Vol. 220 No. 8
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, line 54, to delete "section 15" and insert "this section and in sections 15 and 34".
"Person" is defined in section 2 as excluding a housing authority. This amendment will include a housing authority in the definition of "person" for the purposes of sections 2, 15 and 34.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, between lines 13 and 14, to insert a new subsection as follows: "(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall require disclosure to a housing authority by a solicitor of any privileged communication made to him in that capacity."
I referred to this matter on Committee Stage and the Minister said he would consider it between that Stage and Report Stage. The purpose of my amendment was not only to have the Bill amended but also to invite the Minister's comments on the amendment. I understand that since I raised the matter, the Incorporated Law Society has been in correspondence with the Minister's Department in the matter. If it is permissible, I should like to quote from the letter which the Minister received from the Incorporated Law Society. In the course of the letter of 27th October, 1965, the Society said:
The council of this Society are somewhat concerned about the provisions of section 4 of the Housing Bill, 1965. This section would apparently enable a housing authority to require a solicitor to furnish confidential information regarding a client's affairs without that client's consent. This is contrary to the accepted law and the recognised right of clients to professional secrecy on the part of their solicitors. The council wish to submit that the section should be amended to protect that right. If necessary, they are prepared to attend on the Minister to supply further information.
The Society received a reply from the Department to which, no doubt, the Minister will make reference. The reply of the Department refers to the fact that there were similar provisions in the Housing Act, 1931, in the Local Government Act, 1960, and in the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963. Apparently the principle we are asked to accept is that because bad law is already on record, we should not change it. If that is to be the guiding principle in determining what we should do, there would be no point in amending legislation. The whole purpose of amending legislation is to reform what we consider to be wrong and to make it better.
This principle was also at stake in the Companies Act, 1963. In the Companies Act, 1963, which is as close to us and closer than some of the other legislation which has been quoted by the Minister, it is provided that wherever people are required to furnish information, nothing in the provisions requiring the information should require disclosure by a solicitor of any privileged communication made to him in that capacity. It is desirable that people could understand that this right, this privilege, exists not for the protection of the solicitor — it is a matter of total indifference to him personally whether the information is released to a Minister or anybody else —but for the protection of the individual, who should feel entirely free and protected in consulting his legal advisers. A person should be entitled to take legal advice without the fear that information disclosed by him may, because of that, be released to other people. If that principle is infringed, we put in jeopardy the liberty of the individual and that confidential, privileged relationship, which people are entitled to expect and have the right to demand, between themselves and their legal advisers.
I do not, for one moment, compare the situation in all respects with that which exists between a penitent and his confessor under which the confessor may never break the seal of confession, notwithstanding the fact that the confessor may have information which could clearly establish responsibility for a crime. It is the mere existence of that privilege and confidential relationship which justifies the institutions which we have and in which lay people can get advice from specialists. Once you breach that privilege and breach that right, then you put in great danger these privileges which exist for the protection of the liberty of the individual. I can anticipate that the Minister will say that the right to withhold information cannot be any greater simply because information is given to a solicitor. That is a legitimate point of view but it is not a question of changing the right or the degree of privilege. It is simply a question of recognising the right of an individual to consult his legal advisers and not to put any person into jeopardy, into danger, simply because he has done the prudent thing and taken legal advice.
I would earnestly ask the Minister once again to reconsider the matter and to be influenced, not by these earlier Acts, but by what can be found in the Companies Act, 1963, which in respect of seeking information is on all fours with what is sought in this Bill, but does maintain the integrity of the legal profession and the relationship which ought to exist between any citizen and his or her legal advisers.
Section 4 which this amendment seeks to change would enable a housing authority to require a person to state the particulars of the estate, interest, etc., by virtue of which he occupies land or receives rent and also to give the name and address of everyone who, to his knowledge, has an estate or interest in the land. Surely this is a far more restricted requirement than Deputy Ryan has indicated? If I interpret what he has said correctly, it would appear that he suggests that we were trying to establish the right of a local authority to make a solicitor divulge any or all of the things that may be told to him as a result of being consulted by a land or property owner for legal advice.
This relates to a person who occupies or receives rent. If the legal profession wish to act as rent collectors, as many of them do, I do not see why they should look for special consideration above and beyond that which is meted out to rent collectors, estate agents and auctioneers, who are doing the same sort of service. They are required under section 4—and would be, even with the acceptance of this amendment —to give this information. I cannot see why, because the man should be a solicitor acting as an estate agent or as a rent collector, he should be exempted merely because he is a solicitor and treated, as the Deputy has said, as if he were in the role of confessor and had to keep his mouth shut about everything said to him. It would be a queer situation to accept this amendment. By so doing, every solicitor would then set himself up to determine what was privilege and what was not. I assert in all seriousness that this is not the role of a solicitor in regard to this or any other matter.
With respect, a solicitor is under an obligation to observe privilege and may be released from that obligation only by a judge of one of the courts of the land.
Who determines what is privilege?
The solicitor must maintain privilege in respect of everything communicated to him and divulge it only when he is released from that obligation by a judge.
Surely not when he is doing what is appropriate to somebody else not covered by privilege, such as a rent collector, an estate agent or an auctioneer, to whom this would be more appropriate?
He may communicate information which in the ordinary course he knows he has his client's permission to communicate. But if it is anything which would be contrary to his client's interest or if it is information in respect of which he has not his client's permission to communicate, he may not divulge it or else he is guilty of professional misconduct and is liable to an action for damages.
If such a case should arise—I cannot envisage it arising on this restricted basis of stating the particulars of the estate or interest by virtue of which a solicitor occupies land or receives rent—and is to the detriment of the solicitor's client, I suggest that solicitor would be failing in his duty if he did not get out of the rent-collecting business and look after the legal end and let the rent collecting go to somebody else who would be obliged to disclose the information.
In that case——
Might I remind the House that this is the Report Stage and Deputies may speak only once? Deputy Ryan may conclude on his amendment, if he so wishes.
I am still anxious to get some information from the Minister rather than silence him for evermore. The Minister is well aware that solicitors are frequently asked to act in trust for undisclosed principals. Again, it is undesirable that people should be debarred from so acting. I am afraid the Minister is doing a disservice to the whole community and this society is not respecting this right which people should have uninfringed of having a solicitor act on their behalf in trust without disclosing on whose behalf he is acting. I believe serious injustice will be done to some people on that account.
I wish to emphasise again that the solicitors' profession do not seek this for themselves. It is of no benefit to them to preserve this privilege for their clients, but it is in the interest of the clients. I concede the Minister has a good debating point when he suggests the solicitors' profession would have the advantage over auctioneers and rent collectors if they enjoyed this privilege and auctioneers and rent collectors did not. I do not think the Law Society would seek that advantage for that reason. I do not know of anybody who has in the past transferred business to solicitors' offices in the rent collection and estate management side simply because by so doing they would avoid disclosure of their interest.
This is an undesirable trend. It is an unnecessary trend. I would earnestly ask the Minister to respect the views of the Law Society and do as his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, did and put in the necessary protective clause in the section.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 11, line 18, after "Act" to insert "other than section 112".
I think this amendment and amendment No. 113 might be taken together.
These amendments provide that the Minister may by regulation vary the maximum rent of up to £130 mentioned in section 112, which provides that any contract for the letting of a house at a rent not exceeding £130 per year shall contain an implied condition that the house will be kept by the landlord reasonably fit for human habitation. The two amendments provide that any regulations made by the Minister varying the reference to £130 a year must be laid in draft before each House of the Oireachtas for approval.
