Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 31 Mar 1966

Vol. 60 No. 21

Housing Bill, 1965: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I mentioned here last night the criticism of the Building Advisory Council, and while not in any way sheltering in what I have to say it should be clearly understood that the Building Advisory Council was only transferred to my jurisdiction about a month ago though it was set up in 1963. At the same time, I cannot, while not having the responsibility for what it may or may not have been doing in the past couple of years, but remind the House that the very fact that it has failed to get results by way of statistical record as it had hoped to do with regard to the building industry should I think be regarded in the light of the difficulties that existed in this exercise rather than that it should be criticised for having failed to elucidate all those things which the members of the Council themselves felt were possible to get much more accurately than they have found it possible to do. In so far as the Council's recommendations are concerned I would refer the House to a reply to a question put to me in the Dáil on the 16th of March. It is a pretty long one and I would be inclined to ask the House to have a look at that reply and the recommendations that they have made in some of their reports.

Does the Minister propose to publish their reports?

In that question that I have referred to I have, in fact, given by way of reply publication to the recommendations that were asked for in the actual question. It is rather long and that is the only reason why I do not propose to read it out here at the moment.

Then there was the other question here of an allegation that I was negligent in leaving housing to the private sector. I should just like to say, referring back to what I said at the outset last night, that my Department exercise jurisdiction over the allocation of grants which apply in probably 96, 97 or 98 per cent of the cases of all houses built or reconstructed and of water supplies and sewerage facilities installed, running into very many thousands in the year and I would put it to the House that they should look at this when it is alleged that the controls of my Department have been the prime cause in preventing local authorities from building up the output of local authority housing. It is strange that the same Department and the same Minister, with quite a lot of control also in so far as private house building is concerned, should in the same period, as we have found, secure a very large increase in output in private housing and, in fact, record figures of output on the private side, and all this in so far as our figures relate to housing in which very large grants, etc. are and can be said to be subject to the control of the Department of Local Government.

I am charged with negligence in leaving it to the private sector. I really cannot see how I can be blamed on the one hand for dampening down the output of local authority housing through controls if, at the same time, it is alleged that merely by being negligent I have allowed, as it were, the growth of private housing over which my department has quite a lot of control as well. Those are two aspects of housing that I think should be looked at when Senators make a charge that I have, in fact, by controls in any way dampened or strangled the local authority housing output. I would suggest that the output of private housing largely reflects the efforts made by the department and myself so far as pushing up housing output is concerned rather than to take on its own the output of the local authorities. It would appear as if the private people and my Department co-operating together can succeed and yet the output when it comes to the local authorities and myself co-operating does not seem to have the same effect.

In relation to these two factors, the common denominator is myself and my department, and if we can co-operate on the one hand to push housing up to not only satisfactory levels but to record levels on the private side, I do not see how anyone can deduce from the fact that we have not got as much output on the local authority side as we would wish that it is this common denominator that is to blame. I would suggest that those seeking where to lay the blame should look elsewhere. The people who are sufficiently interested to go back will find that, by exhortations and through various other procedures, by consultation rather than by correspondence, by statements made over the years when output was extremely low on the local authority side, my department and I have been advocating output at every possible moment and have been giving every assistance rather than hindrance towards this end. Despite all the talk about low output in the present year we have reached a completion rate somewhere in the region of 11,000 units. Completions in this year show an increase on last year which, in turn, showed an increase on the previous year.

Indeed, if we wish to go back we will find there is no basis whatsoever for the assertions made by Senators D.J. O'Sullivan and O'Quigley who seem to have taken their lead from or hitched their wagon to paragraph 3 of the First Programme for Economic Expansion, published in 1958, in which it was suggested that there would be a drop in the input of capital into housing. If we had followed that pattern it would seem strange that, taking figures from 1961-62 to the present, the following pattern of capital input would emerge: 1961-62, £9.67 million; 1962-63, £11.19 million; 1963-64, £12.12 million, which, incidentally, is the first year of the Second Programme. In every year the figure for capital input was higher. In 1964-65, the figure went up to £15.33 million and in 1965-66, the present year, the realistic figure given is £20.06 million. Our estimate and forecast for 1966-67 is £21.84 million. They are the figures and they go in the opposite direction to that mentioned in the First Programme to which Senators D.J. O'Sullivan and O'Quigley would like to hitch their wagon.

Are renovated houses included in these figures?

I wish to tell the Senator that this is money we are talking about, millions of money for housing.

In current money terms, do the figures include money for house reconstruction?

Whether the houses are used for playing marbles in after completion, the fact is that from 1961-62 onwards there has been an annual increase in the capital input into housing and there has not been the decline in output that Senators suggested. Since 1961-62 when £9.67 million was spent on housing, the figure has been rising annually and the forecast and estimate is that in 1966-67 £21.84 million will be spent. I am relating that overall pattern to show that while the quotations given from the First Programme were correct, the actual outcome of the situation has been the reverse. Therefore, the charges made have no factual foundation. It was only wishful thinking on the part of the Senators I have mentioned when they quoted paragraph 3 of the First Programme to try to prove something. It is not so and the figures I have given will indicate to all concerned that we are reversing what was outlined in 1958 in the First Programme.

Thank you.

Now we know what programming means to the Government.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister, please, to reply.

I shall now give the figures for output in respect of the years for which I have given the capital input. In 1961-62, we completed 5,780 houses; in 1962-63, the figure was 7,020, an increase of 21 per cent; it went up to 7,580 in the following year, a further increase of eight per cent; in 1964-65 the figure was 9,430, an increase of 24 per cent; in 1965-66 the estimated figures is 11,000 houses, a completion rate approximately 16 per cent more than the previous year. The money available for housing in the coming year has been indicated and our forecast is that we may exceed 11,000 houses by a couple of hundred but the percentage increase relative to last year will be quite small.

That is the picture from 1961-62 to the present time. In each case it can be seen that the input of capital has been progressively increased until it has been more than doubled and the output of houses in the coming year, as forecast, will be almost doubled. If that does not convince those who have been using the First Programme as a method of convincing themselves, if nobody else, I do not know what will convince them.

