Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 28 Feb 1962

Vol. 193 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Housing (Loans) (No. 2) Bill, 1961— Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Tully

This Bill, introduced by the Labour Party, may possibly be objected to by Government Deputies, as one was last week, because it is a small Bill. It ever there was an example of good goods in small parcels, this is it. While there are only seven sections in the Bill, it covers two very important principles. The first is that the rural labourer is entitled to assistance from the local authority to purchase his home even if it is a vested local authority or county council cottage.

I was rather amazed to hear a Fine Gael Deputy talk about the objection there might be to money being made available for that purpose but he did not develop the point. The reason we want the money made available is that there are many hundreds of vested county council cottages in rural Ireland. It sometimes happens that, for one reason or another, the tenant has to leave the district and often has to go across the water to seek employment. The only people who could possibly use that cottage, rural labourers, have not the money to buy it and the cottage must be left there, locked up.

When authority to vest the cottage in the tenant was given by this House there was a condition that such vested cottage could not be mortgaged. The local authority and nobody else, not even a building society or a bank, can lend money for the purchase of the cottage. The result is that these cottages must remain idle. The local authority would be only too glad to lend the money to a deserving applicant for the purchase of such cottage. Instead, they must spend a lot of money——

Mr. Cunningham

Or the highest bidder.

Mr. Tully

Deputy Cunningham will have ample opportunity to make his speech, if he has not already done so. Instead, the local authority must build a cottage for that person at a cost of £1,100 or £1,200.

If this Bill is passed, the local authority will be enabled to lend the money and there will be no loss to anybody. The person will buy his home and will pay back the money to the local authority over a period. Instead of that, cottages are left there, and some of them are not improving over the years, while the owners are in the neighbouring town or working in England and waiting for somebody to purchase the cottage.

The other problem that arises is where somebody has a cottage which he wishes to sell and the person who wishes to buy it may have some money but not all the money required. This is where the highest bidder comes in.

In some parts of the country, labourers' cottages are looked upon as a brand and some people feel that those who live in them should not be allowed in the area at all. If some big landowners had their way, every effort would be made to wipe out such cottages. The only way they can do that is by purchasing the cottage— which may have been erected in their grandfathers' time—in the open market. In many cases they then turn it into a cattle shed or knock it down completely. Examples of that can be seen every day all over the country.

If a local labourer, anxious to buy the cottage, had the money and was able to compete against other prospective purchasers, he would buy it and live in it. In that case it would become too expensive a luxury for the local farmer to buy the cottage so as to knock it down or to take the roof off or to put the cattle into it. For that reason the Bill is worthy of support.

As in the case of every Bill that passes through this House, there will be people putting forward opposite points of view. I realise that many people will find numerous reasons, real or imaginary, as to why the Bill should not become law. I feel sure there are sufficient sensible and honest people in the House who will realise that the Bill represents an effort to help a certain section of the community who very badly need help. There is no political kudos in it for anybody. If the Bill passes this House, I believe it will be considered by sane people as an excellent effort. For that reason, I believe the House will give the Bill the necessary support.

Section 2 deals with the lending of money to a tenant of a local authority vested cottage who is anxious to do repairs. It was rather amusing to hear a Fianna Fáil Deputy talk about the excellent repair in which county council cottages must be before the county council will allow them to be vested. I suggest that that person was speaking from ignorance rather than knowledge of the situation. We know that a limited amount of money is made available annually by each local authority for the repair of county council cottages. While practically every local authority are doing their best to get the cottages vested in the tenants, there are many tenants who are not financially able to carry out the repairs necessary for vesting.

We all know the system. Somebody applies for vesting and sends in a list of repairs. The local authority engineer goes out and looks at the cottage but does not decide to do everything that is needed. In his mind and, possibly in his pocket, he has instructions that he is to do the least amount of repairs which the local authority think the tenant will accept before he or she vests. As a result, we have those cottages throughout the country being repaired by contractors, by local authority employees or somebody else and when they are finished, the local authority engineer inspects them and says they are all right and fit for habitation and should be vested. I do not think there is anybody in this House who has ever seen the inside of a labourer's cottage who will not admit that in most cases there are very many things which still need to be done after the local engineer has said the cottage is all right.

