Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 19 Jul 1956

Vol. 46 No. 8

Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1956—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hawkins

This section provides that the local authority may adopt this scheme whereby building societies are prepared to lend money to persons for the purpose of erecting their own houses. In relation to this whole question, there seems to be an amount of confusion, and I think it would be well if the Minister could be more precise in answering the questions addressed to him, because they have been addressed for the purpose of eliciting helpful information. We have a very open mind as to whether this scheme will work or not but the working of it will depend to a great extent on the information members of local authorities have in relation to it.

Here is one matter I want to get clear. When a person makes an application to the local authority for an advance under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, the county manager decides whether or not that person is or is not a person who should be entitled to an advance under the Acts from funds made available to the local authority from the Local Loans Fund. I think that is quite clear. If the county manager, having investigated the income, to decide whether the applicant is or is not a man of modest means, decides that he is, then he must make an application to a building society. That building society carries out all the necessary investigations and informs the local authorities that it is now prepared to issue advances to this person on condition that the local authority puts into operation Section 10 of this Bill. They are their guarantors, together with the Central Fund, for the repayment of portion of the advances. Are these the steps that will have to be taken by the applicant to avail of advances under this section?

The second point is at what stage will the building society take steps, if the person who receives the loan, through any circumstances, fails to pay the monthly, weekly or half-yearly instalments? Will it be two months after the default, or will it go on until the arrears have accumulated to such an extent as to cover the full guarantee of the local authorities? An arrangement has been entered into, of which we are not aware, in relation to these matters with the building societies. It would be well before we pass this section that we should know all its implications and we should have from the Minister, as clearly as he can possibly give us, details of the manner in which it is to work. It would be a very serious matter that if, because of default by the person who receives the loan, the building society were to clamp down on its guarantee from the local authorities. I should like more information from the Minister on this point.

Mr. Kissane

This section could be described as an experimental one, because there is something being tried out now which has never been tried out before. Provision is being made for the making of advances for housing by building societies and I am afraid that there is confusion in our minds as to how that will work out. When dealing with this matter in the Dáil, the Minister referred to what he called a tripartite agreement, between the Department, the local authority, and the building societies and, between them all, and it would be hard for the individual to know where he stands. Later, we find that assurance companies are to be raked in. Well and good, if the financial assistance got from them will be obtained under advantageous conditions, but I have yet to learn what the conditions are and, more important still, what the rate of interest will be.

I do not know if the Minister made that information available in the Dáil when this section was under discussion, because I regard the rate of interest as of vital importance because it will affect the amount of the rent, in certain cases, that will have to be paid for the house in question later on. The term of years is of utmost importance, too. Senator Walsh mentioned a period of 35 years. That is a long period and remember that we are going through a period of dear money at present. It could happen that, before the period of 35 years was over, money would have become cheap, and that the rate of interest, which will be determined now, or in the near future, will still be the rate of interest these people will have to pay to the building society, or to the assurance companies, if they are to be brought into the scheme. All this juggling, as I would term it, is indicative of the financial stringency that has overtaken the country to-day. I hope the position will not grow any worse.

Mr. Tunney

I think it is a great pity that the Minister has introduced this point at all. While I appreciate his honesty and sincerity in trying to provide houses for the people, I feel that the person who will be helped to obtain a loan of £1,600 or £1,800 at 7 per cent. will undergo a grave injustice, unless he is wealthy enough to put down the difference and go to the building society. The ordinary man in the street used go to the county council and get a loan under the Small Dwellings Acts and I feel that there was no better Act ever introduced than the Small Dwellings Act because it dealt with a certain section of the people and helped them to provide homes and took them off the hands of the local authorities. I do say that an injustice is being done to a person who gets a loan at 7 per cent. and who is unable to pay it after a number of years.

As a member of a local authority, I will do as much as I can to see that no such guarantee is given. If a person is wealthy enough to go to an insurance company or a building society, let him go, but I should be very sorry that the ratepayers should make up the difference for the building society. As far as I am concerned, I admire building societies, except for the fact that their interest rates are too high and I would have more appreciation of the Bill if the Minister had left the building societies out of it.