That was requested on Committee Stage?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 12, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection: "(2) Where a sum is due to a housing authority by the Minister and, at the same time, expenses are recoverable under this section by the Minister from the authority, the sum may be set off against the expenses either, as may be appropriate, in whole or in part."
The purpose of these amendments is to enable the Minister to recover by set-off money due to him from a housing authority on account of any breach of conditions under which he has paid a grant or subsidy to the authority or where the money is due to him on account of the performance of the duties of the authority on their default by some other person or body under section 109 of the Bill. The necessity for the amendments was raised by Deputies during the Committee Stage debate on section 47, which deals with the recovery of subsidy on breach of conditions by a housing authority or other body.
It is a pity it cannot work both ways. The slowest payer I know is the Department. It is a great pity local councils cannot have some way of recovering the indebtedness of the Department to them. They should be able to set off too, if they can.
This is something we asked for.
I think we should ignore that aside from Deputy Clinton. It is neither fair nor reasonable.
I think he is perfectly right. I think he could go a whole lot further.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 13, line 14, to delete "nor" and insert "or". This is merely to correct a typographical error.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 15— (i) in line 26, to delete "either" and substitute "and either so resides"; and (ii) in line 27, to delete both "he" and "a person".
This amendment is merely to clarify the intention that the higher grants under the section should apply only to persons living in rural areas.
Which grants is the Minister speaking about?
The higher grants, the £450 housing grant.
It seems peculiar to me that if a working man builds a house in a rural area, he will qualify for £450, while, if he builds it in a built-up area, even though that built-up area might be a small provincial town, he will lose £150. I cannot see what justice there is in, say, a carpenter getting £450 from the State and £450 from the local authority to build a house in a rural area, while a shop assistant, earning much less money, building a house within the confines of a town commissioner's area will get £150 less. Surely there is just as much obligation on the State and on the local authority to help the man who may build his house just inside the boundary of, say, the urban district as outside it? However, we shall deal with the State side of the grants in this case.
On an earlier stage of this Bill, I mentioned two people in identical occupations who built houses. One has been paid £900 and the other will be paid only £600. That reflects the peculiarity of the regulations embodied in these sections. A number of people at the present time, shop assistants and others in towns big and small and, indeed, I could say in cities just as well, are just as much entitled to the higher grants, if they provide their own houses, as people in rural areas.
It is the desire of the State and of every local authority to induce as far as possible people anxious for housing accommodation to provide their own homes. I believe the best incentive we can give them is this additional money. If, in an urban area, we get a person who is qualified for housing accommodation to build his own house and give him the higher rate of grants, it would be much cheaper on public funds than to have him a burden on the housing authority and on the State. That is a matter the Minister should look into on this section.
Many of us were disappointed, when the Bill was introduced, that a higher subsidy which we had hoped would be included in the new Housing Bill, was not included and it was generally accepted that this increased subsidy for people in rural areas was in fact an attempt to go some way with the clamour all over the country for increased subsidies because of the tremendous increase in housing costs.
The point made by Deputy Murphy just pinpoints one of the anomalies which has arisen because of the situation where people in rural areas are able to get increased subsidies while those in urban areas are not. But everybody in rural areas does not get increased subsidies. If the Minister remembers, even people who would normally qualify, according to the way we think of it and to the way the Minister appears to think of it, have been turned down by his Department. I instanced the last day the man building a house in a rural area who, because there was a water supply passing the road near where he was building it, was adjudged not to be in a rural area. I think this thing of deciding that a rural area is not a rural area, if there is a water-pipe running through it, is stretching things a bit far.
The other matter is the situation that has come to the fore recently of young people out of overcrowded houses getting married. If they do not build their own house, the local authority, the county council, is responsible for rehousing them because they must go into some shack or one or other of the parents' houses and it is so overcrowded that the council will have to find housing for them. I find that these people have extreme difficulty in being certified as people who should get the higher subsidy, even though the local authority certifies them as people entitled to rehousing.
When we were discussing this on Committee Stage some weeks ago, the Minister gave as his opinion—and it is in the Official Report—that people in that category should be entitled to qualify. Unfortunately, that opinion does not seem to have trickled through to the very efficient officials dealing with the subsidy end of it. The result is that it has to be sent from one group of officials to another and eventually a higher executive officer will come along and say: "Those people do not qualify". I think that while we are on this particular aspect of it, the Minister might confirm what he said the last day and possibly it might have the desired effect. I would appeal to him, in addition, to take up the point and attempt to bring in people in bad housing conditions in other rural areas. Originally, it was intended simply to deal with the farming community. It was subsequently extended to other classes and, since it has so extended, I think the Minister should extend it the whole way.
I should like again to mention the particular point mentioned by Deputy Murphy, particularly having regard to the area immediately contiguous to the Dublin city area and its environs. In subsection (2) of this section, the qualification is "ordinarily resident in a rural area". The original idea was in respect of a farm labourer or a person deriving his employment from agriculture. With the extension of factory building and so on, there are many people living in rural areas who may qualify under paragraph (b) but there are many hundreds of people who, just because they do not live in a rural area, are deprived of the opportunity of this additional grant when they have to provide their own dwellings even though, in their particular case, they may be the same class of person. They may derive their livelihood from the same type of employment. The wage rate may be similar and the conditions may be similar. The only disadvantage they are at is that of living in an urban area. Surely this should not continue at this stage, having regard to the circumstances of many thousands of these families who have been affected in this way. Because of the implications of this section, they are, in fact, being treated almost as second-class citizens. I would add my plea that this matter should be looked at again by the Minister.
Would the Minister say if the amendment is dealing with the problem of what was known as the dower house, that is, where a person gives up an agricultural holding to his son or the Land Commission take the holding?
No, not this one. The first thing I would like to say is that the availability or non-availability of a water supply does not determine whether or not a grant will be paid. If the Deputy has a particular case or cases where this is so, I would ask him to send them in or refer me to them.
This is a public supply.
That is not a determining factor. I am not quite clear what the Deputy had in mind when he referred to the plight of young people leaving their homes and overcrowded conditions and wanting to build for themselves. Are these young, single people?
No—when they get married.
If they are married or if they indicate that they wish to build because they are going to get married, the fact that they are young or unattached will not debar them from the allocation of the higher grants subject to the other conditions being complied with but they will not be paid the higher grant until they produce evidence that they are married.
There are instances where people have been married for several months and who still cannot get the higher grants because the officials of the Department say they are not sure whether they are eligible or not.
The first thing is that they must be in need of a house. This is the primary consideration guiding everything else in respect of both the farming and non-farming allocations. They must be in need of a house or living in unfit conditions or there may be compassionate medical grounds.
Certified as such by the county council.
Probably that would help. They are not debarred because they are young or because they have not yet married but they will not, if not married, get the additional grants, if otherwise allocated to them, until they are married.
That is fair enough. There is no objection to that.
In so far as town and rural treatments are concerned, the situation roughly is that borough areas, corporation areas, urban areas, town commissioner areas, are towns for the purposes of our administration of this matter together with any other built-up area the population of which exceeds 1,000. In those cases, while we are not allowing the higher grants—in fact they will not operate in those areas as such—instead, we are operating the site subsidy scheme and it will be possible for the council of the town, whether it is urban, borough or whatever it may be, to avail of the subsidy scheme which is one-third of the cost and, I would expect, one-third of the cost not exceeding £450 per site, giving the possibility of getting by subsidy £150 which equates with the £150 additional to the ordinary grant for these special classes in the rural areas.