What happens? Either the tenant digs his heels in the ground and says he will not vest until the repairs are carried out, in which case he gets a letter from the county manager telling him his cottage is in good repair and unless he vests, the local authority will have no option but to raise his rent. He is then between the devil and the deep sea. He must vest or pay extra rent and, in nine out of ten cases, he will vest the house. When he gets the vesting instrument he will receive with it a registered packet telling him that he has 30 days in which to appeal to the Minister against the condition of the house. In almost every case, he does so. When the appeal goes to the Department, the Department, having a list of the repairs which the tenant considers should be carried out, will send that list to the local authority and ask them if they are prepared to carry out those repairs. The local authority, having originally decided that the house is in good repair, will almost certainly say they are not prepared to do so.

Then an inspector goes down from the Department and examines the house and usually decides that certain repairs should be done and in very few cases do these include all the repairs listed by the tenant. Then, the same routine is gone through again. A contractor comes in and proceeds with the repairs and when these are finished, who do you think inspects the work? The engineer who originally said the cottage did not need any repairs.

I suppose it is democracy and that the local authority will take responsibility for their appointed employees and will say: "That is all right." But the unfortunate tenant who has vested his house and gone through the full rigour of the law to see that the house is put in proper repair now finds that he can get no further repairs carried out, that the house is still in many cases a veritable hovel. He must then start racking his brains to find alternative accommodation or carry out the repairs himself. That is where this Bill comes in because in most cases—I might say in almost every case—where there is a question of several hundred pounds being required to carry our repairs to any house no matter what grant is given by the Department or local authority the tenant will be unable to find the one-third which he must find in order to put the house in good repair.

Recently, the Department began to do something they did not do over the years. They became very strict. They may be right or they may be wrong. Up to very recently, if one of those houses needed an extra room—and it is a quite common thing for a worker in the country with perhaps a very big family and very little accommodation to be anxious to build an extra room, which could be done under this Bill— when the inspector came to see whether or not the room could be added he was told exactly what the tenant wanted and he then decided that in addition to the room there were many things which the house required to put it into good repair before the grant could be given even though his colleague had quite recently stated he thought the house was in excellent repair.

The argument in favour of the Bill is so strong that I am surprised that there are not very many more Deputies anxious to take part in this debate, because this Bill proposes to do something which is in the nature of a follow-up of the Act which this House passed giving authority to tenants of local authority houses to purchase or vest. Because there will not be any extra cost either on the Department or on the local rates, there is absolutely no answer to the proposals in the Bill. If it could be argued that the cost would be too great, that the rates would have to go up, that the money could not be recovered, then there might be a case against the Bill. If we sought, as I think we might rightly seek, a substantial increase in the grants to have repairs carried out, there could be an argument against it but when we suggest a loan which ultimately will be paid back in full, there is absolutely no reason why the Bill should be opposed.

Before the Bill was introduced the matter was taken up directly with the Minister's Department and the Minister was asked was there any hope of having the matter dealt with in any other way than the way in which it is being dealt with here. His reply was that the local authority, before making an advance under the section, should be satisfied that the repayment to the local authority was secured by an instrument vesting the ownership, including any interest already held by the purchaser, in the local authority, subject to the right of redemption by the applicant, but that such instrument should not contain anything inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The Act referred to was of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, 1899, Section 2. That was the information with which the Minister supplied us and we are grateful to him for making the matter very clear but it did not solve our problem. Because there was no other solution to it, we decided to bring in this Bill. Incidentally, the tail-piece to the letter is that Section 21 subsection (1) of the Labourers Act, 1936, provides that "a cottage purchased under this Act shall not during the payment period in relation to such cottage be mortgaged or charged."

That is the kernel of the matter and that is why we are asking the Dáil to support this Bill. I am quite sure most Deputies present are aware of the situation. I am equally sure that since the debate began they have heard something they had not known. For that reason, I would ask that it be given the most careful consideration. I would ask also any Deputy— particularly a member of a local authority—who was here when the Bill was being discussed and who believes that his own local authority is the shining star and the exception to the rule, having done everything that needed to be done to put the cottages into repair "for ever and ever, amen" to have another look at some of the cottages in his own area. When he has done so, he will be perfectly satisfied that this Bill, as introduced by the Labour Party, should be passed as quickly as possible.

Mr. N. Lemass

I accept entirely that the Labour Party were sincere in their efforts in drafting this Bill which enshrines some principles which most of us in this House would not oppose. However, I am afraid the Bill is, shall I say, rather woolly. I shall explain very briefly my reason for that statement.

