I should like to suggest, again if the House will agree, that we be permitted to submit an amendment on recommittal of this section on Report Stage and we will withdraw this amendment.
Private Members' Business. - Housing Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In page 9, between lines 38 and 39, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"(5) The passing of a resolution by a housing authority shall be a reserved function."
—Deputy James Tully.
Am I to assume that the Minister is accepting the principle?
I am only accepting what has been put.
We want to be quite clear about what is being accepted. We want to be quite clear on the assurance given to Deputy Tully by the Minister. Is he accepting this amendment in principle, that housing authority matters under this Bill will be reserved functions of local authorities? That is the net question.
No. I am not accepting anything but Deputy Tully's suggestion that he may have it recommitted at a later stage.
What did the Minister agree to?
I agreed to what he put to me, no more and no less.
Is amendment No. 3 withdrawn?
It has not been withdrawn yet. This, to my mind, is a very important amendment and its importance has been stressed for two hours. The net question at issue is whether it will be the elected representatives of the people or the county manager who will determine questions arising from this Bill. It is the very strong feeling in these benches that the elected representatives should have that right. So far as we are concerned, we are forcing this issue because, as previous speakers have pointed out, we feel that the elected representatives are the best judges of housing situations in the different administrative areas. In addition, it cannot be over-emphasised that if a person has a housing problem, it is not to the county manager that he goes. It would be physically impossible for the county manager to deal with representations from the people within his functional area and it is to the local authority that the person with the housing problem goes and if anything goes wrong with housing, it is not the manager who is blamed but the members of the housing authority. How can these members live up to their obligations when their powers are so limited? What we want to do is to give them wider powers, give them effective control of all housing matters arising from this measure.
I want to refer to another matter. This Bill is a bulky document containing numerous sections, and is it reasonable that the Minister should come along with fixed views, and irrespective of what debate may arise on section 2, section 3 or section 4, bull-doze it through the Dáil? If that is so, discussions on Committee Stages of Bills have little effect. The primary purpose of the type of discussion which we are having here on Committee Stage is to have some flexibility so that if points of view are expressed by any member, they will at least get reasonable consideration. That can only happen if the Minister is not inflexible and is open to accept changes. I feel that the Departmental officials behind the Minister say that this is going to stand and that the other thing is going to stand and——
The Deputy should not criticise officials. The Minister is responsible for the Bill.
If that view is held, we will be discussing this for three or four days——
The Deputy may not discuss that on the amendment. The amendment——
This is relevant.
If the Deputy would only listen. The Deputy may not criticise the Minister's future actions on amendments to sections of the Bill. We are discussing amendment no. 3 and amendment no. 3 only.
I know, Sir, but it is quite within my right to refer to this particular question, that we find Ministers coming in with very firm and fixed views——
That does not arise on amendment no. 3.
——ignoring recommendations and arguments, and irrespective of what happens, determined to force their way through.
The Deputy may not discuss the Minister's actions. If the Deputy continues on this line, I shall be forced to ask him to resume his seat, unless he can relate his remarks to the amendment.
To satisfy your requirements and confine myself to the narrow limit of debate which is the standard set by the Chair——
By Standing Orders.
I must repeat that the assertion of the Minister and the Government on this amendment is that they have no confidence in local representatives. If we were to bring that to its logical conclusion, we should say that there should be no confidence in the representatives of this House because we are elected on the same basis as local representatives. When we come to the House, elected by the people, we elect the Taoiseach who in turn selects the Government. In their own way, local authority representatives have just as much right to legislate on local matters as the Government have to legislate on national matters.
We are trying to drive home that in the big question of housing which is of paramount importance and which requires a great deal of public expenditure, we feel that the people democratically elected are the best judges of housing needs arising in their administrative districts. If members do not respond to their duties or do not give them the diligent attention such functions as housing require, the public have the right to remove them from office as elections are reasonably frequent but it is almost impossible to remove a manager from office. He has not the same tie with the people as public representatives have because they can hold office only so long and they have the confidence of the people. Naturally, they must keep in touch with the people's needs and their actions at local authority level must be in accordance with the expressed views of the people in their areas.
What obligations have county managers? I am not reflecting on them as individuals or as a body, but on the system. Once appointed, as one speaker suggested, a manager is a sort of faceless person whom the vast majority in the area never know. He works within his office, legislating on very important matters, and he is given power by this House to ignore, if he so wishes, recommendations of elected members. We know that we have a body which in its own way has as much power as the Government, that is, the County and City Managers Association. That body, which is not elected in any democratic way, are not entitled to have that power. It is about time to start to break the grip that body has on local government affairs which in a way are as important as national administration, dealing as they do with housing, health and such matters.
We also tabled this amendment because we felt from earlier statements by the present Minister that he had a democratic outlook regarding local government administration. I think I once heard him say he felt that more power should be given to local authority members and I am also bearing in mind what the Minister said about the managerial system, that it was a system that led to back-scratching by the managers of the Minister and by the Minister of the managers. That is the Minister's own term. I think that was the gravest reflection that I heard made on the system since I came into this House.
I think we have made the case very firmly. We set out to do so with the hope of convincing all sides of the House that to leave the power in the hands of the local representatives would be best for the people who are so vitally interested in housing. If such amendments as this are not accepted, if it is felt that local authority members are not fitted to have such powers and are incapable of exercising them and if it is felt the authority we seek is too much for them, the best thing to do is abolish local authorities altogether. Why hold local elections next year or why bother with the present system if it is the opinion of any Government or of the present Government that the local managerial system is the most effective system of local government?
That does not arise on this amendment.
It is a reasonable argument, but in case we fall out, I shall resume my seat.
First, I should like to be clear: Is the amendment withdrawn or is it not?
We are withdrawing it, on the assumption——
The Deputy's name is not to the amendment.
Deputy Tully expressed the views of the Labour members whose names appear on the amendment when he said he was prepared to withdraw it if the Minister and the House agreed it would be possible to recommit on Report Stage. I understand the Minister has agreed to do that and, as far as I am concerned as one of the Deputies tabling the amendment, I stand by the statement made by Deputy Tully.
I agree to that also.
But the Minister made it clear that he would not accept the amendment or any amendment like it.
I agreed to what Deputy Tully asked and what is now repeated largely by Deputy Larkin.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Amendment No. 5, in the name of Deputy H. P. Dockrell, could be discussed with amendment No. 4 in the name of the Minister.
And I think No. 6 also.
No. 6 seems to stand on its own but Nos. 4 and 5 appear to be related, according to my information, and may be discussed together. However, if the Deputy wishes, perhaps No. 6 may be also discussed in conjunction with Nos. 4 and 5.
Yes, I think they can be dealt with together.
It is agreed to take amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together.
I move amendment No.4:
In page 10, subsection (4), lines 21 to 28, to delete all words in the subsection before "shall" in line 29 and insert the following:
"(4) Where a repairs notice, a notice mentioned in subsection (4) of section 66 of this Act, a notice to treat within the meaning of Part V of this Act or a notice mentioned in subsection (4) of section 112 of this Act is served on or given to a person by affixing it under paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section, a copy of the notice."
Under section 3, notice may be served on a person whose address cannot be ascertained by a reasonable inquiry, by delivering it to some person over 16 years of age resident on or employed on the land to which the notice relates, or by affixing it on or near such land. Where notice is served by affixing, the local authority is required, within two weeks, to publish the effect of the notice in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the person is last known to have resided.
Sections dealing with the service of notices are sections 4, information as to ownership; 62, notices to quit; 64, particulars as to occupancy; 65, overcrowding notices; 66 (1), (4) and (14), unfit houses; 69, notice of intention to enter on land; 70, recovery of expenses; 77, confirmation of compulsory purchase order; 78, notice to treat; 79, notice of entry; 80, vesting order; 103, notice of recovery of house where tenant cannot be found or is in breach of conditions; 112, entry on land; and Article 4 of the Third Schedule, notice of intention to submit compulsory purchase order.
Subsection 66 (12) deals with the service of copies of demolition orders or closing orders. Section 70 deals with the making of demands for recovery of expenses.
Publication in a newspaper of the notice, copy of order or demand would in most of these cases be superfluous. Amendment No.4 provides that the requirement of publication should be confined to notices under subsections 66 (1) and (4), dealing with unfit houses, section 78 dealing with notices to treat for the compulsory acquisition of land and section 112 dealing with entry on land.
Could the Minister say whether section 62 is covered by the amendment where notice to quit is concerned? Will parties concerned have to publish in a newspaper within two weeks?
The answer is `no'.
Amendment agreed to.
In the circumstances, amendment No. 5 may not be moved.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
I move amendment No. 6:
To delete subsections (6) and (7).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
I should like to ask a question here in relation to subsection (6). It states:
Where the Minister is satisfied that reasonable grounds exist for dispensing with the publication, serving or giving under this Act or under any Order or regulation made thereunder, of a notice, copy of an order, or demand and that dispensing with the publication, serving, giving, or making of the notice, copy or demand will not cause injury or wrong, he may dispense with the publication ...
Could the Minister give us an example of the circumstances he has in mind or envisages where it might be desirable and reasonable for the Minister to dispense with such notice? Does he believe it to be correct that a Minister should have the power to dispense with a notice to the effect that a certain development will take place in a particular area and that that development should proceed without the residents in the area knowing it is to proceed? It might be in the Minister's mind and perhaps from a national point of view it might be considered by the Minister to be a desirable development but as far as the local people are concerned it might be most undesirable. Here the Minister could step in and say: "We shall get this thing through quietly and it will be all over and done with before the people have a chance to rise up and object or organise public opinion against it".