I feel that no better Act was ever introduced than the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act which has been responsible for housing thousands of our people at reasonable rates. I appeal to the Minister that, before he puts money to other purposes, he should ensure that sufficient money is made available for all the reasonable applications made under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. I know that Act requires a certain amount of combing and that many people got facilities under it who were not entitled to them, but I think that, generally speaking, it has worked very well, and it has not cost the ratepayers any money. There were very few defaulters under it.

The Constitution of the State has amongst its three most important provisions, the provision of housing, education and food for the people. I feel that there is no better way in which the Minister could do great work for the nation than by providing the money to enable the people to purchase their homes under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. You will never build up the nation by loans from the local authorities for housing, because the local authorities have to spend money on maintaining their houses.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That does not arise on this section.

Mr. Tunney

This question of housing is one of the first claims on the Government. People who got money under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act repaid it, plus the interest, and, as I have stated, there were very few defaulters. Housing by the local authorities has cost the ratepayers a lot of money, but such is not the case under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. One of the greatest safeguards for the nation lies in people owning their own homes. It gives them a stake in the country, and is one of our greatest weapons against Communism. Ownership of their homes makes people better citizens.

Under that Act, thousands of people in County Dublin made applications for loans under the Small Dwellings Acts, and, while the Minister has not so far refused the Dublin County Council money for housing, I now appeal to him to make available to us sufficient money to meet those applications which we have already received. Many of those applications were made a considerable time ago and only last March were the people informed that they would have to get the money elsewhere. I know of one case where a man put down a deposit of £200 and, in March last, was told that he would have to go to a building society for the money. All that we would require to meet the applications sent in would be £1,500,000.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has dealt sufficiently with that matter.

Mr. Tunney

On the question of the interest charged by the building societies, I must say that I would never be a party to guaranteeing a loan at the rate of 7 per cent. which they charge. If somebody charges an extra price for any commodity of food, there is the law to deal with them, and why then should the building societies be allowed to charge an extra interest rate? It might be all very well for wealthy people to get the money that way, but the Minister should give more consideration to the middle income group.

Mr. Kissane

Will the rate of interest be 7 per cent.?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No person has said that.

Mr. Tunney

The building societies are charging it now.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

To whom?

Mr. Tunney

To the people who have applied to them. No person in this House should be a party to guaranteeing a loan from a building society which is charging an interest rate of 7 per cent. That means that a man would have to pay over £100 a year interest on a loan of £1,500. Under the Small Dwellings Act, the rate of interest was always reasonable, and if a borrower was in difficulties for a time, he would be given a chance to recover. The building societies would not give that chance, and if, after 15 years of repayments, a man defaults, they will quickly step in and take possession. They have then the repayments already made and the house to sell on the open market. I do not think the Minister should mix up the building societies in this matter of housing, and I appeal to him to reconsider the position.

Mr. Crowley

I have heard statements and read reports in the newspapers, and listened to them on the radio in which the Minister is alleged to have stated that 95 per cent. of the applications made for loans under the Small Dwellings Act in his county came from teachers. He is also reported as having referred to the teachers as not being persons of moderate means, and I think also that he said that teachers had between £700 and £800 a year.

That statement appeared to me to be very extraordinary, and I thought it painted a rather distorted picture of what is in fact the position. I have made inquiries in the matter, to the extent that it was possible, and I find that 80 per cent. of the teachers in this country have a maximum salary of £640. I am also informed, and I think reliably, that married teachers with one or two children have salaries of between £400 and £500 a year, and not more than that. I think, therefore, those statements of the Minister deserve some explanation and clarification and certainly there should be something by way of clarification, before the public, because they presented a very false picture of the situation in the country in general.

