Housing (Loans and Grants) Bill, 1962. — Second Stage. – Dáil Éireann (17th Dáil) – Wednesday, 11 Jul 1962

Housing (Loans and Grants) Bill, 1962. — Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill, as its long Title indicates, makes further and better provision in relation to grants and loans for private housing and it also consolidates the existing provisions of the Housing Acts on this subject. It is a first step in the simplification and modernisation of the general housing code.

Housing legislation at present comprises the separate codes of the Labourers Acts (1883-1958), the Housing of the Working Classes Acts (1890-1960), the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1960, and the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts (1899-1958).

It is proposed in this Bill to consolidate and amend the various provisions in the latter two codes dealing with grants and loans for private housing.

The statutory provisions relating to the general powers of housing authorities in the Labourers Acts (1883-1958) and the Housing of the Working Classes Acts (1890-1958) are also being reviewed for consolidation and amendment in new legislation which will be introduced as soon as possible. Housing law will then be comprised in only two codes, the Loans and Grants Bill now before the House and the remainder of the law as proposed to be consolidated in relation to local housing authorities.

The existing provisions relating to State grants for new and reconstructed houses expired on the 31st March, 1962. The Bill (Section 2) provides for the continuance at existing levels of the grants available for the provision of new houses. No terminal date for the completion of grant houses is specified and continuing and extending legislation will therefore be unnecessary in future so far as the payment of grants is concerned. While the housing law is thus being made permanent, this is, of course, without prejudice to the introduction of any amending legislation which may be found necessary from time to time.

The present rates of grants for new houses are being retained, subject to the qualification that a grant will in future be made for unserviced houses only in cases in which the provision of a piped water supply and sewerage facilities is not reasonably practicable. This amendment is in accord with the policy of securing the provision of sanitary services in dwellings wherever possible.

Section 3 deals with reconstruction grants and proposes to continue these grants at the existing rates. Hitherto grants under separate sections and subject to different conditions were paid for (a) the reconstruction of houses in the occupation of farmers, the total rateable valuation of whose holdings did not exceed £50 and to agricultural labourers reconstructing houses for their own occupation in a rural area; and (b) the repair and improvement of houses by other persons. Section 3 deals with both these classes of grants on uniform conditions, subject to retention of the basis on which the grants are at present determined, viz., two-thirds of the cost of the work in the case of category (a) and one-third for category (b), but subject also in both cases to the maximum limit as set out in the section. The expression "agricultural labourer" is not being retained in this context: the classes for whom grants of two-thirds of the cost are to be made are referred to as persons who derive their livelihood solely or mainly from the pursuit of agriculture. Thus, farmers and agricultural labourers are brought within the same qualification. The proposed amalgamation of the two existing sections is designed to secure a desirable uniformity and simplification in administration.

Section 4 deals with the payment of second or subsequent grants in respect of a house which had previously received a new-house or reconstruction grant. The 1932 Housing Act contained no positive provisions allowing second grants and this situation was, in the earlier years of the housing programme, regarded as justified for the purpose of securing that durable and good quality work would be carried out when the house was being built or being reconstructed for the first time. The possibility of financial exploitation of a system of unrestricted successive grants had also to be guarded against. With the passing of time, however, and the ageing of housing stock either built or reconstructed originally with these grants, some relaxations were considered necessary to keep houses in repair, and improve them, to prevent deterioration, to allow for family expansion and to enable the question of storm damage to be dealt with.

Various amendments made in 1950, 1952 and 1954 helped the objective of securing durable and good standard work initially, while allowing subsequent grants for necessary reconstruction after the passing of a reasonable time or the emergence of circumstances outside the applicant's control. Under this section, the general bar to payment of further reconstruction grants, within a fifteen-year period of the first grant, is retained as is the reduced period of 10 years where re-roofing is necessary. However, as rigid application of a limiting period gave rise to hardship in certain cases where particular works became urgently necessary before the expiration of the period, it was decided in 1960, with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance, to pay limited grants for some of the more urgent works likely to arise under Section 12 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1954, which did not include a prohibition on the payment of further grants. Specific statutory authority for the continuance of the payment of these special grants is now being taken. The existing legislative power to make a grant for works necessitated by storm damage is being re-enacted with the reservation that a grant for works of this nature will not carry with it a disqualification on the subsequent payment at any time of a grant for normal reconstruction work.

The maximum grants under the section will be as follows: (a) For extra rooms to relieve overcrowding, involving an addition to floor area, £50 per room; (b) For provision of a bathroom, involving an addition to floor area, £50; (c) For storm damage, two-thirds of the cost in the case of persons deriving their livelihood solely or mainly from agriculture, including farmers with holdings not exceeding £50 and one-third in other cases, subject to the maximum of £100, £120 or £140, as appropriate. For works urgently necessary to conserve a house, one-third of cost subject to a maximum of £100, £120 or £140, as appropriate.

The aggregate of grants made at any one time under the section must not exceed the appropriate statutory maximum of £100, £120 or £140, which obtain at present. Payment of the grants will be made subject to regulations.

Provisions governing the payment of grants for the installation of private water and sewerage facilities are not being retained in housing legislation but will be dealt with in the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Bill, recently introduced.

As supplementary grants are closely connected with State grants, I shall now deal with the new provisions in this respect in advance of the order shown in the text of the Bill. Section 12 of the Bill discontinues the graded system of supplementary grants by local authorities for new houses, leaving housing authorities free to decide the type of supplementary grant scheme most suited to local circumstances within specified maximum limits of income and valuation for eligibility. The existing annual income limit is £624 for county boroughs and contiguous areas and £520 elsewhere but no limit applies to tenants of local authority dwellings or persons eligible for such tenancies. A uniform limit of £832 per annum is now proposed. An increase to £50 in the maximum valuation limit of £35 is proposed for farmers. The proposals confer on local authorities a power to exclude categories of applicants to whom, although they come within the statutory income or valuation limits, the payment of a supplementary grant by the housing authority is not considered to be warranted. Similarly, a housing authority will be free to limit their scheme to houses of particular types. As regards supplementary grants for reconstruction, repair and improvement, there are no existing statutory maxima for income and valuation. Section 8 of the Bill preserves this position.

Section 5 of the Bill introduces a new type of grant to assist minimum essential preservation work in rural areas. This proposal is part of a planned approach to deal with the remaining unfit housing problem in these areas. The evidence available so far, from the survey of unfit housing, shows a manifest need for flexibility of treatment of this branch of the housing problem. There are many persons living in unfit conditions who are not and are never likely to be in a position to rehouse themselves and whose needs cannot or are not being met by housing authorities. Owing to such factors as the location of the houses and the age and circumstances of the occupants, local authorities cannot be expected to give a high priority to providing new houses for these classes. Private grants and loans procedure has up to now been generally ineffective in these cases. The purpose of the section is to enable the occupant to carry out only the minimum essential works such as roof repairs, repairs of doors or windows and wall plastering. The work will be carried out on an economic and temporary basis so that the house may be reasonably fit for a limited period and so that its subsequent abandonment or demolition will not involve any substantial abortive expenditure The proposal will not in any way relieve the rural housing authority of its obligation to secure the demolition or closure of unfit rented houses which, normally, are a feature of urban, rather than of rural areas.

The State grant proposed under this section will not exceed £80, or two-thirds of the cost of the work, whichever is less. The housing authority may, in addition, make a grant sufficient to defray the balance of the cost or may contribute within this limit building materials or labour or other assistance in kind.

Housing authorities are also being authorised under this section to carry out the necessary works of repair with the consent of the occupiers and, in such circumstances, the State grants will be payable to the housing authority.

Section 6 of the Bill introduces a new scheme of grants to philanthropic and charitable organisations for the provision of housing for elderly persons. It is hoped that the increased rate of grant (£300 per dwelling unit) will provide the necessary impetus to encourage the provision of this type of housing. Aspects of a social character which are normally outside the scope of housing policy attend the problem of housing old people. For that reason, it is desirable that philanthropic or charitable organisations should be encouraged as far as possible to provide the necessary dwelling accommodation. Generous public financial aid is justified for this purpose since the funds likely to be available to such organisations are normally limited.

The section provides for the payment of supplementary grants by housing authorities of amounts not exceeding the grants paid by the State, and provision is also made entitling housing authorities to prescribe such conditions in relation to the payment of supplementary grants as they think fit.

Section 7 introduces a new type of grant designed to encourage experimentation by architects, builders, co-operative groups and local authorities in the production of low cost housing suitable for persons in low income groups. The grant for the erection of the approved prototype will not exceed 50 per cent. of the approved estimated cost. Subsequent reproductions of a successful prototype will be eligible for normal new house grants and supplementary grants in the ordinary way.

It has been represented by architects that, given more freedom of design, house costs could be reduced. Local authorities also have occasionally sought sanction to experimentation in design and specification related to local needs and circumstances. No adequate machinery exists at present which would encourage development of these suggestions. Where departures from prescribed standards occur or are proposed in private grant cases, it is usual to reduce the amount of grant normally available in order to preserve the principle that fixed standards should be observed as far as practicable.

If co-operative or self-help housing, to which I will refer later, can be developed into a formal movement in any area, the erection of a specially designed experimental or "prototype" house would provide useful experience to the co-operative group and encouragement to the spread of such activity.

The section proposes that, if a house-type were evolved through the experimentation envisaged which necessitated such a departure from the present fixed standards as would normally warrant a reduction or loss of grant, the new house-type (perhaps with modification) will be brought especially within eligibility for normal rates of grant for the purpose of reproduction. This will preserve the existing principle of fixed standards to be applied to grant-houses in general and will also enable local authorities to pay supplementary grants in the normal course.

Section 9 and 12 of the Bill authorise housing authorities to pay supplementary grants for the reconstruction and provision of houses under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Acts.

Section 10 re-enacts and extends Section 13 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1958, so as to enable a housing authority to make loans for the repair of (a) vested cottages; and (b) houses which have been or will be sold by housing authorities to tenant purchasers in urban areas, where the fee simple or fine is or will be mortgaged as security.

Section 11 provides for the making of loans by housing authorities for the acquisition or construction of houses. The section is intended to replace the existing provisions of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and will be brought into operation on an appointed day by Order made by the Minister. The section authorises the making of regulations to deal inter alia with the details of procedure relating to the making of loans, the classes eligible for loans, repayments, transfers, etc.

Section 13 is a re-enactment and extension of Section 10 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1956, under which housing authorities are empowered to guarantee advances to private persons for the provision of houses. This guarantee procedure has, however, been almost wholly ineffective. The amended section enables guarantees to be given in respect of loans for reconstruction work as well as for new houses and extends the type of bodies to which guarantees may be given. The new section may in this way be utilised to a greater extent than its predecessor.

Section 17 is a new provision which authorises the Minister to withhold or reduce a grant where the conditions subject to which the grant was paid have not been complied with.

Section 20 of the Bill enables the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to vary from time to time the amounts of the maximum advances to be made to borrowers under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. I propose, on the passing of this Bill, to fix a uniform maximum of £2,000 which will govern advances by all housing authorities and which will replace the existing statutory limits of £1,600 and £1,800.

Sections 21 and 25 (subsection 2) make the necessary transitional provision for the payment of grants outstanding at 31st March, 1962, and authorised within the period 1st April, 1962, up to the passing of this Bill.

The remaining sections are necessary re-enactments of existing provisions of the Housing Acts dealing with private housing grants. I have now outlined the contents and the aims of this Bill, which is designed to encourage the elimination of unfit housing so far as positive legislation can deal with this problem.

As the Dáil is aware, a survey of unfit houses has been in progress for some time, with special reference to the extent of the problem in rural areas. In the last 30 years, the housing programme, particularly that portion of it undertaken by local authorities, has been more effective in urban than in rural areas, where the current survey figures up to the present indicate that some 30,000 houses need to be repaired and 20,000 more require to be replaced. The full completion of the survey will not materially alter the overall picture of the problem presented by these figures. The problem is a big one and obviously more difficult to solve than that section of the housing programme that has already been successfully implemented.

In rural areas, the unfit housing problem does not lend itself to the treatment possible in urban areas where blocks of unfit property, often in single ownership, can be dealt with by large-scale clearance operations. The outstanding feature of the rural problem is that of isolated and owner-occupied houses situated on holdings of varying economic categories. These categories range from those willing and able to meet the cost of new houses of reconstruction of their old houses with the aid of grants down to those who, for financial or other reasons, are either unable or unwilling to face the implications of even a very modest degree of repair. As Deputies familiar with rural conditions are aware, many elderly single persons or elderly couples with little or no resources or a short expectation of life without assured succession for occupation of their dwellings are the classes least inclined or able to do anything for themselves. As I have already said, it is part of the problem that local authorities are not universally disposed to regard this problem as part of their housing functions or, where they do accept some responsibility, they can give only a low priority to the rehousing of these classes, as compared with others seeking new housing.

So far as legislative proposals can go, this Bill contains provisions specially designed to deal with the needs of the rural position. For rural as well as for urban areas, the removal of housing grants from the need for renewable legislation gives an assurance to all concerned that they may continue to plan and build without fear of the non-renewal of the legislation on which the grants depend. The recurrence of unfitness in housing, even in the best circumstances, is a perennial problem and not one that can be assumed to be finally eradicable in the sense that even the best houses decay in time. The proposed provisions in regard to loans and eligibility for supplementary grants made the way easier for the erection of new houses and the reconstruction of old ones. The introduction of the minimum essential repair grants provided in Section 5 for county health areas represents an important new principle of housing policy which, I hope, will do much at reasonable cost to restore the habitability of some of the worst houses in rural areas.

Housing activities in recent years have shown a marked trend in the direction of private enterprise. This welcome trend, which appears likely to continue, deserves to be nurtured not only by improved legislation but also by positive encouragement of both individual effort and co-operative action. The success which has attended the active help and advice given by my Department to persons desiring to organise private group water supply schemes convinces me that a planned approach on these lines to the rural housing problem may yield results which more official lines of action could not achieve. The approach by way of self-help will, I am certain, be considerably assisted by the general provisions of the Bill and particularly by the provisions of Section 7 which will encourage experimentation towards the production of low-cost housing.