To my mind, the Bill does not deal effectively with many of the problems of the city. I have studied the debate that took place here last week and I note that it dealt almost entirely with the question of vested cottages. Under the 1936 Act, those eligible to become a vested tenant are an agricultural labourer, a person who was an agricultural labourer at the time he got the tenancy, or a widow or relative of a deceased tenant who was an agricultural labourer at the time the tenancy was created.

This Bill, apparently, does away with that definition in the 1936 Act and substitutes for it that the purchaser should be an approved person. It is not clear, to me at any rate, who will decide who is an approved person. I take it it is the intention that this decision would be made by the local authority. This is an enabling Bill, to enable the local authority to carry out certain functions. It might lead to a situation in which the purpose of the 1936 Act would be defeated, which would be rather regrettable. Furthermore, it does not include any provision which would eliminate the abuses that have been referred to in the course of the debate.

My interest, naturally, is in the tenants of local authority houses in the Dublin Corporation area. The Bill refers to people living in local authority houses. I know that Councillors and others interested in the Dublin problem have made representations and suggestions regarding the possible purchase of houses in Dublin by existing tenants. There is the question of subsidies, among other things. All these representations have been received with interest and are being considered. I understand that at the moment the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation are considering the entire position with a view, perhaps, to making further representations to the Minister before he makes the final draft of the Bill which is due from his Department this year.

The problem has also arisen in Dublin Corporation that unless the entire block of tenants agree to purchase their houses no noticeable saving will be made on maintenance. The question of maintenance of local authority houses is of extreme importance in Dublin. It represents a tremendous impact on the rates of Dublin city. When one considers that there are well over 40,000 houses in the Dublin Corporation Estates one can imagine the cost of repainting these houses at least once every seven years, when the product of the rate in the £ is in the region of only £11,000 or £12,000.

The problems of Dublin have not, to my mind, been effectively dealt with by any speaker to this Bill. The Bill is drafted to deal mainly with the question of the vested cottage and the agricultural labourer and for that reason it is a shot-in-the-dark Bill dealing with problems which have been under discussion. That is a popular move. The Labour Party have, to a certain extent, framed this Bill with a view to gaining rural popularity rather than going a little further. In fact, if I may say so, the Labour Party would have been far wiser to put down a motion for discussion here which would enable the House to expand the debate beyond the immediate scope of this Bill. There are many things I should like to say which are very closely related to the Bill, but which I am sure the Ceann Comhairle would rule out of order.

Mr. Corish

Cannot the Deputy try it, anyway?

Mr. N. Lemass

I have gone as far as I think I can.

Mr. Corish

There is a fair amount of latitude in this.

Mr. N. Lemass

Having discussed such a motion and listened to the expanded debate, the Minister would have far more information and data to consider when drafting his own Bill.

As I say, the idea behind the Bill seems to be a good one, but I think it just selects one subject and does not deal adequately with the rest of the problems. There is no provision that would prevent abuses. Believe it or not, in Dublin we now have vested cottages. I came across one in the constituency I represented before the last revision of constituencies.

Mr. Tully

What did they do? Build around it?

Mr. N. Lemass

No; Dublin city boundary has been extended. The widow of an agricultural worker was anxious to sell, and the sale was not approved. We found out subsequently that the intended purchasers were a very large petrol company which, so far as I know, would have paid a very large sum for the cottage. The application was made out by an individual who might have been found to be a suitable person and, while he would have paid the prescribed amount, the petrol company would have come along with the intention of building a petrol station, I gather, and when it eventually changed hands it would have run into at least £1,000.

From that point of view this Bill, if passed, would, to a large extent, tie the Minister's hands in framing the new legislation. He should be very careful in considering the sections of this Bill because to tie his hands at this stage would be a retrograde step. I am nervous about the Bill because, when one reads it first and hears the excellent speech made by the proposer, one would be inclined to say: "Yes, that is all right; I go for that," but on deeper consideration one sees the weaknesses in it.

I should like to make one comment on Deputy Desmond's opening speech, in which he referred to the valuation for extensions and improvements being made by the officials of the Department of Local Government. I take it that his intention was to show that the officials of the Department so cut down on the cost of these repairs, or extensions or improvements, that it meant that in fact the applicant did not get his full one-third from the Department and his full one-third from the local authority and as a result, had to pay a larger cash amount himself.