Mr. Murphy

I am sorry that a section such as this should be necessary in a Bill in 1956. I accept the Minister's assurances that it is necessary. I should like, however, to clarify my own ideas as to why it is necessary at this time. The Minister made the point that there was difficulty in procuring money. We are all aware of that at the present time. He said that money was now available from the building societies and the assurance companies. I think it is because of the impossibility or the difficulty of getting money for the Local Loans Fund to be advanced to local authorities, and that we cannot go further along those lines at present, that we turn then to the building societies and assurance companies. I think that is the reason we are turning to those people at the present time and not because, as I gathered from the Minister's speech, that he felt it was not the function of the State to advance money to people wanting to purchase or build their own homes. The Minister speaks so quickly that is is difficult to catch exactly what he says.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I do not speak half as quickly as a Corkman.

Mr. Murphy

Not being a Donegal man, I find it difficult to catch what he is saying sometimes. I hope I misunderstood what he said about the function of the State in this matter, because I would quarrel very seriously with him if he is now changing the direction of State policy contending that we do not now regard it as a function of the State or of the local authority to advance money to people building or purchasing their own houses.

Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the reason is, as I have said, that there is difficulty in getting money through the Local Loans Fund and we have to turn to where the Minister says some money is available, that is, to the building societies and assurance companies; that we are only turning to them because of the difficulty of getting money otherwise, and we are only giving a guarantee to them in order to prevent a wholesale shut down in this aspect of housing. That is why I think this section is necessary, and I should like to make it clear that I accept this section as being necessary on that understanding and not on the understanding that we have now changed our policy in regard to the State's function in this matter.

Mr. O'Reilly

It appears to me that the kernel of this Bill is the real purpose of this section, and that all the other sections are put in merely to fill up. The view I take of this section is that in it the Minister for Local Government is doing for the Minister for Finance a job of work which the Minister for Local Government does not like. He is relieving the Minister for Finance of responsibilities which the Minister for Finance should normally shoulder under the Local Loans Fund.

Provision is being made whereby local authorities, with the consent of the Minister, may set up certain schemes to finance housing which, prior to this, had been financed under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. I think the Minister will find that the amount of activity as a result of this section will be very little indeed, because, as Senator Tunney suggested, the cost to the unfortunate borrower will be so great that very few people with their eyes open will enter into commitments under a scheme prepared in accordance with this section. I feel that this section is only there for the purpose of relieving the Minister for Finance of certain of his responsibilities in connection with the financing of housing activity and I do not think it has been put there with any great heart on the part of the Minister for Local Government.

I may be wrong, but I would suggest that, when that Act of 1899 was passed, the intention of the Legislature was to bring about a position in which existing houses could be purchased by the tenant, and that it was not the intention to any great extent that there should be activity in the erection of new houses. The intention was to set up a scheme whereby the tenants of existing houses could purchase out the landlord's interest, and, by repaying on an annuity loan basis, eventually become the vested owners of the houses. I believe that the intention was good.

I do not know what the rate of interest was in 1899—I am sure the Minister could tell me—but since I have come into public life, I have seen the rate of interest under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts as low as 2¼ or 2¾ per cent. It was a predecessor of the Minister's who made an Order about 1948 which had the effect of providing that in future money would not be available under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts for the purchase of an existing house by the tenant from a landlord. That may have been a wise provision—I thought myself it was not a wise provision—but that Order was never backed by legislation, and I have heard people suggest that, if that Order made by the then Minister were contested in the courts, it is doubtful if it would be found to be valid.

However, that is of no consequence now. The Order was made and the effect of the Order was that the tenant of an existing house who wished to purchase the house could no longer get a loan under the Small Dwellings Acts from a local authority. I know the Order had some good effects. It boosted the erection of new houses at the time, but it also had the effect that the people, who could no longer get money under the Small Dwellings Act for the purchase of the existing house, had to turn to others. They had to turn to those building societies of which Senator Tunney, who knows much more about their activities than I do, has not a good opinion. That Order caused hardship to many people, even though it may have had the ultimate effect of boosting the erection of new houses.

What is the effect of this section? It is throwing further on to finance corporations and building societies of one kind or another the responsibility of the erection of new houses. Those people are dealing in money to make a profit. That is why they are in the business.

Professor Hayes

There seems to be no prospect of finishing this section and we might adjourn for an hour.

Mr. O'Reilly

If it is the desire of the House, I shall move the Adjournment.