A matter raised in the Dáil was raised here. It relates to the payment of reconstruction grants for the repair of garden walls of houses at Anglesea Road which were damaged by floods. I indicated in the Dáil that I would not pay these grants and I indicate it again not because I wish to do so but because garden walls, which in legal terms, as I was lectured in the Dáil, may be regarded as part of houses, are not part for the purpose for which reconstruction grants were instituted and operated over the years. I do not intend to utilise the moneys we need for reconstruction of the actual dwellinghouses for repair of garden walls. Even though there may be a case as to why they should get some assistance from somewhere, I do not propose to utilise housing money for that purpose in this or in any other case.

Senator Garret FitzGerald also referred to some inquiries he had made from four building societies and said they lent less money last year. The figures I have indicate that this is true. In 1964 the combined lending of all the societies and insurance companies was £12,525,000. This dropped during 1965 to £11,292,000 and the projections of these same societies indicate an improvement on the situation, in that the projection of lending in the coming year moves up somewhat from £11,292,000 to £11,470,000. In addition to the lending by these societies and companies during the year, the small dwellings advances from the Local Loans Fund to private householders will, in 1966-67, be about the same as or higher than 1965-66. If I remember correctly the total in money between the input from small dwellings and that projected by the building societies and insurance companies will be up on the figures which have been put in during the past year. They will not be up by much but they are reckoned to go up somewhat anyhow on last year's input, so that the situation is not at all in line with the fears expressed. I am not criticising the people who have expressed fears about the rate of building during the coming year but I do think it is fair to realise that the input outlined and forecast from these private commercial sources and from our own Government sources does make up a very big part of the total input in housing. It should be said that the totals in this regard, as we know them and forecast them, are not at all down in the way some people fear they are and the output of houses, in so far as our calculations for the coming 12 months are concerned, will not show a diminution in actual output but may show a very slight increase over the estimate for the current financial year of 11,000 completions. On the other hand it could be somewhat down on that but the best we can do at this stage—from every indicator we can consult—is the forecast I have given.

Senator O'Quigley talked about stamp duty on new houses and also talked about grants being refused because of the use of felt on roofs. It is not true to say that we refuse grants because felt roofs are put on. If we have refused grants it is not merely because felt was being used. It was probably because the standard of the felt, the roof, its pitch, or some other matter was objected to and not the felt as such. This should be known to all here so that there would not be any misunderstanding about it. We do not throw out a grant application merely because it is proposed to use felt on the roof. But there are standards from the builders' point of view which must be observed and anything below these standards we are not prepared to concede whether felt, slates, tiles or any other material is used. If the pitch is wrong or various other things are wrong, we will not allow it and this was probably what happened in the cases Senator O'Quigley had in mind.

The stamp duty on houses and new houses at present is quite favourable to a person providing a house. If, for instance, the contract is entered into before the house is roofed, stamp duty is payable on the site value only. In most cases this duty is under £10. In other cases, where the house is subject to a grant, a preferential rate of one per cent is applied. I do not think it can be said to be onerous. The special concessions given so far as this stamp duty is concerned are pretty well favourably loaded in the direction of the people doing a deal in a new grant house.

Senator O'Quigley criticised the absence of programming or some indication of the level of activity for the next four or five years. This has become quite a hobbyhorse in all debates I have listened to for some time—this criticism of the absence of programming, surveying and so forth. I do not at all mind the criticism because it is at least an admission by those who criticise that there is a growing feeling in the minds of those who are interested that this programming and surveying—which is a prerequisite to programming—is, in fact, not only a useful exercise but from every point of view a most desirable one. I made a start in this four or five years ago. As early as 1960 and 1961 we started with this business of trying to drag out of our local authorities—and I use the word "drag" deliberately—this very vital information. At that time and in the years since then—but particularly then—I do not think there was much appreciation on the part of very many people that this was really a necessary operation or a desirable one at all. This was fairly well indicated by the difficulties we experienced in my Department over the years since then in trying to get from the local authorities what we regard as very necessary outlines for the future, the condition of housing stocks at present and a forecast of what would be needed in the future.

I am happy at the criticism being made ever more frequently in that it is an indication of the growing awareness of our public that, in fact, this is a useful thing to do and it is an advance on the manner in which it was looked upon in 1960 and 1961 when we made the first real effort to dig out this information. The whole purpose of it—to get back to Senator O'Quigley—is that we may be in a position, through our local authorities, to have a programme based on a survey which would have some relevance one to the other. This is not only useful to the local authorities, it is useful to the Department and I would say almost vital to the building industry in so far as they, from surveys— resulting in programmes—can, over a short term of three to five years as we are seeking to have this programming done, get from this exercise a pretty clear indication three, four or five years ahead of what the output will be, taking the programmes of all our housing authorities, adding them together and, then, our further prognostications in so far as private housing is concerned.

These are very vital statistics so far as the well-being of the building industry is concerned. Indeed, they are very necessary to the Government of the day. They must be able to calculate how much of the programme they are capable of meeting, and whether there will be an upsurge two or three years hence, or somewhat of a decline, whether they will have to provide increased sums of money or the same amount as at present, or whether, in fact, less will be needed in a particular year ahead. This information can be very useful. We have operated on it for a considerable number of years, and the fact that we have not got as far as quickly as we would like is due to the existence of the belief in those earlier years that this chore was a bore to the local authorities, and that they had much more useful work to do than going round trying to find out these figures and statistics for us. However, I think they now appreciate the importance of this exercise. We all hope there will be a growing awareness of the need for it and that, as a result, we will become more accurate in our forecasts, our surveys, and our programme.

Senator O'Quigley complained about the two sets of officials administering the grants, and he also mentioned that grants were held up because of the necessity for further inspections due to defects. Two sets of officials are not necessary. In fact, most housing authorities outside the Dublin area pay the supplementary grants on receipt of notification from my department that the grant given by my department has been paid. In other words, when we have got our final certificate from our own inspector we pay our final instalment, and we notify the local authorities. The local authorities outside the city of Dublin accept our certificate as valid, and there is no second set of officials doing the same inspections again.