Subsection (7) states that a dispensation under subsection (6) may be given either before or after the time when the notice or copy would, but for the dispensation, be required to be published and before or after the doing of any act to which the notice or copy would, but for the dispensation, be a condition precedent. That subsection is to my mind even worse. Here is a case where perhaps a friend of the Minister gets into trouble and he proceeds in a hurry with development without complying with the law. Pressure might be brought to bear on the Minister to save such a character or such a firm and the Minister has power to step in. I can foresee an immense amount of pressure being brought to bear on Ministers. Why is this power being sought and why is it considered that it may be necessary in certain circumstances? Could we get some indication of what the circumstances might be?
The Deputy at first asked me to instance the sort of circumstances and I would immediately suggest the case of a husband and wife where only the husband or only the wife might be given notice. Another case which is obvious is where the owner was aware of the proceedings, where the owner turned up at the proceedings and it could be taken as obvious that he knew about the proceedings. As far as I understand it, the provision has been in existence since 1931.
I am aware of that.
From the records, I can say that no dire consequences followed from this provision and I doubt if the Deputy is aware of any dire consequences as a result of this provision being there. It is also necessary to say that non-operation happens only in cases where it is clear no damage can accrue to any party. Unless one was satisfied of that, there would be no question it would ever be used.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 7:
In subsection (1), page 11, line 1, to delete "fourteen days" and substitute "one month".
I put down the amendment in order to extend the time from two weeks to a month. I foresee quite a number of circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to expect that this provision could be complied with in 14 days. Section 4 states that a housing authority may by notice in writing require the occupier of any land or any person receiving, whether for himself or for another, rent out of any land, to state in writing to the authority within a specified period, and so forth. It is quite easy to foresee a case in which a man might be away for a week or 14 days. If he were away for a week he could have very pressing business for another week. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that there should be at least a month within which any person should comply with the regulation. I feel sure the Minister will concede this, that he will not quarrel with us for asking for a month instead of a fortnight.
I support Deputy Clinton. In practice, a period of 14 days has meant ten working days since the advent of the five-day week. In all legislation we should extend the number of days in which a person is required to perform certain statutory duties. This, particularly, is a case in which we should realise the paractical difficulties now existing for persons in complying with demands of this nature within ten days. If a person gets a query on a Monday or a Tuesday morning, it may take him to the end of that week to ascertain the information required. By the time he gets the information from the local authority, certainly more than 14 days will have elapsed. I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment and agree to one month. If the Minister feels he cannot go so far, let him split the difference and make it 21 days. We have, at the moment, a statutory right of 14 days holidays for all people in the State and I believe in the not too distant future, we will have longer holidays of 21 days. A period of a month, in those circumstances, is not excessive.
There are many cases where the individual might not have the answer himself. He might not even know what is required of him or where he might have to go to seek assistance from somebody else. It might be difficult, therefore, to obtain the information in the short time specified.
The type of information likely to be sought is quite obvious. He might possibly be querying the rent he is paying the landlord under the terms of the tenancy agreement and matters of that kind. That type of information should be readily available to the tenant and there should not be any great difficulty in getting it within 14 days. Of course, if he were away on holidays for that time, it is quite understandable it could not be done but there is a reasonable time given for securing the type of information sought.
I support Deputy Clinton in this amendment. There would be a further difficulty if the person had to seek legal advice. His title deeds might be lodged in the bank or some such place and he would have to wait until they were available to his solicitor. I consider 14 days, in those circumstances, is far too short. The period should be at least one month.
The only thing I would add to what has already been said on this is that the information sought is very likely to be information that is actually readily available and the person would not have to have recourse to legal advice with regard to it. It also should be pointed out that the subsection says "not less than 14 days". If extraordinary circumstances did arise in which it could be held that it was unreasonable to insist that this information should be provided within the time specified, then the local authorities would not pursue it and, if they did pursue it into the courts, they would get very little change there if it was shown that it was an unreasonable time and that the information was not being withheld deliberately. No court or counsel would want to harass a person to give information in an unreasonably short time in that particular instance. Probably, from that point of view, the Deputy is not taking into account that it says "not less than 14 days". It is counsel who would have to go after that individual and who would have to pursue it. If they knew that it was not unreasonable to withhold the information, they would not go into court with regard to it.
It means if this goes through that some officious official could follow up somebody and insist on this 14 days. He could insist on getting the information in that time and even bring the person to court and involve him in all this unnecessary litigation simply because he did not do something in 14 days when, in fact, he might have been on holidays. Surely it is most unusual to specify 14 days.
The same thing would happen possibly with regard to 21 days or 30 days. I know the likelihood diminishes but it is a fact that, no matter what time is specified, the same thing can happen.
It is much less likely if you extend it to one month.
The subsection says "not less than," and this applies no matter what number of days you specify.
Would the Minister not meet the Deputy halfway?
I will; I will agree to 21 days.
Fair enough.
Amendment, as amended by the deletion of "one month" and the substitution of "21 days", agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
There is one aspect of this section which worries me. A solicitor is under obligation not to disclose any business or affairs of his client without his client's permission. This is a duty imposed upon a solicitor, not for the convenience of the solicitor but to protect the fundamental rights of the individual. This section, as it stands here would put the solicitor, who did not have his client's permission, in the dock, to release the information. I would ask the Minister to have regard to the serious obligation which lies on a lawyer not to disclose the affairs of his client without his client's permission. For instance, a solicitor could be in receipt of rents out of a holding. This is quite a frequent practice and not infrequently the tenants are not aware of who the real owner of the property is. The solicitor, the auctioneer or the estate agent may act as agent of an undisclosed person. The solicitor, in those circumstances, would not be free to disclose who his client was or to give the name or address of the client without the client's permission.
The solicitor, under subsection (2) of this section, could be convicted of an offence and fined up to £25 for accepting his serious obligation of not disclosing his client's affairs without the client's permission. It is difficult in some cases, if one can refer to the principle of the amendment, to get the client's permission within 14 days. It is necessary to qualify this so that the person will not have imposed upon him the obligation of committing an invidious offence.
We will have a look at that and see if there is anything in it.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill".
This section deals with regulations and I am a little perplexed about a particular regulation. I am availing of this opportunity to solicit some information. I shall give the facts. Two workers had a mind to provide houses with a view to getting married and setting up their own homes. I advised both to apply for grants and I told them it might be better for them to erect their own homes as they would be waiting for some time for local authority houses. Both of them would qualify for local authority houses but the county council try to get as many people as possible to provide their own homes rather than wait for the local authority to provide houses for them. The increased benefits made available from 1st October 1963 would entitle them to £900, £450 from the Department of State and £450 from the local authority.
They agreed to go ahead with their application for housing grants to the Minister. They both built the same type of house and both were approved at £450 each, the maximum grant available. They proceeded with the work and after some time had elapsed one of them got a letter from the Department saying: "You are now qualifying for only £300; we are taking £150 from you" which, of course, automatically disqualified him from the £150 local authority grant as well, which meant a reduction of £300 in that grant. That man would not have proceeded with the building of the house at all, were it not for the assurance in writing he got from the Department that he qualified for a grant of £450. The other man, with circumstances completely similar, was paid £450 by the State and £450 by the local authority without any question. They were similar cases in every respect.
I made frequent representations to the Department and was told that, under the regulation, the grant could not be paid. There was a mistake made in the first place and this man had to do with the reduced grant. I submit that if a mistake was made in one case, it should have been made in both. The Minister will appreciate that the enforcement of this regulation in this particular case is, to my mind, a very harsh decision. Were it not for the written assurance this man received from the Department that, under the regulations made by the Minister in anticipation of the passage of this measure through the House, he would qualify for a grant of £450, he would not have proceeded with the building of the House.
I cannot see how the Deputy can argue particular cases on this section. The Deputy is citing an individual case.
It may be more appropriate that this should be mentioned on section 16 but this is a type of regulation I cannot understand. What type of regulation allows a Department to write to a man and say: "You will get a grant of £450," and some time afterwards write to him, when he has undertaken the work, and say: "You are not now entitled to more than £300 of a grant," while, at the same time, saying to another man: "We can give you the full grant"? I think there is something wrong with this regulation.
Regulations are very important and I would like the Minister to look up the regulation under which this man has been deprived of £300, a working man who has only recently got married and to whom that is a formidable sum of money.
Might I suggest, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that, as this sounds rather an unusual case, Deputy Murphy should send me particulars?
I have discussed this with the Department time and time again.
If the Deputy has done so, he should be a little more specific. I am not aware of letters of assurance; the only notification that goes from the Department is the allocation of the grant, according to the general conditions of the plans. Furthermore, no regulations have been made in respect of these matters which the Deputy has mentioned, for the very good reason that we are now only dealing with the Bill which will ultimately create the law under which regulations can be made.
A letter of assurance—whatever sort of letter that is—sounds very strange to me because the only real authoritative document that issues from our Department is in regard to the allocation of the grant, provided you have submitted your plans and agreed to have the work done according to the specifications and complete it to proper standard. I do not know what the details of this particular case are but the Deputy says he has discussed them with the Department.
Both of these people I have mentioned made application; their circumstances were similar in every way; but one was told some time after wards that a mistake had been made in his case and that, consequently, his grant was reduced to £300. Both men built their houses in accordance with the regulations. One has been paid by the State and by Cork County Council and the other man's case is under discussion at Departmental level.
Section 5, subsection (2) says: "Every regulation made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made". I should like to appeal to the Minister to have regulations circulated, because it is all right to lay these regulations on the Table of the House but it is very easy for a busy public representative to miss a very important regulation and a regulation could be in existence for quite a time before a Deputy would become aware of it. Important housing regulations were made in the present year and there was no reference whatever to them in the House. I know they appear on the Order Paper in a vague sort of way, in a way which might not attract the attention of Deputies generally and I would say many Deputies could miss important regulations. I rise merely to appeal to the Minister to consider in future circulating these important regulations made by him from time to time.
We can do something about that. I am rather inclined to agree that the bundle of documents laid before the House very often means that they are there for a day or two, and half the Deputies may have got them but the other half may not. It is purely administrative and I would suggest that we might seek ways and means of putting them in pigeon-holes for the Deputies in the House. I will look into that.