Mr. Kissane

I was going to ask a question about the same thing. If this discussion will not last too long, it might be better not to adjourn.

Mr. Tunney

I take it that the section we are now dealing with is the only section on which there will be any delay?

Professor Hayes

That is so.

Mr. O'Reilly

I will be very brief.

Professor Hayes

I did not want to curtail the Senator's speech.

Mr. O'Reilly

We are now going to withdraw the benefits of the operation of the Small Dwellings Act from a very large section of the people. In my view, there will be very little activity under any scheme set up under this section in any local authority area. The interest rates will be so high that it will really stop building and prevent a class of our people who are unfortunate enough not to have a house from getting one. The Minister is, I think, as aware of that obvious fact as I am. He is doing an unsavoury job of work which he does not like having to do. He is removing responsibility from the Minister for Finance in regard to his commitments to local authorities under the Small Dwellings Act.

The Minister may suggest that people are getting loans under the Acts who really do not require them and that it is a hardship on the State to provide those people with loans. I believe that 99 people out of 100 will not take a loan, even at a low rate of interest. unless they need it. It would not make sense to me that a person should borrow, unless he needs it, particularly as this dream of cheap money seems to have vanished. Any person who wants to borrow from a local authority under the Small Dwellings Act needs the loan and needs the house. Otherwise, that person would not mortgage the property on which he will have to pay year by year, bearing in mind the risk of ill-health and all the other risks inherent in such a contract. Unless they are crazy, people will not enter into such a contract, without very good reason. I cannot help feeling that the Minister is as well aware of that fact as I am.

Mr. Tunney

I am conversant with the operation of the Small Dwellings Act and I have no knowledge that it ever dealt with second-class houses. All the time, in my county, the loan was given in respect of new houses. I am proud to say that no county council in this country has given out as much money as we have in County Dublin.

Will the Minister have any control over the legal costs? Not alone are the Government increasing the loan charges which the people will have to pay, but I understand that—speaking subject to correction—the legal charges where building societies are concerned are treble what they are under the Small Dwellings Act. Have the local authority any guarantee that the legal costs will not be increased out of all proportion to the amount they will guarantee?

Mr. O'Reilly

On a point of order, since Senator Tunney——

Professor Hayes

Surely that is not a point of order.

An Cathaoirleach

What is the point of order?

Mr. O'Reilly

Senator Tunney suggested——

An Cathaoirleach

What is the point of order? What Senator Tunney suggests is a different matter. I call on Senator Walsh.

Mr. Walsh

Reference was made to a statement by the Minister in the other House which was quoted in yesterday's Irish Independent. He said that 95 per cent. of the applicants are school-teachers and that he does not think a school-teacher is a man of modest means. I feel the Minister made that statement on the spur of the moment, without giving it much thought. As a member of a local authority and as a solicitor practising in West Donegal, I can say that none of the people with whom I have been dealing—and I have been dealing with a fair number of people—who made applications for loans under the Small Dwellings Acts were school-teachers. I feel that statement is grossly exaggerated.

The Minister suggested that teachers with £700 were not people of modest means and that it was a guidance to local authorities when drafting their scheme that those people with that income should not be allowed to obtain such a loan. In view of the fact that the county council can obtain loans at 4¾ per cent. from a commercial bank, I do not think it wise or reasonable that those people should be debarred from availing of that scheme in that county where the money can be availed of at that rate of interest. I understand a sanction for an application in respect of a certain bank at that rate has been sent to the Department. I presume the Department will approve of obtaining a loan from such a source. It means a half per cent. less than the Local Loans Fund will charge. Consequently, so long as these funds are there, I consider that people should avail of them to the greatest possible extent.

The Minister has already referred to the fact that he has had discussion with the banks in connection with advancing money as building societies have done.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

No.

Mr. Walsh

I had assumed that. The Minister had stated he had made a good many inquiries.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Finance of housing generally.

