I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
The objects of this Bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum which I have had circulated to Deputies. I can summarise them by saying that the Bill is intended to provide the legislative framework for the Government's housing programme as announced in the White Paper published last November.
Because of circumstances of which we are all aware, I had the choice of not circulating the Bill at all before the recess or of sending it to Deputies in stencilled form. Naturally, I took the view that Deputies would want to get the Bill at the earliest opportunity. Printed copies will be issued to Deputies as soon as circumstances permit. It is inevitable that there should be a number of minor errors in the stencilled version because of the urgency in which it had to be prepared. These will be corrected in the printed version.
The Bill will replace, with minor exceptions, all existing statute law on housing. As Deputies know, this is a vast subject. A glance at the formidable list of statutes set down for repeal in the First Schedule will confirm this. Over 25 per cent of the total housing stock of the country has been provided by local authorities acting largely under the powers conferred by the existing legislation and, on the conservative assumption that there is an average of four to five persons in each house, about three-quarters of a million of our people live in these houses. In addition, a further 130,000 or so houses have been provided with the aid of State and often local authority grants, so that, in all, over 40 per cent of the houses in the country have been built or aided under the Acts which the Bill proposes to replace. As these figures show, achievements under the Acts are of no mean order.
The different codes have, however, for long been showing signs of age. The first Labourers Act, dealing with rural housing, was passed in 1883. The first Housing of the Working Classes Act, dealing with urban housing, dates from 1890. Since then, more than 50 different Acts have been passed, amending, extending, incorporating and clarifying various provisions in the original Acts. The rural code has been applied in part to urban areas, and the urban code has been applied in large measure to rural areas. The result of all this, I need hardly say, is not a model of precision or clarity.
Further, in each code the main emphasis was originally quite different. The Labourers Acts aimed basically at the provision of houses. The Housing of the Working Classes Acts aimed at the elimination of slums and over-crowding—the provision of houses followed as a corollary.
The existence of so much statute law helps neither the persons trying to operate the law nor the persons whom it is intended to benefit. It leads often only to frustration and delay. In addition, the existence of different urban and rural codes runs completely counter to the whole conception of local government as a unified service. What is most important of all, the present set-up may be impeding the drive to provide decent housing for our people.
As Deputies will see from the First Schedule, the first exception to the proposal to repeal all existing housing legislation is part of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, dealing with compulsory land acquisition and with penalties for members of local authorities voting in relation to houses, buildings or land in which they are beneficially interested. The parts of the 1890 Act dealing with compulsory land acquisition are, in effect, part of the Lands Clauses code, which apply for many purposes other than housing. They were amended extensively by the Third Schedule to the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, and these amendments also are being retained.
The second exception to the proposal to repeal all housing legislation is the proposed retention of the Labourers Act, 1936, as amended by the Housing and Labourers Act, 1937. These two Acts deal with the vesting of labourers' cottages. Their retention is necessary since the law dealing with vested cottages during the period for the repayment of the purchase annuity is contained in them. Further, it is proposed to give existing tenants and persons appointed as tenants to new cottages within six months of the commencement of the relevant provision in the Bill, an opportunity to purchase under the terms of the 1936 Act, if they are qualified to do so. After a period of about 18 months from the coming into force of the provisions, the 1936 Act and the amending Act of 1937 will cease to apply to any further sales. The result will be that, for practical purposes, the housing law, apart from the provisions in the 1890 and 1919 Acts to which I have referred, will be contained in the present Bill, as enacted.
In addition to applying a common housing code to urban and rural areas, the Bill will deal with both private and local authority housing. Since the law on private housing was largely consolidated in the Housing (Loans and Grants) Act, 1962, I considered dealing separately with local authority and private housing legislation but rejected the course. With a programme of the size we are aiming at, the fewer separate compartments we have in housing law the better. Further, house purchase loans and supplementary grants by local authorities to help people to house themselves or reconstruct their homes are as much part of local authority housing policy as their direct building operations.
A further reason for re-enacting the Act of 1962 is that in this Bill important changes in the amount and variety of assistance for private housing are proposed. Section 16 deals with the special scheme of grants of up to £450 for farmers and other persons in rural areas housing themselves. Section 17 introduces a new scheme of grants for "dower" houses on holdings. Under it and other provisions, a person providing a small house for himself and surrendering his own house to a member of his family—for instance, a son or daughter getting married—or selling it to the Land Commission, may qualify for a State and supplementary grant for the new house totalling up to £350, together with rate remission.
