Fine Gael speakers expressed their views during the discussion of this Bill. I noted that they were somewhat at variance with our proposal to give a loan for the purchase of a vested cottage. Let us make it clear that this is a permissive Bill. Should it become law, every local authority would have the option to adopt it, if they so wished. In the event of a local authority adopting it, the responsibility would be imposed on that local authority, as in the case of SDA loans, to prepare a scheme. Those of us who are members of local authorities know that all members, irrespective of Party, would make sure, in the formulation of any such scheme that it contained a provision whereby no loss of revenue would be involved for the local authority. Fine Gael speakers will see, therefore, that there is not that terrible danger they think there is. Even if a local authority or a member of local authorities adopted such a scheme, I think the number of applications for loans for this purpose would be very small.
It was mentioned that a local authority might find four or five applicants for one vested cottage. There would be no question of the local authority stepping in between four or five would-be purchasers. They would step in only in the odd case where a house would be for sale and a person would be in need of housing accommodation. Despite the cost of raising money, even a farm worker would find, in the case of such a cottage going cheaply because of lack of competition, that the rent and annuity on it would be 9d. or 1/-a week. Even if he bought that cottage from the vested owner and borrowed the money from the local authority, he would find himself in a better position than if he were the tenant of a new cottage with a rent of anything from 10/- to 15/- a week. As I say, I believe the number of these cases would be rare. Our view is that it is desirable to have provision even for these rare cases so that the local authority will be able to help.
I appreciate the constructive attitude of the Fine Gael speakers. All of them, without exception, were helpful. I am sorry to say such cannot be said of Deputies in the Government Party. The Minister suggested that it be withdrawn. I have no personal animosity against any member of the Government Party to whom I may refer here, but it is essential to draw attention to some of the statements that have been made. I had expected that the first speaker would have been the Minister for Local Government. Quite frankly, if the Minister for Local Government had shown to us he was well advanced in the preparation of a Bill containing such assistance for these people, we would not now be discussing this Bill. We had arranged to withdraw it. It is late in the day for the Minister to come in now and suggest that we should withdraw it. I do not want to spring any sudden vote on the House. We are calling for a vote on it.
Deputy J.J. Collins was the first speaker for Fianna Fáil. I gave Deputy Collins credit for a good knowledge of local government, but he mentioned that repairs to cottages should last for ten years. That does not always apply. Many of these cottages have a vesting period of 20, 25 and 30 years, and the new ones even longer. I am speaking of the old ones. Take a cottage with a vesting period of 15, 20 or 30 years. When the ten years are up, where does the tenant stand? That is a question that must be answered by Fianna Fáil Deputies. I am sure Deputy J. J. Collins was aware that the provision in the Bill was not simply to cover the repairs of cottages alone but also reconstruction. In Limerick and Cork, as well as in other counties, we know of many cases where the tenant of a vested cottages with a young family finds, after a number of years, that three bedrooms are not sufficient. He finds it necessary to get extra accommodation through reconstruction of the cottage. That may happen in less than ten years; it may happen in a few years after vesting. Therefore, there is no use in saying repairs should be adequate for ten years.
Deputy J. J. Collins referred to the fact that Limerick County Council had power to buy back such a cottage. That power is not confined to Limerick. In so far as it goes, it is available to all counties. The Minister mentioned his departmental circular. It happened to be 1959, not 1958. It would almost be as easy for a local authority to buy back a vested cottage as it would be for Deputy Collins and myself to put Lord Brookeborough into orbit.
He also mentioned that Limerick County Council were determined to give vested tenants the right of free sale. Let me put this to Deputies. Is there anything in this Bill that would interfere directly or indirectly with the free sale by vested tenants of their interest in the cottage? There is not. If Deputies wish to oppose the Bill, it would be fairer to do so openly rather than to make insinuations and read something into it which is not in it at all. There is nothing in the Bill which interferes with the free sale by a vested tenant of a cottage, provided he meets the legal requirements of the local authority.
Some months ago, I read an article in a Sunday paper which led me to believe that we had a new Fianna Fáil Deputy of outstanding ability who would be in the forefront in discussions on future legislation. Having read the remarks of the Deputy in this debate, I must say that if any member of Fianna Fáil ever made a vicious contribution to the problem of tenants of cottages, it is Deputy Gallagher. Even among Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party, there must be many who regard the statements made by Deputy Gallagher with as much amazement as I do.
Deputy Gallagher started off by saying: "I oppose the Bill." Naturally, he is entitled to do that. He went on to say:
Cottages are repaired and adequately repaired before they are vested and that is adequate for the moment. If we decide to give the people loans and commit ourselves further, I think it is the thin edge of the wedge to remove from local authorities any control over these cottages at all.