Mr. Walsh

The Minister has included in the section assurance societies and he stated that those societies are not at the moment proposing to participate in the scheme. For that reason, I thought the Minister would include commercial banks, even though they may only participate in the scheme at a later date. The Minister will agree that, if banks were included, then individuals who were negotiating loans directly with the banks would have a greater advantage and the loans would be more readily available to them, if they had the guarantee behind them. For that reason, I do not know why the Minister does not include the banks in that section.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

First of all, let me deal with the point raised by the last speaker, Senator Walsh. He quoted his experience as a solicitor in County Donegal and said that 95 per cent. of the applicants for loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts were not school teachers. I have an equal experience with the Senator as a practising solicitor in the same area and one can only give one's own experience. Mine is that 95 per cent. of the applicants with whom I dealt, and who were clients of mine, were school teachers. I am sure the Senator is right in his experience.

Mr. Walsh

Perhaps because they were the more prosperous class in your area.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I am very glad I have the Senator's word for it, his very word, that they are the most prosperous people.

Mr. Tunney

The Senator means they were the most secure people.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Senator O'Reilly referred to the Local Loans Fund. The Local Loans Fund will still be available to finance applications under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts.

Mr. O'Reilly

To a restricted few.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

A Senator on the other side said to-day they had outgrown their original intention. People have had access to them who should never had access to them. As the Senator said, there has to be a screening.

For the benefit of Senator Murphy let me, as slowly and as distinctly as my northern accent will permit, quote what I said on the Second Reading: "It is not the function of the State or of local authorities to provide loan facilities for persons in a position to finance their houses from these or other sources. It is intended that local authorities should continue to operate the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts for persons willing to provide their own houses and who are unable to provide the necessary finance otherwise; but many persons have been availing of the facilities provided under the Acts who either did not need to do so or who would not have needed to do so if commercial agencies would advance a higher percentage of the purchase price and would allow a longer repayment period." I do not think the Senator could take exception to that.

Senator Crowley intervened to say that teachers had small salaries. I think it would be well to explain how the question of teachers' salaries did arise. I explained in the Dáil that 95 per cent. of the applicants for Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts loans that I knew of in my county were school teachers. Later on in the debate, I was asked to define the meaning of "a man of modest means". I said this: I take a school teacher earning £700 a year. In certain circumstances, he may not be a man of modest means. He may be a bachelor—I am merely using the figure of £700—he may have other income and he is not a man of modest means. His £700 may be made up of salary and otherwise. I did say that a teacher with £900 a year and with ten dependents would be a man of modest means. Each case must depend on the circumstances surrounding it. That is how teachers came into the context of this discussion.

Senator Tunney was concerned about the ordinary man in the street having an allocation out of the Local Loans Fund, under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts available to him. The ordinary man in the street will still have access to this fund and I hope there will be no curtailment so far as the ordinary man in the street is concerned.

With regard to the legal charges of building societies, unfortunately, I am not a taxing master, nor have I any right to intervene in the matter. This is a matter of private concern between the building societies and the Incorporated Law Society and they know the charges which may be permitted. Local authorities should inquire, when entering into an agreement, if they decide to enter into an agreement, with building societies as to what the legal charges will be and clarify the position in advance, though I must say from my association with solicitors that solicitors are all very decent and honest men. Of course, the local authorities need not give a guarantee if they are not satisfied that the legal charges are reasonable.

Senator Kissane said the section was experimental. It is, as far as this country is concerned, but it has been worked in England for a great many years and has worked satisfactorily. We are merely copying the English system, so far as this section is concerned.

With regard to the rate of interest, I cannot tell what the rate of interest will be, but I can tell the House that it must be the same rate of interest as is charged by the building societies to the ordinary individual who borrows 75 per cent. of the purchase price from them to build his own house. They can charge only the same rate for advancing 95 per cent. as they charge the ordinary individual for an advance of 75 per cent.

Mr. Kissane

It is 7 per cent.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

It is 7 per cent., I understand, at the moment. Building societies depend on the investing public for their money.