The grants system, perhaps, concentrates too much in present conditions on the provision of two-storey houses. With the spread of our cities, the scarcity of building sites and the necessity to use urban land more intensively it becomes increasingly important to build high. Section 18 provides for a special scheme of State grants of up to £275 for separate, self-contained flats in buildings of three or more storeys, and of up to £325 where the building is of six or more storeys and a lift is installed. The local authority will be empowered under section 27 to pay supplementary grants up to an amount equal to the State grant, subject to such conditions as they think fit.
At present a person who derives his livelihood solely or mainly from agriculture may qualify for a reconstruction grant of up to two-thirds of the cost of the work, subject to certain statutory limits, if the valuation of his holding does not exceed £50. Sections 21 and 22 propose to increase this limit from £50 to £60.
Section 24 proposes a special scheme of grants for the improvement of local authority houses. This is something about which many representations have been made to me by local authority members and I am glad to be able to do something about it in this Bill. I should emphasise that these grants will not be paid for works of a maintenance character for which local authorities themselves are responsible. They are intended to encourage the provision of extra rooms, and the installation of water and sewerage facilities, where these are required, in local authority houses. The replacement or substantial reconstruction of a roof will also qualify for a grant under the section.
In so far as supplementary grants by local authorities are concerned, section 26 proposes to increase the income limit to £1,045 and specifically to enable local authorities to make allowances of up to £100 for each of four dependants when calculating income. In effect, therefore, the maximum income level for supplementary grants for some people will go up to £1,445. In so far as persons deriving their livelihood from agriculture are concerned, the valuation limit will go up from £50 to £60. For the avoidance of doubts section 26 will also validate allowances for dependants already made by housing authorities when assessing income for supplementary grants under the 1962 Act.
In section 32 the scheme of grants for the provision of accommodation for persons suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis is being recast and the maximum amount of the grant increased to £200. It is, perhaps, a commentary on the success of our efforts in other spheres that these grants are not now much availed of.
Under section 40 housing authorities will be enabled to make a loan of up to £200 for the reconstruction of a house, without formal security. In most cases, local authorities will not run any grave risk by operating the provisions of the section which should be a considerable help in getting much needed reconstruction work done without unnecessary formality.
The last proposal in Chapter III which I would like to mention is that contained in section 43 which enables a housing authority to guarantee an advance to a builder erecting or reconstructing a house. The amount of the guarantee is limited to the aggregate of the appropriate State and supplementary grants. This provision should enable small builders in rural areas to get over the difficulty of providing the initial finance to get started on a house.
As I said earlier, private and local authority housing can no longer be treated as separate watertight compartments. Both codes are concerned basically with the provision of houses. Under section 44 it is proposed that local authorities should be enabled to qualify for subsidy at up to one-third of the loan charges, subject to cost limits, on money borrowed for the acquisition and development of building sites. I have for many years been advocating the provision by local authorities of developed sites for private building and I hope that this provision will prove a stimulus to those local authorities who have not yet taken adequate steps to provide sites for persons who are able and willing to build their own houses. I would like to point out that the fraction of one-third cannot be regarded in isolation. It is part of a whole complex of aids, including State and supplementary grants, rate remissions, reduction of stamp duty, et cetera. I should say also that I intend this provision to come into operation immediately, so that local authorities can proceed now to acquire and develop land in anticipation of the enactment of the Bill, in the knowledge that the sites will not be disqualified for subsidy on the ground that they were provided too soon.
In so far as local authority housing generally is concerned, section 44 will also incorporate the principal provisions dealing with subsidy. It will validate the special subsidy scheme for housing of farmers whose land valuations do not exceed £5.
Major subsidy of up to two-thirds of loan charges, subject to cost limits, will be payable under the section for the provision by local authorities of houses for elderly persons, for those displaced by operations of housing authorities under the Bill in getting rid of overcrowded and unfit housing, or by dangerous building operations or by the development of obsolete areas under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. Under the section, special subsidy will also be payable for the provision by local authorities of flats and buildings of six or more storeys.