I welcome the Minister's undertaking to look into this matter because it has become increasingly difficult to keep abreast of the various regulations. On today's Order Paper, we have no fewer than 97 papers placed on the Table of the House and I am sure if we were all honest, most of us would admit we will not read that list. It varies from Noxious Weeds (Male Wild Hop Plant) Order, 1965, to Musk Rats Act, 1933 (Application to Mink) Order, 1965, and 95 other Orders and Regulations. While we are preserving here a form of democracy we are doing nothing to give that democracy life, energy or real significance. Therefore, I think we will probably need to go very much further than even the helpfulness which the Minister has promised us here because if, when we get these regulations in our pigeon-holes or in our post, in many cases they will be phrased in such language that even a skilled lawyer will be unable to determine what they mean. We would probably need explanatory memoranda to go with them. We are becoming snowed under with a colossal volume of paper and documentation which most of us have not the time to read.
While we have sections similar to section 5 in many Bills before this House, they are becoming, one day after another, of less value in helping democracy to work in this country of ours. We shall certainly, in the very near future, have to set up some form of special Committee in this House, so as to ensure constant watchfulness on the part of Deputies, to examine each and every regulation as it is made and put on the Table.
I think that what the Deputy has brought out is that we are gradually reaching a point where we are legislating by regulation. It is very difficult for a Deputy to follow and to keep in touch with all the multifarious regulations. Mention was made of the amount of correspondence and reports that have to be dealt with. We are not supplied with secretarial services like representatives in certain other legislative assemblies.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".
This is one of those sections that one would need a day off to consider and understand. In the first subsection, we are told we are repealing, to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule, all the Acts that are there set out. However, if we go further down the page we shall find that what we thought we were doing we have not, in fact, done because where any of these Acts contains a provision relating to rateable valuation—either to the reduction of it or the non-increase of it—we will not repeal those particular sections.
I have not had the time or, as was mentioned, the secretarial assistance available to me to determine whether or not the sections dealing with non-increase or reduction of rateable valuation are specifically set out as being not repealed in the First Schedule. As far as I can see, it does not say so. What I want to know is this and perhaps the Minister might tell me: have we, in this Schedule, set out any Acts and said that the whole Act is repealed and then, by subsection (3), contradicted ourselves by saying we are not repealing the sections in relation to rateable valuation?
I understand that, as the Deputy says, it would appear to contradict itself. It is deliberate and not really a true contradiction. It is a contradiction but we are leaving in the part we wish to leave in while repealing the Act generally. In regard to rates remissions, if there were rates remissions for seven or ten years under the Acts we are repealing, though we are repealing the enactment under which such remission was legalised and provided for in the first instance, we are, by subsection (3), saying that notwithstanding having done this the benefit of that will continue in the period so promised in the original Act. It may be a lefthanded way of doing it.
I understand that that is the purpose. I think we are ad idem there. There are other descriptions that can be applied to it, too.
I know there are, but they cannot be used here.
I speak respectfully when I say I thought it was bad draftsmanship. It is confusing draftsmanship. It is legitimate that a person wanting to see what Acts are repealed by that Act will go to the Schedule to the Act which specifies the nature and extent of the repeal. As far as I can see, there is no indication in the First Schedule itself that it is qualified by what is contained in section 6 with the exception of a marginal note in italics which says Section 6 but it does not tell you that you must read the First Schedule in conjunction with subsection (3) of section 6.
We ought to make these Acts easily understandable. While we legislators may know something about this section—I say "may"—certainly the layman or the lawyer who is not a member of this House and who has not the same duty and time to read every section of an Act will be confused. I should certainly like some specific note to be written into the margin to the First Schedule or, better still, that it specifically be written into the First Schedule that it should be read in conjunction with subsection (3) of section 6.
To get the full impact or import of any enactment, it is usually necessary to read all of the Act which is something we do not want to do but unfortunately we generally have to do. While it may be true that a reference, without elucidation, in the margin, is confusing, and so on, it is a practice that is there and not at all new in any way in many of our other Acts. I do not know whether we can do anything to improve that or whether, in trying to improve it, we might, indeed, make it more confused. This is always a danger in trying to elucidate too much, as it were. What seems to be a little confused at the moment can become quite confusing if you try to oversimplify.
This section and the Schedule have to be read in conjunction with each other to get the total sense of the enactment in that regard. I do not think you can get away from this. Whether a cross-reference can be inserted that you should go back to this or that this should be read with the other, I do not know, but it might confuse still further.
Would it not be possible in the First Schedule, in the column "Extent of Repeal", to put a note "(3) Repeals section so and so and so and so"?
"With the exception of ...."
The Schedule really exists only because of the power of section 6. It is unreasonable to think that you can read this one and have the real sense because the one really creates and brings about the existence of the other. Therefore, if you get down to one of them you must seek back to the other or if you read the section you must go to the Schedule to find out what is being repealed. This is probably where we are somewhat at cross purposes. There is no danger of reading one and misreading it because it is quite clear that there is the other, no matter which you read first.
May I deal with the Housing Act specified in the Schedule? We talk about the extent of repeal. We either specify that a particular section is being repealed or else we say the whole Act. As I understand section 6, what we are saying in reality, but not on paper, is that we are repealing the whole Act with the exception of sections 9, 10 and 11 or whatever sections may deal with rateable valuations. Why can we not say so? I understand, though it will add to the confusion, that it will be a true statement of the Acts repealed by the First Schedule and, in the First Schedule, we head the whole Memorandum with the word "Repeals" indicating that that is the extent of the repeals and we should not qualify it somewhere else.
On that particular point, I, too, find myself confused. An Act listed in the First Schedule may be repealed but a subsection or clause of that Act may not be repealed for the purposes of this section of the Bill. Is it not possible in such cases to incorporate in the Bill the provisions thus retained? Has the research carried out by the Department not been sufficient to make that possible? A lot of work has gone into this Bill in order to tie up dozens of old Acts. If it is a case that 97 per cent of the provisions of any Act are repealed and three per cent, although not specified, are for the purposes of this section deemed to be still effective, would it not be possible to have those provisions incorporated in the Bill? I am confused as to what is meant by this.
The essence of the case here is that if the Bill is passed, the Acts specified in the First Schedule will continue to be repealed. They will be gone if we pass the Bill but the effect which the repealed Acts had on certain tenants, for instance, remission of valuations, will stand. We do not re-enact it. We do not take out the sections of the repealed Acts and reenact them in this Bill. We merely retain that which we wish to retain. We retain it by understanding rather than by writing it in. While repealing the enactment under which it was created, we retain the good, if you like to put it that way. There was remission of valuation under a certain Act. We now repeal the Act but at the same time we retain the benefit of the remission for those who were entitled to obtain it under the Act that is now being repealed.
Take the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883. The Minister says the whole Act is repealed. If the whole Act is not repealed could not you incorporate a note after the words "The whole Act" to the effect that subsection 6 (1) re-enacts sections so-and-so in the Labourers (Ireland) Act if that is in fact so?
That is the very thing we are not doing. We are not re-enacting the, let us say, beneficial sections of that 1883 Act that we wish to retain. What we are doing is, we are repealing that Act, good sections and bad sections, and not re-enacting the good sections but we are retaining the good that was created under them if that benefit is still entitled to exist.
But the Minister cannot say what sections are retained?
We would be really adding fuel to the fire, enlarging a Bill which is too big as it is, containing too many words.
It would not take more than a couple of dozen words.
Both Deputies over there are of the same school, a school to which I do not belong. The bigger the Bill gets, the more confused I become.
I tried to delete a couple of sections for the Minister earlier on.
It does not always work out that way.
The Minister has indicated that an Act will be repealed but that this subsection will give power to retain parts of that Act that are beneficial but it also gives power to retain parts of that Act which are not beneficial. Does it specify that quite clearly? I am not a trained man in these matters. I am just wondering whether this subsection is put in because of the fact that the research has not been completed into the Acts that are being repealed and that because the home work has not been done thoroughly this subsection is put in for the purpose of correcting subsequently any mistakes that may have been made. It is a very untidy way of doing matters. A number of Acts are specified in the First Schedule. There are ten Acts specified in respect of which the whole Act is being repealed. This section reads as if sections of each of those ten Acts may, in fact, not be repealed. I do not know whether my interpretation of the subsection is correct or not.
There are 44 Acts in respect of which the whole Act is being repealed. The Deputy did not turn over the next page. There are three pages of them.
It appears to me that it leaves the situation very much confused. It may not be confusing to the Minister or the Department but it is very confusing to anybody trying to find what the situation is.
It will not be confusing to the beneficiaries—let us put it that way—to those who are enjoying benefits.
What about people other than beneficiaries? It is not specifically stated that the parts not being repealed, although stated to be repealed, will be only parts providing benefits.
No, but in the reference that we are talking about, that is really what it is. In fact, you are getting it both ways here. We are repealing something and still retaining what it does. We are getting it both ways—repealing the enactment to avoid confusion and retaining the good that it did.
To be fair to the Bill, the Bill deals with preserving something that already provides a reduction or non-increase in valuation. Most of us consider that as a benefit. The Minister has made reference to the school to which Deputy Dockrell and I belong. The Minister does not realise what he is doing. He is making legislation so difficult for the ordinary man to understand that he is forcing the ordinary man to go to a lawyer to get an interpretation of the law. The law assumes that every man knows the law. He could not possible know the law when you do not write it in simple straightforward language.
Every lawyer does not know the law.
He gets paid for finding it out.
I do not mean any reflection.
When the Lord gave us Ten Commandments, he did not make law by reference or double reference. What the Department are doing is making law by double and quadruple reference, and that is bad draftsmanship.
The only thing that I should like to indicate again is that at the top of the First Schedule, there is clearly printed in the margin Section 6.
That is not a part of the Bill. A marginal note is not part of a Bill. It should go into the Bill.