Mr. Tunney

To make a profit.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Certainly. They are not philanthropists. Let us see the impact; let us see the difference between the amount charged under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and the amount charged by the building societies. We will take a £1,400 loan, which is the average loan, I understand, over a period of 35 years. The difference between 7 per cent. and 5¾ per cent. is exactly 5/6 per week, the price of 30 cigarattes, and the ordinary man, I am sure, smokes that many in a day.

Mr. Tunney

£14 odd a year for 35 years.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Yes, £14 7s. a year or 5/6 a week, and that, is for gaining access to a source of finance which has never been made available to the public in this country before. Five shillings and six pence—it would not pay for the admission of two people to the cinema on one night per week. Remember who are being asked to pay it. It is not the people of modest means remember. That is the difference.

With regard to the term of years, the building societies have informed me they are prepared to operate up to 35 years.

Mr. O'Reilly

Should the rate of interest not be a bit lower when they have guarantees?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

These societies, after paying income-tax, pay on the investments which they receive. They are paying 6 per cent. on the money which is invested with them. To pay for administration and everything else, I think one per cent. is not unreasonable.

Senator Hawkins wants to know what is the position of an applicant who wants to get a grant in future. First, I expect local authorities must discuss this matter. Having discussed it, they may decide not to adopt the scheme, and that ends that. There is no burden placed on any person. Supposing they decide to adopt the scheme, then they will enter into an agreement with the building society. If an applicant who is a man of modest means requires a loan, it is the duty of the local authority, having found that he is a man of modest means, to grant him a loan under the Small Dwellings Act. If they decide otherwise, and he is a man who can go elsewhere, they can tell him to go to a building society. If he can prove that he cannot put up 25 per cent. of the deposit, then the scheme may operate.

How the scheme operates is this: the building society will advance 95 per cent. of the net purchase price, less the grant. The applicant will pay 5 per cent. deposit. The usual loan of the building society is 75 per cent., so that there is a difference of 20 per cent. Now there is a tripartite agreement in regard to that 20 per cent. One-third is guaranteed by the State which stands to lose one-third if there is default; one-third by the local authorities and one-third by the building society. The advances made are mortgages entered into; the building society procures the mortgage. When 50 per cent. of the original advance is cleared off, the guarantee is completely wiped out, and there is no longer any responsibility on the State. Suppose there is default before 50 per cent. is paid off, then the building society, under its mortgage, will exercise its rights and notify the local authorities that default has been made. If, after negotiations with the mortgagee, they are unable to procure payment, then and then only, will two-thirds of that 20 per cent. become payable by the local authorities to the society. One-third will be recouped to the authorities by the State.

That, I think, is a very simple procedure and I think I have answered as best as I can all the points raised.

Mr. Tunney

I hope that the fact that the local authorities will give a guarantee will not mean a further increase in legal fees. I ask the Minister to impress on the managers, as he stated in the Dáil, that each and every applicant will be treated on his merits. In Dublin, we have a very decent and scrupulous manager, but the figure in Dublin is £10 and a person may have a weekly income of £10 1s. 9d. and be ruled out. That is neither fair nor correct. I should be grateful to the Minister if he instructed the managers that each case is to be treated on its merits.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 11 and 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Callaghan

I would ask the Minister if he has had any complaints from land owners who have handed over land to local authorities and who have not been paid for some years. I have had complaints that land has been taken over and houses built on it and the land has not been paid for due, I expect, to defective title. I should like to know if the Minister has any solution for that position. The Minister for Lands seems to have got around a similar position in a recent Act and perhaps the Minister for Local Government would deal with it in some similar way. It is hardly fair to the people who have handed over land that they are not paid for it and even when they are paid for it, there is no provision to give them interest on the money due. There are numerous cases throughout the country.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I can appreciate what the Senator says, but it is a most difficult proposition. If a person sells property to the local authority, we expect him to produce title. If he does not produce title, I am afraid we cannot pay him the purchase price.

Mr. O'Callaghan

When he does not sell it, his land is taken over.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Under C.P.O.?