On top of that, if the local council, urban or otherwise, wish to purchase sites, develop and divide sites for specific categories, not only can they avail of the subsidy of up to £150 a site, but, if they put the proposition and the scheme to me for certain categories who would be deserving, there is no reason why they cannot go the other £150 themselves and equate in that way the subsidy that those living outside the towns would get by way of grant and supplementary grant. In no case—this is specifically provided for somewhere along the line —may anybody qualify for the advantage of both of those schemes. This should clarify the situation in regard to the difference of treatment as between town and country.
Would it not be easier to eliminate these differences and have a standard application of regulations?
If we had all the money we needed and a bit to spare, there would be no difficulty in wiping out all these difficulties.
The other scheme could be just as costly and the other fellow could get the extra £150.
This subsidy effort is up to the councils of the towns in question. If they feel that the situation requires the provision of developed sites, if, in addition to the subsidy, they feel further help is required for certain categories, they may propose to do that and I have no doubt that I would find it rather easy to agree if they wished to do more than give the benefit of the State subsidy to such people. They are not being left aside and they are not being treated, as only Deputy Larkin of the group on the other side of the House suggested, as second-rate citizens. They will get their due, provided their councils believe they need it. It is on this basis that the subsidy scheme can operate to their advantage to the point at which it can equate with what is being given by way of grants to classes in the rural areas. Remember, not everybody in the rural areas qualifies for the higher grants. Quite a few will, but not all.
Can a man who bought a plot of land on the wrong side of the urban boundary fence apply under the section for a one-third subsidy of up to £150 of the cost of that plot of land?
No. If he bought land on the wrong side of the line, I cannot help it if he is on the wrong side.
He is in the urban area. The Minister says this is to balance up with the rural area.
If he puts himself off balance, the Deputy can hardly expect anyone to correct the balance. If there is any help to be given, he could not come to me as an individual for a subsidy. It would be his local council who might decide that they could do something about it and they would come to me for a subsidy.
It is being made more difficult. This legislation could be much simpler.
Not at all.
When the Minister says a scheme might be put up to him for certain classes, has he in mind the same type of classes as could enjoy the SDA loans, having an income of up to £800?
The categories that I would expect local authorities to assist by these added incentives are people whom it would be their responsibility to house, at greater cost to the local authority, if they did not do these things themselves; in other words, people whom the local authority would encourage to build by any means they could, since it would result in a saving.
Would a qualified worker who erects a house in a village, the population of which is 950, qualify for the additional subsidy of £150? In a built-up area in which the population of the village is determined by the Central Statistics Office, would he qualify?
He cannot get both.
This discussion across the floor must stop.
A built-up area is deemed to be a rural area if the population is less than 1,000. Did the Minister not say that?
No. I said it the other way round, meaning the same thing.
Amendment agreed.
These are very important matters, a Cheann Comhairle.
I know they are.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 11 go together, I think.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 16— (i) in line 8, to delete "in occupation of land" and insert "ordinarily resident"; (ii) in line 10, to delete "in a rural area"; (iii) to delete lines 22 to 24 and insert the following subparagraph:
"( ) that the person has transferred his holding or a substantial part thereof to a member of his family or to the Irish Land Commission, and"; and
(iv) in line 25, to delete "the other house" and insert "another house has been or will be vacated by the person and".
During Committee Stage, reference was made to the fact that section 17, which deals with dower houses, required that the person going into the dower house must live in a house situated on the same holding. It was felt this was too stringent a requirement and this amendment accordingly deletes that provision. There is instead a simple requirement that the person is transferring his holding, or a substantial portion of it, to a member of his family or to the Land Commission. It may be found desirable to have this dower house situated in a built-up area and paragraph (2) deletes the requirement that the house must be built in a rural area.
That is what we all asked for.
Will a farmer who transfers his holding to a member of his family qualify for a grant for a prefabricated house, which costs, I think, roughly £800?
We would have to get the specification and details of the particular prefabricated house. The fact that it is prefabricated would not necessarily rule it out.
But if it is more than £500, is that sufficient?
Less than £500.
If the farmer remains in occupation of the old dwelling and puts his son into the dower house for the time being, would the son qualify for the grant? Does it work both ways?
If the Deputy wants to know how it works, it would be much better to devise the manner in which it could be made to work instead of asking me.
The farmer will have to move into it for a couple of weeks anyway.
We want it to be perfectly straightforward. People who are straightforward are often deprived of grants. I could give examples. If a man decides to erect a house to accommodate either himself and his wife or his son and his daughter-in-law, who will qualify for the grant?
The old couple.
I think it is an excellent idea that these people will no longer be required to live on the farm. It is also a good idea that this does not require the transfer of the entire holding. I have been speaking to old people who are anxious to avail of the provisions of this Bill but they resented the fact that the Minister required them to hand over all the holding in order to qualify. They wondered what they would do with their time; if they are left a small portion they will be perfectly satisfied. The amendment is an excellent one.
With reference to Deputy Murphy's query about whether the dower house is for the old people or for the son, as far as I am concerned, and I do not care whether the Minister likes this or not, I will tell them that for a few weeks anyway, until the inspector has gone, the old people will have to move into the dower house. What they do after that is a matter for themselves. We have had experience of cowsheds being turned into houses and haysheds being converted into garages. If that can be done, surely there is nothing wrong with a switch between father and son.
The need for that kind of thing should not arise.
What does the Deputy want us to do? Build one for both of them?
On Committee Stage, there was a considerable amount of pressure and I made the case that it was quite on the cards the parents might prefer to live beside a son or daughter, of whom they happen to be fonder, in an urban area. This amendment will enable them to do that. Deputy Murphy asked must the dower house be for the son and the Minister eloquently implied that a shuffle was possible. I wonder did the changed view come about to prevent this shuffle taking place.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 19, line 10, to delete "by the Minister" and insert "under any enactment (including this Act)".
This amendment brings the wording of section 22, which deals with further grants for reconstruction, into line with the other grant sections and provides that these further grants may be paid for work which has qualified for a grant under any enactment, subject to the conditions in the section.
In recent years applicants for reconstruction grants have to some extent gone into this farmhouse holiday business during the summer. That is particularly true in the case of uneconomic holdings around the coastal areas. It is a good thing. An extra room or two is provided and they intend to make a few pounds if they can get visitors to occupy these rooms during the summer, possibly when some members of the family may be absent from home. If an applicant tells the housing inspector that he intends to take in these visitors, the reply from the Department is that the grants are given for residential purposes only and, since it is proposed to commercialise on the reconstruction, the matter is not one to be dealt with by the Department. On the other hand, the applicant who makes no mention of his intention to keep visitors when the inspector calls has no difficulty in getting the grant. The former is deprived of a State grant and is subsequently deprived of the supplementary local authority grant.
A proposal on the part of an applicant in a coastal area that he intends to make use of part of the house during the summer months to accommodate tourists and therefore make a little money for himself should not deprive him of the benefit of these grants. I ask the Minister to amend the Bill so that it will be possible for a person who intends to keep visitors during the summer months, in rooms that will be occupied by members of his own family for the rest of the year, to get these grants. I know many people who provide alternative accommodation for members of their families in outside buildings during the summer months so that they may take in tourists into the dwelling proper and it is a shame that such people should be deprived of this grant because they engage in the farmhouse holiday scheme which is recommended by the Minister and the local authorities. I am asking the Minister to remove this clause which puts a penalty on straight-forwardness and truthfulness on the part of these people.
I am afraid that Deputy Murphy is not quite correct when he says that the honesty of the people in West Cork in some cases is losing them advantages gained by dishonesty on the part of other people in the same part of the country.
I am not saying that there is any dishonesty.