The general pattern of this Bill fits therefore into the first part of the attack on the unfit housing problem which is of particular urgency in rural areas. There is still a wide and important field in which local authorities can continue to make, by the direct provision of houses, further valuable contributions to meeting housing needs. I propose to deal with this aspect of the matter in conjunction with my proposals for an up-to-date consolidated code for local housing authorities, which will, I hope, contain special provision in relation to the rural situation. As I have already intimated, I hope to bring this legislation before the House without any great delay. When these two measures are enacted, we shall have in up-to-date form all the powers required for the effective prosecution of the housing activities of private and public enterprise.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister in bringing this Bill to the House did do what we regretted he had not done in the earlier Bill, that is, to circulate a White Paper. Therefore we can at least say we have this explanatory memorandum to assist us in understanding the Bill. The Bill, however, is a pretty complex one, extending as it does over 26 sections and three Schedules. When one remembers that and when one recollects also that everyone knew that a Housing Bill had to be enacted as soon as possible after 1st April, 1962, it is virtually impossible to understand why the Minister was so dilatory in bringing the Bill to the House. We all knew such legislation was essential after the commencement of this financial year because the old housing enabling legislation terminated on 31st March last. In those circumstances, I am completely unable to understand why the Minister left it until these last few dying days of the Dáil before the recess to introduce this legislation.

Even with the assistance of the explanatory memorandum, for which I am grateful, the measure is one that it is not possible adequately and clearly to discuss here within a very short compass of time. It is therefore self-evident that the Minister must accept blame, and serious blame, for not having been sufficiently far forward with his programme and his plans to introduce this Bill at a time when the other Act was expiring. It is undoubted that various people have held back from starting new housing works waiting for the publication of this measure. Even in my own constituency, I know many cases where people, believing that grants were to be increased, held back, in case, by having commenced work before such grants were announced, they would lose the benefit of new provisions.

They will suffer a shock on the double now. First they will get a shock because there is no increase whatever in grants provided by this Bill to meet increased costs and, secondly, in many cases because of the neglect of the Minister to introduce the Bill at a reasonable time, they have lost — I was going to say a great part of the summer but I do not think anybody could describe the weather we have had so far as being summer — a substantial period of time. Apart from that, I must confess that I was almost stunned by the audacity of the Minister in one phrase. It is audacity of which the Minister is perfectly entitled to be proud. Towards the end of his speech, he said:

Housing activities in recent years have shown a marked trend in the direction of private enterprise. This welcome trend...

What are the facts? The facts are, of course, that there is a trend. If one likes to compare the proportion of private housing to local authority housing, undoubtedly the proportion of private housing is increasing. Why is it increasing? It is increasing because local authority housing has virtually ceased in comparison with what it was in earlier years. To suggest that there has been a marked trend in the direction of private enterprise is a distortion of the facts as they appear in the reply by the Minister to a question on 20th May last. On 20th May, at Columns 1579 and 1580, Volume 195, No. 12. of the Official Report, the Minister told Deputy Jones and the House that this was the position in relation to housing:

Number of houses built by local authorities

1954-55	5,267
1955-56	4,011
1956-57	4,784.

Lo and behold, in 1957 enter Fianna Fáil into the realm of Government: 1957-58, 3,467; 1958-59, 1,812; 1959-60, a little bit up — 2,414; 1960-61, 1,463; 1961-62, 1,238. Let us put that in pattern: 1,238 in 1961-62 after Fianna Fáil had been in office for five years and they surely cannot say that in five years they were still suffering from any effects of anything that was done by their predecessors. Yet, that figure of 1,238 contrasts with the figures of 5,267, 4,011 and 4,784 in the three years during which Deputy O'Donnell was responsible as Minister. I agree, if one counts as a virtue cessation of local authority building, that has been a swing in relation to private enterprise.

One goes on to examine the figures in relation to private enterprise housing. By that, I presume the Minister means the number of houses built by private persons with the aid of grants under the Housing Acts and that when the Minister was referring to the welcome trend in relation to housing activities by private enterprise it was that particular type of house to which he was referring. I agree that in 1961-62 there was a slight increase over the previous year in that type of housing but the fact remains that in no single year since Fianna Fáil came into office in 1957 have there been as many houses built by private persons with the aid of housing grants as there were in any of the three years for which Deputy O'Donnell was responsible, from 1954 to 1957.

Here are the facts; here are the figures. Let them go on the record of this House and let those members of Fianna Fáil who honestly believed — and there were some who honestly believed — the claptrap that was spoken and produced by Deputy Smith when he was Minister for Local Government before he became Minister for Agriculture—consider these facts and figures and let them come in their own minds, their own consciences and their own honesty to see whether Deputy Smith when Minister for Local Government and his successor were justified in the comments and the claims they made in respect of it.

Mr. Dolan

You had not a penny in 1956 to pay a housing grant. I will tell you what you did.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Dolan should not make a liar of Deputy Blaney as Minister for Local Government because Deputy Blaney, on 20th May, said that this was the story, not the claptrap which poor Deputy Dolan swallowed hook, line and sinker. Here is what the Minister for Local Government, Deputy Blaney, says and I am sure he is right. I am sure he is telling the truth.

Mr. Dolan

You had not a penny — not a penny. That is why housing stopped.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman (Mr. McAuliffe)

Deputy Sweetman to continue.

Mr. Sweetman

Perhaps Deputy Dolan will try to explain this to himself: Here is what the Minister for Local Government says — that in 1954/55, 5,006 houses were built with the aid of housing grants; that in 1955/56, 5,436 houses were built with the aid of housing grants and that in 1956/57, 5,647 houses were built with the aid of housing grants. These are the figures given by the Minister — 5,006, 5,436, 5,647.

Mr. Dolan

They were started in 1954 and by 1957 there was not a penny to pay a housing grant. That is what happened. Those are the facts.

Mr. Blowick

There were as many houses built in one year as there were in seven when Fianna Fáil were in office.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Sweetman

Facts are facts. The facts are quite simple.

Mr. Dolan

The ordinary people of this country know what happened.

Mr. Blowick

They do.

Mr. Dolan

They gave you your answer.

Mr. A. Barry

The people must be very green or you would not be over there.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Sweetman

Did I hear Deputy Egan make a remark? Would he like to repeat it?

Mr. N. Egan

I would be quite happy to talk to you any time you want to talk to me, any place.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Sweetman to continue on the Bill. Interruptions must cease.

Mr. Dolan

All right.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Dolan will have some explaining to do as to why, if there was not a penny piece to pay in grants, the Minister for Local Government said 5,006, 5,436 and 5,657 houses were erected in each of those years with the aid of housing grants.

Mr. Dolan

Ask the merchants what credit they gave. They paid for it.

We will provide him with the figures on the Money Resolution, if he does not want to provide them to-day. It was the Government which Deputy Leneghan supports which permitted Singer to get away with it, not this side of the House. Coming to the years about which Deputy Dolan is going to enlighten us, the facts are that in not a single year since 1957 has there been as many houses erected with the aid of housing grants, according to the Minister for Local Government.

The figures are: For 1957-58, 3,629; for 1958-59, 2,684; for 1959-60, 3,740; for 1960-61, 3,952 and for 1961-62, 4,049. In other words, in every single year there were more than 1,000 less than the number to which I referred a while ago. If anybody wants the amounts paid to Dublin Corporation from 1955 onwards, I have them here. In 1954-55, the amount was £4,622,195; in 1955-56, £4,041,587; in 1956-57, £3,625,694; in 1957-58, after Fianna Fáil were in office, £2,165,045; in 1958-59, and again with Fianna Fáil in office, £1,847,596. In 1959-60, the amount was £1,611,587, just less than half the amount in 1956-57 about which there has been a certain amount of talk.

If one wants to go from one end of the country to the other, to Cork, we will find the same situation, that there was more money paid out for Cork Corporation housing expenditure, as Deputy Anthony Barry can also vouch for, in the years 1955, 1956 and 1957 than there was in any year since. I know that the situation in respect of housing except in Dublin and Cork is that the demand for local authority housing is tapering off. That is not the case in either Dublin or Cork and that excuse is not available in relation to the provision of grants for either Dublin or Cork.

About two.

Mr. Sweetman

How many years have Fianna Fáil been in power since 1957? — Five. Deputy Colley is new to this House but I see that the old warrior, Deputy Collins, could see that he was walking himself into it.

If the position is that Deputy Colley is anxious to tell us he is penitent for what happened in those years and is now taking steps to improve the situation and accelerate the swing in Dublin and Cork, I willingly accept his penitence.

Mr. Colley

We will relate the figures to the requirements.

Mr. Sweetman

Relate them to the facts, and I shall give the facts. The Deputy was one of the people who was honestly and conscientiously misled. A great many people to my knowledge have deferred operations under the Housing Acts because of failure by the Minister to announce new legislation. The fact is that not merely have a number of people held back in that respect but a great many people who are about to build now will be bitterly disappointed by the fact that the grants have not been increased. Most people who are building expected that the grants being announced under new schemes would be better than those in existence, but of course, as the Minister indicated in his opening speech, all this Bill does in relation to grants is to continue them at the level at which they were previously paid.

There will be considerable disappointment in that respect. Not merely will there be disappointment but also some hesitation on the part of people to go ahead with what they had planned. As far as I can understand, the procedure that will now be adopted under Section 3 will mean that instead of two types of form of application for housing grants, in future, only one will be used and it will be immaterial whether the house concerned is one in respect of which the person has a valuation of a certain size or not. The same criterion will be operative to both classes.

I do not know whether Deputies in other areas have found as we have in Kildare that people frequently apply for grants, believing they were eligible under one section only to find that they had to apply under the other section. They then had to get a certificate from the local authority as to the suitability of the house for reconstruction grants under Section 3. As I understand the amalgamation of the two sections into one in the new Bill, it would seem that one type of application only will be required in future and accordingly the administration should be eased in that respect.

The Minister is proposing here that grants for new houses will be paid by virtue of Section 2, only where a piped water supply and sewerage system cannot reasonably be provided. I take it that what is meant there is that where a public or private supply cannot reasonably be provided, the reconstruction grant is intended to apply only to a public system. It is almost certain that is so but I should like to have it confirmed by the Minister.

In relation also to reconstruction grants, I should like one other point clarified. It refers to the supplementary grants that will now be available by virtue of the new procedure. The expression "agricultural labourer", in reference to a person working for hire in a rural area, has gone now under this new proposal and instead of that it refers to a person engaged solely or mainly in agricultural work. It seems from that that the basis on which supplementary grants have hitherto been paid to persons working for hire in rural areas but not actually working on land is being changed. It is desirable that that change should be explained to us in a more detailed fashion than appears in the memorandum and in the Minister's opening speech.

In relation to construction, and indeed in relation also to the erection of new houses, I do not know whether members of other local authorities find that their local authorities have the greatest difficulty in getting contractors to do isolated cottages. We have found in Kildare that it is virtually impossible to get contractors to do satisfactorily isolated cottages in rural areas. There is little difficulty in obtaining a contractor to do a group scheme of half a dozen houses, but, because of the difficulty of supervision and because the small type of building contractor does not now seem to be there as he was, it is virtually impossible to get contractors in Kildare to build individual isolated cottages in the rural areas. If other areas are finding the same difficulty, then a method of dealing with that problem must be found. It would seem that the only method is to increase the facilities available for people to build their own houses. Quite frankly, the provisions of Section 5 may, perhaps, ease that to some degree.

I am sure that every Deputy has come across the case of a person living in a totally unsatisfactory house, who has not got any young family perhaps, and yet feels he would not have the slightest possibility of meeting even a minimum differential rent, if he were to be rehoused by the local authority. The provisions of Section 5 will help, because in such cases where there are old people desiring some small repairs to their existing habitations, this section, while not providing them with the standard which they and we would like, at the same time would enable them to carry on for a period without having to meet the increased rent they would have to pay if the local authority had to rehouse them.

In addition, that type of house is nearly always in a rather remote part of a rural area. If it is in such a remote part, there will be the same difficulty for the local authority in getting a contractor to build a house in which to rehouse the people concerned. Therefore, the grants provided by Section 5 are one method of ensuring that this problem can be met to some degree.

It would be desirable for the Minister, when concluding, to outline in more detail what he has in mind in that section, which is a new one. Is it, for example, to be a complete condition that any part of the wall cannot be a mud wall? One often comes across an old house where the thatched roof requires to be completely replaced and where a grant cannot be obtained for its replacement because one section, perhaps, of one wall is a mud wall, and without the removal of that wall a grant would not in the ordinary course be paid. I hope that type of restriction will not be enforced, particularly in regard to the fringe areas around the bogs in Kildare, which I know and in respect of which I can at once think of two cases where this section would be of assistance.

Perhaps the Minister also when concluding would indicate whether it is intended that Section 6 of the Bill will provide only for charitable societies and such like? Is it intended that under no circumstances can this type of grant for elderly couples be provided for a small house on this scale, which would be sufficient for an old couple but not sufficient for a young married couple with a growing family?

The Minister made considerable play with the provisions for experimentation in house design provided by Section 7. I am not quite sure that the way he has provided for it in this Bill will ensure what is undoubtedly a desirable thing. I remember, for example, in relation to Kildare, one particular firm got the county council to erect a new type of house at a very reduced cost. The cost was trifling. The only effect of that erection was that no one else anywhere else bought the house. They were told that while they might be suitable in certain circumstances, they were not suitable for the general run of houses being built. Whenever it was asked if any local authority had taken up the experiment, the answer was: "Yes, Kildare has erected one." The obvious implication was that, because only one had been erected, they were not of any value and the experiment was never proceeded with and improved on, as it should have been if it was to be a success. I am a little afraid the same thing might easily occur in relation to the erection of the prototype provided for here in Section 7.

I am not quite clear what is the purpose of the change in nomenclature provided by Section 11 from the old small dwellings code. Incidentally, in passing, I might add I was particularly intrigued to know why in the explanatory memorandum, Section 11 was explained before Section 10. If Deputies look at the top of page 3 of the White Paper, they will find the first paragraph deals entirely with Section 11. Then we go on to the second paragraph, which deals with Section 10. It is unusual to change the order of explanation and I feel that there must have been some particular reason for the change, a reason which I failed to notice.

Section 13 extends the guarantee system provided by the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1946. The Bill itself does not refer to that Act but the explanatory memorandum is quite honest about it and explains that it is extending the guarantee system provided by the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1946. Yet I seem to remember certain Deputies saying, when those on that side of the House were on this side, that that was an utterly useless provision and one that should and would be completely scrapped. But I am glad to see and welcome their conversion, even at this late stage. Before I leave Section 11, might I inquire also whether I am correct in thinking that the regulations to be made under subsection (2) of Section 11 must be tabled under the general provision for tabling contained in Section 23, or whether that section is exclusive of it? I believe the regulations must be so tabled. Certainly it is essential that they would be.

