At the outset I want to express appreciation of the helpful comments of Senators generally in connection with the Bill and, particularly, of the very helpful and reasoned analysis of the housing problem given by Senator Hawkins. Naturally, I am heartened by the reception given to the measure by every section of the community. I would like to say that it is the result of the efforts of the Department's officials and a good deal of study by them in examining the existing measures dealing with housing; the advice which we have got from the local authorities and the complaints we have received, some of them genuine, some of them fictitious; and making a very careful analysis and trying to embody in the measure provisions which will give the maximum of relief and remove any legislative bar in the way of the local authorities who are co-operating so actively in this national housing drive. We felt that we should not have any legislative bar when we are getting genuine co-operation from the citizens and the local authorities and that we should be helpful to them by introducing a measure which will remove a lot of the difficulties which have presented themselves so that the drive will go on at an accelerated pace.
Senator Hawkins referred to the work of the appointed officers and of some delays in making payments of grants. We have in fact introduced a procedure to short-circuit the existing method of certification and lessen the work of the appointed officers. Payments will not now require final inspection by two officers. First inspections will be made by the appointed officer and the final inspection by the housing inspector of the Department. In that way we are lightening the work of the appointed officers. While it may be said that the remuneration of the appointed officers is not adequate or commensurate with the work, we must remember that the work is only part-time and that they receive a fee of two guineas. As I say, their work will be lessened by the new regulations which will also speed up the payment of the grants to the applicants.
Senator Hawkins also raised a question about the alteration in regard to the purchase grant and its effect. I think there cannot be anything but a beneficial effect from the alteration made. The applicant will still have the right under the 1948 Act to enter into a contract. The fact that we are giving him the right now to acquire, purchase or construct a house and still get the grant for it, anyway you take it, will be helpful. Even if it does encourage the speculative builder, as was suggested, we think that will be helpful. Up to now, the speculative builder could only build a house as he got an order. Such a man, having a site, will be able to plan and develop it to full advantage in the knowledge that applicants will come along with a grant in their pockets. That will enable the builder to do a speedier and maybe a cheaper job. Furthermore, there will be the fact that there will be a spirit of competition when applicants can come along with the grant in their pockets and say: "I am going to you to-day. I will go to the other builder the next day."
I am rather surprised at the suggestion by Senator Hawkins to give the grant to the builder. Even the builders themselves did not ask that and they have been with me several times. We had not a notion of doing that. We are trying to keep the grant in the applicant's pocket. Many of the steps we have been taking were to secure that it went into the applicant's pocket and that the builder did not get it.
There was also the point made that there may be an additional burden on local authorities to provide houses for every class. It is not intended that these new powers should impose any additional burdens. The operations contemplated are intended to leave each transaction economic for the local authority. The State grant will be the same as that being given to private individuals. There should be no extra cost upon the local authority in connection with that extension of their powers.
Many Senators referred to the acquisition of lands and the danger attaching to it. I can assure the Seanad that every caution will be observed and every discretion taken in the use of these powers. The powers are not being put into the Bill lightly. They are being put into the Bill because of essential need, hardship and handicap that was experienced by several local authorities.
A Senator referred to the possibility of a local authority being unscrupulous. I do not like to take that view of the local authorities. I think they are generally not of the unscrupulous type. They are doing a very good job and even if there were any danger of any particular local authority acquiring portion of land for an ulterior motive—it seems a rather remote possibility—the owner of the land has a right of appeal to the Minister and the right to an inquiry where he can be legally represented and, finally, he has the courts. All precautions and essential guarantees are given there because we do not want to invade the private rights of citizens to any extent other than in the public interest. Certainly the Minister, whoever he will be, will not stand idly by and see some local authority acquiring lands for purposes other than the provision of housing for the people in the area. The Senator may rest assured that private rights will be vigorously protected.
Local authorities may develop sites for private persons and charge the cost to the lessees. There should then be no loss to the ratepayers. In the case of public companies the invariable practice is to require such companies to undertake all development work on the site.
The private builder is also strictly controlled, particularly in Dublin, by restricting permission for further building according to the builder's readiness to carry out requisite incidental development. There is always a check on that and it is in the power of the local authority to insist on the development being carried out to their satisfaction. In the proposal here, they can take the sites themselves and develop them themselves and set them to the applicant or the tenant.