I cannot accept this, from my experience in Dublin city. I do not know how they do it in Cork, but Deputy Collins explained how it was done in Limerick, and he agrees with me that if they vest houses in Cork that are not in a proper state of repair, then the Cork local authority should be held to blame for that. In Dublin also, it does not apply to local authority houses, but in the ordinary repair and improvement of private dwellings which are handled by the Department of Local Government, I have received no complaint regarding the cutting down of the estimates made by the contractors doing these extensions or improvements, so that I should like to refute that suggestion by Deputy Desmond. As far as Dublin is concerned, the officials of the Department of Local Government are entirely equitable and just in that type of matter.

Mr. Jones

The Deputy quoted Deputy Collins regarding Limerick. In Limerick, they get their repairs done by direct labour. The county council does them.

Mr. N. Lemass

I could enter into a discussion with the Deputy on the question of direct labour which we unfortunately found was not much of a success in the Dublin Corporation area, that is, in the building of houses. All the maintenance is certainly done by the corporation directly.

Mr. Jones

Not in Limerick. The Deputy quoted Deputy Collins——

Mr. N. Lemass

I have not got the debate here but that is roughly the context of Deputy Collins's speech, that in Limerick they ensure that the houses are in a proper state of repair before vesting.

Mr. Jones

In Limerick, the repairs are done by direct labour.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Noel Lemass.

Mr. N. Lemass

I do not know how they do it in Limerick but I have made the statement that if in Cork the houses are not in a proper state of repair, then the blame is on the Cork local authorities. I have also said that in Dublin, as in Limerick, our experience has been that the officials of the Department are equitable and just in their estimates regarding extensions, repairs or improvements to any houses they happen to deal with, under Section 12 of the 1960 Act——

Mr. Jones

I do not wish to be discourteous to the Deputy but he is quoting Limerick again. I feel the Deputy misunderstands Deputy Collins. It is done directly——

Mr. N. Lemass

If I may say so, if the Deputy reads the debate, he will agree with me, I am sure, that what I am saying is quite true.

Mr. Jones

I was listening to the debate.

Mr. N. Lemass

At all events, there are several matters to be considered so far as abuses are concerned, which I think are the main thing. There is the definition of a suitable person, the situation that exists in Dublin, and other matters, which I think are not adequately dealt with in this Bill and I would ask the Minister to be very careful about accepting this as a piece-meal, small part of legislation before he has the opportunity of introducing his own Bill later this year.

Mr. Clinton

This Bill is before us because of certain difficulties which have arisen in connection with vested cottages, difficulties and problems both for the vested occupier and for the local authorities. It is quite natural that these difficulties should have arisen and it is also very proper that we should have this opportunity of discussing these difficulties and considering what solutions can be found for them.

With regard to the first part of the proposition, that loans should be provided for repairs, I want to say that I am in complete agreement that in the case of extensive repairs, reconstruction or extensions, it is absolutely necessary and desirable that money should be provided to enable people to have this work carried out. These are loans to bridge the gap between the available grants and the actual cost of the work.

When we come to the second part of the proposition, I am not so sure that what is proposed is the best solution. There is a problem there and a problem about which we should be trying to do something. I see the position arising in which, if we should say loans should be provided for people to purchase these vested cottages, if they come on the market, a difficulty arises for the local authority in deciding which of perhaps five or six applicants for a loan should get that loan to enable him to buy a particular cottage which comes on the market. I feel, as well, that even in that case, the wrong person could get the cottage and in spite of those loans, some outsider could come in who would not require a loan and get the cottage. The solution lies more along the lines of inducing local authorities to exercise the power they seem to have of purchasing back these cottages and then giving the cottage to the person in most urgent need of housing. I see certain difficulties arising in that case, too, and certain safeguards would have to be taken. I can see that it might have the effect of increasing the purchase price of the house. If it became known that the local authority were interested in a house, goodness knows at what price the house might finish.

It would also be necessary to give the local authority priority in the purchase of these vested houses. At the same time, I would not like to curtail in any way the ownership that has been conferred on the tenant who has vested the house. In that way, we should insist that while the local authority have priority in purchasing these houses, the house should be purchased at its market value, that is, the market value put on it by the local authority valuer. Some steps must be taken with regard to vested cottages. In County Dublin, we have offered many inducements to people to vest their cottages. In fact, it might be said that we have exerted a certain amount of pressure. I am all in favour of vesting cottages. I believe in the good effects of ownership and the respect it begets for property that has been built with public money, but I am afraid that the time has arrived when something might go wrong in the sale of these houses and if they are built with public money, I think we should ensure that these houses will continue to pass on to the most deserving people, the people most in need of houses. If we can do that without limiting the ownership people have been given as a result of vesting, we should proceed along those lines.