The point is that in so far as the first reconstruction grant is concerned, everybody is entitled to it but for the second reconstruction grant, special and stringent regulations are laid down. If the second grant is required for any purpose other than the relief of overcrowding of the householder's family, he will not get that grant. It does not matter for what other purpose he requires it, he will not get it. It could happen that one householder goes in for a first reconstruction grant and a second householder in the same area, the houses could be side by side, goes in for a second. The man applying for the first reconstruction grant will get it and the man applying for the second one will not and there might therefore seem to be some injustice done. However, that is not the case.
There is no way by which anybody by being dishonest or misleading to the departmental inspectors can get the second reconstruction grant. If we are to consider the question of farmhouses and tourist accommodation, it is far too big a matter for a housing reconstruction grant scheme. The amount that we can give at most is so little in comparison with the cost requirements that the matter has been fully considered and rejected as not being sufficient to do the job in this regard. Without wishing to tread on the territory of my colleague, I can say that this matter will be dealt with by another Minister in this House and, I hope, in the not too distant future. That is all I can say about it. If Deputy Murphy or any other Deputy feels, despite what I have said, that there is still any element of injustice or unjust treatment by my Department, I would like to have the details and I will deal with the matter, although not on any basis of recrimination of the inspector.
There is something wrong in this whole matter.
While I am here, the Deputy will not be satisfied, but I intend to remain here, whether he is satisfied or not.
Amendment No. 11 was decided in conjunction with amendment No. 7.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 19— (i) in line 33, to delete "or"; (ii) in line 38, to delete "overcrowding" and insert "overcrowding, or"; (iii) between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following paragraph: "(f) the works consist of the provision of a room or rooms, involve an addition to the floor area of the house existing immediately before the execution of the works and the Minister is satisfied that—
(i) the house is situate in a rural area;
(ii) the room or rooms, as the case may be, is or are occupied as his normal place of residence by a person who has transferred his holding or a substantial part thereof to a member of his family or to the Irish Land Commission, and is or are sufficient for the needs of that person". and
(iv) in line 42, to delete "or (c)" and insert ",(c) or (f)".
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 21, line 51, after "respect" to insert "of".
This amendment is merely a drafting amendment to deal with a typographical error.
Amendment No. 15 is out of order.
I commented on this matter earlier to-day and I would like to enter a protest. This is due to the fact that the Chair did not allow the matter to be raised by a colleague of mine while I was out having a cup of tea and the House agreed that it should be recommitted and raised again. These amendments were before the House and I want to protest against the ruling depriving us of the opportunity of discussing them.
Very good. Amendment No. 16 is next and amendment No. 18 is consequential.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 22, lines 49 and 50, and page 23, line 1, to delete "and the person is the occupier of the house when the erection or purchase thereof was or is completed."
These are merely drafting amendments and mean that the person qualifying for a grant is the first occupier of the house.
I was wondering if any difficulty could arise through ensuring that the payment of the grant be made to the first occupier? There are many cases where people are in occupation of houses long before the grant is paid. A situation could arise in which a person who was the first occupant had for some reason to get out and sell his interest prior to the grant being given. Could that not create a difficulty? Who then would get the grant?
The grant is made to, or in respect of, the first occupant. It is really to avoid the confusion that might arise from such happenings that these minor amendments are being proposed.
But if he does not occupy it for three years, he does not qualify for the grant. How then does the Minister cover that? If he builds a house and does not occupy it for three years, he is not entitled to qualify for the grant. Apparently in this case if he leaves it, even though he has not occupied it for three years, he would qualify.
The fact that he did not live in it for three years would not disqualify him.
If he did not occupy it but sold it to somebody else, then that is the person who qualifies.
He was never in it and therefore was not an occupant and he would not qualify.
The Minister will have to have somebody who will decide whether or not he had slept in the house.
It is not the Minister. This is the supplementary grant.
It is going to be one of those things that will come to the Minister.
I think the Deputy will agree that the person who builds a house, asks for a supplementary grant and who does not occupy the house is scarcely ever a person who would qualify.
There are some who did.
There may be some odd ones.
They still got the grants.
Amendment No. 18 is consequential.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 23, line 2, after "person" to insert "who is the person first in occupation of the house after the erection or purchase thereof is completed".
Amendment No. 19, and there are several amendments which are related, Nos. 22, 23, 24, 27 and 29.
I take it that we are now going to discuss amendments Nos. 19, 22, 23, 24, 27 and 29?
Yes.
I mave amendment No. 19:
In page 23, line 24, to delete "a supplementary grant" and insert "supplementary grants".
I should say that during Committee Stage many Deputies were concerned about the wording of the section dealing with the payment of supplementary grants, concerned that they would enable housing authorities to impose unreasonable conditions in relation to making supplementary grants to individuals. I said that I would look into the question and, if necessary, put down a Report Stage amendment. These amendments are the result of my undertaking. They will provide that a housing authority may impose, in relation to the making of supplementary grants, such conditions as they think fit. The use of the plural rather than the singular, as previously, will ensure that the grants will be paid in accordance with schemes made by the authority; in other words that there will not be special concessions made for individuals, which might have been the danger referred to originally by Deputies. I should also mention that a corresponding amendment will be necessary in line 39 of page 24 where the words "supplementary grants" should be substituted for "supplementary grant".
Unfortunately many local authorities have not adopted this scheme of supplementary grants and I think that there is an obligation on the Minister, even though the funds are provided from local revenue, to try to get the co-operation of local authorities to provide these grants as far as possible. I appreciate the difficulty in some urban areas but at the same time, a person building a house and availing of the ordinary grant qualifies for only £275, while his neighbour, if he is outside the district, and irrespective of whether he is within the limits provided for in the supplementary grants, will get an additional £275. There should be uniformity between local authorities in making these supplementary grants available. I know that it is optional to do so. There should be some move made by the Minister to ensure that the poorer housing authorities—by these I mean those with a small rateable valuation—should be helped in some way, either by loan or some other system, so that they could give supplementary grants.
Amendment No. 20.
I should like again to protest about the fact that for some reason the amendments have not been listed according to sections. It is extremely difficult, particularly because we have been on recommittal, to follow them. It is difficult enough in normal circumstances but extremely difficult now. I do not know how the Chair is doing it but he is succeeding.
The Deputy will not have any difficulty. Obviously amendment No. 20 follows No. 19.
I thought the Chair said amendment No. 120. I move amendment No. 20:
In page 24, between lines 10 and 11, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"( ) The making or amending of a supplementary grants scheme shall be a reserved function."
This means that this should be a function reserved to the members of the local authority. The tendency has been to try to work in practically everything dealing with local government, and particularly housing, as an executive function; in other words, a function of the county manager. We believe that the proper way is to reserve this function to the elected members. We have heard a lot about the authority which was being restored to elected members but when one comes across a Bill such as this and reads all the things where the local authority is in fact the county manager, it would appear that the local representatives are only a facade to cover up what the officials are doing. In order to try to hold on to some power, we suggest that this should be altered to read that the making or amending of supplementary grants should be a function reserved to the elected members of the local authority.
I should like to support this amendment because, apart from the argument adduced by Deputy Tully, which is a very valid one, there is equally the fact that these supplementary grants come from local revenue raised by resolutions of the elected representatives, and it cannot be raised otherwise. It is the elected representatives who have the statutory obligation of striking the rate. On both grounds, there is every reason for the acceptance of this amendment.