The section also proposes to make subsidy a more positive instrument of policy. It will specifically authorise the use of subsidy to enforce conditions as to the maintenance and sale of local authority houses and building standards to be observed by local authorities.
The amount spent by local authorities on the maintenance of their houses varies from about £6 a year to about £20 a year. Nobody would contend that sums near the lower end of this scale are sufficient to maintain a house. What is happening, therefore, is that much valuable accommodation is deteriorating for lack of adequate maintenance, and local authorities and the Exchequer will ultimately be faced with a substantial bill for its replacement sooner than is necessary. By making proper maintenance a condition for the continued payment of full subsidy we hope to remedy this position.
The inclusion in the section of conditions as to the sale or lease of local authority houses and land not required for housing purposes will enable the specific sanction of the Minister to such sales or leases to be dispensed with. As long as the local authority observes general conditions which will be laid down they need not approach the Department for sanction. They can dispose of houses and other land on the approved conditions as they think fit.
Under the Bill we propose to get rid of references to "agricultural labourers" and "persons of the working classes" on which much of the old law depends and to enable local authorities to house anyone in need, irrespective of class. To ensure that renting schemes are sufficiently flexible for this extended scope of operations, it is proposed in section 44 that the Minister will be able to require, in connection with subsidy, certain conditions as to rents to be observed, for example, that rents be in accordance with schemes approved by him which take into account the financial circumstances of tenants. This provision is of vital importance to ensure that the old, the sick and the infirm are not charged rents above their capacity to pay, or, on the other hand, that persons with sufficient resources are not subsidised by their fellow workers, renting or buying their own houses and paying their full share of rates and taxes.
At this point it is well to remember that State subsidies for local authority housing are now almost £3 million a year and are rising steadily. In addition, local authorities subsidise their rents by a similar amount, making a total current subsidy for local authority housing of just under £6 million in 1965-66, or about £36 a year per house (other than urban houses which have been sold).
The average rent is about £31 a year. This figure, as every Deputy will know, conceals very wide variations in actual rents which range from 3d. or 6d. a week in some areas to about £4 a week in others—for widely different types of accommodation. The higher level more truly represents current building costs which are a vital factor in our housing programme. If because of the unrealistic rent policies of local authorities rates and other taxes have to rise too steeply to pay for the programme, then the rate of building will be slowed and the elimination of unfit and overcrowded housing conditions, which we all wish to see achieved, will be delayed.
Section 45 contains power for the Minister to pay subsidy direct to a body other than a housing authority. In general assistance for such bodies will be by way of State and supplementary grants — which may now under section 28 be paid to bodies as distinct from individuals. If the housing authority wish, they can provide further aid by way of loans, guarantees or annual contributions under section 12. The provision in section 45 is intended for exceptional circumstances —where, for instance, it may be considered desirable to have the National Building Agency, Limited, supplement the efforts of local authorities in particular areas.
The Housing White Paper mentions a figure of the order of 50,000 dwellings beyond economic repair. The occupants of many of these houses could be expected to provide their own accommodation with the aid of grants and loans. The remainder must look to local authorities. In addition, needs arising from increases in population and depreciation which each year brings a fresh batch of houses over the dividing line between the fit and unfit must be met, to some extent at least, by local authority building. The programme facing local authorities is, therefore, no small one. We propose in sections 53 to 55 to try to ensure that the programme is approached in an orderly and logical fashion.
Local authorities will be required to measure the needs of their areas and the cost of meeting them. Having done this they will draw up building programmes setting out the sort of help they will give to persons providing their own houses and the number of houses they will provide directly. They may either build themselves or group with other local authorities or perhaps arrange with an agency to build for them. By combining their needs in this way, local authorities should benefit themselves by getting work done at better prices and with more certainty than they would by offering smaller and less valuable contracts.
The building industry will benefit by having longer production runs, offering better opportunities to rationalise work methods, the supply of materials, and employment of men. I should mention that I have already asked local authorities to put in hands this survey of needs and the preparation of both short term and long term building programmes to meet these needs.
Under section 60 more freedom will be given to local authorities to draw up priority schemes for the allocation of tenancies. The schemes will be made by the elected members and once made must be followed by the manager in the actual allocation of the tenancies. As at present, it is proposed that in allocating tenancies regard must be had to the report and recommendation of the chief medical officer.