Mr. Crinion

The idea behind the Bill is good because anything designed to advance housing is for the good of the country. When canvassing around the country before the election, I was struck by the fact that it was the people with the good houses who kept them well, looked after the gardens and improved the fronts. Generally, they were more tidy. We have seen the same thing in Dublin where the people went from the slums to the built-up areas on the edge of the city such as Crumlin. The improvement has taken some time to show itself, but when the children of those people eventually moved into homes of their own, they began to improve their houses. A big percentage of the generation that has come up now are in the professional classes, while their parents before them were in the working classes. I believe that is due to good housing. In some way, good housing encourages a feeling of pride and gives an uplift. Therefore, I think the idea behind this Bill— to help people in their housing—is a good one.

Looking at the Bill, however, I am rather surprised that it does not cover water and sewerage. These are fundamental in the matter of housing and I feel there will be a call for them. For some time in County Kildare, we do not build new houses or cottages, unless we can provide them with water and sewerage. You can imagine people in a vested cottage who are thinking of making improvements. When they see that the new house down the road has water and sewerage, naturally they will look for that amenity. It would not be right to pass this Bill unless it provides that those who need water and sewerage can have it.

Section 4 of the Bill says that the administration shall be paid out of money provided by the local rates. The present is not an opportune time to be talking of increasing the rates. Even Deputy Desmond, when introducing the Bill, was not quite sure that it would not increase the rates. He said he felt it was "a good bet" that it would not increase the rates. Dealing with anything on a national basis, you cannot talk of betting. Bookmakers rarely die poor, so we should not be inclined to bet on anything connected with housing.

Section 5 of the Bill says the Act may be adopted "by resolution" but further down in the same section, we find "shall be a reserved function". I always felt that a resolution was a reserved function. It seems to me that the Bill is a hurried Bill, a Bill which has not received a great deal of thought. Apparently, its proposers felt it would not be approved but that it would be a good idea to spend a little time debating it.

I agree that it would be a good idea to provide loans for vested cottages, but I think that idea is a bit premature. I should like to quote the reply of the Minister for Local Government to a question on loans for vested cottiers asked by Deputy Corry in November, 1960:

Mr. Corry asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that vested cottiers who have purchased their cottages are unable to obtain a loan from local authorities or elsewhere for the improvement or reconstruction of their homes because section 21 (1) of the Labourers Acts, 1936, provides that a cottage, during the payment period, shall not be mortgaged or charged and because the Act does not enable a tenant to purchase his cottage by lump sum or to redeem the outstanding value of the annuity; and if he intends to bring in legislation to remedy the matter.

The Minister answered him as follows:

The position is as stated by the Deputy. The statutory provisions in question were devised to safeguard the long-term interests of the general body of cottage tenants. I appreciate that the difficulty mentioned by the Deputy arises in some cases. I have had this matter under consideration in conjunction with other proposals to amend the Housing Acts and any amendment of the law that may be found necessary or desirable will be embodied in the next amending Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy please give the reference?

Mr. Crinion

Volume 185, column 38 of the Dáil Debates. From that, it will be seen that the Minister has this very proposal in mind. A Housing Bill comes before this House every few years. I gather he intends to bring in a Housing Bill this term. We must remember that the Minister has at his disposal the experts of his Department who have devoted their lives to problems of housing. With all due respect to the proposer of the Bill, I feel they have not the resources at their command. They have the best intentions in the world, I agree, but when it comes to considering it on a national basis, I feel we must leave it to the Department to provide us with a Bill. Then we may be able to add our recommendations to it but we would be dealing with a measure which would give us the main ground upon which to work. For that reason, and taking into consideration the fact that there is a Bill coming up this term, I have no hesitation in saying we should reject this Bill and wait for the Minister to produce his.

Mr. P. Brennan

I agree that the Bill has some merit, but if there are any merits in it, it is in regard to the question of loans being made available to tenant purchasers who wish to carry out reconstruction work. I certainly would be anxious to see legislation introduced—I am looking forward to such legislation during the present year —to enable local authorities to make available to tenants of vested cottages sums of money to help them bridge the gap between the estimated cost of the work and the amount of the grants.