The Minister on several occasions referred in his introductory remarks to what he described as the principle of self-help. Does he mean by that a private person erecting his own house with the aid of Government grants and Government facilities, as apart from the provision of that house by a local authority building the house for the particular person? Or does he intend to imply by the use of the phrase "self-help", particularly in his mention of it in connection with experimentation in house design, something in the nature of what one might term roughly "Do-it-yourself"? Does he mean that the experimentation is to be towards a type of house which can be prefabricated on a factory basis and put into place without quite the same amount of skill or the same amount of labour on the site as would be involved in the more conventional type of building? Or does he mean by "self-help" that he is stressing a trend from public authority building towards private persons building with the help of grants and loans? It is desirable that he should clarify that because his phrase could be taken either way, and it is desirable, at least, that we should know in which direction his mind is travelling.

Mr. Desmond

Any Bill introduced here which will be of assistance to those building their own houses, to local authorities providing houses in their respective areas, and which will be to the advantage of the country as a whole will naturally have the support of the Labour Party. I have no intention of making comparisons between the number of houses being built now and the number of houses built in any particular year. If one wishes to make such comparisons, they can more legitimately be made when we come to discuss the Estimate for the Department of Local Government. I wish to concentrate solely now on the provisions in this Bill.

It must be admitted by all that this Bill has certain defects. In Section 2, it is made quite clear that there will be no increase in the grants for building or for reconstruction. That is a grave defect. Building costs have soared over the past few years. That is not due to any action by the Government. Costs have increased everywhere. The present method is that the grants are based on estimates made by the Department of Local Government. As has been said here before, these estimates are in 90 out of 100 cases, far below the actual cost of either building or reconstruction work. It is a source of great disappointment to those hoping to build new homes, or spend some money on the reconstruction and improvement of their existing homes, to learn that they will not be allowed one penny extra under this Bill by way of grant because of the way in which the figures are estimated and because there is still no consideration being given to figures submitted by either the applicant, or the contractor on behalf of the applicant. Autocratic control is still held by the Minister for Local Government. It is he who decides whether the more suitable estimate is the one computed by his Department or the more realistic estimate submitted by the applicant. Section 2 is not satisfactory.

Section 3 will need amendment. It has been made quite clear here in the past that the present system of costs is outdated and outmoded and should be scrapped. Something will have to be done by the Minister between now and the Committee Stage to improve this Bill. It is a Bill which may in future be of some assistance to people building houses.

Section 5 is good. I give the Mini- ster credit for the provision whereby money can now be allocated by way of grant for what may be called minimum repairs. There are houses which are undoubtedly in bad repair. The occupants are not in a position financially to do the work themselves, work which departmental inspectors insist should be done before the people will qualify for a grant. This provision will help old people living in houses which are not in too serious disrepair and which, if repaired, will last these people for the remainder of their life-time.

I should like the Minister to clarify Section 6. On the face of it, it is very good, dealing with the provision of housing for elderly people. We would be tempted to say in fact that this should be considered one of the best sections in the Bill. Perhaps it could be if operated properly. However, it is not what we here wish it to be but how it is put into operation when it becomes law that is important. This section says that the amount of grant shall not exceed £300. I am anxious to know for what type of house this £300 may be provided, for which also a supplementary grant may be provided by the local authority. We may get building speculators who will buy two or three houses in the city here or in Cork, convert these houses and claim that each single room is a separate dwelling in the building. From my reading of the section, there is nothing to prevent anyone so doing.

It would be deplorable if anyone could take advantage of Government grants in that way. There should be protection for the people and for the State in relation to the money being paid out by insisting on certain minimum space requirements before such grants are paid. I suggest these dwellings should contain at least a living room and one bedroom to make a self-contained unit. Elderly people in Dublin or Cork city might wish to invite some friends in for the evening. They may be in a single room which must be used for the preparation of meals, for dining and everything else. That is not satisfactory. I am not accusing the Minister but lest some people may take advantage of a loophole in the section, I would ask that this matter be re-examined by the Minister so that these grants will be properly utilised and properly availed of in order to provide for these elderly people the housing conditions to which undoubtedly they are entitled.

Section 8 deals with supplementary grants. The position may vary from county to county. Cork County Council or other county councils may find no difficulty in paying these supplementary grants because the intake of rates can stand up to it and eventually they will get it back in the increased rates collected on the improved property. However, I have in mind the position of urban district councils. I have found from discussions in many places that while the members of these councils are anxious to provide a supplementary grant, they find it difficult financially to do so and therefore the people in these areas are at a disadvantage as against people in the areas under the jurisdiction of the county council. I do not know what the answer may be but I do suggest that some financial provision might be offered to the urban district council which, coupled with their contribution, might bring the supplementary grant up to the level of that offered in the county of which they are a part.

Section 10 is a section in which I have a particular interest. Let me make it clear that on speaking on Section 10, there is no idea in my mind of crowing or of saying: "Did I not tell you so?" All I will say at this late stage is that if the Minister had told us a few months ago that he was prepared to include provision for loans to people living in vested cottages, the Bill over which we fought so hard would have been withdrawn without our dividing the House on it. I am pleased to see that the Minister has seen fit to make this provision. I appreciate the position of members of the Government Party, for many of whom I have always had nothing but the highest respect. I realise they were speaking sincerely when saying they believed there was a need for loans in such cases. I am not blaming any individual member. We all know the rules of the Parties here.

There are times when our views may vary but I suppose the majority rules. I am glad the Minister now realises it is vitally important to be able to offer to the tenants of vested cottages, through the co-operation of the local authority, the advantage that should have been offered to them long before now in relation to the improvement of these houses.

The Minister mentioned the figure of 30,000 houses in need of repairs. If the survey carried out in County Cork, making comparisons between the conditions of the various cottages vested over the past 10, 12 and 20 years, is taken into account in the list of houses in need of repairs, the Minister will find there is a very high percentage which, I am very glad to say, will be able to avail of loans for repairs.

Section 13 provides:

A housing authority may, in accordance with a scheme approved of by the Minister, guarantee an advance or part of an advance by a building society, an assurance company, a bank or other industrial or commercial organisation...

I should like the Minister to inform the House what is meant by the words "other industrial or commercial organisation". Where a guarantee is offered, I can understand the reference to building society, insurance company or bank. Perhaps I am suspicious but it seems rather vague as to who may be brought in. Therefore, the Minister should clarify what is meant by these words.

I would ask the Minister also to give us a little information on Section 19 which provides that the Minister may allow a grant for a house which complies with his regulations but does not comply with local bye-laws. Normally we would not dispute about that but I am anxious to know the position. Supposing a case arises where the local authority maintains that a person building or reconstructing his home has broken some local bye-law and the Minister considers that he has not broken the departmental regulations. When that person receives the final instalment of grant from the bank, will the local authority pay the supplementary grant? This matter is serious enough to warrant the Minister clarifying it for us. Deputies who are members of the local authority might have to argue at a meeting of the local authority in Cork about this provision. The manager might insist that the person was not entitled to a supplementary grant because he had broken a bye-law and the Deputies, as members of the Oireachtas and also members of the local authority, might have to insist that as the person had received a local government grant, he should get the supplementary grant. For the benefit of Deputies who are members of local authorities and for the benefit of the officials of the local authority, I am anxious that this matter should be clarified.

Section 22 is on the same lines as Section 19, with a slight variation. It provides for the making of grants by the Minister notwithstanding non-compliance with a statute or statutory instrument. That is not a case of a breach of some local bye-law but a case in which a plea of ignorance of departmental rules and regulations may be made. This could be a very serious provision. I am not concerned as to who may be Minister for Local Government. I have tried to steer clear of any question of politics. We are dealing with housing legislation. If members who are now on my right were on my left, I would not blame them if they were suspicious of a Minister. That can happen. A person may break a departmental regulation and may, through some means or other, be able to convince the Minister that it was through ignorance of the law. It is a dangerous provision that such a person could succeed in getting a grant. I should like the Minister to clarify that matter also.

The Labour Party regard housing legislation as being of vital importance to the people. I regret that this Bill was not before us earlier solely for the reason that we would have had more time to discuss it. It is being rushed Circumstances create the necessity to get this legislation through as quickly as possible because the Act should have been re-enacted at the end of March last. We find it difficult to discuss the Bill in its entirety for the purpose of clarification. I would ask that the points I have raised be dealt with by the Minister so as to help us in our approach to the Bill, which may facilitate the Minister in getting the Bill through the House.

The Labour Party are satisfied with the progress being made in some directions but are very disappointed that the grants have not been increased and that there is as yet no indication from the Government of a more modern and more realistic assessment of the costs on which grants are based.

Mr. Leneghan

I have listened to the debate and I can say that there is no doubt where the brilliant ideas on housing legislation come from. They come from the Opposition benches. The amazing thing is that they were seven and a half years in power and had not some of these brilliant ideas then and did not put into effect legislation in accordance with the brilliant ideas we are now supposed to believe they have.

My memory is not short. I remember the year 1956, for instance, when a councillor could not come outside the door of his house because of the number of people who were looking for housing grants and who could not get a penny. The people who were in office then tell us today about the tremendous amount of building that was carried on in that period. It may have been carried on — I am not saying it was not—but I would like somebody to specify where the building was carried out. It was not carried out in Mayo. There were no housing grants paid in County Mayo during the calendar year 1956. There is no use in saying otherwise. I agree that grants were paid during the financial year 1956-57 because there was a change of Government and as soon as that change of Government took place, grants were paid, in March, 1957. No grants were paid in 1956 or in 1955. I challenge anybody to give the figures for County Mayo. The gentlemen who have the audacity to get up here and quote figures are trying to hoodwink the public but they are not hoodwinking me.

I did think the repair and reconstruction grants would be somewhat increased. To be quite candid about it, I thought the Minister more or less indicated over the last few months that these grants would be increased. I would ask now that he should reconsider the position. He should relate the grants to the increase in the cost of wages, salaries and materials which has taken place over the past two years. He would be doing a very wise thing if he were to do that. Undoubtedly the Minister would have the complete backing of this House if he were to increase the grants. He would have the backing of his own Party and from what I have listened to during this debate, unless they are hypocrites, he would have the backing of the Opposition also. Therefore I ask the Minister to review the grants and see if he can increase them.

A very funny thing has happened, according to what I see here. There has been a statutory income limit in regard to the payment of supplementary grants by local authorities for the building of houses but I understand there has not been any statutory income limit with regard to the payment of supplementary grants by local authorities for the reconstruction and repair of houses. If that is so, how is it that local authorities have been enforcing an income limit? I do not see why they should have done that and I think they are wrong to do it. Local authorities who have made a regulation enforcing an income limit in respect of the payment of supplementary grants for the reconstruction of houses should now pay out those grants to the people from whom they withheld them.

As I see it, there is no statutory authority for doing that. There is a statutory authority for an income limit with regard to new houses, but in my county it has happened that the local authority has enforced a regulation which does not exist and have withheld grants from people. I ask the Minister to explain that.

The local authority also acts in regard to the payment of water rate. As far as I know, the introduction of water and sewerage schemes, whether it be for big towns or small towns, is carried out as the result of the placing of a contract to do the work on a payment basis where the whole county puts up the money. I wonder if, in those circumstances, the local authority could by any stretch of imagination have the authority to collect the water rate. I do not think they have any right to do so.

Surely there are in many parts of Ireland men and their wives who will only be in it for the next ten or 15 years. They may not have a lot of money and they only want a room and kitchen, as we say in the country, which means two rooms. If those people want houses with only two rooms, there should be grants available for them to build that type of house. Surely it would not take any great imagination for a Minister to bring in a Bill which would provide such benefits. When a man wants to build a house, he does not think in terms of square feet or cubic feet or any such nonsense. What he wants is a house that will be reasonable and decent to meet his requirements. I suggest that the Minister go down among the ordinary people in the towns and on the small farms. If he did that, he might come back to the House and provide a more sensible Bill than the one we are now discussing.

I know a case of a man and his wife with two unmarried sisters or brothers — I cannot say which just now — who wanted to build a small house. Under this Bill, they are restricted from the point of view of grants to a structure of 510 square feet with three rooms. What in the name of common sense would such a family do with such a house? I would accordingly ask the Minister to think this matter over. If a man and woman want to build a house in order to provide themselves with reasonable, decent accommodation, they should be eligible for grants, whether the house is three-roomed or two-roomed.

There is also the question of thatched houses. The Minister should make provision here for the payment of grants for either the building or the reconstruction of thatched houses. I can see no reason why in this country a man should be forced by law to slate his house. We are living in a democratic country; people fought for the rights which we now enjoy, and yet we find that if we try to avail of those rights, there is legislation there to penalise us.

It is a shocking state of affairs that a man is to be deprived of a grant just because he wants to live in a house with a thatched roof. If a man has a thatched house already and wants to repair it, surely he should get a grant to carry out that work.

The Minister would be well advised to travel through the West of Ireland where he will see some of the finest houses in the country and they are thatched. He should adopt a common sense policy in these matters and ignore the nonsense which has been perpetuated in this House for over 40 years. I feel sure that even Deputies in the Opposition benches will agree with me in that.

Mr. Dolan

Ba bhaith liom cúpla focail a rá ar an mBille seo. At the outset, I wish to congratulate the Minister on its introduction and on the many new features it contains through which many problems in connection with housing throughout the country will be overcome. The Government have an outstanding record in housing and this measure is but a continuation of their efforts to go ahead with the housing drive until every person who needs a decent home is provided with it. They have already cleared the slums in the cities and in the towns but unfortunately there are still housing conditions in many rural areas which cause concern.

Some of the new features in this Bill are particularly applicable to such areas. They will serve to overtake the serious backlog in the provision of better housing conditions. A house has always been regarded as a man's castle and it has been the policy of the Government not only to ensure that the people of the country have decent homes but also to see that they will become owners of these homes even if they are only cottages. I am therefore glad to see in this Bill provisions which will help people in the long run to buy out their houses and cottages and become owners of them.

Despite what may have been said by the Opposition there is no doubt that there were grave financial difficulties from the point of view of housing in 1957 and 1956. In the latter year, it was impossible for anyone in my constituency to get a grant, with the result that right in the middle of winter, a housing scheme collapsed completely for lack of funds. There were so many useless credit notes flying around that merchants, already overloaded with orders and getting no money, were unwilling to supply materials. The Local Loans Fund had not got any money to give to the local authority and the whole housing effort was impeded. Local housing grants were stopped completely and this immediately finished the housing effort because if people were not able to get a local authority grant, the State grant available was not sufficient.