There was a point made, I think, by Senator Hawkins that there may be a danger in opening the door by giving more money under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act in the new method of valuation, that is, relating market value to the reasonable cost of construction rather than the previous method of having it assessed by an auctioneer. The Senator suggests that we may be giving too much money. I want to point out that the real trouble up to the present was that the amount advanced by the local authority, even plus the grant, left a gap between the amount advanced and the price of the house to be purchased. We found that it was generally the practice that these people had to go elsewhere to get the additional money. They went to moneylenders and usurers in many cases. We will make the money available to them at a cheaper rate than the rate at which they have been getting it up to now. They will know exactly what they are facing, what their commitments will be. There was a very genuine demand all over the country for this particular concession. As has been mentioned by other Senators, if the fact that they want to build a house adds a little more to the weekly outgoings than would be represented by a normal rent, they are making a realisable asset for themselves and it is much better to have the money from the local authority than from private moneylenders at usurious rates of interest.
The question of costs has been raised and rightly so. I want to assure the Seanad that the costs have been very carefully kept under examination by the Department. Our whole aim is to try to get building costs down as much as possible. We do not want to lower standards. We want to maintain standards, both urban and rural. We want to try to get the costs down as near as possible to a reasonable figure. I am glad to say that there has been a tendency in recent times for prices to drop. While the standard of wages has not gone down, some very slight decrease in materials took place which was offset again by an increase in other materials. None the less, there has been a drop in price levels and contract prices. Local authorities have been advised by the Department to examine tenders carefully and anything that is felt to be of an unreasonable nature should not be accepted. We have set ceiling figures in certain parts of the country which are operating satisfactorily. In addition, we have found the operation of direct labour schemes has had a very good corrective effect. We have not got the results of many of them yet but those we have got show a very pleasing and gratifying result. Some of the reductions that took place as against the contract prices could be called spectacular. That, in itself, has also helped to bring down and to keep contract prices to a lower figure. We are hoping, by the new developments under this measure and the spirit of competition that has been produced now, that there will be still further lowering of prices in the building of houses without reducing the standard.
The question of rural slums was referred to. I may say that the number of applications from congested areas up to now has been very gratifying, and bears a good percentage ratio to the applications from other parts of the country. That is gratifying because we are very anxious in the Department to get as much as possible done in those areas. Furthermore, the provisions of Section 7 should be of immense help and we hope will accelerate the building of houses in those areas.
The terminal date of 1952 has been mentioned. It will be in the knowledge of all Senator that successive terminal dates have always been a feature of Housing Acts. The intention is to ensure that the Oireachtas will get an opportunity of instituting a periodical review of the financial provision. Nobody loses by this system.
It was suggested also in this connection that the powers which have been given to local authorities to build houses will have to take place behind priority classes, under the Labourers Act, etc., and that the time is not yet ripe. I think it is no harm to have that provision in this Bill. As a matter of fact, I could cite one or two cases at least in the country where they have already covered their housing needs and are in a position to get on with other work. We do not intend that that will be put into any priority. They must keep on and finish their existing housing needs before getting on with the other part of the job. I happen to know one case, and there is possibly a second, where they have already solved the problem and we hope many others will fall in in the course of the next few years.
In connection with the reference to the proposal to scrap the transition development fund grants, we have already obtained material from many local authorities and a substitute scheme is being worked out for the clarification of the existing methods of subsidisation. Ample notice will be given to the local authorities so that there will be no hitch or hold-up. They will know exactly what their powers will be. We are taking steps to secure that there will be no possible hitch because any of the local authorities engaged in the housing programme must know, well in advance, what the financial provisions for the following year will be.
I was glad to hear Senator Miss Butler's appreciation of the social principles underlying the expansion of general housing policy revealed in the Bill. The powers proposed to house general classes can scarcely be exercised to delay the more urgent problem of the special classes but when the solution of this latter problem is in sight the general powers can be exercised. Indeed, there is no objection to a proportion of such houses being provided in many areas at present according to demand. We are in a position to do that now to some extent and I think a little mingling with the urgent cases would not do any harm. In that connection I would mention Castleblayney where they have already solved their housing problem under their existing statutory obligations.
Senator Miss Butler also said that the fact of overcrowding should qualify for a second grant. I am not quite clear if the Senator's remarks relate to local authority houses only. If so, the problem is met by the procedure proposed to transfer newly-weds after some years to larger houses. In other cases there is nothing to prevent a local authority from adding a room to any of their houses. As regards standards of accommodation generally, these have necessarily been restricted, but we certainly look forward to raising them now and, in fact, we are building at the moment some four- and five-roomed houses. The trend is upward and onward at the moment and in no respect is it downward.