I have particular reason to support that aspect of the Bill because, if for no other reason than to ensure that the moneys made available by way of grant will be used to the best possible advantage, loans should be put at the disposal of such tenants. Unfortunately, over the years, there has been in operation in certain parts of the country a scheme whereby handymen come along and carry out reconstruction work for the grant money. The grant is supposed to cover only two-thirds of the estimated cost of the work and naturally, when the entire job is carried out without addition to the grant money, something must suffer. It is the workmanship and the work itself that suffer. If we are prepared to give the maximum grant of £280, we should see to it that the money is spent to the best advantage. The way to ensure that is to get competent tradesmen on the job.

As I see it, most local authority houses are put into a reasonable state of repair by the local authority before vesting and if there is any question of a grant at all, it is for the purpose of providing additional accommodation. That can run into a fairly big sum and it is quite possible that the estimated cost would be anything between £300 and £400. In that case, the tenant must raise £100 and that can be a hardship because it is not easy for a tenant to lay his hands on such a sum to be paid to the contractor. There should be some way in which a local authority would come to such a tenant's assistance. I am satisfied from a reply given by the Minister 18 months ago that he will make provision under which local authorities will be able to afford such assistance.

In regard to the question of making available sums of money to people who, in the opinion of the local authorities, qualify for the purchase of vested cottages, I do not think anything should be done in this House to encourage people already entitled to council houses to go into debt to buy a house. In making that case, I think Deputy Desmond pointed out that it was quite possible in a certain area that a man with a young family living in bad housing conditions, even though he qualified under the Housing Acts for a house, should have the opportunity of purchasing a cottage and should get assistance from the local authority to do so.

Mr. Tully

The Department would hold him up.

Mr. Blaney

I wonder if the Deputy will get that published. That is the cant that is going on on his side, without foundation. The Deputy would be better occupied looking after the business of his council than talking like that in here.

Mr. Tully

It is the Minister's Department that needs looking after.

Mr. Blaney

It is the Deputy's council that needs it.

Mr. P. Brennan

A person living with a young family in a bad house is entitled to be rehoused by the local authority. It would be wrong, therefore, for the House to encourage a man to spend £300 on the purchase of a house, when he should have a house from the local authority for nothing.

Another aspect of this was referred to by Deputy Clinton: who is to decide between the five or six who will apply for a loan to purchase a vested cottage? Is the decision to be reached before or after a bargain has been struck with the person selling the house? As I see it, it would be wrong to encourage the spending of such a sum of money in respect of a person who is entitled to rehousing anyhow.

Mr. Tully

They are rich men in County Wicklow.

Mr. P. Brennan

We are not trying to discourage people paying too high a price for these cottages. On one occasion, over £550 was paid for a county council cottage. Under the Small Dwellings Acts, a loan of up to 80 per cent. is made available. If the same provision were made to operate for the purpose of purchasing cottages, the gap would be something in the region of £100. Where will a man with a large family, in poor circumstances, lay his hands on such a sum of money? I think the Bill is contradictory in this respect and that this House should not do anything to encourage people to involve themselves in debt, particularly, as I have said, when they are qualified for rehousing under the Housing Acts. The local authorities throughout the country are doing everything in their power to achieve that aim. They are generally anxious to solve that problem and I do not think there is any holdup in the Department. That has been our experience in Wicklow. The housing problem is near enough to being met. The few outstanding cases are being held up more locally than in the Department of Local Government. I do not think there is any necessity for this Bill at this stage. As far as I can see, no case has been made for it, either by the mover or by Deputy Tully this evening.

I am also satisfied that the Minister will be introducing his legislation this year. He indicated to us that he would consider the question of loans for reconstruction. Those Deputies to whom I have referred availed of this opportunity to make political capital in the hope that it would win them support down the country. I am looking forward to the Minister's legislation this year. I hope he will give an opportunity to the local authorities to make loans available to cottage tenants who are anxious to provide additional accommodation for their families.

Mr. Dolan

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an mBille seo. In view of the undertaking given by the Minister over 12 months ago, there is no immediate need to try to push through a Bill of this nature. We are all very proud of the fact that the housing situation has changed for the better all over the country and that in every town and village, we have secured adequate housing for our population. Indeed, many local authorities have come to the end of their programme. Now they are adding on water, sewerage and other amenities.

Most county councillors know that quite a large sum of money is spent on the repair of cottages each year. Naturally, a council is anxious to see that cottages are vested so that they will become the property of the owners. It is a well known fact that in all areas where people own their own houses, they have a better regard for their property and treat it much better than if it were the property of the local authority. Unfortunately, there have been occasions when county engineers and their repair staffs have been requested to remove a door handle, regardless of what the cost would lead to. It is a very laudable trend to try to have houses vested.