We are not trying a case at the moment. We are just trying to elucidate a section.
Will the Minister consider it?
If the Deputy really wants to confuse me between now and the next day, we will consider it. We will have a look at it, yes, certainly.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Does this section apply particularly to Cork?
I have no doubt, yes.
I am surprised Deputy Corry is not in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
This seems to be a oneway traffic, like many other sections in legislation that we are inclined to pass. The local authority may set off money which it owes to somebody who owes them money but that does not operate vice versa. Cases have arisen where local authorities and others, such as tax collecters, have insisted on people paying money although the local authority or the tax collector, in fact, owed that person money that was due on another account. We are here supposed to legislate not only for local authorities, for the State and for the public sectors of our society, but also for the protection of individuals. I believe that, if one side is entitled under statute to set off, then the other side should equally be entitled to do likewise.
I have come across a number of cases in which the person who has been hit is the builder; he let someone occupy a house on the understanding that this money was coming in and that, as soon as it came, he would get it. To his grief he found that the money was not forthcoming; it was stopped by the local authority to pay another debt.
The private person who does not avail of his opportunities is, in my opinion, a right half-wit. He does not require legislation whereas the local authority does to enable the authority to do this legally. Deputy Ryan looks blankly at me. He knows quite well what I mean. If he, for instance, owed me a tenner and I owed him a fiver, naturally he would not give me a tenner.
That is Richie Ryan and Neal Blaney. It is not the Minister for Local Government and Richie Ryan. They are two different persons.
I am talking about the local authority and the individual. The individual does not need legislation.
If a local authority is owed rates and seizes the furniture in lieu of those rates, even if the local authority owes the person money on another account, the person cannot set that money off against the rates that are owed. If the Minister consults the authorities he will find I am correct in what I say. As between two ordinary citizens there is the right of set off but there are certain cases in which public authorities have statutory powers and the right of set off does not exist or, if an individual tries it on, he will do so at his peril.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 8:
In subsection (1), page 13, lines 10 and 11, to delete "with the consent of the Minister and".
This phrase "with the consent of the Minister" occurs in many parts of this Bill. I took the earliest opportunity to put down this amendment in order to remove what I believe is one of the most serious impediments, if not the greatest impediment, to housing progress. This amendment follows very properly, I think, the amendment upon which we spent some hours earlier this evening in an effort to get real power for the members of local authorities and to take it away from the county manager. What I am seeking to do here is to remove all the interference by the Department of Local Government that has taken place over the years. I fail to see the necessity at all times for everything to be submitted to the Department. There is no knowing how much this impedes progress in housing. If we do not give the power we were seeking earlier to the local public representatives then the county manager has it. Assume we do not succeed in this amendment when it is resubmitted, and I hope it will succeed, the power will be with the county manager. Why not trust the county manager then? If he is not capable of doing his job, then he should never have been appointed. If he has been appointed in error, then he should be retired and replaced. We have no reason to believe, however, that we cannot trust the county manager and that we can trust the officials advising the Minister in the Department of Local Government. At the moment there is a great scarcity of professional people for local authority purposes and for housing purposes generally. Here we have two sets of officials and two sets of professional people all doing the same job, one checking on the other. In my view more harm than good is being done.
If the Government have not got money for housing, then they should honestly say so. This amendment is designed to take the dishonesty out of housing. If we have only a limited amount of money, then we should state what we have. Recently housing authorities were required to make a survey of housing needs in each area. The Minister acted wisely in requiring that survey to be made. It is the intention, I understand, that similar surveys will be made in future at suitable intervals. These surveys give the local authority a measure of the problem in each particular area. Local public representatives know the problem better than any officials in the Department could know it. The only question that arises is what will be the Minister's contribution? If the need is indicated, and the Minister knows he has a certain amount of money and knows the requirements in the different areas, then, in the same way as he does with advances from the Road Fund, he can give each county a certain sum and tell the local authorities to go ahead and provide houses and not come back to him until they have done so.
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister, with his past experience as a local representative and with his experience now as Minister for Local Government, stands for this wasteful, outmoded and frustrating system. It is all wrong for the Department of Local Government to be used as a brake on expenditure. That can only be the intention behind the retention of this divided responsibility for the same job. This would not stand up in any other sphere of public activity, two sets of people doing the same job, one criticising the other, and all similarly qualified. It serves no purpose except to impede the provision of houses. I appeal to the Minister to get rid of this anomaly. I appeal to him at the earliest opportunity I have in this Bill to simplify the procedure in relation to housing.
I referred earlier to a circular sent out by the Minister last May in which he called on every public representative to accept responsibility for wiping out arrears and for insisting that this backlog in housing shall never occur again. In that circular he states he is reducing the submissions that will have to be made in future to the Department of Local Government. It is quite fantastic then to find how much of the circular relates to the submissions that must still be made to the Department before a housing scheme can go through. I have seen this going on not for months but for years. It is still going on. I have seen it in specific cases going on for ten or 12 years. That is why I am making such a strong appeal to the Minister to take this chance and give the responsibility to the public representatives to get the job done. I believe it will be done to the extent to which the Minister is prepared to subsidise the operation and to the extent to which the ratepayers are prepared to accept their part of the burden. I think the job will be done and that those who are comfortably housed will accept responsibility for bearing the taxation needed to provide a minimum standard of housing for the rest of our people.
This is one of the greatest impediments I have experienced as a local representative. I have spent ten years trying to get houses built. I would ask the Minister and the House to support this amendment and give us an opportunty to get on with the job.
Deputy Clinton was becoming a bit involved. The section gives the Minister power to allow local authorities to help, financially and otherwise, certain approved bodies in the provision of houses and also in respect of some other matters. In respect of the latter, we have to be somewhat careful, because there could be a fairly wide interpretation of that phrase. I do not think in our present circumstances it is unreasonable for local authorities to go back to the Minister for his permission to give assistance to outside bodies in order to provide some amenity within their area. Earlier this evening we were asking to have authority taken from the county manager.
I still want it taken from the manager.
But the Deputy was also saying we should have the utmost confidence in the manager to advise the council in this field.
It is the lesser of two evils. I want one set of officials.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary is confusing advice from local officials and decision taking. They are two very different things. You can get advice from the manager and his staff, but what the amendment earlier tonight was seeking was to take from these people the power to make the binding decision and to allow the council to make the decision having received their advice. If the Minister is sincere in the circular he issued earlier this year—I doubt if it was done for any except political purposes, in order to put up a front—he has his opportunity to prove it now.
Now, now.
I am trying to be helpful to the Minister. I am giving him an opportunity of proving how serious he was when he tried to suggest that the responsibility for the backlog in housing lay with the local authorities and when he said we would not have that situation in future because he would allow each local authority to make the decision and set the pace. Deputy Clinton's amendment asks the Minister to let local authorities set the pace, without having the brake applied by the Custom House.
In regard to what? This is a new provision.
Whether new or old, the purpose of this amendment, as we understand it, is to allow housing authorities provide loans, contributions to the funds of or guarantees to bodies which are providing housing.
And other matters.
This refers to bodies providing housing as required by subsection (2) of the section, providing dwellings for elderly people, dwellings for the relief of overcrowding and in substitution for dangerous buildings, for the segregation of TB cases, and for bodies advancing money for the provision of dwellings—I take it this refers to building societies—and who are conducting research or providing training.
Every local authority, being familiar with the needs and demands of its particular area, being acutely aware of its particular local responsibilities, is, I believe, the authority to make the decision in matters of this kind. If the Minister insists on retaining the veto in relation to these matters—because that is what it is, no matter whether you call it "consent" or not—he is wasting his time, the public's time and their money in trying to pretend he is throwing the responsibility on local authorities. He is not doing any such thing. He is keeping the power of decision making to himself.
Deputy Ryan mentioned one aspect of this when he referred to research work. It is possible the housing problem in Dublin would influence the corporation to carry out research into housing generally. The same thing could happen in Cork, Limerick and Galway. We might have nine or ten bodies carrying out research to achieve the same end. Surely the work carried out by Dublin Corporation should be sufficient for the rest of the country, thus avoiding duplication? There is a case where it is only right the matter should come back to the Department so that the Minister could, for instance, tell Cork Corporation that Dublin Corporation was doing exactly what they wanted to do and that there was no point in Cork Corporation spending money when they could get the result from the Dublin finding.
That is the only case.
There is a good deal to be said in favour of the arguments put up by Deputy Clinton and Deputy Ryan, but I can see the other side of the picture. The Department can make a good case for retaining supervision and uniformity as far as the different local authorities are concerned. They would be able to transfer advice from one council to another. But I am sure this amendment would never have appeared, were it not for the delays on the part of the Department when anything is submitted by a local authority. Why should it take the Department months before they can give a council a decision on a relatively small matter?
If the Department dealt expeditiously with submissions by local authorities, there would be no amendment to this section. Great frustration is caused by the Department holding up decisions and holding up approval in relatively small matters. I cannot see why the Department should take months to give approval to small housing schemes, water schemes or sewerage schemes. We are rather doubtful about the integrity of the Department in some cases. When a county council renews an application for decision, some time later a letter comes back expressing some doubt about some technical point, and I think that is deliberate. While I agree the Department have a responsibility to get all the submissions covered by this section for their approval, I think there is an obligation on them to give a decision readily and within reasonable time. That is my personal view.
It is our experience in local authorities that Departments are very slow. We know that in a number of bigger schemes where large sums of money are involved, the Department must be careful about approving the expenditure of big sums of public money, but we feel that in relatively small matters, there is no justification for getting their approval. That is the only fear I have so far as this section is concerned. I do not disagree with the point of view of the Parliamentary Secretary that the Department should have a say in local authority matters covered by this section, but I hope that if the section is passed in its present form, there will be no undue delays in giving approval to recommendations made by the local authorities.