Senator Tunney felt that houses for newly-weds should not be confined as a "reserved class" to urban areas. The rural housing authorities have complete power for all classes under Section 17. The newly-weds can, therefore, get the additional accommodation put on there.
Senator Dockrell mentioned the question of housing waiting on other services. I am glad to be able to say that we are going ahead with the other services at full speed—water and sewerage schemes. We have schemes at a total cost of £1,000,000 in progress this year and the same applied last year. Therefore, we are not allowing housing to absorb completely our activities but are seeing that the other is in step with it—and schemes are planned ahead for the coming years.
The Rent Restrictions Act was referred to. That will be inquired into by a commission established by the Minister for Justice, on which there will be a representative from my Department, in the very near future.
Senator Dockrell referred to three classes to be housed—(1) artisans; (2) black-coated workers and (3) room keepers. I do not know why he segregated this latter type of person from class one. We want to see these classes dealt with as a whole. The differential rent system is the best way we can devise of dealing with them. The houses are provided and the need for houses is equal. A person with a reasonable income will be asked to pay a reasonable rent as near as possible to the economic rent. The State will give equal grants and the local authority will be asked to help from the rates. But the lower income tenant is unable to get a house at a figure approaching an economic rent. I do not think I would approve of the suggestion of the segregation of classes to the extent suggested by the Senator. They are all our citizens and if the medical officer recommends that their houses are insanitary I think it is the duty of the local authority to find alternative housing for them and to look after them as best they can. So far, the differential rent system has been operating in some places throughout the country and it has been found to be an equitable way of grappling with the problem.
Senator Douglas, in his reference to stamp duty, stated that this is a matter for the Minister for Finance. With that statement I heartily concur. The Minister for Local Government has enough responsibilities of his own but this is not one of them. Our interest in the matter is merely for the purpose of encouraging the building of new houses. We felt that by giving the advantage—as we hoped it would be—to the purchaser of a house that had been erected rather than to the contractor we would be walking him into the 5 per cent. purchase tax and we have gone to the extent of having an amendment tabled to relieve him of that. I would prefer to leave suggestions as to what might happen in five years' time to the Minister for Finance.
Senator O'Dwyer referred to the question of building in rural areas. I want to assure him that it is our policy, and that it is an aim that has actually in practice been realised, to build in strict proportion in the town and in the country. It is a happy feature that we find that the returns are corresponding and are rising to the occasion equally in the country districts and in the towns. I am inclined to encourage that. It would be very bad to concentrate on the cities, urgent as the needs may be, because I feel it would be an attraction which would lure the country people to the cities.
A vested tenant has not the power to sell again, save with the consent of the county council. The policy is to consent only where the sale is to another agricultural labourer.
With regard to demolition orders, I should like to inform the House that the matter has been reviewed in recent months. A circular was issued by my Department some months ago to all local authorities advising them to go slow during the present period of scarcity of houses. If it is considered that a house, in respect of which a demolition order is proposed, is capable of being put into habitable repair for as abort a term as ten years, the local authority are encouraged to put it into repair. No house will at present be demolished except one which is declared unsafe or completely unfit for human habitation. We do not want in this period of scarcity any house which is capable of giving service for a few added years to be demolished. That circular was issued to local authorities quite recently.
Senator O'Dwyer also felt that the burden of all this housing programme will fall on the rates. That is not correct. You will find that from State assistance, subsidies, transition development fund grants and assistance even to the interest charges made by the State that the Central Fund is standing nobly to this question and the full burden is not falling on the rates, as has been suggested by somebody. In fact, I expect that it will even have the effect of lightening the incidence of the rates because, with the new provisions of this Bill, there is an encouragement to more and more of our citizens who would normally be on the local authority to build their own houses. We are accepting as low a figure now as 5 per cent. of the total cost. That is a new departure. It is an encouragement to our citizens who feel like building their houses to go from the local authority and to build them. In that respect it will be an assistance rather than an added weight on the local authorities.
Senator Burke raised the question of additional space in rural houses. I would point out that 1,400 square feet in a rural area does not include dairies and so forth attached to the houses, which may be treated as out-offices. A plan of this kind will relieve and supplement the kitchen accommodation. It would be very dangerous if we were to have a general introduction for an additional 100 feet for every house in rural areas. There would need to be a segregation in regard to that matter. I feel that we have been reasonable in regard to the 1,400 square feet and in the interpretation of the Act.
I think I have now dealt with all the points which were made in this debate. Again, I desire to thank the members of this House for the cordial reception they have given to the measure and I trust it will realise the hopes which have been entertained for it.