I also submit it is very laudable that people should own their own houses. So far as loans for that purpose are concerned, we have the assurance of the Minister given over 12 months ago. He will, I know, if he thinks it wise, include it in the terms of the forthcoming legislation in relation to housing. I should like to see included in that legislation some plan in respect of design. Somebody spoke about the uniform type of local authority house being built. It might be a good thing if the stigma of the cottage were removed by getting rid of the unsightly gates so often placed in front of these houses. A nice tidy approach should be provided. The building should be given more of the appearance of a house built by an individual himself so that it will fit into the surrounding district. If the tenant purchases it, it cannot be pointed to in later years as a house given to him by the local authority, not that there is anything wrong with that but some people might be afraid of the so-called stigma.

It would be well for the Department to ensure that the county council engineer keeps a very close eye on the building of local authority houses because large sums of money often have to be spent on repairs. In fairness, the fault does not lie with the tenants because most of them are fairly careful of the property but there are often serious defects in the building material, due to the use of inferior blocks. That should be kept in mind.

I have been hesitant to encourage people to avail too freely of loans, irrespective of how well off they may be. I do not think it desirable to encourage people to get loans and go into the market in competition with somebody else so as to become the owner of a vested cottage. It is wrong to go into a market such as that with money received as a loan, money which eventually will have to be paid back. It is a wrong approach to saddle one-self with a burden such as this, probably at a time when the family are small and when the money to be paid back might be used to better advantage.

Might I suggest that, when the Minister is producing his new legislation, he pay particular attention to a request regarding the sanctioning of grants for houses. It has been brought to my notice—I do not know how true it is —that housing engineers are reluctant to pass grants for 4-roomed or 3-romed houses without a corridor. In other words, a house with only one room on the breadth would cost £100 less to build than a similar one with two rooms on the breadth. These matters may be irrelevant at the moment but in view of the fact that they are to be examined in relation to the legislation to be introduced, I am putting them forward.

I think this Bill is ill-timed. It is submitted only to gain a slight advantage because the sponsors already know that the Minister is considering the situation. However, anything that will help to give people ownership and pride in a dwelling and tend to encourage them to keep their houses in a neat and tidy condition, with proper gates and flower beds, I welcome. I welcome any proposals that will add to the beauty of the countryside and give a favourable impression to visitors coming here.

Good housing at all times tends to improve greatly the health of the nation because people who are well housed are a contented people. Anything that can be done within our limited resources, both at local authority and Government level, is being done and done very effectively. We should see that a decent type of house is designed and that adequate facilities are provided so that the people may avail of the opportunities that are there.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

The rather lengthy discussion on the Bill has quite rightly been adverted to and has been somewhat deliberate as far as I am concerned. I have been anxious to hear the views of the House on the various aspects of housing that were discussed although they were somewhat wider than the terms of the Bill. In the very near future, this House will be considering a Housing Bill and the matters contained in this private Bill are really more relevant to a Housing Bill. We hope the Bill will come before the House during the present session and the matters discussed here to-night are certainly of value, especially when we are considering generally the form that the Housing Bill will take.

So far as the Bill that is before us is concerned I should like to reiterate what has been said by quite a number of speakers here to the effect that the overall general intention of it is not one with which many Members of the House would find fault. Again talking in general terms, it has also been said here that in November, 1960, in reply to a question by Deputy Corry, I did go as far as it is possible for any Minister to go in reply to a Parliamentary Question and said that the matter raised, which was this one of loans for vested cottiers, was one which I was aware of, was one which we were examining in the Department and one in respect of which we hoped to bring in the appropriate amendments or legislation at the appropriate time. That appropriate time is coming to hand and that housing legislation will come before the House in the coming months.

Taking the Bill as we find it at present and looking at it with sympathetic eyes, I should like the Labour Party who sponsored it to know that I regard their intentions as bona fide, to appreciate that my interest is not less than theirs and that what I have to say of the Bill is not casting aspersions on their good intentions.

We find that there is quite a lot wrong with Section 1 of the Bill in the sense that it says "notwithstanding anything contained in other Acts" so and so may be done. That cannot be taken in the light in which it is intended. To give effect to the intention of Section 1 would necessitate an amendment of the Labourers Acts. There is no provision for security for loans advanced as one of the terms of the Bill. That is why it falls across the Labourers Acts to which I have already referred and would bring about the situation that the Labourers Acts would need to be amended under this wording "notwithstanding anything contained in other Acts". That cannot be done.