The holding up of grants because of further inspections due to defects is completely and absolutely unavoidable. We have specifications for reconstruction jobs, for water jobs, for sewerage jobs, and for new house jobs. These are minimum specifications. It is in the practical interests of the applicants that we should insist that major defects particularly should be remedied before we pay the grant or the final instalment of the grant. For this reason there may be delays due to inspections as a result of defects. If the job has not been completed as per specification we have to say: "Until you do this, that, or the other, we cannot pay the grant." This necessitates additional work for the inspectors and the administration which we could very well do without, but, nevertheless, it is essential if we are to have any standards obtaining in so far as building under the grants system is concerned.

Senator O'Quigley also referred to the uniform mediocrity of housing around Dublin and said that the building bye-laws seemed to be to blame. I am inclined to agree with him in a general way as to the mediocrity of housing around Dublin and many other places as well. I would not quite say it was a uniform mediocrity but I would agree that a lot is left to be desired. This need not have been caused by the bye-laws that exist because we have design, and lay-out, and so forth, in Dublin, despite the bye-laws obviously. For once I am inclined to agree with Senator O'Quigley in what he has said in that regard, but he should not blame the bye-laws because good houses, well designed houses, well designed housing schemes, are possible and are being built in Dublin.

The Senator also referred to local authorities repossessing vacant cottages. I refer the Senator to section 102 which contains the provision which he is seeking. What is there will, I hope, meet the point quite adequately.

Senator Cole referred to the necessity for encouraging the reconstruction of existing houses. The situation is well known to the Senator and others. Where a job costs not less than £480 the following assistance is or will be available under the Bill: a State grant of £140; a supplementary grant up to the same amount; a loan of £200 without the necessity of offering any security. A guarantee of advances up to the aggregate of the State grant and the supplementary grant payable is being provided for in this Bill. This is to encourage small builders who are not creditworthy, and to enable them to go to a supplier in the knowledge that an amount up to the value of all the grants due in the particular applicant's case will be available. This will be of great assistance to the small builder who, through lack of credit, or his client's lack of credit, has been hung up for a long time and could not start.

It is also intended to try to relieve to some degree the people in the building supply line who have given advances of materials and have been out of their money for a considerable time. These people have been doing a very useful job, but there has been such an upsurge in reconstruction jobs, water supply jobs, sewerage jobs, and new house jobs, that it has become very onerous on them, and it is not possible for them in their private business capacity to continue to finance the total range of credit. We have had difficulty in getting jobs done down the country. Nevertheless, from our enquiries and our research through the local authorities, we do know that there are quite a number of small builders in the country who are quite capable of doing very good work. They could have done more were it not for the fact that they were not creditworthy, and that their clients in many cases were not creditworthy. Our building suppliers are also up to the gills in the credit they have given out. This should be of great assistance in the rural areas not only to people who want jobs done but also to fully utilise the building capacity that lies there and is only half used because of this shortage of credit.

There is also, I should add, in respect of encouraging reconstruction, relief from liability for increased rates due to reconstruction work. This is not new. It is there and it is continued. We have, of course, the grants for installation of water and sewerage. All those things put together can be regarded as a pretty fair offering from the State, and the local authorities, towards encouragement of reconstruction. I think the thousands of houses that are being reconstructed annually is a pretty good indication that we are getting a good return in numbers for the encouragement we are giving. I have no doubt, of course, if we could afford to give double to those things, we could get quite a bit more but I doubt that we would double the numbers. I have no doubt if we could give more to some cases that are not being done at the moment they might be done additional to those that are being done. We cannot, I suppose, give all we would wish to give to all of those things. I feel that the out-turn over the years and the manner in which the facilities have been availed of in the reconstruction field are fairly clear indications that we are doing a pretty good job, if not entirely all that people would want us to do.

Senator McAuliffe referred to the fact that 69 families, who had applied for local authority housing, had incomes of under £3 per week. Senator Rooney referred to the alarm caused by differential rents on the grounds that the rents were beyond the capacity of the people to pay. Senator Fitzgerald advocated a general principle of subsidising only to the extent of a person's needs. I mention the three of those together for the very good reason that within the three is the very good answer for all. If we are to have the 69 people that Senator McAuliffe mentioned as applicants with incomes under £3 per week catered for in the provision of houses at rents they can afford in the future, then it follows that we must find a great deal more money. Mind you, Senator McAuliffe is not the only person who could indicate a rather high proportion of the lowest income group still waiting for housing. This is no accident in many cases. It is as a result of a rent level, whether graded or otherwise, obtaining in local authorities in which the poorest of our people, and indeed many in the greatest need of housing, have not been able to avail of houses offered to them and have had to refuse them because they could not possibly afford the rents proposed.

Those people are still there in large numbers and they must, even though we have passed them by in the past, and we have shirked our responsibility in my estimation in many housing authorities who ignored the fact that if a person refused a house this was not a just reason why a house should not be given to that person in the future. We have not been too keen about inquiring in many cases why people have been refusing houses. Where we checked as to why they refused houses we found that in the great majority of cases the rent was beyond their capacity to pay. On the other hand, the reason local authorities passed them by is that they felt that the ratepayers, from the point of view of subsidising the rents to enable such poor people to be housed, were not able to bear the indicated amount required from the ratepayers additional to what they were already paying. The housing rent subsidisation is beyond their capacity to pay.

Then the local authorities find, of course, as we all will, another outlet. They come to the Department of Local Government looking for further subsidisation from the taxpayer because they want to house those people in their community who cannot afford to pay the rents charged by that local authority. The local authority cannot reduce the rents because the ratepayer is not able to pay the additional amount required. They then come to the taxpayer, through the Government, looking for the taxpayer to pay. At the same time, there undoubtedly are people in various housing estates throughout the country at rents far below their capacity to pay, which bear no relation to the value of the house they are occupying, which belongs to the community and was built with community money. Those people must be attended to in regard to rationalisation of their rents before we can come to the taxpayer, through the Government, or go to the ratepayer, through the councils, to seek more subsidisation.