That is at column 549, Volume 193, No. 3 of the Official Report.
I fail to understand why a Deputy carrying with him such a famous name, could describe as the thin end of the wedge a Bill which offers to tenants of council cottages the same rights, the same benefits, the same justice as is being offered to people living in private houses who can avail of loans. It is utter rubbish. I do not know whether or not it is that the Deputy knows so little about local government. He goes further and suggests that the Bill is a continuance of racketeering. He complained that sometimes non-qualified persons seem to get possession of vested cottages. He said.
the Bill would lead to extensions of that abuse.
That is at column 550.
I challenge any member of the Fianna Fáil Party to show how that criticism could be made of the Bill even by the most bitter enemy of council cottage tenants. In the case of an owner occupier of a private house, the fact that he secures a loan ties him to a certain degree to the person from whom he borrows. The fact that a tenant borrows from the local authority is an assurance that the local authority will have a stronger hold on him than they would have if he had not secured a loan. I do not understand why the Deputy should suggest in connection with this Bill the possibility of some people getting cottages who should not get them. This Bill is not responsible for that.
Would somebody ask Deputy Gallagher, if there has been instances in his constituency where persons secured cottages who, he thinks, should not have them, if he made inquiries at the local authority offices and, if he got no satisfaction there, did he report the matter to the Minister and the Department of Local Government? That onus is on the Deputy if he knows of such cases. I had a doubt in regard to one or two cases and I brought them before the local authority and asked for legal opinion. the responsibility is on a Deputy to do so. To suggest that this Bill could be considered as in any way responsible for the extension of such abuses shows—and I am trying to be charitable—complete lack of knowledge in regard to tenancies and the appointment of tenants.
The Deputy concluded by saying:
... see that there is no further expansion of the rights of vested tenants in these cottages.
They are words similar to the words often used by the absentee landlords in the west of Ireland long ago. Now they are being used by a Deputy from the west of Ireland in connection with tenants of council cottages.
Deputy MacCarthy, a man from my own county, a man as familiar with the problems as I am, spoke on the Bill. I should like the members of the Fianna Fáil Party to study what he said. Deputy MacCarthy stated that insufficient grants in connection with repair or reconstruction, based on departmental estimates, were the cause of a lot of the trouble. Other Deputies whom I will mention did not agree with that when I said it. Do they object to Deputy MacCarthy saying it? Deputy MacCarthy went further. He considered that the Bill did not go far enough. He suggested that it will require numerous amendments if it is to remedy all the defects that are now very evident in local authority housing. The reference is column 551 of Volume 193 No. 3.
Will any member of the Fianna Fáil Party who wants to accuse me of political propaganda, accuse a member of their own Party? If they want to accuse me, they also accuse Deputy MacCarthy. They cannot do that. They know that he told the truth and, unfortunately for them, they cannot object to my saying the same thing.
Deputy Lemass complained that the Bill did not deal effectively with many of the problems in the city. We country boys are often accused of coming to Dublin and staying there, but I should like Deputy Lemass to know that we would not for a moment deny members of the Dublin Corporation who are members of this Dáil their right to introduce or to have introduced any legislation in connection with the city. It takes us all our time to deal with the problems of the rural areas, as we have tried to do in this Bill. It is not for us to deal with the problems in the city. Deputy Lemass must know that this Bill in no way interferes with the rights of the members for the city of Dublin or the city of Cork.
Deputy Lemass said that, in his opinion, the Bill was drafted mainly to deal with the questions of vested cottages and agricultural labourers. Was there anything wrong in that? Deputies from rural areas, on all sides of the House, are conversant with the problems in the rural areas. If Deputies did confine themselves in all debates to what they know there might be less time wasted in the House. Deputy Lemass mentioned the sale of vested cottages in Dublin not approved by the Corporation. There is nothing surprising in that. Vested cottages have come within the ambit of Cork County Council ever since 1955. This Bill makes the position clear, although Deputy Lemass seems to doubt it. He suggested that the definition in the 1936 Act was being done away with and that the Bill substitutes for it that the purchaser should be an approved person. "Approved person" is not a new definition brought in with this Bill. "Approved person" is a well recognised term, in use long since by the Minister for Local Government and his Department and frequently referred to in this House. We are not asking a local authority to recommend for approval any person who is not qualified.
The next Government Deputy to speak was Deputy Crinion who said the Bill did not cover water or sewerage. We all know that it is only in the past three years that grants for water and sewerage were separated from the main reconstruction grant and anybody concerned would know that reconstruction could include provision of water supply, or bathrooms, or anything else. The Minister also referred to this. I suppose if either the Deputy or the Minister want to oppose the Bill, he will read something into it that would be against it. It was obvious from the start that they were trying to pick the best loopholes they could find——
