially lower as year follows year. We are being denied the means of making money available to the type of person who hitherto qualified. We will not be able to build the same number of houses for letting, and we will be drifting back, slowly but surely, to the slumdom that we wanted to be rid of.

The Minister can use all these tactics he has of trying to confuse the situation, but we in Dublin know that Section 9 will not mean very much. With regard to guarantors and securities, it does not amount to a row of pins. There is no statutory obligation attaching to the operations of these building societies. They are not bound to accept any or all applicants. They are as free as private enterprise can be to choose whom they like, to give their money to whom they like, within what they call good business. They are trustees for their shareholders and depositors in each of their institutions.

I am trying to be brief, brief but truthful, and I think Deputy Denis Larkin feels the same from his own knowledge and experience; I think he feels as I do that we are now reaching the stage where there will be a deliberate policy forced on local authorities like Dublin Corporation to close down on Small Dwellings Acts building, notwithstanding the fact that we have still in Dublin sites on which to build 6,000 more of these houses. This policy will also have the consequence of making available fewer of the letting type houses. I ask for Deputy Larkin's opinion here because this is a matter of great seriousness, not only to the people who require the houses but to the people who make their living in the building of these houses. I ask Deputy Larkin to say whether what I have said is the truth, and whether what the Minister has said is not bluff and smokescreen.

With respect to the Lord Mayor, I think I should say a few words in reply.

I asked Deputy Larkin.

First of all, the number of rural Fianna Fáil Deputies who have spoken here to-day said that Section 9 is a "cod" but that they were worried about Dublin. Now we have had the only Fianna Fáil Deputy who spoke on behalf of Dublin saying that it does not affect it.

I said it does affect Dublin adversely.

The Deputy said it was all a "cod".

It is a "cod" which will destroy building.

I am making available to the City of Dublin this year a sum of £4,000,000. That is the sum spent by them last year. Not only that, but I am making available the same amount for next year and the same for the year after. I am giving them a three years' guarantee, something they have never got before in their history.

I expressed certain views on the Bill, particularly on Section 9, on the Second Reading. I regret that the Minister's contributions here this evening have compelled me to intervene again because, speaking as a Dublin Deputy representing workers in a Dublin constituency, where there are quite a large number of building craftsmen and building labourers, and having some little knowledge of the building operations in Dublin for the past few years, I should like to say it is essential that we should be quite clear what the position is.

I expressed the view in my Second Reading speech that I did not think the section would have any effect in so far as the bulk of applicants dealt with by the corporation in the past few years under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts either fell under or came within the supplementary grant, or were very little above it. Last year there was something like £1,900,000 advanced under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and this year it is true that the corporation received a guarantee that £1,000,000 would be made available.

However, this guarantee carried a direction that only those applicants who qualified for supplementary grants—in other words, either those who came under Section 11 of the 1952 Act and were entitled as persons who would qualify for houses under Housing of the Working Classes Act, or those who came under Section 10 of that Act and whose total income did not exceed £520 a year—could receive the benefit from this £1,000,000 made available from the Local Loans Fund. This has entailed a decision by the corporation that on the lists of applicants in respect of that money being filled—in other words, when that £1,000,000 was fully committed to applicants—the corporation felt compelled to advertise publicly that they could not receive any further applications, unless and until some assurance would be received that further moneys would be made available.

The sum of £4,000,000 has been mentioned here. That sum was one which would be made available to the corporation, providing they were unable to raise that amount from their own resources. The money would be made available for the purpose of providing houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. One million pounds would be reserved for the Small Dwellings Acts and for capital works, such as the North Dublin main drainage. I do not think the Minister has been too frank with the House because he has not told the House that the estimate submitted by the corporation in January of this year in respect of their expected requirements under the Housing of the Working Classes Act was not the amount of £2.6 million which he told the House was in reserve for that purpose, but £3.4 million. I am compelled to state that the £4,000,000 the Minister has referred to will not permit housing under the Housing of the Working Classes Act to continue for the remainder of this year and, at the same time, permit advances under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts to continue.

Hear, hear!

These are matters I would not normally mention in the House, unless I had already informed the Minister of the position. Up to the end of this year, the Dublin Corporation is committed to the expenditure, under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, of a sum of £3,000,000. It is correct to state that, in respect of the year 1957-58, the corporation has been informed that £4,000,000 will be made available. The corporation has been asked to prepare and submit firm estimates under a number of headings:—(1) Housing of the Working Classes Acts, (2) Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, and (3) other capital works.

The present estimate of expenditure under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts can only be a rough estimate at the moment, but it has been reckoned that, if conditions as prevailing at present hold, and bearing in mind the fact that the corporation are compelled, due to the lack of available sites in the environs of the city, to build more flats in the centre of the city, our present estimate for 1957-58 would be no less than £3,000,000 and possibly £3,250,000 or £3,500,000.

I asked for quarterly estimates.

What does that matter?

Under ordinary capital works such as the necessary completion of the North Dublin main drainage scheme, there will be an expenditure of something like £600,000. That gives a minimum of £3,600,000, leaving, in respect of that year, under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, a maximum of £400,000, which I do not think we can reach at all. Possibly, if these figures were read in another way, and approached from another angle, it might be possible to provide out of the £4,000,000 mentioned by the Minister in his letter to the corporation, and which he mentioned again here to-night, money for many of those who are desirous of building under the Small Dwellings Acts, but, in my opinion, within those figures mentioned, that would be possible only if there is a substantial reduction of building under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts.