I have made this point clear to deputations I have had on this matter. While there exist people in local authority housing estates who are getting away with it, in so far as their rent is concerned, which is much lower than they can afford to pay, and much under the value of the house they are occupying, while that belief exists in the mind of the public, as I believe it exists, to a very large degree, we cannot ask the public, either as taxpayers or as ratepayers, to pay more until an effort is made, and it is clearly demonstrated that an effort is made, to rationalise those rents, to get more from those who can afford to pay, if there are such people as I believe there are. The public believe there are such people. Until their rents are rationalised, and they are related to capacity to pay, and related to the dwellings occupied and the amenities in those dwellings, I do not think we can, in fairness, go to the ratepayers and taxpayers for further subsidisation. We must realise that between us, through the Government and local authorities, we are by subsidisation contributing a sum of the order of £6 million a year. This is a very big amount of money but the main thing is that here is a source which remains to be tapped, which is untapped at the moment, and which is believed to be quite substantial. Until we tap that source, we cannot go to those other two sources we have been milking pretty readily in recent years in this matter of subsidisation for housing. By so doing we get back to the real reason why I wish this to be done, and that is to enable those, who are so poor that they have had to refuse houses, because they could not afford the level of rents charged, that the rents for those people can be reduced without imposing an additional burden on the ratepayer and the taxpayer.

It is for this reason that I advocate rationalisation of rents. It is for this reason that I have asked the local housing authorities to examine their entire renting systems for their entire housing estates. It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that I wish this to be done. I have no time for nor, indeed, have I much sympathy with those who try to run away from their responsibilities and in so doing—this is very often the case—blame the Minister for Local Government saying that I want the rents increased for the sake of increasing rents. This is entirely a distortion of the facts and is not true. If all concerned with local authorities were to look at the cases we have attempted to do something about, by way of providing houses, because of poverty, then I think we would get over our shyness of facing up to the impossibility, according to some people, of increasing the rents of some who are well able to bear the increased rents.

We cannot afford this luxury in future unless we are prepared to dictate that in addition to poverty there will not be a roof over the head of anybody because they are poor. This is the first and primary responsibility of all of us as we understand the housing of our people. If we are not prepared to do this, then I would suggest to those in local authorities who shirk this responsibility by one device or another that the sooner they leave the local authority and let somebody in there at the first opportunity that arises—the sooner they do this the better for the local authority as well as for the community.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington raised the question of playgrounds and so on in local authority schemes. I must say that I am in entire agreement with the Senator that it is essential that playgrounds, shops, churches, schools and all the other services that go to the making up of a complete community service should be provided as near as possible to the completion time of the scheme or as soon thereafter as possible. We have had our experience in the opposite direction here in this city over the years. This is not to blame people for doing this because the pressure to put the houses up in those years was such that this matter of the services was largely left to another day. The whole emphasis was on housing and it is difficult to blame anybody for this. Even those who participated in this push ahead in housing and left the services aside now, on the whole, in the local authorities concerned seem to realise and advocate that this should not be continued in the future, and that it was a mistake even though the exigencies of the time that pushed them into leaving services until another day may still exist. We do believe that it is better that the overall community services within a housing estate or area should be provided at or shortly after the time at which the estate of houses is itself provided.

The allocation of tenancies was also raised by the same Senator. Publication of a scheme of priorities, I think, is what he was seeking. As far as I am concerned I should say that the scheme will be published to the greatest possible extent and all the information that may be required and necessary to local housing authorities will be available to them in ample time to allow them to consider all aspects in their priorities and their schemes for tenanting their houses in the future.

The same Senator referred to the overcrowding definition, and asked what action a landlord could take if told by a local authority to desist from causing overcrowding. The overcrowding provisions of section 65 are designed specially to prevent the abuse of tenement or bedsitter accommodation. When, for instance, a local authority moves a person from a tenement house they can serve the landlord with a notice under section 65 telling him of the penalties he will bring down on himself if he lets the house so as to cause further overcrowding. I do not visualise a notice being served requiring him to desist from overcrowding except in the extreme case of abuse where the landlord is obviously letting so as to cause gross overcrowding and make an altogether unreasonable degree of profit from the abuse. One can judge the motives from the profit margin they seek to get from this much more accurately than from the actual overcrowding content that may arise.

The Senator also raised a number of other points in relation to land valuations and preventing private enterprise from creaming off the profits from industrial estates. These and a number of other points are quite interesting but somewhat outside the scope of the Bill. I am afraid that the Bill is long enough without our trying to discuss these other matters at this stage.

Senator Miss Davidson referred to section 115 and asked if we would copy the provisions of the English Local Government Act, 1933. This is a new one, I should say, because usually I am attacked for slavishly copying English legislation, and I must say that it is a new feature to be asked to do so. I do not mind borrowing from the legislation of any country provided that legislation is what we want and it is shown by the experience of its use in other countries that it works in the way we believe it would work and is suited to the conditions of this country. In this particular case I do not think that this will be the end result of the request that Senator Miss Davidson has made. The fixing of rent, as Senators know, at present is an executive function of the manager. The rent scheme is subject to my approval. They are, therefore, sufficient safeguards against injustice in the making of rent schemes. It is only when a section 4 resolution is involved, that is, requiring the manager to do a certain thing that the members would be voting on, primarily a motion on rent, that we would be actually voting on an actual rent. I would not think in the light of that that it is necessary to introduce the sort of amendment which the Senator suggests in order to deal with these isolated cases. It is only in these isolated cases of invoking section 4 in relation to a rent that the fears expressed by Senator Miss Davidson would arise in our way of operating our rent schemes here.

Could the Minister not see an increasing incidence of such cases?

