I think that the Seanad, in a general way, welcomes this Bill providing for the payment of housing grants. As one interested in this work, I would also welcome an amendment by the Minister to make it valid for a person carrying on a business or shop to be entitled to receive a grant. I have met a number of cases where people carry on business in a new house, more or less of the workshop type. I have in mind dressmakers, tailors and shoemakers—local people in country districts who carry on those trades. As the Act stands at present, they would not be entitled to a grant if they employ persons other than members of their own families. They would not come within the definition of an agricultural worker and, therefore, would not be entitled to receive a grant. I know one or two cases where there is great hardship— one where a local dressmaker had a new house erected on the understanding that she would be entitled to £80 of a grant. When the inspector came, she was informed that, as she happened to employ one person other than a member of her own family, she was not eligible. I would ask the Minister, if possible, to amend this Bill in the Seanad now, by inserting the word "shop", so that persons of that kind would be entitled to receive a grant.
We all know very well the great strides that have been made, since the present Government came into office, in housing, particularly in rural areas. On various occasions in this House we have heard talk about the flight from the land. I trace that back to the lack of proper housing. If we look at the question, we find that a young agricultural worker employed by a farmer, when he makes up his mind to get married, finds that the only place he can take himself and his wife into is some slum room in the city, as there is no housing accommodation in the country, for rent or otherwise, to be got. Although in a number of districts the boards of health have made great strides in the erection of labourers' cottages, I can safely say that there is not a county in which a sufficient number of these cottages have been erected. We know that owing to war conditions it is very difficult to procure housing materials at the present time, but I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the need for cottages and for improved rural housing in general.
The Minister has made a concession to people who have set aside portion of their houses for shops. In that connection there is one question which I should like the Minister to answer. Prior to this, if a man erected a house with a shop attached, it would be necessary to have a separate entrance for the shop. I should like to know if that condition still holds, in order to obtain a grant under this section. In addition to people who were deprived of grants because they set up shops, there was also a number of people who lost grants owing to the restrictions imposed as regards floor area. When the 1932 Act was passed the floor area was fixed at a maximum of 1,250 square feet.
That was afterwards reduced to 875 square feet. Meanwhile a number of people who had begun to build their houses were caught out, because they found that the new regulations prescribed that the floor area should not be greater than 875 square feet. They were informed when the houses were completed that they were not entitled to grants. Quite a number of people had incurred debts and had contracted for the building of these houses on the assumption that they were entitled to the usual grant. As a matter of fact in a number of cases, approval certificates were issued by the appointed officers and on the strength of these certificates people contracted debts. They were later informed after the prescribed floor area had been reduced from 1,250 to 875 square feet that they were not entitled to grants. They found themselves in a very awkward position indeed. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it would not be possible to make a concession in regard to those people. They would not amount to a very large number. I think that at least the people who started work after the approval certificates were issued by the appointed officers should have their claim for a grant reconsidered. So much for rural housing.
Coming to the question of housing in urban areas, under the 1932 Act a person or a public utility society erecting a house in an urban area was entitled to receive a grant of £70 It was subsequently reduced each year until it was brought down to £45, and for a number of years now these grants have been suspended entirely. While there may be very few people who undertake the erection of houses in urban areas at present, I think it would be a very good thing if these grants were renewed. The Minister perhaps might be able to make a stronger case if the numbers were much greater and the demands on the Exchequer correspondingly higher. I think personally that those who would avail of these grants at present would be very few but, even so, those few should get some assistance by way of a grant. We have undoubtedly made great strides as regards housing, but if we examine the position I think it will be agreed that much still remains to be done. In Galway City, for instance, a number of houses have been erected by the local authority and by private individuals under the Small Dwellings Act. The houses erected by the Galway Corporation were almost entirely given over to people removed from slum areas. That of course is a policy with which we all agree but, at the same time, we find that the young labourer who gets married has no house available and he is compelled to go into a room for which sometimes he pays double the rent he would pay for a house. He remains there until a tenant is removed from the slum area and then he does his best to get into the house vacated by the former slum tenant so that in due course he will be entitled to be regarded as one who should be removed from the slum area to a newly-erected house.
We should endeavour to rectify a position of that kind. To my mind the only way we can do it is by encouraging enterprise or utility societies to undertake the building of houses for people with incomes sufficient to enable them to pay an economic rent. It is for that reason I urge that the Minister should reintroduce the scheme under which public utility societies or private individuals received grants for the erection of houses for the accommodation of people such as I have referred to. If we leave it to the local authorities, it will be years and years before the problem is dealt with. What we see happening in Galway must be happening on a larger scale in Dublin. As the slums are being cleared, they are being as quickly reoccupied, and this process will go on until the housing problem is tackled vigorously instead of leaving it entirely to public bodies. A question then arises as to the ability of the prospective tenants to pay the rent charged.
I think that we could do two things at the one time in helping to solve that problem. If we undertook the development of housing sites by means of relief schemes, employment would be provided on the one hand and eventually the cost of the house would be reduced, on the other. If we look round our cities and towns we see a number of old derelict ruins. I think that as an emergency measure these old buildings should be demolished and the sites cleared. If there were any trouble in this country, invasion or an upheaval of any description, I hold that these places would be a source of great danger and great hindrance. In cities like Galway and Dublin one sees many old ruins on the point of falling asunder. I think that if we tackled the problem of pulling these down and clearing the sites, we would be providing much-needed employment and, at the same time, we would be preparing for rebuilding when building materials became available. We would be giving useful work at the moment and we would be giving hope to those people who are anxiously looking forward to the time when they may have a home for themselves.
Coming back to this Bill which deals principally with rural housing, I have on several occasions here urged that the question of rural housing should be a matter principally for the Land Commission. After all, the Land Commission is, as it were, the landlord of rural areas. Yet we see many houses in the country which are no better than the slums in the city. These houses are occupied by small farmers for whom the grant of £80, given by the Department of Local Government, is very little use to enable them to erect new houses, and because of the low valuation and the low value of the land they find it difficult to get a loan. If they get a loan the repayment of it would be a heavy drain on their income, and therefore they are not anxious to undertake the liability. In cases like that, the Land Commission should be either compelled, as a tenant in any house in an urban area would be compelled, to put such a house in order, or, at least, to make the means to do so available to the tenant. I know one or two cases where out of society funds in consideration of the applicant's position and the number in his family, advances of from £10 to £15 were made so that an advance might be secured from the Local Government Department. I suggest that that was done to overcome a difficulty of this kind, and that the Minister or his inspector should be empowered to go with the county medical officer of health and report whether or not an applicant should receive special consideration.
Bad houses have been the cause of tuberculosis and other infectious diseases, and if we are going to wipe them out in country districts we cannot do it with hard and fast rules, but if power were given to the medical officer and housing inspector to recommend, in such cases, a larger grant, or instruct the board of health to have a residence built for those people, it would meet the situation. In the case of small holders of land they find that the £80 grant is not sufficient, and as they have not the necessary means at their disposal they cannot get a house under any conditions.