I wish to support this amendment along much the same lines as those mentioned by Deputy Jones. I must say that my experience has been that where strong pressure was exerted on the county manager by the members of the council to have some conditions in a scheme altered, the manager met the members and made the necessary alteration in most cases. I do know that a scheme which is unfair and inequitable to quite a number of people can be in existence for quite a long time and there is everything to be said for giving the public representatives discretion in this matter and the power and authority necessary to have a scheme drafted along certain lines. They meet many categories of people in their public work and they know the difficulties with which those people are confronted.
Some of the schemes that are in existence are extremely restricted and, therefore, many deserving people are debarred from supplementary grants. Indeed, it often works against the better interests of the council itself and against the better interests of the ratepayers. In many cases the supplementary grant might make all the difference between these people providing their own houses and not providing them. If they do not provide them, they are a housing responsibility of the local authority. Sometimes one sees this penny-wise and pound foolish attitude on the part of the county manager. It is only right that all responsibility possible should be vested in the members of the council. They have to meet the ratepayers, and if the people feel the public representatives have been unjust and have done wrong, the people have a way to deal with that. Public representatives as a body know what is needed and will deal with a matter of this sort in a very sensible way without going too far either to the right or to the left.
Most local authorities, with the exception of those referred to by Deputy Murphy—and they are local authorities who, because of their set-up, would feel that they could not finance it—have supplementary grant schemes. As far as I know, these schemes are acceptable to the council. They must adopt the scheme and must provide the money to implement it. Therefore, I do not see that there is any great necessity to place responsibility on the elected representatives to formulate a scheme rather than on the county manager.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say who is the housing authority?
When it comes to the provision of money, it is the elected representatives.
Who is the housing authority as laid down in this Bill and under the Local Government Acts?
The manager.
That is what we are trying to amend. What do you want county elections for?
You got your chance to change the situation.
We made an attempt.
Most of the county councils are operating supplementary grant schemes. The scheme may have been prepared by the manager but it must be approved by the elected representatives. I do not know that there is an outcry that the scheme is not the type of scheme they would want.
Did the Parliamentary Secretary say the scheme has to be approved by the elected representatives?
Yes; it has to be approved in as much as they must provide the money.
If the elected representatives want to provide more money than he is prepared to give, what happens then?
There is always section 4. There is no guarantee that even the elected representatives would be any more generous than the county manager in relation to supplementary grant schemes.
It is amazing the lack of confidence the Fianna Fáil Party have in the elected representatives of local authorities.
You are not too happy about your own men.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will agree the amendment is reasonable? The definition refers to the housing authority and to the "corporation of the county borough". All Deputy Tully is seeking is to ensure that this definition is given effect to in respect of this section.
Are the supplementary grant schemes not all right as they are?
The definitions happen to be in conflict.
That is only a technicality. What we are interested in is providing supplementary grants for people who need houses. Whether it is the manager or the county council who prepares the scheme, the county council must provide the money.
This question and answer process will not get us anywhere.
It is question and no answer.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 24, line 20, to delete "a supplementary grant" and insert "supplementary grants".
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 24, line 21, to delete ", including conditions providing for the payment of".
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 24, to delete lines 22 to 27.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 24, line 40, to delete ", including conditions providing for the payment of".
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 24, to delete lines 41 and 42. Amendment agreed to. Amendment No. 28 not moved.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 25, line 12, to delete "a supplementary grant" and insert "supplementary grants".
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 27, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following subsection: "(2) Where a sum is due to a housing authority by the Minister and, at the same time, the authority is liable under this section to repay an amount to the Minister, the sum may be set off against the amount either, as may be appropriate, in whole or in part."
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 29, between lines 51 and 52, to insert a new subsection as follows:—"(9) Notwithstanding regulations made by the Minister under the Act of 1962 (namely, S.I. No. 130 of 1964 and S.I. No. 137 of 1965) or regulations to be made under this section, any person who is qualified to receive a supplementary grant from a housing authority under section 26 of this Act shall not be disqualified from receiving a loan under section 39 (or by reason of any Departmental or administrative decision) where the applicant's income enables a housing authority to make a supplementary grant."
This was argued endlessly here previously. We find that some housing authorities are playing off the loans against the grants and vice versa. We are suggesting the Minister should ensure that this little game is no longer allowed. Whether or not the wording of our amendment is acceptable to the Minister or whether he would prefer to introduce his own amendment is a matter on which I have an open mind. If the Minister is prepared to accept the principle of the amendment and to secure what we are trying to do in some other way, we are prepared to withdraw the amendment. If not, however, I am afraid this is one we will have to press.
As Deputy Tully says, we argued this endlessly and, I think, with commonsense. It sounds ridiculous that a person should be eligible for a supplementary grant and, at the same time, not eligible for a loan. The reason they are eligible for a supplementary grant is that they are in the lower income group, generally speaking. We have the situation that people with families are debarred from a loan when in fact they are eligible for a supplementary grant. I remember the Minister had no real argument to put up against this. I hope since we argued this on Committee Stage, he has seen the good sense of having the two figures the same.
I am afraid I am not clear as to what is requested.
Surely the Minister remembers the long arguments we had on this previously? I was under the impression—apparently mistakenly —that the Minister did understand what was required and was prepared to consider doing something about it. It seems ridiculous that somebody who qualifies for a supplementary grant should not qualify for a loan or vice versa.
Is the problem this old one of the local authority regarding a person with an income of a certain figure as poor enough to get a supplementary grant but, because of being poor enough to qualify for a supplementary grant, questioning his credit worthiness for a loan?
Yes.
This is not something I can control.
Why?
Because it is the local authorities who operate it in this way.
Surely the Minister will not get the traditional basin of water and wash his hands of it?
I might throw the baby out with the water.
Our job is to ensure that this is one baby which does not get thrown out, with or without water.
The limit for the loan is £1,200 and the limit for the grant is £1,445 in certain cases.
The two things are not entirely the same.
The Minister referred to local authorities. The city and county managers impose conditions for loans on the basis laid down by the Minister.
No, within the limits laid down by the Minister.
The Minister lays down limits which allow this sort of thing.
And they do not do it?
They do do it. The Minister should see they do not.
Raise the limit for the loan ceiling to the supplementary grant ceiling.
Will the Minister say how he thinks people adjudged unable to pay repayments of approximately £2 to £2 10s. on a loan can be expected to pay over £3 a week in rent? That is the effect of what is happening. Surely the sense of that should have seeped in even to the county managers? Some of them, apparently, have not been able to grasp that. It is ordinary commonsense.
Apparently, they have not commonsense?
Yes.
If we were to try to legislate for people without commonsense, we would have to have a separate Bill for them. You cannot possibly legislate satisfactorily if the people who have to operate that legislation subsequently have not got commonsense.
Would the Minister agree to have another look at it? His officials will advise him about the problem we cannot, apparently, put across to him.
I think the Minister is not trying to understand the amendment.
I am. The £1,200 limit on the eligibility for loans under the SDA scheme funded from the Local Loans Fund is complained of as being lower than the upper limit for the supplementary grants scheme, where there are at least four dependants, which is £1,440. There is no stipulation about dependants as far as the £1,200 is concerned. It deals with the availability of money from the Local Loans Fund for this purpose and should not be confused, as I think it is being confused at present, with the upper limit for the supplementary grants scheme where there are at least four dependants. Even where there are four dependants, it is discretionary for the local authority. They cannot be dictated to by the Minister or anybody else. In regard to the loans, it is only the source from which the money is drawn that counts. The £1,200 is not comparable and should not be compared with the £1,440, because there is no restriction so far as the £1,200 is concerned as to whether the applicant has one, four or no dependants.
No, but the county managers will use the restriction by grading it down the other way. If the applicant has dependants, then he is less eligible.