Part IV of the Bill deals with the powers of housing authorities to deal with overcrowded and unfit housing. Nobody is more conscious than I am that the only real solution to the problems of slums and overcrowding is the provision of an adequate supply of housing at reasonable cost. Pending the achievement of this objective, we must retain and strengthen the powers of local authorities to prevent as far as possible the abuse of overcrowding and the use of condemned property for human habitation. Part IV re-enacts the existing provisions on the subject in one piece, with important changes which clarify and strengthen the powers of local authorities.
Because of the rather detailed nature of the provisions, I think that they would be better left for discussion at later stages of the Bill. I should, however, mention that I have had under consideration the question of providing penalties for failure to comply with repair notices or demolition orders. As Deputies know, if a person fails to comply with these notices or orders, the local authority themselves may do the repairs or the demolition work and recover the cost, but there is no provision for penalties by way of fine or otherwise on the person who failed in the first instance to comply with the requirements of the local authority. Deputies will doubtless have views on this question which I should be glad to hear.
Part V deals with the acquisition of land. Under the Local Government (No. 2) Act, 1960, a procedure is provided which can be used by local authorities for acquiring land compulsorily for any purpose for which they are so authorised to acquire it. This procedure is based on provisions in the Housing of the Working Classes code which we are replacing. In Part V it is proposed, therefore, to replace the relevant provisions in the 1960 Act with the corresponding provisions in the present Bill. The new provisions will contain power for local authorities to acquire land by vesting order and will contain other changes designed to speed up land acquisition procedures.
The powers of housing authorities to dispose of dwellings and other land will be consolidated in Part VI. As I mentioned when discussing the subsidy provisions, it is proposed to dispense with the necessity for obtaining the Minister's consent to the disposal of property under the Bill if the disposal is carried out in accordance with general rules laid down.
At present, a county council in disposing of land acquired under the Labourers Acts must first offer it back to the person from whom it was acquired. The force of this provision is much diminished by later provisions enabling a local authority to use such land for the purposes of any of their powers or duties under the Labourers Acts, including the provision of sites for private building and for houses for persons, irrespective of whether they are agricultural labourers. Furthermore, land acquired by local authorities for any other purpose is not subject to this restriction. By the repeal of section 16 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, it is proposed to do away with the restriction so that, in future, county councils will be free to appropriate or dispose of surplus lands as they think fit.
The formal procedures for the sale of rural cottages laid down by the Labourers Act, 1936, are being replaced. The cost of preparing purchase schemes under the Act must alone often outweigh what the council could expect to receive from sales, particularly where the scheme deals with a small number of cottages. The right of existing tenants to purchase under the Act will be preserved for a sufficient time to enable them to opt to do so if they wish. Similarly, the terms of the Act will apply for a limited time to anyone appointed tenant within six months of the commencement of the relevant section. The Act of 1936 will continue to apply to sales at present being made under it, the repayment period for which extends over a number of years.
In Chapter III it is proposed to make a number of changes in the Act. These changes include provision that a cottage may be charged or mortgaged with the consent of the housing authority and that the housing authority may withhold consent to the alienation of a cottage where they are of opinion that the purchaser is not a person in need of housing or that the alienation would cause overcrowding or leave the person proposing to alienate without adequate and suitable housing. Further, it is proposed that where a housing authority intend to give consent they may require payment of an amount not less than that approved by the Minister. This provision would be used particularly where a cottage or plot was being sold for a commercial purpose.
Under section 101 it is proposed to make it clear that a cottage being purchased must be used as a normal place of residence by the purchaser. If it is left vacant for a long time the housing authority will have power to recover it, paying suitable compensation.
I think that I need not detain Deputies with any detailed exposition of Parts VII and VIII of the Bill which I have dealt with elsewhere, so far as is necessary.
In conclusion, I would say that, though this Bill is a long and fairly complex document, its aim is to reduce the bulk of housing law and thus make its administration easier. I am, however, under no illusion that the enactment of law can alone solve our housing problems. Much effort and a great deal of finance, both public and private, are required for that purpose. But I do comfort myself with the thought that if this Bill makes it easier, in the future, for persons to get houses and ensures a more equitable distribution of housing subsidies generally we will have done a good day's work.