I am confused about what exactly Deputy Clinton wants in this amendment. The section deals with assistance by housing authorities to certain bodies, assistance by loan, by periodic contribution to the funds of the body, and by guarantee of sums owed by the body. Subsection (2) sets out the type of bodies. They include bodies whose objects include the provision of dwellings for elderly persons, the provision of dwellings to secure one or more of the primary objects to which a housing authority are required to have regard, the conduct in relation to housing of research or the provision of training, and the advance of money for the provision, including reconstruction or purchase, of dwellings.
If local authorities decide to make loans from their resources, they should be the determining body. For example, if Dublin Corporation desire to take advantage of the section to make a loan to one of these bodies, they should be able to do so without having to have regard to the Minister, subject to the fact that the loan is being made from Dublin Corporation resources, but if this is a question of giving power to housing authorities to make loans which would have an effect on a programme for providing houses and dwellings for people in need, I would have to look at this again. I am not quite clear on this matter. The section is permissive and there is nothing in it which says money being utilised for this purpose will come from other bodies, such as the State. If it is intended that the money should come from the State, then quite obviously there should be examination and approval on behalf of the people as a whole, through the Minister. The section does not appear to call for any contribution from the State. As I read it, it permits the local authorities to spend or lend money.
I do not know how long it is since the local authority of which I am a member were able to raise money from any other source than the Local Loans Fund. On one or two occasions we raised private loans, but the amount of money raised by that means was infinitesimal compared with our requirements. Suppose that next week a body applied to Dublin Corporation or Cork Corporation and said: "We have plans to do so and so, and we want a loan of £½ million", quite clearly there would be a problem. If the local authority were in a position to issue a loan of £½ million, what would their position be in regard to providing houses for people on possibly a very long waiting list?
I should like Deputy Clinton to clear my mind on this matter because I am not too clear as to what the amendment proposes to do. If it intends to empower local authorities to spend money which they raised, I would not be in favour of running to the Department and looking for sanction. I do not think there is much merit in the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary about research, because very often if research is carried out into one matter from two or three different angles, someone may come up with a better answer. In the broad field of medical and scientific research, no one suggests that one research laboratory could find all the answers. It requires a number of research laboratories— the more the merrier. If Dublin Corporation and Cork Corporation carried out research into one aspect of their housing operations, one or other might come up with a quicker or a better answer, and there would be an exchange of information. In this narrow field, I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary's answer is sufficient, and I should like Deputy Clinton to make clear to me what exactly the amendment means because I am still confused at this stage.
When I moved this amendment, I thought I made it quite clear that it could be just as appropriately moved on many other sections of the Bill in which the same statement occurs: "with the consent of the Minister" or, "with the consent of the Department." I want to remove this interference. I want to place responsibility for housing on one authority, or in one spot, and if they do not meet that responsibility, we will know who is to blame. We cannot continue with divided responsibility between the Department and the local authorities.
I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary is half as innocent as he pretends to be. He spent a long time as a member of a local authority, as I did, and he knows the frustrations, the delays and the unnecessary expense and duplication that occurs because of this divided responsibility, the numerous problems that arise under this section if a local authority decides that it is a good thing to help various bodies to solve their own problem which is a housing problem.
Not necessarily housing.
It is housing I am dealing with and the "research", I take it, is housing research also. I say that the problem should belong to the local authority and they should get a block grant from the State, according to the size of their problem.
A block grant?
Yes, a block grant from the State. The State's contribution should be given by way of block grants and it should be left to the discretion of the local authority how best to use that money. As long as we have these long arguments as to who qualifies and who does not qualify for the various subsidies and the extent of the subsidies, we are quarrelling most of the time and working very little of the time, and that is why we have such a deplorable backlog in regard to housing needs. If the interference by the Department is removed—and that is the intention in this amendment—we will get as much work done as we have money to do and we will get it done in the cheapest possible way.
This is a completely new provision, the first of its kind in any of our housing codes and it gives freedom to the local authority, with the consent of the Minister, to contribute to outside bodies. Up to the moment there has been no such provision. Local authorities and if one are the housing authorities themselves wants to talk about housing, they are the people who are responsible for providing houses for the people within their local authority area. There is nothing in the law as it stands enabling local authorities, with the consent of the Minister——
I am not objecting to this section. I am objecting to the Minister's consent being required for everything.
I think Deputy Larkin hit the nail on the head when he referred to the fact that State aid may be involved in this. If State aid is involved, it is only right that the Minister should have some say in it. No matter what Deputy Larkin says about this question of research, I still think it would not be a good thing, and there is no necessity, to have four, five or six bodies carrying out research with a view to getting the same result and having duplication of expenditure by Dublin Corporation and Limerick Corporation, as the case might be. I think this provision is necessary and at least some members of the Fine Gael Party felt that there was justification for requiring the consent of the Minister. This is a new provision and it is only reasonable at the initial stages that the Minister should have some control over it. I cannot see that the local authority will be tied up too much by it. As a matter of fact, the complaint we get from local authorities from time to time is that they are asked to contribute too much and more even, in some cases, than the State contributes to other schemes already in operation. The fact that this provision is new is something we should welcome and I do not think the fact that the Minister must give his consent before the local authorities can contribute will hinder them or stand in the way of progress.
I do not like to let the Parliamentary Secretary misrepresent me. I do not think that any of the provisions of the section are undesirable in themselves. What I am looking for is freedom for the local authority to make their own decisions. This expression "with the consent of the Minister" always gives the impression that there is only one person to be consulted, that is, the Minister himself. We know from experience that this phrase "with the consent of the Minister" covers all this set of submissions that local authorities are required to make before they can proceed with any work. They have to be scrutinised by the Minister's advisers and they hold up progress in the provision of housing. We are dealing with a housing Bill and I want that removed, once and for all. This idea of using the Department as an artificial brake on expenditure is all wrong. We should be honest enough to say we have no money if we have no money. If we have a certain amount of money, we should say: "We have a certain amount of money which we can give this housing authority and let them work out their own salvation."
We have heard a great deal of talk tonight about giving power and responsibility to public representatives. If you want a responsible local government, you must give local representatives much more power and responsibility. This is the essence of this amendment. I am seeking to give them such power and to eliminate the Department's interference. I appeal to the Minister to give the public representatives this power and enable them to overcome this housing problem that exists, this enormous backlog. Whether it be by research or by any other method that, in the opininon of the local authority, leads in the right direction, by all means give them permission to carry on but do not have all this to and fro with the Department.
I think Deputy Clinton is trying to complicate matters here. He is speaking of housing generally rather than on this particular section which gives power to the local authority, with the consent of the Minister, to contribute to bodies which do not exist at the moment, as far as we know, and to which, if they do exist, the local authority has no power to contribute to assist them financially or otherwise in this whole question of housing. Elderly people or otherwise are specified here. Deputy Clinton talks about a bulk sum being given to local authorities to help them provide houses. Is that what I understood him to say? How then are we to decide how much each local authority gets?
The Minister asked for a survey to be carried out in each county and he has the results of that survey.
Do you want 100 per cent subsidy or grant?
We would like it, but that is most unlikely to happen.
You do not think that financially the system we have is sufficient?
I have not raised that aspect at all. This is a deliberate effort to confuse what I said.
No. We know that there are certain people in local authority areas who are entitled to benefit from a two-third subsidy and others from a one-third subsidy. How would you decide how much you were going to give to Dublin County Council or to Wicklow County Council?
The amendment must be related to the intention of the section and the intention of the section is to permit a local authority to make a contribution out of their resources; in other words, to levy on the ratepayers an amount for a particular body. That is what the section says. You are going to say to the local authorities in any part of the country: "If you want to help some of the bodies which are specified, we are going to give you power by legislation to spend out of the money you recover from the rate £x for that particular purpose." I do not know whether that is the purpose of the section but that is how it appears to read in regard to the contribution. The way I understand a contribution from a local authority is a contribution from money raised by the local authority and the local authority can use it to channel funds from the Local Loans Fund for that purpose.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will clear my mind on that. If the purpose of this section is purely to extend to local authorities permission to spend money, as they do when they make a supplementary grant, that should be explained. Any local authority which makes supplementary grants under the SDA do so on the basis that——
From the Local Loans Fund.
They are borrowing from the Local Loans Fund and have to pay the Local Loans Fund from the moneys raised by rates.
The general permission in this section is not sufficient; they must ask for permission when they are going to give a particular grant.
A general direction would be given.
That is not what the section says. All you have to do is leave it out and you are giving the general direction, but if you put it in, every individual case must be applied for.
I am informed that clause (ii) of subsection (2)——
That does not explain anything.
No.
The intention is to afford local authorities power to make grants, or contributions, or loans. Does this mean that this is purely a permissive power that applies in the case of Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts supplementary grants?
It would be a matter for the local authority to decide whether they were prepared to consider them.
The Minister must then give his permission and it looks as if supplementary grants are dragged in.
This is a new provision, is that not so? Certain provisions are laid down in the section under certain headings and there is nothing about supplementary grants.
Clause (ii) of subsection (2) says that:
the provision of dwellings which will help to secure one or more of the primary objectives to which a housing authority are required by subsection (3) of section 60 of this Act to have regard,
Of course, that relates to supplementary grants.
No.
As far as the section is concerned, as it is clear that it is a permissive section in general to give the local authority power to spend money in this regard, it appears that there is a very strong case for the amendment. Once legislation is introduced permitting local authorities to make supplementary grants available, it will not be necessary for the local authority to specify each particular case and get the sanction of the Minister for each supplementary grant. If the housing authority are given authority to spend money for these purposes, is there any case for saying that they should require sanction thereafter from the Minister? Having regard to that, Deputy Clinton's amendment should be accepted.
As far as this section is concerned, there is no justification for the Minister having power to approve or disapprove what the local authority is doing. Everyone realises that down through the years the fact that local authorities have had to await approval from the Department has proved very costly. As a member of a local authority for the past 24 years, I have known of delays on the part of the Department which have caused further expense to the local authority in regard to house building and other matters. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. I should like to remind Deputies that quite recently we passed legislation here embodying a similar section. I refer to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act.