If I were to take the powers asked for here, it is I, as Minister, who would in fact be lending the money on behalf of every council. I do not think any Deputy would wish that, nor do I think it would be desirable. Short of taking that type of control, I cannot see how we in the Custom House can control how a manager regards these two limits. If he seems to deal with the matter with a lack of commonsense, then it is something the elected members will have to try to——
The Minister is trying to take power away from the elected members. He should not be speaking about them.
The Deputy knows quite well that I am not and have no intention of taking away from the councils any powers they already enjoy. In fact, the reverse is the case.
That certainly is an untruthful statement.
The Minister still misunderstands the amendment.
I am up here practically talking to myself trying to find out what it is all about. I am failing miserably at the moment.
Would the Minister raise the limits from the £1,200 from this restricted section of the community with four children that is being dealt with in this amendment?
This income limit relates only to money raised solely and directly from the Local Loans Fund.
It does not matter where it is raised?
If money is raised in any other quarter, there is no income limit imposed by me by regulation or by statute.
There is only one way to get the money.
It is because of the way in which the Minister has these powers that we are asking him to change them.
Suppose a tenant of a local authority dwelling desires to build his own dwelling and to take advantage of a scheme where he can get a 99 per cent loan. If that loan is limited to four children, in the way in which it has been said, it means that that tenant will not be able to get sufficient money. The chances of getting money elsewhere will be minimal and therefore the idea of helping him to provide his own dwelling will be negatived.
I agree with the Deputy that if it were as he has suggested, it would be wrong. It is not so that there is a £1,200 income limit on that particular person. The council tenants who seek to get the 99 per cent, who qualify for that, do not suffer from the income limit.
The biggest trouble is that when they reach that income of £1,200 they feel that if they were able to qualify for the loan they would be able to build a house and pay for it. Unfortunately, the county managers do not agree with that point of view. If they can get the loan and would be in a position to apply for it, they prevent the very class who could avail of it from availing of it.
But is it by the application of the £1,200 limit or by some other device?
The £1,200 limit is the most serious. There is another device which we sometimes get over by putting some pressure on the county manager at local level and that is in respect of the person who might not be able to repay it.
The only thing that we can see here is that, of course, this £1,200 limit is by regulation.
That is why we suggested in this, and I quoted it——
They have got, in the statute, limits for supplementary grants. Perhaps the Deputies now wish to tie that statutory table to a new higher limit for income purposes for the SDA. I think this would be very foolish in the long run.
On this reserved section?
The setting of this limit is by regulation administratively and no law and no legal change will be required to "up" it in the future if we see fit to do so. If it were tied to the £1,440 it could be that that could be said to be a restriction in the future rather than a help.
The Minister will agree that the amendment suggested does not tie it? All we ask is that he will use his power to change the regulation and he can do that if he wants to. That it would have a bigger draw is a fact which I am sure must be uppermost in the Minister's mind at the present moment. Possibly this is the wrong time to move such an amendment. I would be satisfied if the Minister would consider this and take advice from his officials as to how it works because I am sure they must be conscious of it the same as we are.
If we were to discuss what we think is at issue here, we would not be talking about what I, as Minister, could or should do but rather some restrictive practices that emerged and are practised in certain local authorities and of which Deputies must surely be aware, if not personally, then from hearsay from other Deputies.
The £1,200 is the Minister's responsibility.
Yes, by administrative action.
That is the first thing we want the Minister to deal with. If the Minister deals with that, as I mentioned earlier we are dealing with the other matters in a certain way. That is the one we cannot deal with so long as the Minister's ceiling remains there.
Money is declining in value and the cost of building houses is increasing. Surely, then, there is a good case for raising the loan ceiling?
If you take the price of a house at a given figure, then the more you give by way of grant, the less you need by way of loan. The fact that we have gone to £1,440 for these supplementary grants is not so much that it is a good argument as that the income limit for the availing of SDA moneys from the local loans fund should be the same figure. It could be argued that it should be higher or lower. In so far as tying it in law to the other one, on principle I would not be in favour of it because it could work against the view expressed here tonight in the not too distant future.
Take the case of somebody who wants to build a house for himself and applies for a grant to the Minister's Department and for a supplementary grant from the local authority and is eligible for both and applies for a loan and is informed that, although he is eligible for the supplementary grant class of income, he is unable to get the loan because he is over the £1,200 limit. That seems to be a fairly ridiculous situation to arise. It has prevented people who otherwise would have built their own houses from doing so.
If it is ridiculous, it could be argued that the other limit is too high rather than that this one is too low. Furthermore, this £1,200 limit administratively operated and changeable without any change in law in this House, applies only to moneys from the Local Loans Fund through the SDA scheme.
What other source is there to get moneys for local authority housing at the present time?
Insurance companies.
They will not give a bob. They have not got a bob and the Minister knows that.
There is an insurance company in this city that recently gave £100,000 to a local authority——
That was for cottage repairs and they are getting almost as much per annum from that local authority in insurance under the workmen's compensation and other insurance.
I do not know of any local authority that is paying £100,000 to any insurance company——
I am afraid Deputies are forgetting that this is Report Stage.
I was hoping the Chair would forget that.
Money is declining in value and building costs have increased. Surely, then, there is every justification for raising the ceiling of——
Both of these ceilings in question have been raised.
Would the Minister agree to have another look at the whole matter?
Yes, I will have another look, certainly. But I should like, in the meantime—probably, in some way or another, we have failed to get across tonight either through my lack of appreciation of the sentiments of the Deputies or due to lack of facility in their expressions here—that we may try to see the problem and how to go about rectifying it. This I will certainly promise to do but this other effort will help in the meantime.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 29, between lines 51 and 52, to insert a new subsection as follows: "(10) The fixing of the rate or rates of interest to be charged by a local authority in respect of a loan advanced under this section shall be a reserved function."
Again, while in very many cases the members of the local authority can advise the county manager on the rate which is to be fixed for a loan and can, in fact, agree to give low interest rate loans to people with low incomes, there are some local authorities where the managers fix the interest and charge the maximum amount. That results in the adding of one-half or threequarter per cent to the local authority loan rate. It is not a very big issue, not anything like as big as that in the previous amendment, but it is still very desirable.
I support this amendment as another way of providing assistance to induce people to provide their own houses and so relieve the ratepayers. If it is done on a selective basis and for a well-defined category of people, it could be an advantage, but it is something that would have to be restricted and certain rules and regulations would have to be devised for it. Otherwise, the point might be reached at which the dog would be after his own tail.
Acceptance of this amendment would leave it to the elected representatives to assist people to build their own houses. At the moment there are certain things they can do, things that are more or less statutory, and these are all set down, with the exception of the supplementary grants. The normal practice in regard to the loan scheme is that the City Manager adds on to the interest rate which the local authority has to pay a fixed sum for administrative costs. That addition is made automatically. It might be that the acceptance of this amendment would provide an opportunity for local authorities to examine the whole situation and to see to what extent they would be prepared to use the power given in the amendment. It might initiate another look at the way in which people providing their own houses can be assisted.
Because of our present circumstances and all the things that go with house purchasing, in many cases the effect is that the State and supplementary grants go to benefit the builder of the house and not the person for whom it is being built. This amendment would further the opportunities of local authorities to see whether they could use the authority given in it to assist house purchase and it would open further avenues to enable people to provide their own houses. Members of local authorities would naturally have to have regard to their responsibilities as representatives of the local ratepayers.