The result of that period is still to be seen. There are 146 people in that area who have not yet got their grants and this in turn has to a large extent discouraged people from seeking the benefits available under the Housing Acts. The position has recently changed because of the efforts of the Government and people have begun to avail of these grants in considerable numbers. Where new houses are concerned, I would ask the Minister, if at all possible, to publish a few designs so that people intending to build new houses will not be forced to go to some engineer or other person and pay anything up to £30 for a design which might have been just copied from a magazine — a design which the Department might not ultimately approve. I know that there are certain provisions in the regulations but very often the ordinary countryman reconstructing his house has not that document available to him, or, if he has, he is unable to interpret it. Consequently, he may have a plan which will not be sanctioned or which will qualify for only a reduced grant.

The vocational schools could do more as far as housing is concerned, particularly in regard to reconstruction. In many areas, there are woodwork teachers and others qualified to go among the people and advise them on such matters as cutting a roof or putting in windows. That might solve the difficulty often experienced of getting contractors to do work in isolated places. Some prizes should be awarded for the manner in which grant type houses are kept.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is dealing with administration, which can be dealt with on the Vote for Local Government.

Mr. Dolan

I had intended saying something about prefabricated houses and the feasibility of making use of them in certain areas. It would be well if local authorities were encouraged to build cottages in larger groups so that it would be more convenient to supply them with the services required.

Mr. Blowick

I am very disappointed with this Bill. It was generally expected that the grants for private persons building their own houses would be increased even a little because of the very steep increases, up to 300 per cent in some cases, in the cost of materials and labour since the housing grants were last increased. The Minister must have his tongue in his cheek when he says he has the interest of housing the people at heart. If that were the case, he should have increased the grants. He definitely will not in this way reduce the drop in housing now evident since we were last in office.

I want to speak about a class for which the Minister has made no provision. He paid a good deal of lip service to them in his opening speech. He said earlier:

There are many persons living in unfit conditions who are not and are never likely to be in a position to rehouse themselves and whose needs cannot or are not being met by housing authorities. Owing to such factors as the location of the houses and the age and circumstances of the occupants, local authorities cannot be expected to give a high priority to providing new houses for these classes.

Later on, he referred to the housing survey taking place and said:

In the last 30 years, the housing programme, particularly that portion of it undertaken by local authorities, has been more effective in urban than in rural areas where the current survey figures up to the present indicate that some 30,000 houses need to be repaired and 20,000 more require to be replaced. The full completion of the survey will not materially alter the overall picture of the problem presented by these figures. The problem is a big one and obviously more difficult to solve than that section of the housing programme that has already been successfully implemented.

Further on, he said:

As Deputies familiar with rural conditions are aware, many elderly single persons or elderly couples with little or no resources or a short expectation of life without assured succession for occupation of their dwellings are the classes least inclined or able to do anything for themselves.

As I have already said, it is part of the problem that local authorities are not universally disposed to regard this problem as part of their housing functions or, where they do accept some responsibility, they can give only a low priority to the re-housing of these classes, as compared with others seeking new housing.

So far as legislative proposals can go, this Bill contains provisions specially designed to deal with the needs of the rural position.

According to the survey, there are 1,400 unfit houses in County Mayo alone. I have not the figures for the other counties.

Mr. Blaney

Five thousand.

Mr. Blowick

It is a lot worse than I thought. I can assure the Minister that, out of these 5,000, there must be many who will never be able to rehouse themselves. One of the most serious complaints that can be made against the Minister is that he is not doing anything for these people. In every county, there are people living in small holdings who have absolutely no money. They are living in houses which in some instances are actually dangerous to live in. The Land Commission has passed them by in the course of rearrangement or allotment and they probably cannot expect any help or a new house from that source. People have come to me who have nothing spared and who are in bad health, bad health possibly caused or at least aggravated by the very poor type of house in which they have lived all their lives. I almost feel like challenging a division on this Bill because no provision is made for that type of person.

There is a still more deserving type of case. I am sure every Deputy knows of young married men with two or three young children not yet of school-going age or with five or six children, some of them going to school. They are living in a cottage consisting of a small kitchen and one room and perhaps not in a healthy situation. No provision is being made for these people, either. The Minister has fallen down completely on his job.

The grant of £300, or £310 through a building society, is absolutely inadequate. When that £300 was first given through an Act of this House, it was possible, with the then cost of materials and labour, to build a nice, five-roomed house in my constituency for £900 or £950. The same house today would cost £1,450. Offering them a grant of £300 is like telling them they cannot build or else inviting them to put a debt around their necks they will probably never discharge. I would go so far as to ask the Minister to withdraw the Bill in its present form and accept an amendment to make provision for the two classes I have mentioned.

I shall tell the Minister exactly what shape the amended Bill should take. The Minister is bound to provide a house for these people in some way or other. If these people are not able to help themselves in the building of a house, he should provide a suitable house for them and recover all or portion of the cost by way of a further annuity on the holding, or else he should make available a sufficient grant to meet the cost of the house. The Minister is fully aware of the situation because he referred earlier to "single persons or elderly couples with little or no resources or a short expectation of life without assured succession for occupation of these dwellings" as "the classes least inclined or able to do anything for themselves." It is a reflection on us that we allow these people to live out their days in what are little better than the kind of hovels that we read existed in the days of landlordism, while the Minister stands idly by. Not alone that, but if I read his opening speech correctly, he is inclined to make a joke about it more than anything else. We have gone a long way towards improving the health of our people by a vast expenditure of money and with the skill and goodwill of all concerned.

I want to tell the Minister that I know several young married couples, who are not financially equipped to provide a house for themselves, and whose children cannot possibly grow up without contracting some kind of disease or ailment; at the very least, they will certainly not be as healthy and robust as they would be if they had a decent house in which to be reared. Vast sums of money are spent on the eradicating of tuberculosis and various other diseases, on the one hand, and at the same time, we allow children to be reared in houses in which, except for the intervention of Divine Providence, they cannot escape disease. I am not interested in the man who has the finances and who can, with the help of the £300 grant and the local authority grant, where such are given, build a house for himself. I am not concerned with him because he can help himself. I am concerned for the old people and for the young parents struggling to rear a young family. I might say that the latter are doing remarkably well in many cases in keeping their children fed and clothed.

The Minister is treating this problem in a shocking fashion. I know he will say that it is a tall order to ask him to build houses for these people. I do not think it is. Housing conditions are among the matters which have contributed more than anything else to the flight from the land all down through the years. The Minister comes in now with a Bill in exactly the same terms as the Bill that was passed two years ago. There is not one single improvement in it. I challenge him to show me any improvement in it. He paid lip service in his opening speech to those who cannot help themselves, and all the rest of it, throwing out a hint that local authorities might possibly come to their assistance. I think that kind of lip service borders on blackguardism. That is the only way I can describe it.

The Minister says this Bill contains provisions specially designed to deal with the needs of the rural areas. Would the Minister tell us what these provisions are? I have gone through the Bill and through the Minister's speech and I certainly cannot find out what they are. Is it that the Minister is in a mood to make a joke of people who cannot help themselves? As I said a moment ago, in most cases the ill-health suffered by these is due to the fact that they have been reared in unhealthy, insanitary hovels.

During the passage of the previous Bill, I asked the Minister what the position was with regard to the payment of grants. He did not reply. Would the Minister mind taking this opportunity now to tell us exactly what the system of grants is? Is it the £300 grant in the Second Schedule to the Bill before the House? Does that include the water and sanitation grant to be paid by another section of his Department? I asked the Minister that question during the passage of the earlier Bill. He did not reply to it. Possibly he overlooked it.

I almost feel like challenging a vote on this Bill because of the omissions. We have been waiting since last April for this Bill. Everybody thought it was high time that increased grants were made available because of the high costs of labour and materials so that we might see the end of the problem of those people who are able and willing to build for themselves. The Minister has come in once more with the old grant of three years ago. Does the Minister realise that building materials have increased in some cases by as much as 300 per cent.? In view of the way in which the Government have killed the housing programme, and in view of the money they have saved in the process, it is only fair now to give a decent improvement in the grant that has been payable for the past two years.

There has been a serious drop in the number of houses being built by local authorities. In the year 1954-1955, 5,267 houses were built. Last year, only 1,238 were built. That is almost down to one-fifth of the building that took place in 1954-1955. The number of private houses dropped from 5,000 to 4,000. The number employed on local authority housing in 1954-1955 was 6,056. To-day it is 1,156. These figures deserve a little more than the flippant treatment which Deputy Leneghan gave them. These are figures of national importance. The Minister should tell us what exactly has happened to have brought these conditions about. What is going wrong? The old story that the inter-Party Government were not paying housing grants did its work and got its votes in 1957. That story has been exploded now and, except for a very odd, innocent—I will not say half-witted — Deputy on the Fianna Fáil benches, who thumps his chest and still believes it, it has been successfully exploded. The serious aspect remains. The whole building programme has collapsed in a heap of ruins. That is something we cannot afford to ignore, treat as a joke, or a matter for banter in this House.

Mr. T. Lynch

I have waited a long time for this Bill. I have had constituents making inquiries about this Bill months ago. Everybody knew that this Bill comes before the House periodically. The term of the last Bill expired in March. I was under the impression the Government had a Bill ready and that it would be introduced at the first opportunity as soon as March was out. We are now in the month of July. I put it to the Minister that was not good business. It was not good administration. Neither does it show that the Minister has any great concern for the people all over the country who are interested in building their own houses or in the local authorities who are interested in building houses for the working classes.

The biggest disappointment about this Bill is the statement in the explanatory memorandum which says that State grants are being preserved at their existing levels. Everybody expected the grants would be increased. That seemed the most obvious thing, remembering the enormous increase in the cost of building. I have been told that a few years ago a house could be built for about £2 per square foot to the standards and specification demanded by the Department of Local Government.

Who said you cannot?

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy should take care he does not have a strong deputation going from my constituency not alone to ask him how to do it but to give him a contract to do the job. There is a great deal of talk about figures here. I have often asked the Minister for figures and of course when we get figures in the House, we take it for granted they are correct. I have got figures from the Minister for housing in Waterford city and I cannot make head or tail of them. I have come to the conclusion that it would be hard for the Minister to make head or tail of what happens up and down the country, if the figures he has given for other parts of the country are similar to those for Waterford city.

I had a Question down to the Minister on 22nd May, 1962, asking him to state the number of new houses completed in Waterford city in each of the years since 1948 to 1961 inclusive. I stress "the number of new houses completed". The Minister told me the reply was in the form of a tabular statement which would be published in the Official Report. The tabular statement was handed to me and it then appeared in the Official Report. It gave a series of extraordinary figures especially in respect of 1956 and 1957. It said that in 1955-56 the number completed was 130; in 1956-57, it was 271; in 1957-58, 220; in 1958-59, 208; in 1959-60, 503; and in 1960-61, 157. I would give a lot of money and burn a lot of incense if these figures were true but I had a letter on 30th May which said:

I am directed by Mr. Neil T. Blaney, Minister for Local Government, to inform you that it has come to his notice that in the course of a reply which he gave to the Question asked by you in Dáil Éireann on 22nd May, 1962, regarding the number of houses completed in Waterford the figures given for the years 1957/58; 1958/59; 1959/60 and 1960/61 inadvertently included the numbers of reconstruction grants paid instead of those for new house grants. This resulted in the figures shown for these years being much greater than the correct figures. The correct figures in respect of the four years in question should have been as follows:

	Figures given	Correct figures
1957/58	220	113
1958/59	208	111
1959/60	503	367
1960/61	157	42

I put down another Question for answer on 7th June and clearly asked for details in respect of the years 1948 to 1961 inclusive. I asked in relation to Waterford city (1) the number of new houses (a) completed, (b) completed by the local authority, and (c) built by private builders, and (2) the number of houses for which the Department paid out reconstruction grants. I was told that for the years 1956-57 the total number completed by the local authority and by private persons with the aid of State grants was 271, that the number completed by the local authority was 130 and that 141 were built by private persons. In 1958-59, 111 were completed by the local authority and by private persons with the aid of State grants; 75 were completed by the local authority, 36 by private persons and 133 reconstruction grants. In 1959, 367 were completed altogether, 348 by the local authority, 19 by private persons with the aid of State grants, and there were 155 reconstruction grants. In 1960-61, 42 was the total of new houses completed; 31 were completed by the local authority and 11 by private persons. There were 126 reconstruction grants.

The House may think I am being very tortuous about this but the extraordinary thing is that I have a letter from the housing officer in the Waterford Corporation. I asked him the same question as I asked the Minister. He replied to me on 13th June as follows:

The figures of Grants for Private House building as quoted you by the Department approximate very closely to ours for the various years.

The following is a break-down of the figures for houses "provided by the Corporation".

The Department insist that houses owned by Corporation and reconstructed by us, and on which the Department pays subsidy should be returned as "houses provided" even though the houses were already occupied.

1957/8
Newly built by Corporation	47
Added to correct previous omission	14
	—
	61

For 1958-59, there were 75 houses newly built by the Corporation. That is the correct figure, the figure the Minister gave me. For 1959-60, there were 22 houses built by the Corporation and the figure for those completed by the local authority is 348. I thought that perhaps the Department or the Minister were mixing up the reconstruction grants with the 348. I find that he told me that 345 reconstruction grants were paid that year. I discovered from an official of the Waterford Corporation that from 1952 to 1957 and included now as "houses provided", the total was 326. There is a total given here of 348 and that is given for one year. These figures are haywire. If the Minister is getting figures like these supplied to him, I wonder if he has a true picture of local authority housing.

I have often said in places where discussions took place on housing, before I came into the Dáil, and many people said the same thing, that the cost of site development is very high and is included in the all-in cost of the house. We must bend our energies to securing a reduction in the overall cost. The Minister is maintaining grants at the old level. I am sure I am not alone in believing that he should increase the grant substantially. I also consider that the Minister should examine the idea of giving unemployment grants for the development of sites for houses. The Minister, in my opinion, could give 100 per cent. grants in respect of roads that have to be made when new houses are built on virgin soil. Such grants could be provided out of the Road Fund. These roads are just as important to the people as main or county roads are. In connection with such roads in Waterford city, I submit that we should be entitled to get a special grant, in view of the fact that in ten years we paid over £500,000 in road tax and got back only £40,000.