We shall not forget it for a while.
We shall never forget it.
You passed it.
(Interruptions.)
I do not believe there was a single division on the whole Bill and that there were nothing but compliments passed across the House.
You can only do that once.
Section 15 of that Act says:
A planning authority may, within such limits and on such conditions as may be fixed by the Minister from time to time, contribute to the funds of any body which provides for training and research in relation to town and regional planning.
That is a similar type of section and it was acclaimed quite recently by the House in dealing with that Act. I do not know why Deputies opposite are insisting on getting these words deleted from the section because as I said earlier one of the complaints we had from local authorities from time to time is that they are asked to contribute to schemes of one kind or another to a greater extent than even the Central Fund. In view of the fact that it is a new provision so far as housing is concerned it is no harm to have some control over the matter and I think the amendment should not be pressed. We are satisfied that the words "with the consent of the Minister" will not in any way serve to hamstring local authorities or prevent them from contributing to any worthy proposal that may come before them.
I have great respect for Deputy P. Brennan, the Parliamentary Secretary, and usually when he makes a contribution, it is a sensible one. I do not know if there is any significance in the fact that he is trying to get this particular section through but it is obvious that either he does not understand what it means or he is trying to put something across the House. There is no other explanation. The Parliamentary Secretary is an intelligent man and, therefore, he must know that this is the type of section which got us into trouble in the previous Housing Bill because there was a very innocent looking section in that Bill which we are told was for the purpose of tightening up control; that there would be no change in procedure and so on. The result was that nobody but a farm labourer could get a grant which was formerly given to everybody when the reconstruction job was half done. The same arguments were made then, that it was for the purpose of helping and improving. Now we have a Planning Bill that will cause more trouble than anything else that has happened in the country for the past 40 years but this is one Bill that will not be allowed through in the same manner and there will be no compliments passed across the House until we are sure what is contained in the Bill.
Let the Minister tell me that if this section is passed as it stands and if somebody wants to apply to the local authority for a supplementary grant for reconstruction or the building of a house, does he have to apply to the Minister, or does the local authority have to apply to the Minister for sanction to pay it? If they do not, why is this contained in the Bill? It states:
This section applies to the following bodies:
(a) a body whose objects include at least one of the following;
(i) the provision of dwellings for elderly persons,
(ii) the provision of dwellings which will help to secure one or more of the primary objectives to which a housing authority are required by subsection (3) of section 60 of this Act to have regard,
(iii) the advance of money for the provision (including reconstruction or purchase) of dwellings,
"Reconstruction or purchase of dwellings" is the reason why local authorities give supplementary grants. Perhaps the Minister will explain how any local authority would be entitled to give a supplementary grant for the reconstruction of a dwelling without getting the Minister's permission if this is allowed to pass as it stands. If the Minister can persuade me that is not intended then perhaps I might change my mind but having listened to the explanations offered here and having read through the Bill I am satisfied that this is just another "sly one" which is being attempted by somebody and which is not going to work this time.
Before the Minister speaks again, even if he gave us this assurance I would not accept it. I am quite honest about it—because we have the Minister on record on numerous occasions during the Planning Bill debate especially in regard to the retrospective power of sections 35 and 89, as saying it has complete and absolute retrospective effect. We now find it has no power at all. Personally, I would not accept an assurance from the Minister without putting it to a vote unless it was written into the Bill.
I said if he could persuade me it was not in it.
It seems from what various Deputies have said in the past few minutes that because the Planning Bill went through without a division nothing henceforth should be allowed through no matter how good it is. Is that not really what is being said?
No, but you cannot get away with it twice.
I still maintain with due respect to the Members who are castigating themselves for allowing it to pass that the Planning Act in its present form is one of the finest pieces of legislation dealing with planning in this or any other country in Europe or probably in the world. That is really a compliment to the Members to whom I gave a hearing for what they had to say during the debate on the Bill. Not only that, but we sorted out our difficulties in such a way that eventually we arrived at conclusions without divisions.
We thought we did.
The Deputy cannot blame me for that. I still think you thought right then, but you are entitled to change your mind about what you then thought. This particular section has nothing to do with supplementary grants nor have any of the sections leading up to it that we have already dealt with. I think the first point at which we shall arrive in this Bill at matters which are being discussed on this amendment, and which are not relevant to the section, is in section 28. The consent mentioned here is consent to something that was never done before. The simplest thing to do would be to make provision financially and otherwise to do anything the local authority wanted to do in the interests of the community. This is the intention. The section is drafted so widely and is so much unrestricted in its overall provisions that the question of consent must, in my opinion, be included so that the Minister of the day may be kept informed—if for no other reason —of what is going on, what is being proposed and done by various councils throughout the country under the section.
To correlate what may be done and prevent overlapping, as Deputy Brennan mentioned, would be part of the fruits of this consent and the Minister and his Department would be kept informed by necessity of what is proposed under this new measure of far-reaching effect and so widely drafted that it can reach far into the future and do things and help bodies that are not yet in existence to do them and do things that we may not have thought of doing and know nothing about. In creating such power and putting it to the House I do not think it unreasonable that the Minister and Department of Local Government should seek to have the matter of consent written into the Bill just as we did in the more recent and somewhat parallel though much more restricted section 15 of the Planning Act. I cannot see how this is going to restrict or reduce the power of the local authorities. The very enactment of the section adds new powers and functions to them for their own benefit and advancement and the advancement of the people in their functional area.
If this is so, how can any Deputy stand up and argue that by seeking consent in that fashion we are in effect reducing the powers of the local authorities? How can Deputy Clinton wander all over the whole show and talk about a Departmental circular of last May as requiring the setting out of the documentation that has to accompany house building sanction? The circular he spoke about does no such thing. The whole point of the circular was to reduce documentation to the minimum possible in order to expedite and make easier local authority housing programmes. Listening to the argument tonight, I felt it was not really genuine. I think there was quite a bit of playacting going on.
There has been a lot of protesting tonight about interference with the functions of locally elected representatives. Firstly, they want to get rid of the managers; then they want to get rid of the Minister. Of course, the one thing they want is to get the finances from the Department, from the Minister, from the Government. They cannot have the two things.
It is local authority money we are talking about in this.
Not necessarily.
Every penny of it.
Even if it were all rates money, why should there not be at the central level some sort of correlating force that would prevent overlapping in the spending of money for the same purpose by two organisations? Why is it that in regard to contributions to such bodies as the tourist regional groups and the old Tourist Association, though consent was not required, there was a limitation on the amount in respect of which a local authority might strike a rate? I do not think anybody really cribs about the fact that in their contributions to municipal bodies there are restrictions. this provision. Neither do local councils raise any hullabaloo about the fact that in their contributions to municipal bodies there are restrictions. There is not any question of kicking up about restrictions on the amount of money subscribable by the various local authorities towards the cost of running the Institute of Public Administration.
This is in respect of building houses.
What is wrong with all these things? If they have not been objectionable in the past, how can the creation of this new function, to be operated at the local authorities' initiative, be objectionable now merely because the Minister wants it put into the section that his consent is required before these things can be done? I cannot see how that argument can be sustained. The only explanation is that quite an amount of confusion has existed in the matter of supplementary grants for housing reconstruction and for the building of new houses.
These matters do not arise on this section or in any section already dealt with: they will arise on later sections of the Bill. This is a very reasonable provision which would provide the Department with overall knowledge so that the Minister would be aware of what was going on by virtue of his consent being sought. This is a new departure to cater for the provision of sustenance to bodies that may not yet have even been thought of. I submit this provision is one of the most reasonable ever sought in legislation of this kind.
It is unreasonable to suggest that paragraph 3 of subsection (2) does not apply to money provided by a local authority for building houses. The Minister did not mention that paragraph in the statement he has just made. Perhaps it is not too late to expect clarification. We know what happened in regard to the Planning Act. When the Bill was going through the Dáil, the Minister made certain statements. The Minister must be aware that a number of officials of local authorities read into the Act several things we did not dream could be included in it. In respect of people seeking local authority grants, there is need in this paragraph of the amendment Deputy Clinton has suggested.
That is not so. The paragraph does not bring about the effect the Deputy is afraid of. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Deputy's suggestion. Of course, I have no way of proving it now, but I assure the Deputy it has not.
From time to time the Minister gives us long lectures on the duties and responsibilities of local authorities. From time to time he has exhorted local authorities to co-operate with the Department of Local Government in various things. Yet here, when a relatively simple amendment is suggested to permit local authorities to spend money for worthy purposes and to make decisions as to whether money should be spent in this way, the Minister says, in effect, that no local authority in the country has any responsibility whatsoever. In effect, what he is saying to local authorities is: "Because you are not responsible bodies, I shall see to it that before you adopt proposals to carry out certain objectives you must get Ministerial sanction." This could create a situation in which the Minister could impede local authorities in their aims to assist very deserving bodies to do the work set out in the section.
The section deals with the question of providing money for the provision of dwellings for elderly persons. The Minister says, in effect, to the local authorities doing that very deserving work: "We give you power to spend your money to assist any body providing dwellings for elderly persons. While you are being given that power, you cannot exercise it without my permission." The section deals with the advance of money for the provision of dwellings. The Minister has indicated repeatedly on this that this does not refer to local authority dwellings or dwellings under the SDA but to dwellings provided by a body. That may well be a co-operative body established for the purpose of providing dwellings for its members.
We know the Minister is on record on a number of occasions as telling co-operative bodies they would have all the support in the world from him but possibly the local authorities were interfering with or holding them back from developing and providing dwellings for their members. Yet, if the local authorities, once this section goes through, can give assistance to such co-operative bodies, the Minister says: "No; you cannot do it unless you get sanction from me." I submit again that the Minister in this regard is demonstrating, not in words, but by his decision, very little faith in the elected representatives on local authorities throughout the country.