I think the Minister in considering this amendment might have regard to the fact that for years we have been encouraging the provision of houses by people themselves. One of the encouraging factors is the fact that supplementary grants are available. The time when a person is building a house is the time that the burden is greatest. The family is arriving and growing up and the idea of a subsidised rate of interest could be a great inducement to a young couple to build their own houses. It would be a very valuable incentive if the repayment of a loan could be stretched over a greater period of years and it would be a help to young people at a time when their burden is greatest.
I will say that there is not a manager in Ireland today who would not agree to the expressed wishes of his council members if they wanted to have the interest rates reduced. I do not believe there is a manager in the country who would not abide by such a request, if it were made to him. However, the wisdom of doing it is a matter that not only the manager but the whole group of the council have to consider. It is well known that Cork tried this some years ago and gave it up. They had an interest rate down to something like three per cent. Without having given the matter a great deal of thought before the Cork experiment, I might have been inclined to encourage the idea. Since then and considering what changed their minds in Cork, I am very much changed in mind about it, without being directly opposed to it. I would think a long time about it before including it in this Bill.
The saving to the local authorities in other ways is seldom taken into account.
If we had started off years ago on the question of subsidised rates, it might have been the best way.
A lot of continental countries do this.
I know they do. We are not all that long at the game but we have come a long distance in regard to encouraging private building by State grants, supplementary grants, tax remission and other matters. If they could all be obtained in cash at the one time, they would practically build a house in many cases. One wonders who has got all this money. By and large a very large amount is being given by State and local authorities to encourage and enable people to provide houses for themselves.
As I say, had we started out at an early stage on subsidisation of interest rates on houses for owner occupation, it is quite possible we would never have evolved the various schemes of grants and rates and tax concessions now built in to our whole system, built in to such a degree that going over to the interest subsidisation inherent in these amendments would inevitably result in a situation in which we should have to think again about cutting out some, or all, of the present incentives. That might be a good thing but one has to remember that the idea is being considered now in the light and against the background of a fairly widespread and diversified code of assistance by way of encouragement to private house building. If a local authority wants it, however, I doubt if any manager would stand in the way of his council subsidising interest rates.
What about the Donegal County Council and the road workers?
I could not imagine a majority or unanimous decision of the council being so wide of the mark that the manager would refuse to accept it.
The trouble is there is a Fianna Fáil majority on a great many of the councils.
In regard to the most progressive schemes, irrespective of what Government was in office, you will find that where councils had a Fianna Fáil majority, they operated the schemes in advance and far more generously than did majorities of other kinds. That may prove single-mindedness of purpose, but that is the way it works out.
As far as the amendments are concerned, I question the wisdom of this reversal of the present situation. It seems to me to be six of one and half a dozen of the other. I believe anybody who wants this system can have it if a majority or unanimous decision of the council asks for it. I believe that purposely setting about reversing the trend after all these years would be taken as a direct invitation, if not a direction, that this should be done. I am not convinced of the wisdom of doing it in all cases judging it against the background of present aid and assistance. I should be loth to rush into this merely because it would make the payments easier in future. One of the anomalies at the moment is that mortgage interest is eligible for tax abatement. People who qualify for an SDA loan would be unlikely to be worried initially about tax abatement but, as the years go by, many of these people become very well off indeed. Under the law as it stands, the richer a man grows the greater the benefit he reaps in tax concessions on foot of his mortgage. We should ask ourselves then whether we should add to that this further advantage for an applicant who later on could pay three, four or ten times what he set out to pay originally. As a result of improving his station in life and his income, he gets a bigger rebate from the State on the tax side. That is an aspect that should be considered.
The Minister appears to be looking at the SDA purchasers through very rosy glasses. There are many who have loans for the past ten or 15 years and they are not by any means in the situation the Minister describes.
The Deputy knows as well as I do that there are many who came into this city in their bare feet ten and 15 years ago who are now driving around in motor cars.
And some came in in cars and went out in their bare feet.
Good luck to the Deputies who claim credit for these——
Extra curricular activities.
All I can say is that judging by the prognostications, it will not be just ordinary motor cars these people will have in the next ten or 15 years. They are being driven to the waterworks now in Mercedes cars. In another ten or 15 years they will be going around in Rolls Royces. More power to them if they do. If, in the passage of time, Deputy Larkin, Deputy Tully and others engaged in fostering the wellbeing of the workers can claim some credit for this advance, good luck to them as well.
If the workers owned the cars, we would be claiming credit. But they do not. Dublin Corporation owns them.
Chauffeur driven. To be driven is the thing. Anybody can drive himself.
The Minister is not getting jealous, is he?
Not by any means, but that is clear proof that Deputy Larkin's assertion that my glasses are rosy-hued is not bone out by the facts or by the prognostications for the future from the very quarter in which Deputy Larkin himself operates. I have every reason to believe the situation will be even better in the future and I have, I think, understated rather than overstated the position.
We will do our best to make it so.
By three per cent.
We should not perturb ourselves about something which we could put into operation at the moment by a majority or unanimous decision in our councils. As I see it, it is not such a great advantage. It might not be an advantage to rush headlong into this. It might not be the best thing in the long run.
All I ask is that the elected representatives should be entitled to do it. There are a number of local authorities in which it can be done and is being done, but I understand there are a number who will not do it and if the elected representatives had it, they could never say the county manager would not let us do it. They would have the responsibility and that is where the responsibility should be.
Would the Deputy like to have an auction about this in a local authority meeting, particularly approaching a local election time, like some other auctions there were lately?
The Minister is thinking of Donegal County Council and roadworkers' wages.
Exactly, where there was sense prevailing when I was there, but not any longer. A long time ago, to the workers' benefit, we stopped the auction by not having these matters on the Order Paper so that any authority, for their own benefit, by merely saying we will give so much to the roadworkers, could use them as a vote catching device. We dealt with it in committee.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 29, between lines 51 and 52, to insert a new subsection as follows: "() In this section `house' includes a cottage included in a purchase scheme under the Act of 1936 or a house included in any housing authority purchase scheme."
The Minister may be able to clarify the position for me in a couple of minutes. This is an amendment to section 39. Section 39, subsection (1), says:
A housing authority may, subject to regulations made by the Minister for the purposes of this section with the consent of the Minister for Finance, lend money to a person for the purpose of acquiring or constructing a house.
I have put down the amendment because we find at local authority level that very often vested council cottages come up for sale, particularly if the annuity has been redeemed, and are sold to the highest bidder. Very often local persons, farmworkers, road-workers or factory workers, who are in fairly low-paid jobs, would like to purchase the cottage. If they purchase the cottage they would be removed from the local authority list of persons needing rehousing. The only thing that stops them is the fact that they have not got the necessary ready money.
What I suggest is that such persons should be eligible for a loan under this section for the purpose of purchasing one of these cottages. It is a reasonable proposal which I do not think requires any long debate. If the Minister tells me that that is already included in the section I am prepared to accept that immediately. I cannot find where it is included. My impression is that it is not included in the section. If it is not, I think the Minister will agree with me that it is highly desirable that every effort should be made to allow these people to purchase houses which become available in the area, particularly vested cottages. That is what I had in mind in the amendment.
The Minister is probably aware that at present some local authorities have found it necessary to repurchase cottages which were vested some years ago in order to find cheap housing for persons eligible for rehousing. In order to prevent the necessity for their doing so and to allow people to own their own houses, my amendment suggests that persons in this category should be entitled to get the loan whereby to purchase a house of this type. I should like to hear the Minister's view as to whether or not they are already included.