The Minister says on page 4 of his brief that payments of the grants will be made subject to regulations. Regulations have surrounded housing development and reconstruction grants as a sort of bureaucratic quagmire which keeps spreading, making it more difficult for the ordinary person or the local authority to get through.

Recently I was shown an interesting cartoon depicting an old man who had been put in charge of the Local Government Board. It was a very old cartoon. The caption said that the Local Government Board was a government board that had been set up to do away with local government. Eighty years ago, that was presented as a joke but that is what has happened local government. It has happened in the matter of housing that local authorities and local officials are so fettered by regulations that production of houses is slowed down and the whole business of the purchase of sites and the drawing of plans is delayed. The plans and specifications when drawn are sent on the long, long trail to the Department and they pass up and down between the Department and the local authority. I believe the Minister is a man who would like to cut his way through that quagmire. I would suggest to him that a predecessor of his asked local authorities if they were satisfied with the managerial system and every one of them said they were. I do not agree with them but they are entitled to their opinion. The managerial system is in operation and the manager is a chief executive officer. He rates even higher. He is appointed by the Local Appointments Commissioners and has to be a man of great qualifications.

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

Mr. T. Lynch

As I was saying, they should be allowed to advertise straight away and if there was a mistake and the housing scheme was not what it should be, there would be no necessity for the Department or the Minister to come down on them. The sovereign people of Ireland would cry holy horror on them.

I welcome that section of the Bill that offers encouragement to architects to produce a prototype house. I compliment the Minister on that — it is a very good idea. It will give young architects a chance to produce something that has not been done before. I should say that a lot of this town planning being done in the country is nonsense because much of it is being done from a distance, from Dublin. A good deal of that work should be left to the local engineers, and also the planning and layout of the houses. The local engineers are vulnerable to the manager, to the council and to the people around them.

If this matter were left to them, if they were told that there was the housing scheme and there was the field and to go ahead, I have no hesitation in saying that in every case the engineering officers are quite capable and competent of producing the plans without having to submit them to the Department all the time. If the Minister would do that, he would cut a way through the jungle of green tape and through the quagmires in which local authorities find themselves when they start out on a housing scheme.

I am sure there are many Deputies listening to me who have had the experience of attending a local authority meeting and hearing a lot of talk that a housing scheme is to be undertaken. Sometimes one would be optimistic enough to say that the houses would be built in a year or two but, in fact, 12 or 18 months pass and the draft plan is produced. That disappears up to the Department of Local Government and it is a miracle if it comes back in two or three months and if it is all right. You then advertise for tenders and you have to wait for another while. I exhort the Minister to reduce the time it takes to promote, plan and build houses in any part of the country. I am sure that all my colleagues listening to me agree with me because when they do not agree with me, they interrupt me.

I hope it will not be very long before the Minister brings before the House the legislation to codify the Housing Acts. I hope that when he is putting that legislation to the House, he will remember what I have told him regarding the giving of power to local authorities in this matter. When I say local authorities, I mean the elected representatives of the people, with the managers and the officials. When they come together and put up a scheme that is passed by the council, there should be no further question of sending that to the Department. It should be advertised right away for tenders.

Mr. Cunningham

Why has Roscommon proposals for only one house? It is the local authority——

Mr. Corish

I agree the Minister is not alone to blame for bad housing conditions in Wexford, Donegal, Meath, Mayo and elsewhere. There is a responsibility on the local authorities, on the county officials, but I also suggest there is a responsibility on the Minister. I think a better example of encouragement in this respect by a Minister could not be found than that set by the late Deputy T.J. Murphy. There was a situation in this country in 1948 when something like 100,000 houses were needed, and by his personal efforts, activity and energy in going around to visit the worst areas, to encourage the local officials and the local authority members, he got a tremendous number of houses built.

Mr. N. Egan

Supposing the Minister is giving the encouragement and it is not accepted at local level?

Mr. Corish

He is not giving sufficient encouragement and many of the local authorities feel annoyed and frustrated by the attitude of the Minister and of the Department.

I should like to refer now to another problem. I have already mentioned it to the Minister, but I do not know what powers, if any, he has in respect to it. We can all see that over the years many of our people have had to go to Britain to seek employment. There are many examples of men and their wives going to England to look for work and from whom the local authorities are demanding possession of their houses.

I think I could present the case better if I cited the example of a couple who had been in occupation of a cottage for over 30 years. The man found he could not get constant employment in his own area. He was forced to go to Britain and eventually was fortunate enough to be able to take his wife across. Now the local authority have proceeded to look for the tenancy of the cottage. I believe greater consideration should be given to such cases because the majority of those forced to go away in order to find employment always keep in their minds the intention of returning to Ireland as soon as the opportunity presents itself or as soon as they can get employment here. We hope that many of them will come back. If the local authorities now proceed to take the tenancies of these cottages from them, the local authorities and the Minister will have a further problem when they do in fact come back. It is not good enough to be taking the cottages from these people who intend to return to their own localities as soon as they can.

I should like to mention a few particular points in connection with this measure, which we welcome for the improvements it contains. Most Deputies who have spoken have expressed their disappointment at the fact that no increase in the grants has been announced. I wonder whether or not the Minister can by regulation increase the grants from time to time, if he and the Government so desired? That was one of the disappointments for the ordinary public. Having said that, it ought to be said also that over the years Irish Governments have generally been pretty generous in the matter of providing State assistance for private building. We are inclined to make comparisons with other countries in respect of other things in order to demonstrate how backward we are. If the facts were known, however, I believe it could be proved that Ireland ranks pretty high in the matter of State assistance for private housing. However, there is a case in present circumstances, in view of the pattern of assistance we have had, to increase the grants on this occasion, especially when it is recognised that the cost of materials and wages has gone up considerably in recent years.

One might criticise the estimates made by the Minister's Department in respect of house building, repair and reconstruction. To say the least, they seem to be very conservative indeed. Many people, even with the assistance of the grant, find it difficult, if not impossible, to complete the work within the figure laid down by the officials of the Department. One is forced to ask: on what basis are these costs made? Is there any periodic review of them? If not, there should be. The schedule of prices used seems to have been used for far too long.

In Section 3, there is a stipulation that the reconstruction or repair work must put the house into perfect condition. The Minister should appreciate that there are people who want to do necessary repairs, say, on a roof or a gable end, and who want to do that work only. But when the inspector comes along, on the instructions of the Minister, of course, he insists that a certain amount of extra work must be done before the grant can be given. The Minister should ask his inspectors to relax a little in that respect.

I may be wrong in this, but my experience has been that in the rural areas it is possible for an applicant to obtain an instalment of a grant when approximately half the work is done. That is a tremendous help. But my information is that in the urban areas, no such instalment is given. The work must be completed before there is any question of any money being paid at all. There may be a particular case for the payment of instalments in the rural areas. If there is, I suggest that the working people in the towns and cities who avail of these grants should also be entitled to obtain an instalment of approximately half the grant when roughly half the work has been completed.

Again, in this matter of putting the house into a fit condition, in many cases this means they require the house to be practically rebuilt. I can understand perfectly the intention of the Minister and his officials in insisting that a certain amount of work be done. I would suggest, however, that in many cases they are so strict that the work cannot be carried out by people of very little means.

Section 5 might be described as an excellent section. Where the owner or tenant of a house cannot reconstruct, it allows the local authority to step in and do so, but it applies only to rural areas. I take grave exception to this. The Minister ought to extend the provisions of the section to the urban areas. It would be a tremendous advantage to this extent. In every town in the country, there is a portion regarded as the old part of the town for which the citizens have a great deal of regard. Every Deputy from a town will have places in mind. I have in mind a place in my own town. The majority of the owners and tenants in these places are not in a position to put their houses into proper condition. The local authorities in urban areas should be allowed to repair these houses so as to preserve the character of the old localities of which the people are so proud. Perhaps the Minister would consider that or else say why this provision applies to rural areas only?

All of us will welcome the basic idea behind Section 6. That is a proposal to enable an authority, not a local authority or a housing authority, to build houses for elderly persons such as pensioners. The Minister will have to be a little more explicit when speaking about this section again. That facility should be extended to the local authorities. Wexford town, in which I live, is one of the eight largest towns in Ireland. Frankly, Wexford Corporation could not in present circumstances engage in such a proposal. I assume, therefore, that towns of from 3,000 to 8,000 population would not be able to avail of these facilities, either. Therefore, I think the Minister should seriously consider affording this type of financial assistance to the housing authorities in order that they may engage in the building of housing for elderly persons.

The Minister should also consider what seems to be a forgotten section, as far as housing is concerned. I refer to young married couples. All of us appreciate the tremendous difficulties there are in the matter of housing accommodation for married couples. In many of our towns, the greatest number of houses are owned by the local authority. The situation seems to be — it is a situation with which the Minister is very conversant — that the son or daughter of a local authority tenant marries. Because there is no accommodation available, the young couple go to live with the father of the bride or the father of the bridegroom. They have a very slim chance of being housed by the local authority because, if they are offered another local authority house, only a third of the subsidy is paid on it. There may be some qualifications to that but, broadly speaking, that is the position generally. It is a pathetic situation when a young family comes along and there are two families living in a relatively small house with only two or three bedrooms. Very of ten, the father and mother and two or three children have to sleep in the one bed.

Again, I appreciate there are difficulties but I think the Minister could, under this section, help not alone in relation to the pensioners, or elderly persons, but also in relation to the young married couples. He should extend this section to provide that a housing authority will get financial assistance to build houses for young married couples. Then, there could later be a sort of swop with elderly parents whose children have married and gone out into other houses.

The Minister should, in any case, make an effort to see that married couples are provided for. They do not seem to be anybody's responsibility at the moment. In a town like Wexford, or a similar town, if a couple marry, they have not a chance of a house until they have three or four children. I know the situation here in Dublin is even worse. The fact that they have to live with their in-laws, and with their young family, in one or two rooms, does not do married life much good. In some cases, the situation is so bad that the marriage is broken up. I do not hold the Minister responsible for that.

Mr. Blaney

I have been blamed for enough without that.

Mr. Corish

The Minister should make an effort to see that something is done for young married couples. Would he also consider what can be done to assist small urban authorities in the matter of supplementary grants? Because the functional area of the county council is so big, and the county council is relatively wealthier than the small urban area, it can afford to give supplementary grants for the building and reconstruction of houses. The urban councils and small corporations, because their finances are so limited, cannot avail of the legislation which permits them to pay supplementary grants. I am sure the Minister has considered this problem. Perhaps he and his officials could try to devise some scheme whereby assistance would be given by the State to small urban councils and corporations to allow them to give supplementary grants similar to those given in the big cities and the county council areas.

We, in the Labour Party, welcome Section 10 because, despite the heated arguments that ensued here when the Labour Party introduced its Private Members Bill two or three weeks ago, we are glad to note now, even though it is belated, that the Minister has accepted the proposal and the principle enshrined in that measure. We believe that is an advance. Many cottages are now being vested in tenants in the rural areas and they will be enabled by this provision to improve their houses and keep them in proper repair, thereby preventing rural slums developing in rural Ireland.

In Section 10, there is another provision that I personally welcome. It is the provision in subsections (5) and (6) which provides that, when a local authority is forced to take over possession of a house which is still on loan, some payment may be made to the owner. That is only fair. In many cases, the owner who borrowed from the local authority has made an effort and repaid over many years a good deal of the money. If he falls on bad times and the local authority is forced to take possession, it is just not good enough that they should take the house and leave the man with nothing. This provision provides, if I read it correctly, that the local authority will be empowered in such cases to compensate the owner dispossessed by them.

I do not know what the object of Section 22 is. It is somewhat vague. It seems to me the section allows the Minister to do almost anything. I do not take exception to that, but I think he should place on the records of this House the reason that induced him to introduce this section because it does confer tremendous power, a power which he, perhaps, would not abuse but which some of his successors might possibly abuse. It seems to provide that the Minister may, in cases neither described nor determined, allow a grant. In all fairness, he should give some examples of the circumstances under which an applicant will be let through, so to speak.

In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister if there is any scheme, or if he contemplates any scheme, to compensate local authorities for the reduction in valuation on new and reconstructed houses. The fact that there are such generous rebates means there is less revenue for the local authorities. Houses being demolished and rates being discontinued, new houses being built and rates not paid in full for a period of, I think, ten years is a second cause of loss to local authorities. The Minister has, I believe, returns from the local authorities showing the losses that have been incurred over the years by reason of the reduction in valuation on new and reconstructed houses. Perhaps he would say in his concluding speech whether or not it is possible or whether or not he intends to assist in the matter of rates lost by reason of legislative proposals in various Housing Bills.

Mrs. Crowley

Like the Minister, I think this Housing Bill will be very useful in many ways to people who want to build their own houses. For one thing, it is a good idea there is no longer a two-year limit on Housing Bills. I find, and probably other Deputies find also, that anyone who wants to build a house will not do it just before the end of the two-year period because he thinks if he does, he may lose grants or that there may be something new in the new Housing Bill. Therefore, people will go ahead now and build the houses knowing there is no end, as it were, to the existing housing legislation.

I am glad to note that under the Bill the Minister intends to be very strict about giving grants for a new house, if it is not serviced with water and sewerage. Within the past few years, most people have realised that water and sewerage are a very essential part of a house — even as essential as the roof. I hope that as far as possible the Minister will insist that where there is a new house built, it shall have both water and sewerage.

Another good provision in the Bill is that the supplementary grants have now an extended upper limit. Recently owing to the fact that wages have increased, a number of people I know of could not avail of the council supplementary grant because their wage was too high. These were people who would be entitled to a council cottage but who thought it would be quicker to build a house for themselves. They built a house and then could not get a grant. I am glad that limit has been raised and also that the councils will be able to make supplementary grants under schemes of their own. The £80 grant to make old houses habitable is a very good and very original idea and will save local authorities many headaches.

I expect every member of a local authority has cases where there is perhaps a woman living alone; she does not want to go into another house and live with her relatives but wants to stay where she is. However, she cannot afford to do up the house; the roof or the walls may be bad. If a grant is given by the Department and if the local authority can also do up the house, that person will be in a really habitable house. If she had to wait for a council cottage, being a single person, she could wait for a very long time and possibly never get a house. That is a very good scheme and I hope the Minister will not be too strict about the amount of work which has to be done on this house in order to qualify for the grant. If the house is made habitable without any trimmings, so to speak, if it is weatherproof, I hope he will allow the grant to be given.