No. I should not imagine so, because in the future and under this Bill I think that the likelihood of exception being taken to the point of a section 4 resolution being moved is less, for the reason that the framing of priorities within the broad general pattern will to a very much greater degree be composed by and with the agreement of the local authority elected members in the future than it has been their job to do in the past under our present legislation. The operation, then, of the actual scheme, as agreed to by the local authority in regard to priorities and so forth, will in its operation by the manager be less likely to engender a flood of section 4 resolutions than the present situation where the council elected members are somewhat more removed from the actual framing of the whole scheme. This is the likely result.

The Senator also referred to the vexatious system of compulsory land acquisition. I should imagine that any compulsory acquisition of anything is very slightly removed from vexatious, and this is probably inevitable from the very exercise of the compulsory power. The overall method of acquiring land under our system of compulsory acquisition is fairly well built in with safeguards to the person and the private rights of the person from whom we propose to take land for various public purposes. It is only proper that this care should continue to be taken. We all can realise, though, possibly, being concerned in local authorities, in Government and so forth, we may not, while being aware of it, be fully conscious of how overbearing can become the attitude of anybody given too much power without adequate safeguards where the body is taking something from an individual. This is nowhere more likely to be the cause of real complaint, bitterness and disappointment than in acquisition compulsorily from private individuals.

Keeping that in mind and allowing that compulsory powers are designed for good purposes—the only reason we have them is to try to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people —we must bring the two things into balance and the procedure of compulsory acquisition is as good as we could devise. If anybody at any time can devise something better to make it possible to acquire necessary land in the public interest while safeguarding individual rights, I shall be quite happy to consider any such suggested change.

I was not considering compulsory acquisition. I was rather concerned when an estate was offered for sale—the Kenure estate at Rush—and the county manager prevented its purchase. Only 15 acres of the 30 acres allocated to the council were suitable for housing.

The estate was purchased for £80,000.

The facts may not be fully understood. The total area was 260 acres and the council needs amounted to seven acres. No matter how you look at that, it is stretching things a bit too far——

The council could have sold——

I agree they could have bought it, held it and sold it at enhanced prices. We could have all local authorities participating in practices in respect of which we condemn private enterprise. It is good business, I admit, to have local authorities engaged in such operations. However, this is not the role of local authorites. They could make money but there could be too much of this sort of thing. It could very quickly impinge on individuals. Local authorities, funded as they are, could sit and bid for estates to the detriment and loss of private enterprise. I do not think we could allow that sort of danger——

Are we not endangering horticulturists in that area? We must get the land from them.

If there is a need for seven acres we should not consider it good policy to acquire 260 acres, hold it for perhaps 50 years or until it was needed. I am all for forward acquisition but we must relate it to some sort of established need or to the prospect of established need arising, let it be from knowledge or from good guesswork. We must keep our acquisition in line with some semblance of knowledge of our needs, let it be a five year programme or a ten year programme. To go out and buy because we know ultimately it will be profitable to do so would be too vague and would be too oppressive on people with land for sale who might do a lot better if the local authority were not hanging around waiting to pounce.

The need is at this date much more than seven acres.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This discussion cannot be allowed to go on like this.

Senator Murphy said that Cork city was given only enough money to build 90 houses and that it would get only the same in 1967-68. Lest there be misunderstanding, I should like to say now that the statement in regard to allocations in 1967-68 relates only to house purchase loans and supplementary grant allocations. The statement was made so that people could plan ahead. No indication has been given in regard to local authority housing in 1967-68. It is well this should be known in case there is widespread misunderstanding of the situation. The 90 houses the Senator referred to comprise two schemes at present in tender form. The allocation for new houses is provisional and was based on tenders in respect of development recently approved. What we took into consideration—it was difficult to do— was what tenders were on hands and what tenders were recently approved. We have given to one local authority as against another and I would be the most amazed person in the House if everything worked out without criticism or suggestions of favouritism.

Senator D.J. O'Sullivan gave figures in respect of part of Cork County and Donegal. Wherever he got the figures, they bear no relationship to reality or commonsense. They were taken from tables and while he may not have intentionally done so, the Senator either misread or misused the figures. He set out to show that I was prejudiced or biased in favour of Donegal. He suggested that in Donegal £80,000 was needed and £61,000 was allocated. I do not know to what part of Cork the Senator referred.

A combination of the three areas. A sum of £138,000 was needed and we are getting £35,000.

The figure for Donegal is £80,000 in one column for existing commitments. The other column is new money. Donegal is getting £80,000 and £61,000 and likewise Cork will get for the whole county a figure made up of £888,000 for various activities and the urban areas excluding the corporation area will get £142,000, giving more than a million pounds altogether. Cork Corporation is getting £920,000, and that gives us a grand total for Cork County, its urbans and city, of £1,950,000, as against suggestions made here last night which, as I have said, were wrongly read.

Reading can be a hazardous operation these days. One could lose one's job——

The Senator may lose whatever little benefit of charity I was prepared to confer on him this morning in the light of the nice sun. I should hate him to lose this because I do not like being uncharitable to people.

Is it wrong, therefore, from the opinion expressed by the Cork City Manager, to abandon the supplementary housing grants in face of the situation as he sees it?

As far as the Senator, the Cork City Manager and all those interested in Cork are concerned, I am quite sure that, between them, they will find ways and means of doing what they want in Cork and far be it from me to express an opinion on what the Cork city manager allegedly said in regard to this matter.

I am only relying on Press reports.

I am not. I do not rely on Press reports, nor do I rely on the reading of the Press report by Senator O'Sullivan who so badly misread in giving the figures last night in regard to our housing money in Cork.

Cork County, excluding the corporation and the urban areas, got £880,000. Its urban regions got £142,000 and Cork Corporation, £420,000. This brings us very near to the figure of £2 million. With regard to the figure of £138,000 mentioned here last night, the only figure I could find that approximated to that is the total of all the other regions in Cork for supplementary grants which amounted to £130,000. That was the only figure I could find which came up to the figure mentioned by the Senator and which applies to supplementary grants in Cork only and not to their housing allocation as a whole.