I suggest that he look at it again, in view of the fact that this appears to be a question of expending money, not the property of the State but for which the local authority is responsible. The Minister should show that he has some regard for democracy, some regard for the system of democracy which appears to operate in the State, and permit the elected representatives to act in the name of the people they represent without having to go to him and say: "This is a scheme: we are proposing to do this and we will spend money on this," to which the Minister says no.
Who said it will be only the council's money that will be in question? Who can foresee that this is so? I say there is nobody in the House who can stand up and say categorically that this is so, even if we were to take it on the face of it that it is council money and in no way State money. I do not agree that may be so; there is no evidence that it may be so in this case. I am introducing a section which gives local authorities wide powers for the first time and I am criticised because my consent is to be sought before this power is exercised. It is being said that this is proof positive that I do not trust the local authorities. That is a poor argument. Powers are being given which never existed before and because the Minister's consent is sought in regard to the exercise of these powers, it is said the Minister does not trust the local authorities.
Deputy Larkin knows I do not believe that. In fact I do not think he believes what he says. He thinks he knows what my mind is, and he knows better. The evidence is surely stronger on my side for having section 12 included. A very strong case can be made that the Minister has more trust and confidence than had the Minister for Local Government who dealt with the Management (Amendment) Act, 1955. Some of the members who are talking loudly here about the lack of powers then supported the Government and the Minister who brought in that amendment which was allegedly to cure all ills and all infringements that had arisen, according to these people, under the original Act of 1940. All those things were to be cured and all powers were to be restored to local authorities. Elected members were to be emancipated.
It just shows how we got codded again.
That is not quite so. It could well be the light was in the Deputy's eyes when he was over here and it is not there now. I am not reflecting on the people who brought in the 1955 Act, believing it would remedy some of the defects that had emerged and could only have emerged in the operation of the Act since it was enacted 14 or 15 years ago. The fact is that the very people who supported that move are now loudest in criticism of the lack of powers in local authority members. Then, having got to that stage those same people now wish to use their past experience to create a belief that I, who had nothing to do with putting through the 1955 Act, whatever I did to stop it going through, am responsible for that lack of powers today. Try to add it up. It befuddles and confuses me and does not really add up to a great deal of common sense.
The Minister should be fair to his predecessor who did go around and consult local authorities throughout the country. We know that in some local authorities members of the Minister's Party did not think it worthwhile to turn up on those occasions.
I will tell the Deputy something. At the time the great consultations were going on, I was either second or third—I do not know which. I was either Deputy-Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Donegal County Council and I was not asked to be there. The Deputy can take back that information.
Who would invite the Minister to such a function? Would it be the county secretary? Surely the Minister should know who invites people to such a function? Would it be a reflection on the county secretary?
It was the Minister, I presume, who started the consultations. They got great headlines in the newspapers. I want to say in reply to Deputy Larkin's remarks that I was not asked to any such consultation at that time. I was either Deputy-Chairman or Vice-Chairman and I was not invited. I would say further that some of the local authority members were not invited. It was a very good thing to have those meetings at that time but I want it to go on record that I did not decline to attend any of those meetings. I was not invited. That is a red herring and completely irrelevant.
It served its purpose.
I want to get back to section 12 which is giving something you never had before.
Taking away something you never had before.
I am accused of taking away and reducing the powers of local authorities, that I am belittling them, that I do not think they are worthy of trust and that they are people without much common sense. This arises from the fact that I am giving them powers which they never had before.
The Minister has referred to the 1955 Act and he has repeated again and again that the members of this House were codded by the then Minister. In fact I believe the Minister was quite honest about it and was using the information he had received from his advisers. He thought then and he persuaded a number of us—he did not persuade the present Minister—that this amendment would do certain things. A similar situation has arisen now. We are told it will do something entirely different. We are taking the stand which we took in 1955; we will not be blinded by the light shining across there. Somebody has got the idea that they will slip a fast one but we will not allow it to happen if we can prevent it. The Minister can say anything he likes but he has not explained away how, if a subsection or a paragraph in a subsection which refers to:
the advance of money for the provision (including reconstruction or purchase) of dwellings,
by a local authority is left in——
That is the wrong context.
"the advance of money for the provision (including reconstruction or purchase) of dwellings".
By whom?
It says if this is done——
By whom, though?
The provision of dwellings will help to secure the primary objectives referred to earlier.
By whom?
By the local authority.
No; that is just the net point of difference between us. That is the kernel of it.
I shall read the whole section to the Minister:
(1) A housing authority may, with the consent of the Minister and on such terms and conditions as they think fit, assist a body to which this section applies, either in respect of the provision by the body of housing accommodation or in respect of some other matter, in one or more of the following ways:
(a) by a loan,
(b) by a periodic contribution to the funds of the body,
(c) by a guarantee of sums owed by the body in respect of borrowings.
(2) This section applies to the following bodies:
(a) a body whose objects include at least one of the following:
(i) the provision of dwellings for elderly persons,
(ii) the provision of dwellings which will help to secure one or more of the primary objectives to which a housing authority are required by subsection (3) of section 60 of this Act to have regard,
(iii) the advance of money for the provision (including reconstruction or purchase) of dwellings,
(iv) the conduct in relation to housing of research or the provision of training.
(b) any other body approved by the Minister for the purposes of this section.
(3) A guarantee under this section may be given by the housing authority either alone or jointly with any other person or persons.
(4) A decision to make a periodic contribution or to give a loan or guarantee under this section shall be a reserved function.
That is a bald statement—"the advance of money for the provision (including reconstruction or purchase) of dwellings"——
Not by the local authorities.
This is money advanced by the local authority.
No. I am not trying to be smart or to tie up the Deputy. If there is a difference between us on this section, it relates to interpretation and I say the Deputy's interpretation is entirely different from mine.
The trouble about it is that in 1955 the present Minister's interpretation was entirely different from ours. I quote again from section 12 "A housing authority may, with the consent of the Minister" do certain things and that housing authority may "advance money for the provision (including reconstruction or purchase) of dwellings".
Might I just make this point? The point is this that the local authority, according to the main section, may advance money to a body, one of whose purposes is "the advance of money for the provision (including reconstruction or purchase) of dwellings." It is the body to which this subsection (iii) applies and not to the local authority. The local authority may contribute to the body and the body is the body defined there, this being one of the objects at paragraph (iii) of subsection (2) (a), that is, "the advance of money for the provision (including reconstruction or purchase) of dwellings". That refers to the body and not to the local authority.
Subsection (3) of section 60 reads:
(3) In making or amending a scheme under this section the housing authority shall have regard to the following primary objectives:
(a) the repair, closure or demolition of houses which are unfit in any respect for human habitation;
(b) the elimination of overcrowding;
(c) the provision of adequate and suitable housing accommodation for persons (including elderly or disabled persons) who, in the opinion of the housing authority are in need and are unable to provide such accommodation from their own resources;
(d) the segregation of persons suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis.
Surely the Minister does not suggest that that section, which is referred to specifically in section 12, does not mean that the local authority are advancing money for one of those purposes to cover people in this category? The local authority advance money by way of loan or grant with the consent of the Minister if this section passes. At the present time they do it without the consent of the Minister and that is where the whole trouble lies.
In regard to paragraph (ii) of subsection (2) (a) of section 12 which the Deputy has now read, again I refer the Deputy back to subsection (2) itself, which says:
This section applies to the following bodies:
(a) a body whose objects include at least one of the following;
and one of the following is (ii).
That is the primary object referred to.
I still say that subsection (I) of the section gives power to the councils to make a contribution to a body, the body as defined, that does and has as its object any of these things we have been talking about. It is the body we are talking about and it is to the body that the three things in subsection (2) (a) refer and not to the local authority. This is where we differ.
The local authority makes advances to the body.
One of the reasons why the Minister objects to this is that he sees that this may not alone be the local authority's money but money advanced by the local authorities and the State jointly. If that situation arises, the Minister has the power already either to grant or refuse the money and he does not need any more permissions, so that rules out the objection put forward by the Minister. The Minister then goes further in a very innocent fashion. He is an expert at sugar-coating a dangerous pill and this is a dangerous pill because anything which requires the consent of the Department and the Minister involves a sheaf of submissions, endless details, two sets of people preparing for it with one set depending on the other and, consequently, nothing done. For that reason, I cannot see why the Minister cannot decide to give the local authority powers in this matter without his consent. If he is afraid of the amount of State money that might perhaps be put into the various projects, he has the power to refuse. It is reasonable to expect the Minister to delete this phrase "with the consent of the Minister."
If the Minister agrees to this amendment, just one point strikes me, that is, that we will have a shower of amendments to delete this phrase in regard to every aspect of local authority spending. As it is, say a local authority decides to contribute in some way to a body who will provide, say, 20 houses for elderly people. That body seeks financial assistance from the local authority and the local authority agree to give it to them. Even though they get the consent of the Minister to get a loan from the Local Loans Fund, they have to get his consent. This is a new provision. You have to get the consent of the Minister now for most things. As the Minister pointed out earlier here, they gave the local authorities greater powers in regard to the acquisition of land, and so on, so as not to have to come to the Department in regard to matters of this kind and that, in fact, we hope to speed up the building programme. If the Minister has to give way on this particular section I think we can take it that, as the consent of the Minister comes up quite often in this Bill—I think it does——
Far too often.
——we may have to spend all our time deleting the words "with the consent of the Minister." As the Minister said, this is something new. I do not think he could be accused of depriving the local authority of authority when, in actual fact, he is making a tussle to extend their schemes even still further by providing for assistance for certain categories, particularly in regard to housing. Instead of tying-up local authorities, he is extending their powers. I do not think the deletion of the words or the inclusion of the words "with the consent of the Minister" will in any way affect the local authority in the operation of the section.