In regard to houses for elderly persons, that is also a very good new provision in this Bill. I hope that benevolent societies will take up the idea and build these houses. As in the case of the grant for the type of house I have referred to, these elderly people would have to wait years before they could get a council cottage because there are very few local authorities that would be willing to build a four-roomed council cottage for two people, perhaps a husband and wife. If benevolent societies or other people would build these houses for elderly persons, they would be doing a really valuable thing for the country. There are many people who are waiting for houses and who will have to wait a long time until something like this is done.

In this regard, however, I think it would be much better if these houses were not built in groups just for elderly people on the outskirts of towns or villages but if they were built, as it were, in and out of a town or village so that the elderly people would be in touch with the younger people. If elderly people are all together, it is not good for them. It would be much more cheerful for them to see younger people around them. I do not like the idea of just having a group of perhaps ten elderly people, all together just looking at each other, but that, I expect, will have to work itself out.

The last item I want to mention is the experimental houses. This also is a very original idea and I hope it will encourage people to build these experimental houses. The house plans now brought out by the Department are much too elaborate for the ordinary person building in the rural areas. When they come to me saying they want to build a new house and ask me to get a plan from the Department, I get it for them; it costs only a shilling or two, but invariably when they take it to their builder, the builder says it is much too expensive. They do not get the Department's plan therefore but pay something like £10 or £20 to an architect to design a plan for them which works out cheaper in the end. If these new experimental houses are a success, this part of the Bill will be well worth while.

I should like the Minister to have the accent not only on the cost of these houses, which I hope will be cheap, but also on the design. Council cottages are well designed and we do not want to have houses for private people inferior to those. So often when the thing is cheap, it looks cheap so when the Minister is giving grants for these houses, I hope he will insist that they will be pleasant to look at. What I have always been hoping for — and I mentioned it some time ago — is that we would be able to have our own design for a house. On the Continent and the rest of the world, every country has its own special house design. Sometimes it concerns only the roof, like Japan. Everybody knows what a Japanese house looks like because the roof is different; the French house has shutters and the German house has something else. We do not seem to have anything that distinguishes our houses as Irish. If the designers of these experimental houses would concentrate on creating something that looks Irish and that will always be recognised as Irish, we can then be proud of the houses that are built by people for their own occupation and by county councils as well.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

This House could not be dealing with any matter of greater importance or greater urgency than the housing of our people. I have been wondering whether before the Minister introduced this Bill his Department had gone to the trouble of conducting a national survey of the housing needs in each county. The Housing Section of the Department have been doing a reasonably good job of work. They have contributed very generously towards the erection of new houses and, particularly, in the administration of the existing scheme of grants for erection and reconstruction of houses. I have felt, however, that the section might be better staffed. There appears to have been in the past some degree of delay in the carrying out of inspections for the purpose of grants for new houses and reconstruction. I have been wondering whether it has been penny wise and pound foolish for the Minister to restrict the staffing of this section of the Department. I would recommend that, irrespective of cost, the section should be well staffed with officers and engineers so that the many housing problems affecting the people might be dealt with speedily.

The volume of applications for reconstruction and new house grants has been steadily increasing. Therefore, if there is a shortage of inspectors or engineers, steps should be taken to bring the staff up to sufficient strength to deal with this problem.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy realises, of course, that it is administration he is dealing with, not the legislation before the House?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I was dealing with the question of a national housing survey just before you came in and I was wondering whether this survey had been carried out or not.

An Ceann Comhairle

The appointment of engineers would be relevant to an Estimate but scarcely relevant to a new piece of legislation.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I was rather disappointed when this Bill was circulated. I expected that there would have been provision in it for the establishment of statutory housing committees for each local authority. I was expecting that the elected representatives on the councils would have been given additional powers in relation to housing. The work of county councils has increased considerably and we find that because of the problems in relation to roads, hospitals and health coming within the sphere of local authorities, the primary responsibility of local authorities in relation to housing seems to be placed in the background. That is why I was expecting that the Minister would have done something in this regard. The Minister should provide for the setting up of such committees who should be appointed by the county council for each county. Such housing committees would be charged with the responsibility of housing and for placing before county councils, as a guide, proposals for housing schemes and whatever other proposals they might have in relation to loans under the Small Dwellings Act or any other scheme of grants in operation.

The county managers, county engineers and county medical officers of health do not appear to be working with a degree of efficiency or speed and there appears to be considerable overlapping in many cases in the functions of these officers. That is why I feel that in order to bring about a greater degree of efficiency and speed, statutory housing committees should have been appointed. The Minister should consider this matter.

There is the General Council of County Councils, with which, no doubt, the Minister is very familiar. An expression of opinion should have been obtained from that body, prior to the introduction of any new housing Bill. I should like to hear from the Minister whether the officers of his Department or he at any time asked the local authorities for an expression of their views in relation to the question of housing.

Deputy Flanagan, on the Bill, I hope.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

It is illegal to have a sub-tenant and then who is going to house them? In Donegal, they are housed by the Donegal housing authority. They are not housed in my county and I have been a member of the county council for years. I understand they are not housed in County Dublin, either.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy relate what he is saying to the Bill? As far as I know, the Bill does not deal with local authority housing at all.

Mr. McQuillan

Is the Deputy not in order on the Second Stage to point out what is not in the Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle

Mr. Moran

They have an efficient council.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

With regard to the increase in the grant for the reconstruction of houses, I feel I am entitled to express my keen disappointment. Having regard to the fact that the cost of materials has considerably increased, that the cost of labour is now much higher, that the cost of all requirements for the building of additional rooms or for the removal of existing roofs and their replacement by new roofs has increased I feel that the grants are not nearly sufficient. I had expected that the system of grants at present in operation would have been doubled under this Bill and I am very disappointed that there is no special provision in the Bill substantially increasing the amount paid by way of grant to private individuals for the reconstruction of their houses.

The Minister must be aware that the small farmer may be described as a private individual but there is nothing in this Bill which will help him to provide his own house. Most of the small farmers cannot find sufficient money to supplement the grants given by the Department and in parts of the country many of them are so poor that they are not accepted as sufficiently sound to qualify for a loan. Throughout the length and breadth of the country, an enormous number of hovels are still in existence. We all know that there are many small farmers who would qualify to be housed by the local authority but, because of the increased pressure on local authorities from urban areas, it is impossible to promote schemes for the erection of houses for small farmers.

The time has now come when the State should erect a house for every small farmer and let them pay back the local authority, or the Department, or whoever else is responsible, the cost of the house in the form of an annuity payable yearly or half-yearly. We are just tinkering with the problem of housing our people in rural Ireland and it will never be solved until the small farmers are taken out of the thatched, mud-walled cabins in which many of them still have to exist in many parts of this country. They have not already provided themselves with houses because they have not got the financial backing.

This Bill will not help those people. There is nothing in it which will help to provide them with new houses. Surely, in 1962, when the Government speak of all their great housing achievements and when we see so many rat-infested hovels in which people are forced to live under the most degrading conditions, under conditions which one would not see in any civilised country in the world, when every county medical officer of health can report that there are houses in which seven people sleep in one room, all over 14 years of age, of both sexes——

Mr. Coughlan

How many?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Thousands.

Mr. Coughlan

That would be nearer to it.

Mr. Booth

Does the Deputy know them all?

Mr. Crinion

£600.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Perhaps the Deputy will tell us how to build a house for £600. The Bill does not provide any definition of an elderly person. Is an elderly person a person of 60 or of 80 or of 90 for the purposes of this section? How are the local authorities and the Minister to determine what an elderly person is, seeing that no age limit has been suggested in this Bill? There is nothing to stop any of us who have reached middle age from describing ourselves as elderly people. I suppose this to be like many other Acts brought in by the Government. Paper never refuses ink and this paper is only for use by them on the platforms and at the church gates. Of course these people will never qualify for these grants. There will be inspectors down from the Department to try to determine their age, to look at their marriage certificates, their birth certificates, their parents' birth certificates and marriage certificates. There will be inquiries, certificates to be filled by peace commissioners and Gardaí. Parish priests and rectors will be pulled into it, and every other kind of certifying and verifying officer, to decide what an elderly person is. Perhaps the Minister would explain now.

I had expected that in this Bill there would have been a section to provide a scheme of grants so that persons with large families could provide themselves with special houses. I had expected there would be in it a very generous scheme of reconstruction grants to assist people to reroof their houses. The amount provided under this Bill will not give any measure of assistance to such people. There is no man more highly qualified to speak on those problems than the Minister who must be aware that there are numerous applicants for reconstruction grants who never carry out the work after the estimate is obtained. I should like to hear from him what these figures are because in my own constituency and outside it, I know of many instances where applicants have been unable to meet the high cost of reconstruction. If they could not meet it in the past, how can they meet it now? This Bill does nothing for them.

I also felt that where cases of overcrowding could be certified by the local authority, the office of the local authority could be used to obtain a report from the county medical officer of health for any private individual who wanted an inspection carried out for the purpose of making a case for special consideration to the Department. Overcrowding exists to a very great degree in rural Ireland, right down from Leitrim to Limerick, along the shores of the Shannon. I was expecting there would be some generous scheme in this Bill, whereby sufficient funds would be made available to enable those people to house themselves. I am extremely disappointed at the terms of the Bill in that regard. It is just another bit of patchwork, as far as housing legislation is concerned. The Minister has lost a golden opportunity of doing something towards solving our housing problem for all times.

I was expecting there would have been some section in this Bill in regard to the rates of interest on loans for the erection or reconstruction of houses. The present rates of interest are extraordinarily high. In order to solve the housing problem, one would expect to see in this Bill measures of a revolutionary character in regard to interest rates. The one way of encouraging and assisting people in the matter of housing is by making available loans at special low rates of interest. If that were done, I would venture to say that the present demands on local authorities would be eased considerably. Instead of expecting local authorities to provide houses for people who can provide them for themselves, the Minister should have availed of this golden opportunity of helping to solve the housing problem. Before this Bill becomes law, he should have provision made for special low rates of interest for housing. There is one section in this Bill which I consider very necessary and useful.

Mr. Lalor

Cheers.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Since Deputy Lalor applauded me in the constituency, I would expect him to repeat the applause here. It is Section 18. Many cases have been brought to the notice of Deputies in the past where an applicant who had applied for a reconstruction grant or a grant for the erection of a new house died before the work was completed. In the past, this has led to a great deal of difficulty and expense for the next of kin. I am glad to see that steps have now been taken to rectify the matter and that the grant will be paid without undue delay and without the need of having to go through the present expensive and unnecessary legal formalities.

That is all I have to say except to place on record my very keen disappointment with the Bill. From a Party who were so vocal about housing when the inter-Party Government were in office, I would have expected more comprehensive housing legislation and more generosity towards the private individual. This Bill is merely a sham and an excuse for the Government to appear in certain places and say: " We have brought in a housing Bill". This Bill contains no benefits for the people. Such a Bill must be considered impractical and a waste of the time of the House. If any Deputy is approached by a private individual and asked: "What do I get under this Bill?", he will have to say honestly: "You will get nothing". The present scheme of grants remains as it is. This Bill does not help in any way to relieve the plight of people anxious either to build their own homes or reconstruct their existing mud-walled, thatched, rat-infested hovels.

The Minister is displaying a great lack of knowledge of the housing requirements of private individuals. He has been badly advised in that regard. Legislation of this kind must be approved by the Government before it is introduced. The Government who approved this legislation are a Government who know very little about the disastrous plight of the people in rural Ireland in regard to housing. This Bill lacks everything necessary to stimulate the development of housing and complete the drive to rehouse our people. It can only be described as a standstill housing Bill, which gives nothing and which will do nothing.

The Minister would be well advised to consult with his advisers. The housing advisers at his disposal are men who know their job and who have practical experience of administration. But if the Housing Section had the lead, if they had the Minister and the Government prepared to spend money on housing, then we would get moving with the housing programme. But where you have a Department anxious to drive forward, and for each step forward they take, the Minister pulls them back two, you cannot expect progress or efficiency and our people cannot expect to be housed. That is why I feel that if we had a Minister for Local Government and a Government interested in housing, with the present Housing Section of the Department, all in step and all going forward, then we might get some place. I am sure we would get some place.

Our housing problems will not be solved by the present Government. All the people who were promised housing legislation at the last election can say tomorrow morning that they have got it, but they are no nearer to being housed. That is why I say the Fianna Fáil Party have not got a housing programme aimed at solving the housing difficulties of our people, the newlyweds, the aged, the couples with large families, those who experience overcrowding, and the sub-tenant. The latter is catered for in Donegal, but nowhere else. If the people want to stimulate housing, if local authorities are anxious to get on with housing, if private individuals are anxious to be provided with loans and grants to enable them to erect their own houses, the first thing they must do is change the Government. That will not be a difficult job at the next general election. It will not be a big job.

An Ceann Comhairle

All that does not seem to be very relevant to the measure before the House. The Deputy ought to come more closely now to the measure before the House.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I was just endeavouring to convey to the Minister how close he is to removal from office. In conclusion, I want to say this is not the Bill we expected. It is certainly far from providing our people with the ways and means of providing themselves with houses, houses in which they can be proud to live in Christian decency.

Mr. Gallagher

Housing progress over the past 30 years has been magnificent. Tremendous advances have been made. This Bill is yet another step forward to clear up some of the remaining evils where the housing of our people is concerned. I did not expect the Bill would be welcomed by the Opposition. I did not expect any praise for it. But I did not think they would have wasted the time of the House making a foolish demand. It is not so very many years since they were in power. They had a Minister who brought in legislation and made promises. They also had a Minister who did not provide the wherewithal to execute the contracts undertaken.

This evening we heard repeated demands from Deputy O.J. Flanagan to spend more. Spend, spend, spend, that is all I have listened to since I came in here last October, an everincreasing demand for money and no recommendation or suggestion as to how that money will be found. It is pathetic. It is a waste of the time of this House. One expects a certain amount of political gibing, back and forth, but one expects from the Fine Gael front bench a little more responsibility than that shown by Deputy O.J. Flanagan this evening.

The Minister mentioned that there are 30,000 homes in need of repair. Of those 30,000, some 20,000 need replacement. That in itself indicates the tremendous progress over the past 30 years. There are something in the region of 600,000 homes in the country, and 30,000 would represent five per cent. of that number. The end of the housing problem would appear to be well in sight. Within the next decade, it should be completely solved. There will, of course, be annual wastage at the rate of some 1,000 houses per year. That is a remarkable achievement for the nation and for successive Governments. We have eradicated the truly horrible housing conditions that existed; we have reduced the number to some five per cent.