A Senator referred to the Northern Ireland Housing Trust, what it can do and how desirable it might be to have functions assigned here to some such trust or agency. I should say that the National Building Agency, if and when this Bill becomes law, will then be clearly and truly in the position of being able to do any and all of the things which the Housing Trust in the North is enabled to do at the moment. They will be given in this Bill the facility which will enable subsidies to be paid to them, as an agency, and it will give them power summarily to recover possession of houses they have let. This they do not have at the moment. It will enable them to administer any estates which they provide. This, together with the powers they have already will, in practically all cases, give us in the National Building Agency a parallel with the Housing Trust in the Six Counties.

Some reference was made to the necessity for building high in central city areas. The Bill provides grants for high flats for this particular purpose. The general situation is that the higher one goes the more costly each floor becomes. This in itself could be an inhibiting factor to building high where, indeed, it was desirable that they should build up and when it would cost them a great deal more. Therefore, we have provided in the Bill the sections and clauses which will enable higher grants to be paid related to this matter of building high. There is a great need for building high in many cases in this city. It is right that this sort of provision should be made so as to encourage high building, where it is desirable, rather than to continue forever sprawling our city over the county.

It was also mentioned that the 500 square feet limit for dower houses was too small. This is the very feature of the dower house. To qualify for existing housing grants the new houses may not be smaller in area than 500 square feet. This new grant is, in fact, designed to come under the 500 square feet. In effect, if a dower house is to be built over 500 square feet, the normal grants available will apply. This is what now obtains. The idea of the under 500 square feet is to enable smaller houses than those to which our ordinary grants apply to be helped by way of grant in the future. There is no danger in our insisting that a dower house should only be a smaller house than 500 square feet. It beats me to see why—if such a house is in fact a necessity—it has got to be very much bigger anyhow because the one or two people who have given up their holding or farmhouse to a son or daughter and living out of effective control of their farm, moving into a little house nearby or attached, as the case may be, to spend the rest of their days there separated from the young couple who will take over the effective running and control of the farm and rearing their own family is an admission of a view that has long been held that seldom can you have two women in the same house, in those circumstances, with benefit to each. We hope these grants will be availed of and will fill the gap said to have been there over all those years. We do feel as well that, in the building of these second houses for the purpose which they are primarily intended to serve, we should encourage them to be kept small. I do not see the value of building a house at a greater cost than necessary to fulfil this particular need and probably loading the overall holding or farm with capital which would be far more usefully expended on increasing production or stock on the farm.

Senator O'Sullivan mentioned at some length this matter of 10 per cent of capital allocations to be got from sources other than from the Local Loans Fund. Straight away, I should say that this is not new. This ten per cent is a lower figure than has normally been used and raised from other sources. A substantial part of the capital expenditure of housing authorities is made through treasury loans in the normal way, and there are special repayments on house purchase loans which are quiet heavy in some areas and also sales of land and houses. The treasuries of our local authorities may be strained at the moment, in some cases, nevertheless, taking the overall normal approach, there are incomes which do not arise year by year, and taking our local authorities as a whole they derive income from sales, from repayments on loans, from sales of properties being disposed of, and many other things, together with a substantial amount coming from the treasurers for housing authority purposes.

There is no question whatsoever that this ten per cent mentioned by Senator O'Sullivan and to which he took exception is anything other than a normal requirement. There is no question whatsoever that it will be a requirement to have the ten per cent before you get the 90 per cent. That is not at all being sought to be operated. Any doubts there are about that I should like to dispel. The ten per cent we are reckoning here is a normal annual procedure and there is nothing whatsoever new in it.

Senator McDonald complained about the extent to which the Department interfere in housing schemes. I have dealt with that in a general way but I should like specifically to refer to the manner in which the Senator concluded his speech. He suggested that the Department's inspectors should do something about defects in completed houses. It is amazing to find in the same night, and from the same speaker, two complaints that are diametrically opposed, and from which the deductions to be drawn are completely contradictory.

We are told: "You are interfering too much. Give us more freedom in the local authority. Do not interfere in our housing. Keep away from us. You are holding us back. Let us do things ourselves." Then there is a plea that we should do more than we are doing and that our inspectors should do something about the defects after the houses are completed. We cannot have it both ways.

That is exactly what is happening. The inspectors are interested only before the job is finished. They have no further interest after the work is done.

Is the Senator referring to private housing or local authority housing?

Local authority housing.

Do the councils do anything? We can interfere more at the request of any council, but I do not think we should. Local authority houses are built by contractors on foot of a contract duly entered into by the local authorities and the builder. If they cannot provide in that contract for things that may emerge afterwards, how in the name of heaven can the Minister for Local Government be expected to safeguard the local authorities? I would suggest that if this type of thing is happening to any notable degree in the Senator's area, he should try to find out whether the contractor has lived up to his contract, or whether, in fact, there was bad workmanship which was not seen and should have been seen if any supervision was given by the clerk of works or by the technical people attached to the council in question.

I feel it is within the competence of the local authorities to see that their own contracts are carried out and that effect is given to them in a proper manner. It is not a matter which we can improve at long range by sending down inspectors. I do not think these people would be of any assistance except that they might be able to help in some rare cases where an investigation was going on and their knowledge might be of some use to the technical people in the local authority in their conclusions and deductions from the evidence available. I do not see how we could interfere to any good purpose. It amuses me that we are told to take ourselves off in one breath and blamed for not coming in, in the next breath. That does not seem to indicate a clear mind on the part of people who make those statements, if they have a clear mind on the matter.

It was also suggested that in order to get things sorted out—I think it was in terms of the favourite cliché of getting rid of the red tape—that we should have one civil servant in each county to deal with housing. That may be felt by the Senator to indicate a downward trend in the number of people who would be looking after, or in some cases annoying, the local authorities. If we were to put a civil servant, an official from my Department, in each county, he would have to be of a pretty high rank or he would not count in any sense of the word, and he would not have the knowledge, the experience, or the ability necessary, if he were not of high rank. The officials of the local authorities would not take much notice of him if he had just come down with the last shower, as the saying goes.