I should like to add further to that and quote to the House the relevant provisions in some of the Acts which we have been talking about here. Take, for instance, the Local Government Act, 1955. We have a consent section there where power is given to local authorities to contribute to certain organisations. Section 55(2) of the Local Government Act, 1955, says:
(2) A local authority to whom this section applies, may, with the consent of the Minister and subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit, contribute to the funds of a society, club, committee or other body providing or proposing to provide swimming facilities.
It is there in that particular section. I do not recall that I even objected to it then. There are certain things that I objected to in 1955 but that was not one of them.
I have a question for the Minister next week when he will regret that power being there.
The wording of that particular subsection of section 55 is almost identical with the wording of section 12 because whereas it says "a local authority to whom this section applies, may, with the consent of the Minister........" in section 12 it says "a housing authority may, with the consent of the Minister........." It starts off slightly differently but it goes on "and on such terms and conditions as they think fit, assist a body........." Here we have, in the other one, "contribute to the funds of." It is tantamount to the same thing, almost identical, except that we are talking about a housing authority on the one hand as against a local authority on the other hand. To all of us in this House, with the associations that we have, they are tantamount to the same thing in that very often the membership is a dual one and what is good enough for one is surely good enough for the other.
Then, further in the same Act, and very shortly after, we have the other section "Contribution to body providing museum." One would think that that is rather the sort of function and activity that would not give rise to any sort of revolutionary action on the part of local authorities, particularly in regard to the vast majority of local authorities within whose territory there is not a museum at the moment nor is there likely to be a museum in the future. Yet, in the 1955 Local Government Act, we find, under section 57 (1) the following:
(1) The council of a county or corporation of a county borough may, with the consent of the Minister, contribute to the funds of a society, committee or other body providing or proposing to provide a museum for the reception of objects of local antiquarian interest and may assist such society, committee or other body by providing a building for their use, supplying them with furniture, office equipment and stationery or by paying the whole or part of the remuneration of any person employed in relation to the museum.
Surely, again there, it is obvious that the wording, the intent and all the rest is, in its broad purpose, similar to what is the content of section 12 and yet it is for such a harmless occupation as a contribution by one means or another, either in cash or in kind, to the upkeep, operation and housing of a museum.
They might try to buy a dinosaur.
It happens. Objection is being taken to the consent of the Minister in this particular section, which is so wide and can be so far-reaching that none of us can, at this stage, really determine its full scope as to what it may apply to in the future, and the not too distant future. If that is the scope of section 12 and if the limitation was a museum on the one hand in section 57 of the Act of 1955 and a swimming pool in section 55 of the same Local Government Act of 1955, surely, if those were there and they have not been objected to since and no amendment has been brought forward, if this consent is so objectionable now how can we then reconcile the fact that these were ever put on the Statute Book by the very people generally, though not specifically, who actually, as a Government, would have been instrumental in bringing them before the House that ultimately enacted them as law? It seems extraordinary that this change should take place and that harmless occupations such as swimming and museums should be hedged around by two separate sections. Here, now, we have a new section, less lengthy in wording than either of the other two, which covers such a wide field that none of us can see its utmost limits in the future and yet we are strenuously objecting on all sorts of grounds of principle and otherwise. It does not seem sensible to me how any people can accept the one, never object to it since, never attempt to have it repealed and yet now, with a broad issue such as this, they do not want it and put forward all sorts of reasons why we should not have it.
Would some Deputies opposite tell me what the explanation of this extraordinary situation is? I would be impressed if I could get an explanation from any of the people opposite as to how this comes about because I do not know and I cannot see it myself.
I think the Minister might possibly understand if he looks at the examples he has just given. One of them is a museum and one is a swimming pool. We are now talking about houses. While there might be some argument in what the Minister says—I am not saying there is because maybe we would all have gained by experience over the years and we might not now, if the Bill were going through, adopt the same attitude to it as we did in 1955—at the same time, the fact that restriction are placed, and were agreed to, on the grants made by the local authority to the provision of a swimming pool or the erection of a museum is no argument in favour of refusing facilities to the local authorities to give grants to people who want to provide houses.
If a group of people decide to build houses for a section of people who would normally qualify for local authority housing, at the present time they would get the normal grant from the Department of Local Government, despite the fact that this Bill has not been passed, and would get a supplementary grant from the local authority, without the permission of or reference to the Minister for Local Government. As soon as the State grant is paid notification is given to the local authority who, if everything else is all right, automatically pay the supplementary grant.
It is now suggested that it is a good thing that those people should be put in the position that they must apply to the local authority and the local authority must apply to the Minister for permission to pay the supplementary grants at present being paid without any delay. Everybody involved in a local authority, particularly in regard to housing, is aware that if the local authority applied to the Department of Local Government for money, even before the credit squeeze, by the time the Department got around to it they had wasted several months.
If the Minister could have the provision stated in such a way as to include people in the category to which I have referred it is quite possible that the opposition, particularly from the Labour Party, would not be so strong but as it stands the section seems to specify that the people to whom I have referred would be put in the position that they must apply for permission of the Minister for Local Government to have money paid to them whereas at present, without this Bill, which is to do so much for everybody, if there is sufficient money available to implement it, that would not be necessary. That is our objection.
Deputy Tully has probably helped us to clear up this misunderstanding. He says it is possible that a group of people in Meath or Wicklow might decide to build houses for certain persons.
For persons in this category.
This question of supplementary grants arose. The supplementary grant applies in the case of an individual who is going to occupy the house and there is a means test. Is not that so? The supplementary grant is paid to the individual who will occupy the house. It is not given in respect of the house; it is given to the individual. The supplementary grant may eventually get into the hands of the builder, I agree, but it depends entirely on the person who is to occupy the house.
That is only complicating the matter.
What we envisage in this section is that the local authority can go further by way of contributing funds.
With the consent of the Minister.
With the consent of the Minister.
That is what we are up against.
I know. The point that Deputy Tully made helps to clear the matter. I hope he sees it as I see it. If a group of people decide to build houses for certain persons they are relieving the housing situation. They can be considered for supplementary grants only when the local authority knows who is to occupy the house. Is not that so?
That is so.
The person occupying the house can be assessed as to means. What we are doing here is making provision for a group to go to the local authority and say, "This is a special case and we think you should contribute another £300." If the local authority agree, they can go to the Minister and say, "This is a good project. We have already paid supplementary grants but we are prepared to pay the equivalent of another supplementary grant if the Minister will consent." Is there anything wrong in having the provision there that they must go to the Minister to do that?
Say the Brennan Building Company decide that they will build houses for ten people in that category. They apply to the Department of Local Government for permission and a grant is paid because each of the persons concerned is eligible for such a grant. They also apply to the county council who, knowing the means of the persons concerned, agree that they qualify. Therefore a grant and a supplementary grant are paid. Does the Parliamentary Secretary now tell the House that this subsection will provide that those people, will be able to get that grant from the Department of Local Government as a group and a grant from the local authority on condition that the Department agree to the grant? That is what the section says. At the present, as individuals, they can get the grant and supplementary grant without any difficulty.
They can get a grant without any difficulty.
They can get a grant and, on means test, a supplementary grant, without any difficulty, from the local authority and the local authority do not have to ask the Minister, nor do they have to ask for permission to give a loan. This section ties up loans and grants.
This section entitles local authorities to give further grants.
With the consent of the Minister.
Will the Minister clarify the position by stating in this section that this does not apply to the normal grants and supplementary grants and loans given for building houses, that this is something extra? As it stands, while it may be in the Minister's mind that there may be an extra grant given by the local authority, I am quite sure he realises now that it also catches a certain category in respect of existing loans and grants. They are not excluded and therefore it must catch them.
No; it is additional. Take a body such as the St. Vincent de Paul Society. If they wanted to build houses for old people, as they are doing and as I hope others will do to a greater extent, they now can get in respect of those houses a special grant from my Department complemented by a grant up to the same amount from the local authority. Over and above that, under section 12, if the local authority wish, in accordance with any conditions that they might wish to apply, and with my consent, they can now make a loan or a grant or an annual contribution to the branch of the society that has provided houses for any given number of people, the elderly or others, in their functional area. This is getting down to the bread and butter of this section. In a practical sense under the section this can be done. At the moment it cannot be done.
On the other hand, it could well be that for the same body and the same sort of operation the local authority could provide the entire architectural or engineering services requisite to the obtaining of the site, the preparation of drawings, site works, plans and supervision of the building and so on. They could get this as an addition, over and above the contribution of the local authority, with the consent of the Minister and in addition to the fact that each of the dwellings so provided in each area in a similar scheme would still be entitled, without regard to section 12, and independent of it, to the grants still available and existing at the moment. This is a practical example as to where this additional facility can come in.
Another example in which members of the House would be interested and which may be quite a development in the future is the idea of cooperative housing which, unfortunately, is not much thought of in this country although great work is being done by it in other countries.
We do quite an amount of it in Meath.
I am not talking of cooperation between the Minister for Local Government and local authorities. That does not exist. It is in spite of the lack of that that we build houses at all.
With regard to cooperative housing in the true sense, a group might get going on this particular type of business. The beginning would be the difficult period. They might not necessarily have funds available or, if they had, they would want those funds for the acquisition of sites on which to build houses. The local authority could help by providing a small office and clerical staff to start them off. That could make all the difference between the sucess or failure of this co-operative housing effort.
Now, with the consent of the Minister, this help can be given under section 12. There are gaps which it is desirable to fill, but we cannot fill them at the moment. This is a facility the general body of local elected representatives would be delighted to have and to use intelligently. But I still must know what is going on. Any Minister would wish to have such knowledge because this is a new provision. We must know what is happening. If certain grants or loans have been made we must know how well the system has worked. Has a good return been given and, if the system is a success in one area, should we allow another local authority to adopt the same scheme? These are the things we must have information about. We are, I think, entitled to know. It is to the advantage of the people and the local authority that we should know. This consent is absolutely essential, therefore, if we are to know.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.