Mr. O'Callaghan

Yes.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That is a different thing.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 14 agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill"

Mr. Tunney

While I appreciate the Minister's sincerity in this case, I am afraid that, in dealing with repairs of cottages, after they have been vested, he is putting local authorities in a very awkward position. I am speaking as a member of a council which, since 1948, has spent over £250,000 on repairs of cottages. I believe cottages should be put into good repair and that as many of the tenants as possible should be got to accept vesting, but I would ask the Minister to be cautious in this matter.

I saw in a newspaper that one Deputy yesterday said that many of the cottages in County Dublin were unfit for habitation and that they were over 50 years old. I am sorry to say that they are 50 years' old, but, even at that, they were red-bricked cottages built for £100 and I would remind the Deputy that we have had far more trouble with cottages which were built during the régime of his Party in office, and they are not 50 years old. Many of them will not stand for 50 years. Some of the cottages built around 1933 or 1934 will not stand for 50 years. In County Dublin, it was only the coming into office of an interParty Government that enabled suitable houses to be built from 1948 onwards for the working classes.

An Cathaoirleach

That is not a matter that arises on this section.

Mr. Tunney

It applies very much because it has to do with cottages. There were people who thought that anything was good enough for the working man.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair has ruled that that matter does not arise on this section.

Mr. Tunney

On the question of putting responsibility for looking after the repairs to cottages on the county councils after vesting, I am afraid that the Minister is walking the local authorities into trouble. The local authorities should not be held responsible for repairs to cottages after they have been vested.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I do not think the Senator understands the section at all. I am not making that suggestion at all. The position is that there is no obligation on the local authorities to do repairs after vesting, but they are required to do all the repairs necessary before vesting.

Mr. Tunney

Who is to decide that?

Mr. P. O'Donnell

The Minister, if there is an appeal. The position at the moment is that there is an onus on the local authorities to do all the repairs before vesting. Once the cottage has been vested, no repairs can be done, and, if repairs are badly done before vesting, then the tenant has a right to redress. If it is found, after vesting, that repairs had not been carried out before vesting or that they had not been properly carried out then, within a period of 30 days, the tenant has a right to appeal to the Minister and to say that the work done before vesting was not carried out properly. The Minister may then say that these repairs were necessary before vesting and the local authority must carry them out and see that they are done properly. I think that is reasonable and fair.

Mr. Tunney

Before vesting, has the tenant not got rights in this matter? The tenant signs a form before vesting in which he says that the cottage has been repaired, because under the Act the cottage cannot be handed over before the form is signed. How can the Minister then say that a tenant can appeal to the Minister to have repairs carried out which he has already signed for as being in fact carried out? That is making things difficult for the local authorities. I do not know whether the Minister has had any dealings with the tenants of cottages. Nobody has fought more for the rights of tenants than I have, but I will say that you will find a small minority of tenants who are never satisfied about anything.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

Might I say briefly that I am thinking of tenants living in the bog and in West Donegal? Some of those people have signed those forms when they were brought to them. They were people who were literate only to the extent that they were able to sign their names, and, when those forms were brought to them, they signed them. Subsequently, when they raised the matter of repairs, they were told that these repairs had been executed six months ago. Obviously the person who called on them had not explained the nature of the form to those people. It is cases such as that that I am trying to provide for in this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 16 to 20 inclusive agreed to.

Schedule and Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

Mr. Tunney

There is one matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister, that is, the allocation of tenancies of labourers' cottages. I suggest to the Minister that this is a matter that should not be left entirely to the county medical officer of health. The county medical officer in County Dublin is a man who knows his job and in whom we have the greatest confidence, but I suggest that he and the county manager cannot know the whole circumstances in these cases. I think that the elected representatives of the local authorities should have some say in the allocation of these tenancies. In most cases, the county medical officer sees a house and decides that it is unfit, but he is not aware of the back door methods by which the tenant may have got into that house, or how long he has been there. The members of the county councils would know exactly what the position was in those cases.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator must realise that he is making a Second Reading speech and that the Second Stages and Committee Stages of this Bill were passed a long time ago. This is the final stage and the Senator cannot now make a Second Reading speech on it.

Mr. Tunney

I merely ask the Minister to give the elected representatives some say in this matter of tenancies.

Question put and agreed to.