The Minister deserves to be complimented on the provisions in this Bill. He is making provision here for sections who were never hitherto catered for. He deserves the commendation of the House.

Section 2 does not provide for any increase in the housing grants. It is not necessary to increase these grants. The problem today is to find someone who will build houses. There is a shortage of workers. This is a far cry from 1956 and 1957 when workers were running out of the country. It was the Opposition who caused the unholy mess and left the country without the craftsmen and workers to build homes for our people. However, they are now making their way back to profitable employment.

I should like to see the Minister extend Section 2 to benefit people prepared to erect houses for letting. I understand Section 12 of the existing Act is being repealed. I should like some compensating factor if that section is repealed. It is a social amenity to have houses for letting, so that those who may have to move temporarily to a town can find accommodation. We know that local authorities are not empowered to build houses for temporary letting. But there are in every town in Ireland workers who, because of the nature of their work, may move in for one, two or ten years. They are never likely to qualify for a house from the local authority but they are likely to be settled for long enough to consider buying a house. It is that type of person for whom provision should be made and for whom people should be encouraged to build houses. Section 12 has not been availed off to any great degree and I think the reason was that people did not consider it very useful. I hope the Minister will reconsider that point.

In regard to reconstruction and improvement of houses, the Minister is making adequate grants available. The only comment I want to make is that I get many complaints from farmers and those who have reconstructed their houses that the costs they have to pay the builders are sometimes much higher than those estimated by the Department's inspector. I would welcome some method of narrowing this difference.

In regard to the additions to the Bill, in every county in Ireland, particularly in the west of Ireland, there are homes on small farms which over the years have fallen into disrepair. I was very pleased to note that these people who have not the wherewithal to build a house for themselves are being considered in this Bill and that the Minister is now providing a grant for necessary or minimum repairs. It is also good to see that county councils are authorised to make up the difference and to come in and do those repairs if they so wish. I wish this provision every success. I shall now be able to tell a few badly-housed people I am aware of in my constituency about it.

Another useful provision is that in relation to the housing of old people. I heard a lot of fun being made of what can be done with £600. Anybody who reads the Bill carefully will see that there is a provision for a kitchen, a bedroom and some kind of sanitary arrangements. With an area of 300 square feet in a small holding and with adequate planning, I am satisfied a reasonable home can be erected for £600. The Minister has shown tremendous foresight in this provision and I hope that, in addition to the Minister's efforts, the local authorities and other bodies will take advantage of it. However, I am not clear as to how the matter is to be dealt with and I would ask the Minister to be more specific.

Another new step taken by the Minister to create competition, as it were, is that in relation to the prototype house, the accent being on economy of building. I must compliment the Minister on this original idea. It is a good thing to foster competition among architects, builders and others. I am not too clear what the Minister has in mind but it is a desirable step. A great effort has recently been made by many architects to bring in a variety of architectural features into homes. This can be seen around Dublin and other parts of the country and deserves commendation. It is nice to see that the Minister is availing of this measure to encourage greater variety of design. One has looked for years at the usual type of three-bedroom houses. There has not been much variation, two windows at the top, one at the bottom, and the door, a long line of semi-detached houses strung along in a dreary fashion, the only change being one house has brick and another dashing, some are white and some grey, but the whole thing is rather dreary. The Bill will give more liberty in that respect. It is highly desirable that the standard of housing design be raised, that new building materials be used, and if they can be bought at a cheaper price, it is all to the good.

The First Schedule to the Bill provides:

1. The total area of all the floors of a house measured in the prescribed manner shall not be less than 500 square feet nor more than 1,400 square feet.

2. A house shall contain at least three rooms.

Would the Minister say whether it is his intention to adhere to the present formula of 155 square feet for a living room, 155 square feet for a bedroom, 120 square feet for a second bedroom and so on? This, to my mind, was largely responsible for the reproduction of the same type of house. There has been a tendency in the Department to give more liberty in regard to the lay-out of the rooms rather than confine them to these limits.

In regard to urban areas, county council areas, there is a tendency sometimes, especially in our larger provincial towns, to look for a small density per acre. It is evident to everybody in this House that land prices are soaring very high. Under Dublin Corporation, there is an average of ten houses to the acre. The county council has something like six houses to the acre. If it is within the Minister's power — perhaps it is not — some liberty in this regard would be of benefit.

Deputy Flanagan made the comments I wanted to make on this Bill. I welcome the Bill. I consider it an excellent measure, a step in the right direction, which will go a long way towards solving finally the problem of housing the people. When the Bill is in operation, the benefits deriving from it will manifest themselves in the eradication of a lot of bad housing and as a result, whatever Minister may be in office, whether the present Minister or some other Minister, in a few years' time we will be able to afford to review the problems then facing us. I have no doubt that this Government would like to introduce legislation which would solve immediately all the problems in relation to housing but it would be impossible to satisfy the needs of everybody.

Deputy Blowick became very excited about the question of housing. Frankly, I was quite surprised. In the years during which Deputy Blowick was a Minister of an inter-Party Government, why did he not take a greater interest in this matter? Reading the paper the other day, I was particularly shocked to learn the degree of bad housing in Mayo. I was shocked that Deputy Blowick was not aware of it. He mentioned a figure of 1,400 houses. He is a member of Mayo County Council and could have done a great deal more in Mayo. I do not think county councils need any more authority than they have now. If they use the powers they have, any bad housing in their areas could be eradicated.

The question of housing newlyweds has been referred to. Every member of the House is aware of the requirements in his county council area. If a county council want to provide facilities for newlyweds and to make special provision for them, it is within their power to do so and they ought to take steps to do so if they feel there is a need for it. I do not think it is the duty of the Department or of the Minister to direct the building of houses in any county. The power is vested in the county councils. The powers they have are sufficient for them to be able to solve the local problems in relation to housing.

I should like to refer to the section in the Bill which provides for stamp duty on the sale of a house in respect of which a grant has been paid and which has not been occupied. The stamp duty is one per cent. I would ask the Minister to examine that position. One per cent. on the price of a house can range from £20 to £25. It is difficult to understand why there should be a housing grant of £275 on the one hand and the imposition of stamp duty of, say, £25 on the other. A person buys a site, employs a builder and has a house built by way of contract. This is not applicable. It may not be a serious problem. Nevertheless, I would appreciate something being done about it.

I have not noticed anywhere in Ireland such conditions as have been described here this evening. I have been around Leitrim, Sligo and parts of Mayo, and all the poorer districts in the West of Ireland. I have never seen these conditions and I am surprised to hear that in Deputy Flanagan's constituency there are cases where seven people over 14 years of age, male and female, are sleeping and living in one room. I am shocked to hear of this. I have seen poverty in Ireland but I have never seen a case where people had stooped to such low moral standards. If such conditions exist in Deputy Flanagan's constituency I wonder what he is doing? It is a matter that should be brought to the attention of the clergy and everybody responsible. I am shocked. I have not seen such conditions anywhere.

Mr. Carter

They do not exist.

Mr. Gallagher

I confidently recommend this Bill to the House and compliment the Minister on introducing it.

Mr. McQuillan

It is very difficult to know on what leg the last speaker is going to stand. He started off by stating it was not necessary to increase housing grants, that the greatest trouble at the moment was to get contractors or people to build houses. Then he criticised Deputy Blowick for not being aware that there were so many houses in Mayo which were in a shocking condition. Then he told us that he had travelled Mayo, Sligo, Leitrim and Dublin and had never seen the living conditions described by certain Deputies. I do not know if the Deputy knows himself what he wished to say, except to praise the Minister for bringing in this paltry measure to solve a major problem.

There is not the slightest doubt that this Bill will cause great disappointment throughout the country. It is a case of the mountain labouring and bringing forth a mouse. For the past six months, in my constituency, local authority members of the Minister's Party have told the public that new housing legislation was under way which would ease the situation for the small farmer. This Bill was to ease the position that exists in rural Ireland and which the Minister knows perfectly well exists because of the recent investigation carried out by every local authority into housing conditions. The prolonged delay in introducing this measure has led the public to expect great things.

The Bill is notable for omissions from it than for the good it contains. I do not mean to say that there are not good provisions and good sections in the Bill. I do not suggest there are not but there is nothing in this Bill to justify any member of the Fianna Fáil Party or any member of the Government blowing a trumpet. The simple little improvements provided for could have been brought in three or four months ago. There was no necessity for the long delay in dealing with the simple improvements included in the Bill. We all welcome them but the major point of the Bill is the renewal of existing legislation. It is a Bill to enable existing housing grants to be continued because the legislation covering housing grants is on a three year basis and the time had expired and the grants in operation would no longer be available. It was necessary under the circumstances for the Government to bring in legislation to continue existing housing grants. That is the only thing that has been achieved in this Bill, the continuation of the existing situation in relation to grants for private building.

Lest the Minister and members of his Party might think I am prejudiced against the Government, let me say that grants for essential repairs to houses, experiments on houses and houses for elderly people are all good things and are welcome. If I might select one of these matters for special reference, because other speakers have dealt sufficiently with the majority of them, I would like to ask the Minister to comment on the section that relates to the experiment in new types of houses. My feeling is that the Minister is preparing to give consideration to the idea of giving grants for the erection of the prestressed concrete type of house, one that can be built within three days, one that is as sound and lasting as the normal house built with normal building materials and one that can be built at a little less cost. I would like the Minister to say if he has that in mind, apart from any changes in design.

The main point I want to deal with is the problem that affects the small farmer in respect of housing. Surely when so much is talked in this House about the small farmer, it should be realised by the Government that there is a tremendous problem still to be solved. The best thing I can do is to relate the position as I see it in my own county. The Roscommon County Council is no better and no worse than any other county council in Ireland and so conditions there would be applicable to other counties.

In Roscommon, at least 60 per cent. of the farmers have valuations of less than £14. Those men, under £14 and down as far as £6, are described as farmers. They are in the majority in the county and they are expected, under the existing law, to build their own houses. They are expected, through the Government grant and the supplementary grant, through their own resources to supplement those grants in addition to the loan that is available and thereby provide themselves with houses. It has been established in Roscommon that a large proportion of the small farmers under £12 valuation are not in a position to bridge the gap between the State grant and the supplementary county council grant and the cost of the house. They have not that amount of money available and are not in a position to get it.

The result is that Roscommon County Council have decided that all farmers under a valuation of £12 and up to a valuation of £15 who are in need of houses must be re-housed by the council. If one could see the tortuous planning that has to be carried out in order to enable the council legally to implement its wishes in that regard, the Minister would feel that this Bill to which we were looking forward so much is very sadly lacking.

If the county council finds an individual with a valuation of £12 unable to build his house, the council will then go through the legal procedure of acquiring a plot of land for that farmer. The whole question of title comes into it and causes delay and a considerable amount of irritation, both to the council and to the individual looking for the house but it does not cause too much trouble to the legal men concerned. The council then proceeds to build a house and then the real trouble begins because there is a major difficulty in getting contractors to build these houses especially if they are in isolated places. Contractors find it is not a paying proposition to take on one or two isolated houses at the contract prices.

The council, having decided to build a house, becomes the official owner. The farmer is allowed to move in and is there on the same basis as the worker or the county council employee for whom the council normally build houses. Why could not all that procedure be eliminated? Why is it not possible for the council to build a house and put the repayment charges on the rent for the farmer? We know how it works out as far as the Land Commission charges are concerned and we know the majority of the farmers pay up as regularly as could be.

It is a tragedy at the present time to find that the capital requirements for building a house which are not available to the small farmer prevent him from getting a house in County Roscommon and will prevent him from getting one for the next eight to ten years. I believe that the number of houses in County Roscommon in need of development and reconstruction is 397 and from my own experience I think that is a conservative figure. I am not blaming the Minister or the county council for that and I am not blaming them for the position that has obtained up to the present. I am hoping that since this information has come to him about the condition of those houses, he will take steps to solve that problem and since he has figures for Roscommon, Mayo and every county in Ireland, I find it hard to credit that he could come in here and offer no solution or real help in getting rid of that backlog.

Building houses in local authority areas at the rate of 30 or 40 a year means that it will take ten years to meet the housing requirements of the people, not to speak of the other people who will be coming along in the meantime in need of re-housing, old people for whom provision is made in the Bill and the group who will need grants for essential repairs. There are so many other problems which have to be met by local authorities, in addition to the major one of re-housing small farmers, that councils will not be in a position to fulfil their duties in this regard.

I said I did not blame the Minister and I want to clarify that. Quite a large number of these smallholders to whom I refer are congests and, in my opinion, the duty of solving their housing problems should lie on the Land Commission. Those people living on small holdings have for the past 30 years been awaiting with great patience and hope the attention of the Land Commission. They have been expecting, and rightly so, to be taken out of the congested localities in which they live, to be given new holdings and have houses built for them. No real effort has been made by the Land Commission to solve their problem and, therefore, it is now the responsibility of the county council because they feel the present situation can no longer be allowed to continue. Seeing that the county council is prepared to do everything within its power, it is not unfair for me to suggest to the Minister that he should come to their help.

The position, as I see it at any rate, is that it will be a minimum of ten years before all the people who need houses and whose condition is well known to the Minister are dealt with. That, in my opinion, is inexcusable. If the Minister is prepared on Committee Stage to make provision for dealing with that matter, I can assure him he will have the thanks and the gratitude of the people living on small holdings all over the country. I welcome the present measure for the good points that are in it, but I am very sorry indeed that the Minister who has the information through inquiries carried out by the local authorities is not prepared to do more. As a result of the information available to him, the Minister must be preparing fresh legislation to enable him to solve that problem and if he is able to tell us in his concluding remarks that a Bill to meet these requirements to which I have referred is likely to be brought in by October or November at latest, then I have no further criticism to offer at this stage.

He should ask the Government to give priority, when they are arranging priorities between now and next October, to this very important matter of rehousing small farmers, and, indeed, persons with small incomes whose problem is not being solved and for whom local authorities are not in a position to build on existing grants. If the Minister would get his teeth into that problem, he would be solving something that has caused anxiety not only to the people who have waited so long but to all the local authorities concerned.

Mr. A. Barry

The second last speaker, Deputy Flanagan, gave a definition of an elderly person. An elderly person is one who sits in the House from 4.30 until 10.30 p.m. trying to say a few modest words on a Bill like this. It is a very ageing process.