At the moment there are seven civil servants of higher executive officer grade, or higher, dealing with the administration of 180,000, or so, houses already built. Their responsibility ranges over rents, sales, vestings, lettings and management. In addition to their work on the estates already built, their jobs take in the construction of new houses, local authority houses, small dwellings and supplementary grant houses. This is the calibre of officer which we would have to send into each county if they were to be effective and useful. Seven of them are doing this work at the moment, and if we were to have one for each county, well, we could build a few more houses with what that would cost. I do not think it is practical from that point of view, and there are quite a number of other arguments that could be made against it as well. Even if we put in a man of the highest calibre he would have to be a superman if he were not to be put in a position where he would have to refer back to his own office. When he came up with the various schemes of which he had knowledge and overcame all of them on the spot he would still not be in the position possibly complained of at the moment, of the local officers. There is not much point in appointing a man and sending him down the country to attend to faults which can be attended to by the local authorities. It is up to them to find out what next they will do. I do not think it would work and I do not think it would make for speedy and better administration. From the point of view of staff of a high grade, it would tax us to provide them and it would also tax the much taxed taxpayer to the extent of some additional thousands of pounds.

Senator Sheldon referred to the requirements that houses, when erected, should face the road—at least I think that is what he said. I was not present when he made that particular statement. I should say that there is no general rule in the housing or planning codes requiring that this should be done. The planning authorities could, of course, make it a condition, but I certainly am not aware that they do it generally, or indeed do it at all. It might be a useful thing but I wonder about it. You could have arguments about it and I imagine that those who wanted to have it done would have arguments for it and those who did not want to have it done would have all the arguments in the world as to why it should not be done. I am sure some of us who are more perverse than others, if this became the general way to do it, would turn it around for the sake of doing it and would take umbrage if we were compelled to do the reverse.

Senator Quinlan made comparisons through the quotation of international statistics and quoted many reservations to be made in using them. Far be it from me to cast any doubt on Senator Quinlan's statistics, or his reading of them, but I have said in the past, and I repeat, that we should be very slow and very cautious in making what seems to be the obvious deduction from the comparison of statistics in different countries, even in Europe or Western Europe. They do not necessarily deal in every respect with the same thing. If you take, for instance, the one that is thrown at me most frequently of late, that is, the number of houses being provided per thousand of the population in various countries, we are away down the line. There is one thing which is missed, deliberately in some cases, and unintentionally in others, that is, that we build in this country, by and large, a bigger house than most of the countries we are being compared with in the statistics as to the number of houses built per thousand.

This is one of the most obvious and the most misleading of the statistics which I know obtains. If the statistics are read fully, and all the small print is read, the indices consulted and the guides read, even in the very documents on the basis of which these odious comparisons are being made— I am being attacked with the help of these statistics—those who make the charges based on the figures quoted almost as infallible indicators, might find that they are far from infallible. Indeed, they are very often not a true comparison and, therefore, deductions drawn from them can only be very vague and can indeed give misleading indications as to the actual position.

Would the Minister give the figures for average size of dwellings in the different countries which he is using for this purpose?

Which I am using?

Yes. You are saying there is a difference in the average size of dwellings. What is the difference?

I can give the House some of those figures I have looked at. I am not using them. I am trying to keep people from using them. This is my primary purpose. Far be it from me to use them. I have said before, and I repeat it here this morning, that these figures must be used with the greatest caution. Any of these international tables of statistics, which tend to make comparisons between one country or another, should be used with the greatest caution. I do not intend to use them. I merely give them to indicate the abuses being made of them in relying on them.

I want to quote from the Annual Bulletin of Housing and Building Statistics for Europe. It is from the United Nations, Geneva, 1965. We can see from this booklet, if we look at Ireland, that the percentage of houses provided in the order of one, two, three, four and five rooms is: One room, 2.2; two rooms, 1.3; three rooms, 2.8; four rooms, 22.8; and five or more, 70.9. Those are the figures. If you take four rooms and upwards, in our case, you get 93.7 per cent of our houses in that category. If you want just to take five rooms only, we have 70 per cent, which is a very big percentage. We can then take Germany, which I think was mentioned here last night, or any other country. I want to give one that is somewhat different from our own so as to give an indication of how these things can be so different in their actual base.

Is there a European average?

No. I am just giving the figures in this table for the various countries in Europe. I have given the figures for Ireland. I shall now give the figures for France which are: One room, 5.3; two rooms, 12.4; three rooms, 29.6; four rooms, 35.4; five rooms, 13.8; and six or more rooms, 3.5. If you take five rooms and six rooms or more, we get a figure of 17.3 per cent as against a figure of 70.9 in Ireland. This is the sort of thing we have to keep in mind when using those figures. We may get some figures in some of these countries that would practically correspond with ours but I do not see that any country, from a quick run through this booklet, has as high a number of rooms and as big dwellings as we have.

I shall not weary the House with more figures. I have given the name of the actual booklet from which this has been drawn. There are two pages of this sort of figures. I have merely given the figures to indicate that it is a very dangerous practice to make comparisons between some of these countries. I would not advocate that this practice should be followed too readily, primarily because it does not give an unbalanced sort of view.

If we want to look at these figures per thousand of the population, so far as the production of houses in our own country is concerned, we find that in 1961 it was as low as 2.1 per thousand. Production rose to 2.4 in 1962, to 2.6 in 1963, to 3.1 in 1964 and to 4.2 in 1965, which, strangely enough, is exactly double the figure for 1961. These are the actual figures for output per thousand as far as we in this country are concerned, talking about the sort of houses we know and understand ourselves, not confusing ourselves in any way with what international tables may throw up by way of comparisons.