The housing committee has already directed its officials to prepare firm estimates, but it is quite clear that the figures which have been mentioned the present allocation of £4,000,000 in respect of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts and the North Dublin main drainage scheme, and the £1,000,000 which is being made available for Small Dwellings Acts purposes will fall short of what is required.

The city manager and the assistant city manager have assured me that they are quite satisfied with the guarantee of £4,000,000 this year and another £4,000,000 next year.

They have not assured us of that.

It is on the record.

We will check on that.

My information is information which has been prepared for members of the Housing Committee of the Dublin Corporation. It is information which, I believe, is factual information. I asked the Minister on the Second Reading whether he would examine this Section 9 again. I still have very grave doubts on it, and these grave doubts, from my point of view, have not been removed as a result of the debate in this House this evening. The purpose of the section is to enable the corporation and other local authorities to give certain guarantees, but I should like the Minister to give me enlightenment on one or two points.

The first is this: if this Bill is passed as submitted here, and if the Dublin Corporation, as a local authority, decided to give the guarantees mentioned, would that body be entitled to fix the conditions under which they would guarantee loans? Some few years ago, the corporation had a scheme of tenant purchase houses erected. At that time, there were some 1,600 applicants for 204 houses. After considerable heart-searching and considerable discussion, certain regulations were brought in in an endeavour to reduce the number of applicants and to deal with the matter as fairly as possible. One of the regulations brought in was that the maximum income under which an applicant would be entitled to one of these houses was £14 a week. Would the Minister say that, if the corporation, in dealing with this matter, felt, under all circumstances, that this was a reasonable limit, all applicants who otherwise qualified and whose income fell within the figure mentioned would be enabled to get the loans from the corporation through the Local Loans Fund?

It is necessary to mention that there is little hope of the corporation raising any money through its own resources for this purpose. Earlier this year, as I have mentioned, £1,000,000 was made available for the purpose of meeting applications under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and the qualification covered only those who complied with and who would be covered by the supplementary grant. Practically 80 per cent. of the applicants then in hands so qualified and I think it is correct to say that the bulk of those who did not qualify were very slightly outside that regulation. In 1954-55, something like £1,900,000 was also advanced by the Dublin Corporation under the Small Dwellings Acts. Again by far the larger percentage of these applicants would either qualify or be just slightly outside the supplementary grant.

The Minister has mentioned that it lies in the hands of the local authority to fix the regulations and to decide who would get the loan. As far as Dublin is concerned, it is a little more than that because you cannot make regulations in respect to these sections and governing the classes of people who will get the loan unless you have some assurance that the money will be forthcoming. For this year, unless our present application for a further £500,000 receives favourable consideration, the net reduction in respect to the year 1956-57, as against last year, will be an amount of something like £900,000.

I do not think that applications from many of those who would normally obtain loans from Dublin Corporation would be entertained by building societies or insurance companies and, as I put the question before, even if a fairly high percentage of such applicants would receive consideration from the building societies or the insurance companies, have these bodies the money available at the present time in order to deal with applications covering £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 in relation to the City of Dublin alone and possibly as much more in relation to applicants living in the County of Dublin?

I would urge again that the Minister would look at the section. We are told here it does not mean anything to people living in rural Ireland. The Minister himself mentioned that very few Dublin Deputies were speaking on the matter, and that remark, coupled with the other statement, compelled my intervention. I would appeal to the Minister to examine in all seriousness the case that has been made to see whether there is any real purpose served or if anything can be achieved by keeping this section in the Bill.

In relation to Section 9 the Minister definitely stated that it was intended to cater for the lower-paid sections of the community. I have plenty of evidence that the lower-paid sections of the community would require to have £9 10s. a week and they may not have over £10. I wonder if that is the lower-paid section of the community which is to be catered for in this connection? We must remember that only about 5 per cent. of the people who originally got small dwellings loans will get them now.

Question put.
The Committee divi ded: Tá, 53; Níl, 48.

  • Barry, Anthony.
  • Barry, Richard.
  • Beirne, John.
  • Belton, Jack.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Burke, James J.
  • Byrne, Patrick.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Carew, John.
  • Coburn, George.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Costello, Declan.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Deering, Mark.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Donegan, Patrick S.
  • Donnellan, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Dunne, Seán.
  • Esmonde, Anthony C.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Finlay, Thomas A.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Giles, Patrick.
  • Hession, James M.
  • Hughes, Joseph.
  • Kenny, Henry.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, Denis.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lindsay, Patrick J.
  • Lynch, Thaddeus.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Manley, Timothy.
  • Morrissey, Dan.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Carroll, Maureen.
  • O'Connor, Kathleen.
  • O'Donnell, Patrick.
  • O'Donovan, John.
  • O'Hara, Thomas.
  • O'Higgins, Michael J.
  • O'Sullivan, Denis J.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Tully, James.
  • Tully, John.

Níl

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Burke, Patrick J.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Childers, Erskine H.
  • Colbert, Michael.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Crowley, Honor M.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • de Valera, Eamon.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Lahiffe, Robert.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maher, Peadar.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Malley, Donough.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Mrs. O'Carroll and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard.
Question declared carried.

The Opposition have met me very fairly indeed on this Bill and I understand the remainder of the Bill may be unopposed. Perhaps it might be possible to sit after half past ten to dispose of it?

Would it do if we gave the Minister the remaining stages fairly quickly to-morrow morning?

It would. I would certainly like to meet the Opposition in that respect but the Deputy will appreciate that the Seanad has been summoned for to-morrow to deal with the Bill.

But not until 3 o'clock.

If it suits the Opposition, I am prepared to leave it over until to-morrow morning.

I think it would be better.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 18th July, 1956.
Barr
Roinn