I just do not know what to say in relation to this amendment. I agree that a poor man of the working class should be allowed to buy such a house if it comes on the market. What I would be afraid of is that a house might come on the market and you might have a number of persons similarly situated applying for the same loan for the same house. It would increase competition and might defeat the very purpose Deputy Tully has in mind. That is only one aspect. It is something that I have considered but felt that it would be better in most cases if the loan were not available and the price of the house kept at a reasonable level as a result. People who are in immediate need of a house do not have regard to the consequences of putting themselves in debt in order to purchase a house.
That difficulty could be got over by the local authority putting a valuation on the house and refusing to give a loan beyond a certain figure. The insurance companies do that.
In that restricted sense it is only right, equitable and just that a poor man should be enabled to buy a house the same as a man who is better off.
So far as the net point in the amendment is concerned, I can assure Deputy Tully that the amendment is unnecessary but it would be unfair if I did not also say that while under the Bill there would be no statutory objection to making a loan for such a purpose as that asked for in the amendment, nevertheless, there might be administrative objections. The council might be precluded from paying money for the purchase of vested cottages or the interest in vested cottages, which is probably a better example. We have already, as the House will appreciate, gone out of the way to try to meet this overall point which has been made, not merely on this amendment but on previous sections, by Deputy Tully and others. We have brought about the situation that there may be a mortgage created in a vested cottage. That is an advance in the right direction, that is, if Deputy Tully's direction ever was right. It is an advance in that direction. Statutorily we are not saying that because the house is a cottage or vested cottage it may not be treated in the same way as any other house, in so far as an advance is concerned. It would be unfair and misleading the House if I did not say that despite that freedom in the law there will be administrative difficulties, if not objections, to advancing such moneys but the law is all right as far as what we are talking about in the amendment is concerned.
Will the Minister say if the administrative difficulties that he is talking about will be regulations made by the Minister or his Department?
I would not like to say that they may never be but let me say that they need not be the only objections. I can visualise objections that need not be of the Minister's creation at all or my wishes. There could be objections at administrative level.
May I make a comment?
The Deputy is entitled to conclude.
The Minister has partly answered my question. It is one of the tricks which, unfortunately, seem to have grown up in this Parliament that when a Minister is making a comment on a matter such as this he leaves us in the position that he agrees as to 50 per cent of what we are saying but is not prepared to accept the amendment which would go the whole way and give us the 100 per cent we are looking for. I do not know whether or not the Minister really meant what he said.
I am innocent on this occasion. The amendment is unnecessary. Let me put it another way: even if we accepted the amendment I would still have said what I did in regard to administrative objections.
It is all right for the Minister to say that. I know he is trying to be helpful. The administrative objections to which the Minister is referring no doubt have to do with this whole question of second mortgage which I thought we had cleared earlier. For a start, if the annuity on the house is redeemed fully, I assume there can be no objections, administrative or otherwise. It is simply a freehold house and therefore should qualify for any loan.
The second point is that if it is not a freehold house, if there is an annuity being paid on it, the Labourers Act. passed last year, enables the purchaser, who in this case is somebody who is getting a loan, to redeem the price of the house and in that way he would also have, after the sale, a freehold house. Therefore I do not know where the administrative objections come in. The Minister was thinking of the situation before the passing of the Labourers Act.
Perhaps I was unfair to the House and myself to suggest that there might be difficulties. I could have said the amendment is truly unnecessary and that what is there encompasses everything better than what is in the amendment. I could have said that and stopped, but I felt I would be unfair if I did not say that if we pass this without amendment there may still be administrative objections to giving moneys by the local authorities for the purchase of the interest in a vested cottage on which the annuity is still being redeemed.
If it is purchased, it means the annuity must be redeemed and therefore where the difficulties arise I do not know.
If the Deputy does not know and is not afraid of them, all I have done is warned him of them.
That is the trouble. If the Minister had said it is unnecessary, no county manager could take up tonight's Official Report and say: "This is what the Minister said and he knew it could not be done."
It is not that it cannot be done.
But the Minister has sown the seed. I am sure the Minister will accept that the amendment is put down in order to try to help out in an extremely difficult situation which can be found all over the country at present. We have cottages locked up which local people would be prepared to buy but they have not got the money. They live in shacks while these cottages are locked up. If money were made available, they could purchase them. If money were made available it would also relieve my council of spending £1,750 to £1,800 for new houses. The Minister says that this can be done, but there might be administrative difficulties, without saying what they are. My experience has been that officials are only too glad to be able to wave a copy of the Dáil Debates in the air, when it suits them, and say: "This is what the Minister said. He knew it could not be done". He said that there might be administrative difficulties and an administrative difficulty appears. I would be happier if the Minister would say what are the administrative difficulties which might occur.
Would the Minister say if the difficulty might be the one in section 3 where it states that the annuity at any time——
It is only where there might be competition for the house. If we had a scheme in operation which allowed both competitors, or three or four competitors, to be able of right to get money from the council to compete against one another without regard or interest——
Deputy Clinton covered that and the solution is that the local authority should themselves put a valuation on the house and refuse to allow a higher loan. They have the right to select people to whom loans will be given.
What about "in addition"? Will that not operate there?
I have not come across anything like that.
I am not saying that this is impossible but I can see as an objection that it might not be wise to make money available to a number of competitors drawing from the common pool.
I agree it would be undesirable and that an artificial price might be built up but that can be remedied quite easily. This is something which can be dealt with simply enough. If the Minister says that it is already included, I will withdraw my amendment.
I assure the Deputy it is unnecessary as an amendment.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 34, between lines 43 and 44, to insert the following subsection: "() Where a sum is due to a housing authority by the Minister and, at the same time, the authority is liable under subsection (3) of this section to repay an amount to the Minister, the sum may be set off against the amount either, as may be appropriate, in whole or in part."
Amendment No. 43 and perhaps No. 47 can be discussed with it as both are cognate.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 37, line 5, to insert "either at least once in every five years or" and "being less than five years" before "at" and "as" respectively.
These amendments deal with matters raised on Committee Stage and will provide that inspection of the programmes adopted should be made either at least once in five years or at such intervals, being less than five years, as the Minister may advise.
This was raised in an effort to keep the housing position under constant review so that at any time we would know the exact position, and we welcome the amendment.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 37, between lines 17 and 18, to insert a new subsection as follows: "() The report shall include observations as the housing authority may, by resolution, consider should be notified to the Minister."
The section is section 53 which reads:
(1) It shall be the duty of a housing authority, within such period after the commencement of this section as may be specified by the Minister and thereafter at such intervals as the Minister may direct from time to time, to inspect the houses in their functional area and to ascertain——
(a) to what extent there exist in the area houses which are in any respect unfit or unsuitable for human habitation,
(b) any overcrowding existing in the area, and
(c) such other matters as the Minister may specify from time to time,
and having regard to the information obtained by the inspection, and such other information as may be relevant, to assess, as respects the area, the adequacy of the supply of housing and the prospective future demand for housing and to cause a report thereon to be prepared. (2) For the purposes of the preparation of a report under this section, a housing authority shall make such enquiries and keep such records as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient, or which the Minister may direct.
The reason for asking for the insertion of this new subsection is that it has been found that when reports are being made by a manager to a Minister, he very often submits that the housing authority considers further housing is necessary but adds his own comments rather than the comments of the housing authority members. Even as recently as last year this caused embarrassment to members of a local authority not 100 miles from here. In order to prevent something like this happening again, the amendment suggests it should be mandatory on the manager to include in the report the observations of the elected members of the authority. If this were done, the Minister would know what the elected members required to be done and would not make the mistake which was made when a manager included only his own observations. The Minister would protect himself and ensure that he would not be misdirected in future by any manager. I suggest he should accept the amendment.