Senator FitzGerald—I do not know how this came about but it has emerged from somewhere—asked for the basis of the target of 12,000 to 14,000 houses mentioned as our target for 1970. The basis of the calculation is set out in some detail in the White Paper. The Senator was particularly concerned about the demographic projections on which it was based. These are the same as those on which the Second Programme was based, estimating a population increase of about 6,000 a year each year to 1970 and the range of the programme there outlined forecast—at least 12,000 to 14,000 houses—was quite sufficient to cover the contingencies to which the Senator referred, that is, lower average marriage age, and increasing size of population, which are specifically referred to also in the White Paper. The estimate was associated also in the light of projections of the capital available for housing as calculated for the purposes of the Second Programme. Possibly I need hardly remind the Senators that the availability of capital is one of the critical factors in any programme, as they well know. It is worse than useless to forecast an ideal output figure without knowing whether we can pay for it or not.

Can the Minister say where the demographic projections for the Second Programme can be found, and where the figures are available?

I shall have to bring that to your notice because I do not know, standing here as I do at the moment, where it is to be found.

I have never been able to find it.

Nor am I terribly concerned or impressed about the matter.

That is evident from the use you made of the figures.

I should say, again in the charity of the bright sunlight, that I have made better use of the figures than the Senator made of figures he put in a trade journal circulating around in this town, which trade journal, I understand, he is now associated with through the organisation that runs it.

I am not aware of any table of figures that I am responsible for circulating anywhere.

I would sincerely hope that the Senator is not, because in my estimation his standing would certainly drop a great deal if it were so. In talking about these projections and these figures it is very easy, indeed, for even a half intelligent person to draw figures based on projections which to a degree, in my own way of thinking about projections, may be guesses. Whether they be accurate guesses or the other sort of guesses does not really matter, because at some juncture and at some point of combination at least you have a combination of guesswork and deductions which may be clearly drawn from statistics, but statistics even if true can be misleading and misinterpreted deliberately or otherwise. In so far as anybody may be foolish enough to come up with a figure as the projection for the future based on known and unknown quantities from projections or guesses as to what will be so in ten years or 50 years hence, anybody who makes that sort of projection, quotes that sort of figure, is open to attack, to be demolished if you like, by even the half intelligent. What I should like to say is that whether this sort of figure, which is difficult to assess and which may be false, is accurate or not, the only real way to approach it if one does not agree with it is to let it be demolished by all means but please, as distinct from what was done about the Pillar, put something in its place. This is what I would ask. I would be quite happy to be criticised about figures but if, in fact, they are demolished I would ask on any demolition "do give us what should be there in the estimate of the demolition squad".

The Minister appreciates that that is precisely why I asked for the demographic basis of the figures which have not been published, that it is not possible to put anything in its place without critical examination of the figures.

If the Senator wants anything which we have got and which he believes may demolish what I have got, and puts something in its place, I shall be glad to help him by way of putting anything at our disposal into his hands even to demolish a figure that I myself have given, provided that the Senator is prepared to put a better one in its place. That is all that I would ask.

Another figure. I would not guarantee that it would be better.

A number of Senators said that the Bill did not make real fundamental changes in housing legislation and some of them described it as not being spectacular. I do not think there is any reason why we should set out to make a Housing Bill spectacular. That is not the real purpose of it. It is not the sort of subject that is likely to be spectacular, as much of the Bill is consolidation of what is already there and codification of the whole housing legislation, wiping out some 60 Acts and so forth. This is not a thing which is presented so that we could regard it as spectacular or dramatic, but I do assert that while it is not spectacular, and never could be, there is a lot more in it than we are given credit for. Every Senator who runs down the Bill, or the six full pages of the memorandum summarising the changes—and I will finish with this, you will be glad to hear—will see most of the things that are in the Bill, but he may not realise that there are actually 18 major points that are new introduced by it, which I will run through quickly. They are—

(1) Farmers' grants up to £450.

(2) Special subsidy for farmers with valuations up to £5 where houses are provided by local authorities.

(3) Grants for high flats.

(4) Increased subsidy for elderly persons and grants for custodial staff in elderly persons' accommodations.

(5) Dower house grants.

(6) Grants for repair of local authority houses.

(7) Higher grants for the accommodation of TB patients.

(8) Subsidy for sites.

(9) New limit of 1,500 square feet for new houses.

(10) Extended grants for prototype houses.

(11) Increases in supplementary grant income limits.

(12) Guarantees for small builders.

(13) Improved procedures for land acquisition.

(14) Improved procedures for sales of both land and local authority houses.

(15) Recovery of vacant cottages.

(16) Measurements of needs—programmes.

(17) Improved powers for local authorities to require the proper maintenance of private accommodation.

(18) Loans for reconstruction up to £200 without formality.

These are not all the new things the Bill will do but they are quite a list. None of them in itself is spectacular or dramatic but taken together they show the overall spread of the provisions of this Bill. Given the effort and the money from both local and central sources, we can do a great deal of work to reduce the backlog of housing needs and provide for future demands. I do not wish to boast but I can say that no Government ever put so much money into housing as we put in in 1964-65 and 1965-66. A further amount will be put in over and above that in 1966-67. In fact, public authorities in this country have provided proportionately more of the money for housing than any other European country. We should be able to get through the year ahead with the least possible upset to the building pattern that has been established. We hope that as soon as further capital is available we will get our share for housing.

Does the Minister consider that five or six months, the time it takes his Department to deal with applications for sanction in respect of repairs to cottages, is reasonable?

I do not think a time lag of five or six months for anything is reasonable provided that is the only thing the Senator has to say about it. Would the Senator, for instance, agree that the five or six years during which I have been asking his local authority to build houses which they have not been doing is a reasonable time? During the past few years I have had available to me more money than was needed and I continuously kept telling local authorities that this was so and I asked them to come on with the schemes they so badly needed but 1965 was the first year when schemes sent to the department equalled the amount of money available. The Senator should not think that five or six months is regular procedure in the matter of sanction for schemes.

The Minister's Department never built as few houses as during the past three years.

I did not stop the Senator.

We did not get them through.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 27th April, 1966.
The Seanad adjourned at 12.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 27th April, 1966.
Barr
Roinn