There are aspects of the Bill which I like because they show a certain kind of thinking that appeals to me. It is a tidying Bill and I hope it will tidy our country, urban and rural. We have a heritage in this country of old houses, very badly run down houses and the third category, no houses. That is being provided for as many labourers' cottages and small dwelling houses are being built. They first create a problem for the Department as well as for us who are engaged in running our towns and cities. A little off the main streets of many of our towns and, indeed, on the main streets and very near the centre of Dublin, there are 18th century and early 19th century houses which have now almost outlived their purpose. They are big houses, reasonably well built, but which have been allowed to run down and I wonder are we making enough use of them and whether the Minister's Department should not see whether that kind of house could be maintained.

They are still good structurally and from every point of view it is desirable that they should be maintained because they occupy a very prominent part of our towns and cities and are running down. They are in the twilight area—I believe that is the architect's term — and that is a depressing thing in any place. We do not want it. I think, probably with a considerable investment of public money, these houses could be converted into dual residences or flats, but we just cannot nibble at the idea. It will have to be a global proposal. Unfortunately the kind of houses I refer to are fairly common. It is a kind which is prevalent throughout the country.

I am particularly interested in the proposal in the Bill that we should provide homes for old people. It is proposed we should put up £300 per dwelling and that the local authority would put up a similar sum. To utilise that kind of money properly, you could use a number of those old houses and the £600 could be expended in providing dwellings inside the shell of these big houses. That would seem to me to be a most sensible way of spending that money because I agree with other Deputies who have said that it is not possible to put up any dwelling of any duration or character for £600. You could, however, do a lot of good work by using these old houses in the way I have suggested.

When grants are given, and dwellings built as a result, it would be no harm, particularly in the case of the more modest type of house, in the interest of tidier towns, if the owners of these working class houses were tempted to maintain the paint work on the outside. There is a charitable institution in Cork city which maintains very modest dwellings for about 20 or 25 aged people.

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

Mr. A. Barry

The charitable institution to which I was referring is a very old one dating from the eighteenth century. As I said, it houses about 20 or 25 old people, male and female. They all have separate rooms. The building is very run down in condition. I have been wondering if the grant provided in this Bill for making houses available for old people could not be devoted to an institution of that type so that separate dwellings could be provided in it. Perhaps the Minister would answer that question when he is replying. There are other homes of that kind in Dublin and Limerick and I feel we would be making a marvellous effort to accommodate properly our old people if these grants could be made available for the reconstruction of these old homes to provide separate dwellings.

The Minister referred to the fact that grants could be given for the restoration of premises over a period so that the restoration work would not involve any substantial expenditure at any one period. I think that is a wise thing to do. Planning officers and town architects frequently put a stop to applications for repair grants for a house because they say in a vague kind of way that the area is scheduled for demolition under a town plan, and though the house may have 20 years' life in it, because of this vague suggestion that it might interfere with the town plan nothing can be done with it and it is allowed to fall into complete disuse and crumbles away to nothing. I am pretty sure that over 10, 12 or even 20 years, it will still not be demolished and over that period the kind of expenditure envisaged here could give it an extra lease of life. I welcome that part of the Bill.

The section which proposes that architectural experiments should be carried out so that we could devise a standard house is a good thing, if we are careful that we do not over-standardise and that we keep the rural scene interesting — that we do not have row upon row of houses of the same type. We have experience from the 18th and 19th centuries of that kind of thing and we know what a dismal picture it creates. If there is anything I am proud of in our housing scheme in my native city, it is the varied kind of architecture. That makes the houses good to live in because it makes the people feel they are living in an interesting place. While the idea of getting a prototype house designed is a good one, we should be careful that we have sufficient variation of design so that we will not have monotony in our landscapes or street scenes.

The Minister proposes to fix a uniform maximum of £2,000 under Section 20 of the Bill by way of advances to borrowers under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts. I do not think that is enough. For housing in Cork three years ago, we got quotations at £1,400 per house. This year, the best quotation we could get was £1,900. I think that £2,000 for the man building a single house on a site where he has also to buy the lease of a bit of land is not a real figure.

In the same respect, I do not think the present grants for house repairs bear any relation to costs today. To my mind, they are roughly 33? per cent. too low. The fact of the matter is that costs of that kind have increased by that amount during the past two and a half years. If we do not realise that, we will be putting a sum on paper which will not be as effective in its results as we would desire. In general, I think we should be all reasonably pleased with what has been done for the housing of the working classes since the war ended. I am sorry the Fine Gael figures were better than those of Fianna Fáil because I should have liked to have seen the Fianna Fáil figures better since it would show they were getting on with the job.

Mr. Tully

This Bill is like the proverbial curate's egg — good in spots. The fact that the Minister has included in it practically all the sections of the Private Members' Bill which the Labour Party introduced, which was defeated by the House and which the Minister criticised so severely, gives us a certain amount of satisfaction. In that Bill, we dealt only with one or two aspects of housing and like everybody else in the country interested in the matter, we were expecting a very comprehensive Bill now. We were therefore disappointed to find that the Bill introduced today does not go nearly far enough in most of the things the Minister seems to be attempting to tackle. Like most of the Deputies on this side of the House who have spoken, I am very disappointed that the amount of the grant has not been increased, both for the erection and reconstruction of houses. It is quite possible that somewhere in the Bill power is given to the Minister to alter the grant at certain stages. That may be the answer to the problem.

I feel that the present system whereby the maximum grant given by the Department cannot be exceeded by a supplementary grant from the local authority has not been working so well, because most local authorities seem to try to get away with the smallest possible grant they can give. If the Minister felt that he could not substantially increase the amount of the grants for the erection of new houses, he could have introduced an innovation which would reduce the amount of interest on any loan given for the building of a house. In that way he could have given assistance if he did not want to give direct assistance by way of increased grants.

I know, of course, that the difficulty is money. I do not intend to make it a Party political issue. I do not want to say that it is because a particular Government are in power. We all know that the amount of money we would all like to see provided is very great. On the other hand, it is most unfair for Deputies to stand up here, no matter from which side of the House, and try to politically colour the picture which is being put before the House.

Listening to the debate, as I have been for many long hours, like Deputy Barry I was learning things. I do not mind at any time people talking about something they know, particularly if they know their subject well, but I dislike people who do not know their subject proceeding to lecture members of the House on that subject. That has happened on more than one occasion to-night from both sides of the House. In fact, in one instance someone talked about the easy way the local authorities could, if they so desired, solve all our housing problems.

I am a member of a local authority, Meath County Council, and despite the fact that the controlling interest in that county council is the Government Party — there have been changes from one side to the other over the years — down through the years that has been a progressive council; it still is and it does its best according to its lights to deal with housing. Of course, we must, as a council, deal through the county manager, and the county manager must deal with the Department of Local Government.

Meath County Council will build for people with up to £20 valuation, and despite that, we have given an official figure to the Department of 1,062 unfit houses. Surely if we consider that figure in relation to the counties where people with valuations of £5 and £6 cannot have council houses built for them, and when we find they send in a figure of a few hundred unfit houses, there must be something wrong? Someone is trying to cod someone. If the Department want to get the correct figure of unit houses, they should go a little further than sending a polite note to the secretary of a county council asking him to supply the figures of unfit houses in that county.

Mr. MacCarthy

Would a big number be in the urban areas, I wonder?

Mr. Tully

There is a separate figure for the urban areas and the county council areas. I have given the figure for the county council area in Meath. In Mayo, the figure is 4,894 unfit houses, almost 5,000. In the neighbouring county, Roscommon, it is 397; Sligo, 526; North Tipperary, 232. It is asking a bit too much to expect that anyone would believe those figures could be right. They are not comparable.

As I say, Meath County Council erects houses for people with valuations of £20 in certain circumstances, and yet it has six times as many unfit houses as Roscommon. The big trouble we find in Meath is that the people who have valuations of over £20 are living in very bad houses. In Meath, we would call them small farmers, although in other counties a valuation of over £20 is a fairly sizeable farm. The small farmers in Meath, as in every other county, are not doing so well at present and, as a result, they are not in a position to house themselves. Very many of them are not in a position to carry out reconstruction. Unfortunately this Bill does not do very much to help that type of person. That is why I was hopeful that the grants would be greater, or that they could borrow money at a smaller rate of interest and could attempt to house themselves.

There is also the question of the size of the new houses being built. While a figure of a minimum of 500 square feet and a maximum of 1,400 square feet may appear to be reasonable, there is one thing I dislike very much, that is, when someone builds a house an inspector comes with a tape measure and if it is inches out one way or the other, that is sufficient to prevent him from qualifying for a grant. That should not happen. I know of a few such instances. It is despicable that just because the space is a few inches out a person should be debarred from getting the grant. If a person wants to build a decent house, the design may be a little under or a little over but I think he should get the grant and no dickering about it.

I know of one instance where someone built a house and found there was one complete room which was in excess of the floor space required. It was at the end of the house. He needed a workshop so he closed the door between that room and the rest of the house with the result that the house he intended to live in was within the floor space of 1,400 square feet. He opened a double door in the other room and made it into a workshop and a car shed. The Department took great pleasure in pointing out that there was still a lintel and that he might at a later stage, if his family grew larger, open the door between the workshop and the house so he could not get the grant. The Minister will agree that there is no point at all in that sort of thing. Either we want people to make an effort to house themselves, and we are prepared to assist them or we do not.

So far as the question of improving the standard of building and the type of house are concerned, there is one question I should like to put to the Minister: has there been fairly recently a suggestion in the Department that people are tending to look for too high standards? Is it not a fact that local authorities have been instructed to reduce the standards? Is it not a fact that, in an effort to bring down contract prices, local authorities have been instructed to reduce the standard of the houses they are building for the working classes? If that is so, is it right that somebody should suggest here that the standard is being raised and that we are encouraging people to raise it?

I am aware of houses built to Departmental standards and if five or six people are sitting around a table and smoking for half an hour the ceiling, as a result of the alterations made, being so low, the place is full of smoke. Because, again, the Department have given instructions, there is only one fireplace in the whole house and it is not in the room which the people are using. Therefore, there is no way, unless they open the window or the door, of letting the smoke out of the house.

I do not know whose idea it was. I made inquiries and I was reliably informed that it was the Department that had issued instructions that the standard was to be lowered, that the standard was too high and that it was to be lowered, and therefore there would be a reduction in contract price. If the Minister considers or knows that to be untrue, I would be very glad if he would say so when he is replying because, believe me, I know where I stand in this respect.

The question of repairs has been discussed or mentioned in the Bill and certain suggestions were made. I am glad there is an arrangement by which a portion of a house can be repaired. A situation has arisen recently — it may be the regulation for a long time but it has come very much to the fore recently—of an inspector going down, inspecting the house and giving an estimate for the repairs to the house, an estimate which, in many cases, is very much lower than the cost of the work —that is beside the point—but an estimate for the job of work which must be done. Then, when the job is finished, he will point to other work to which he did not pay attention when he first examined the house.

He will inspect the house and say: "The house is grand but you must do that as well." A personal friend of mine in Deputy Mooney's constituency was told he would have to repair a conservatory attached to a house and which had no bearing on living accommodation. He could not do so, because all the money he could possibly get his hands on was spent on the work stipulated by the Minister's inspector in the first instance. I think it is right that that situation should be changed. If somebody wants to repair a certain portion of a house to live in, so as to have at least one or two good rooms, he should be able to get a grant for doing that type of work.

We also have in the country districts a situation that somebody is living in a house on the outside of which he must do some repairs. Under present regulations, the local authority engineers will inspect it, and sometimes the Department engineer, and may decide that the house is unfit for reconstruction. I have one instance at least and I have heard of one or two others where the people went ahead with the repairs and proved it was not true to say that the house was unfit for reconstruction. They reconstructed the house and made a good job of it. In one case, the grant was paid. In some other cases, the grant was refused because the Department or the local authority decided, before the work was started, that the work could not effectively be done.

I do not think that sort of situation should be allowed to continue. It is discouraging those who are trying to help themselves. I am full sure that if the matter is brought to top level — the officials who are advising the Minister denied they were aware of it —this sort of thing could not happen. Unfortunately, no matter what you seem to do, there is always somebody half way up the line who will make a decision on it and that is as far as the unfortunate person who wants to repair the house will get. Therefore, neighbours who might be encouraged to do something about their own houses will not attempt the same thing because of what happened to the first person. I would ask that the Minister would take this into account when he comes to reply and would see to it that in future such things cannot happen.

There is one question, lest I forget to mention it, on which I should like the Minister to clear my mind. It concerns Section 11. Subsection (8) of Section 11 says that no advances can be made: it is for the abolition of the existing——

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

Mr. Tully

Subsection (8) of Section 11 states that no new loans are to be made under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, 1899 to 1958. Section 20 gives power to fix the maximum advances under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act of 1899. Maybe I am misreading it, or is there a contradiction in the Bill? If there is not, then I am perfectly satisfied. I wondered if there had been some slight error or error in the typing.

I wonder if the Minister would consider the question of sites for people who wish to build their own houses? I thought some reference might be made to it in the Bill. There is an unfortunate position in country districts where most people who want to build a house find they are asked a fantastic price for a site. They often find that they can get a site very reasonably from a tenant of a vested cottage. Possibly an old person who has got an acre of good land on which there is more than one site would be only too glad to dispose of portion of the acre for the housing of some of his neighbours, but, because the title of the vested cottage is tied up in some way, it is not possible to use it for a site. A loan, I understand, cannot be granted on foot of that particular type of site. Perhaps the Minister might consider if something could be done about that because it would relieve at least a number of people who at present are prevented from rehousing themselves because of lack of sites.

I should also like the Minister to consider further encouragement to people who form groups to build houses. I know that £10 extra has been given for years to those who form themselves into public utility or building societies. Those people are encouraged to build their own houses and use this extra £10. I think the Minister would be well advised if he would increase substantially that amount because it would encourage group effort. I have in mind particularly a group who came together in my own village and built a very excellent scheme — it is almost completed now — with the full assistance of the local authority and the Department. But there could be a little more co-operation from the Department, if there were an extra grant.

The grant to members of a public utility society is in fact the easiest way to offer encouragement to people like this. Also, a number of employers are rather anxious to build housing schemes for their employees. Again, I think an effort should be made to encourage that type of building and perhaps a little more encouragement from the Department might solve the problem. Those are matters which the Minister, I have no doubt, has gone into carefully or possibly they may not have been brought forcibly enough to his notice. Perhaps, when he is replying, he might deal with that aspect of the problem.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 12th July, 1962.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 11 Jul 1962