The Minister's intervention yesterday evening to all intents and purposes finished discussion on this motion because he said it was not acceptable to him. The Minister would be less than just to himself in adopting that line without waiting to hear the full reply. He described the motion as a pious incantation which could do no good. One of the bases of the motion is the equality of all individuals before the law. If a house purchase scheme is devised to make houses available throughout the State to local authority tenants and enable them to own their own homes—something which the Minister agrees, I think, is desirable—it can hardly be argued that different canons of justice should apply as between residents of urban and rural areas. It is presumed that all people are equal before the law in that everybody should have the same facilities. It is hardly fair to say at that stage that it is a question of necessity and that necessity knows no law; but that is the basis on which the Minister is arguing this case.
The Minister quoted another phrase, which sounded rather trite at the time, that his function was to provide houses and not dispose of them. The Minister is being less than fair to himself and the office he occupies in this matter. His function is to provide homes, not shelters. This evening and for some time past we have been discussing housing legislation. We should assume that the people who will occupy these houses will have a right to make homes of them. The right of a home certainly ensures that family traditions continue.
The Minister made a distinction between rural and urban areas in this matter. He said one of the reasons why you can envisage a purchase scheme in rural areas on terms you cannot have in urban areas is that in rural areas the houses were isolated and, if vacant, would not always be readily occupied again. That is a bit of a fallacy. It may be all right for the purposes of argument here. Readily, throughout the country in any local authority area any house that becomes available anywhere is eagerly sought after. In regard to the argument of a family continuing to occupy the same home, to say you can apply this to rural areas and not to urban areas does not invalidate the argument one way or the other. The Minister would be nearer the mark if he said it was purely a question of cost, that there would be a certain loss in regard to the short-term payment of subsidy. This is the real kernel of the situation and not the argument the Minister was trying to rely on to dispose of this motion.
Surely urban houses have as much an attraction for the people who occupy them and surely their families would be anxious to remain on in them? Deputy Ryan quoted figures which showed that when a purchase scheme was applied to houses here in Dublin, out of 500 houses concerned, 300 immediately became subject to purchase. The Minister says purchase schemes are available. We know they are, but the distinction is, so far as urban authorities are concernred, that the subsidy is not continueds once a purchase scheme is made.
Local authorities are apparently becoming less and less inclined to get rid of property at present. Perhaps the Minister is in this frame of mind, too? They seem to think it would be much better to hold on to property rather than dispose of it. I suppose in some cases there may be exceptions where the disposal of property might not be in the best public interest. But, by and large, many houses have been purchased in rural areas. Where the houses provided by the local authority in the first instance were not large enough to serve the needs of the families occupying them, they could not be enlarged by the local authorities themselves. However, once a purchase scheme became applicable to them and they were vested in these people, they were able to enlarge them themselves and qualify for the grants applying to that type of enlargement so necessary for a growing family. That is being denied to residents of urban areas at present in their being deprived of the right to a purchase scheme where the subsidy will be the same level as in rural areas.
The Minister mentioned that these houses become available at a price which nobody can pass over. I presume that, in the ordinary way, the same canons would apply to homes in rural areas as in urban areas. I presume that the immediate family of the occupant would have first claim upon it and that they would be no less eager to continue with that right of ownership. I cannot see why they would not want to continue to exercise the ownership which, in their time, was exercised by their parents and maybe even grandparents, rather than have the position that speculators might get possession of such houses. I should imagine that, in all instances, the rights of the local authority are protected by reason of the fact that, for the duration of the purchase scheme, they would be the controlling interest. There has been a tendency over the years, particularly in respect of housing estates, to extend the number of years purchase in regard to these particular houses and therefore I cannot see how the interest of the local authority would in any way be interfered with.
The Minister said that houses would not be available for those who need them. That statement presumes that the houses would pass into the ownership of people who did not need them. If a person is selling a house which he holds within the terms of a purchase scheme, then such person may not sell it without the permission of the local authority who have an over-riding determination as to whether or not the proposed purchaser is a suitable applicant. Therefore, the Minister's argument falls in that case.
The Minister speaks of the liquidation of our stock of houses. He is making an academic argument. Has he any figures on which to base his assumptions in this respect? The word "liquidation" brings back to our mind the Second World War and the meaning of a wiping-out of a particular area. When the Minister speaks of "liquidation" here, one might be inclined to think that the housing estate, as such, would vanish if a purchase scheme were applied to it, but I do not think that would happen.
The Minister says that, under the new Housing Bill, when enacted, regulations will be made in regard to the future vesting of houses. It will be subject to regulations which may be changed. There would be power to make purchase schemes, having regard to the attractiveness of a particular scheme. I would point out that that power has been there all the time in regard to purchase schemes.
In his opening statement last night, the Minister said that purchase scheme facilities which exist at present are not being availed of. As Deputy Ryan and Deputy M. E. Dockrell pointed out, one of the reasons why they have not been availed of is that the attractiveness of the purchase price is militated against by the fact that subsidy will not continue to be paid in regard to the scheme. Deputy Ryan mentioned that it could vary by as much as £1 in relation to any particular dwelling. That is a factor which would or would not make a proposition attractive particularly in purchase schemes in relation to artisans' dwellings and other houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts where people, in the main, have large families and generally a limited income. Such people could not afford to indulge in any cash speculation in regard to the purchase of their home. They are confined to a weekly wages, which, in the main, does not vary too much. The attractiveness of a scheme to such people would lie in the fact that it was within their financial resources to avail of it, and, in this case, non-subsidy is a factor which would not make it attractive.
The Minister says that the motion is not concerned with the Housing Bill which is going through this House at present. The general purpose of the Housing Bill is the provision of houses. Everybody's aim, in the various housing measures that have come before this House from time to time, has been the provision of houses for the people. The endeavour has been to provide homes in which units of the nation can set up families who will become attached to their homes and remain there. Certainly, I do not think anybody had the idea that people would not be rooted to the homes in which they were born and lived and would not desire to remain in them.
One of the binding forces in Irish life has been a good community spirit. People have taken a pride in ownership and in their locality. In various commendable movements such as the Tidy Towns Competition, and so on, we have appealed to people to take a greater interest and pride in their homes and locality. In the Town Planning Act, we had the same idea of making places attractive and keeping them attractive. Certainly, the qualities of home ownership would be one of the dominant factors in this matter and would outweigh anything else. In the long run, the State and the local authority will not lose anything on this. Earlier on, they will have to find more capital to provide homes which is one of the outstanding needs of our economy at present in large centres of population.
The binding argument on which this motion is based is that people ought to be equal before the law and ought to have the same facilities. Most of the amenities available in the urban areas are now available in our rural areas —water, sanitation, lighting along the footpaths, roads, open spaces, and so on. Therefore, no extra amenity is available in urban areas as against rural areas. For that reason, I think the Minister should concede this of right.
I could not follow very well the Minister's argument as to why he had prejudged the issue except in so far as I think it is mainly concerned with costs. I do not think the Minister wants to be held to his phrase that he is the provider of houses and not the disposer of them. In this House, we make facilities available for the provision of houses. It should be our aim to make homes available to the people wherein they may live contented and useful lives, which their families after them will continue to maintain under the same conditions and be induced to improve them and keep them in a good state of repair and that they would always form the basis on which we might depend for a continuing population in these areas. Ownership gives people a link with a place and a sense of responsibility. It is for that reason that we felt the motion should be put down and hoped that it would have been accepted in that spirit by the Minister.