Coming to Section 2 we find that there are terms used in it such as "approved tenant purchasers". There is no statutory meaning attached to that phraseology. All of us associated with local authority housing understand what it means but the fact is that there is no statutory meaning for these three words. In Section 3 we get the words "approved applicants" and also "local authority houses". The words "local authority houses" are without any statutory meaning and no definition of this phrase is enshrined in the Bill. Without a definition, this phrase would not stand in the legal sense. It would not secure in a legal way what the sponsors of the Bill intend.

Coming back to Section 2 we find from the reading of it that advances may be made to "approved tenant purchasers" and in Section 3 we find a clause stating that persons other than approved tenant purchasers may get loans. There seems to be a certain amount of contradiction in saying in Section 2 that only approved tenant purchasers may get loans and in Section 3 that persons other than approved tenant purchasers may get them.

Sub-section (2) of Section 3 indicates that no applicant may be approved for a loan who does not qualify for the tenancy of a local authority house. If we are to read subsection (2) of Section 3 together with Section 2, we find that approved tenant purchasers are ruled out. They are not eligible for the tenancy of a local authority house as they are already tenant purchasers of local authority houses. In addition, these two terms are used which are not defined in the Bill and do not carry any statutory meaning and, therefore, would not have any legal standing. There is the further obvious contradiction in that one section advocates a group and a later section seems to exclude the same group.

There is the provision in Section 4 that the cost of administration will be paid out of moneys provided by the local rate. It has been said that that is objectionable because, no matter how infinitesimal the cost, it will represent quite an addition to the rates. There is the question of determining, if we agree to put these costs on the local rates, what the cost will be. A certain calculation would arise. I do not think anybody associated with the administration of this section and the making of loans under it would be in a position to make any such calculation. There is no formula laid down. It would not be possible to ascertain the actual cost involved in making loans available to local authorities so far as this Bill is concerned. As it stands, the section does not seem to make sense. If one cannot determine the costs, it will be impossible to ensure that the costs will be paid by anybody. One would be asking local authorities, perhaps, to pay something incapable of proper definition.

Probably the section was designed so that the Labour Party could move to have the Bill passed by this House. If there were any costs involved for the Exchequer, the Bill could not be moved. I believe that is the reason for Section 4 in its present form. I do not think the intention was that it should have the application it would have, were we to accept the measure. I believe it was put there so that the sponsors of the Bill could put the motion to the House.

Deputy Crinion dealt with Section 5 and the question of the reserved function. Section 5 says that the Act may, by resolution, be adopted by any housing authority and the passing of any resolution under Section 1 or Section 2 shall be a reserved function for the purpose of the City and County Management Acts, 1940 to 1955. In actual fact, the passing of a resolution cannot be defined as a reserved function and the terms of the section would not give to the council what is intended by the sponsors, namely, the adoption of a scheme under the Bill as a reserved function in the sense that it would be done by the elected body rather than by the county manager. Clearly, that is not what is in the section. In fact, the section does not appear to convey any semblance of sense whatever. I understand what was intended, but the intention does not take away from the fact that the section is faulty and could not serve the purpose intended by its sponsors.

The question of housing, the repair and improvement of houses, and the provision of amenities was discussed in detail by various speakers. Unwittingly, this Bill has left out very important services. There is no specific provision for water and sewerage. It might be argued that the provision of such amenities would be included in the reconstruction or improvement of a house, but, if that were challenged, it is possible that, under the terms of the Bill as it stands, these services would be excluded. In the future, it is more than likely that these will be essential services in every instance in which loans are sought. No matter how well intentioned this Bill is, it will not secure the ends for which it is designed.

There was a good deal of argument about local authorities advancing money to prospective purchasers of the interest in a council house. It was said that the ordinary labourer could not compete with the big farmer, if the big farmer wished to purchase the interest in a cottage. I do not agree with the implication that big farmers want to get rid of cottiers and cottages on their lands. Let us look at the suggestion of unfair competition If the big farmer wants the cottage, no matter what loan is given, the big farmer will still be in a position to purchase the cottage, if he wants it badly enough, he will simply outbid the other prospective purchaser. Indeed, any such provision might have the effect of inflating the purchase price.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1st March, 1962.