This is purely a drafting amendment and does not involve any change in principle whatsoever.
Housing Bill, 1965: Report and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 13, line 6, to delete "of" and substitute "for".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 16, line 8, before "ordinarily" to insert "providing a house, who is"; in line 9, before "who" to insert "and"; and in line 10, to delete "providing a house,".
This, too, is purely a drafting amendment brought in to meet points made by Senators on earlier Stages. It concerns a rearrangement of words.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 17, line 42, before "to" to insert "a grant".
The words "a grant" were inadvertently omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
The Chair suggests that amendments Nos. 4 and 7 be taken together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 29, section 39, between lines 51 and 52 to insert the following:
"( ) Repayment of a loan under this section in respect of a house may be secured by:
(a) an instrument vesting the ownership of the house in the housing authority subject to the right of redemption by the borrower,
(b) by charging the house under the Registration of Title Acts, 1891 and 1942, with the repayment of the loan (together with interest payable thereon),
(c) by deposit with the housing authority of the land certificate issued under the said Acts, in relation to the house, or
(d) where such ownership is already vested in a person other than the borrower subject to the right of redemption of the borrower, an instrument of further charge charging the repayment of the loan (together with the interest payable thereon) under this section on the house and making the said right of redemption subject also to the repayment of the loan (together with the interest payable thereon) under this section."
This amendment is being retabled. We feel that it should be written into the Bill so that no ambiguity will exist where local authorities are concerned and that loans will be made available where vested council cottages are sold. Many of us who live in rural areas see that quite a number of vested cottages are in lists of sales that appear in the local papers. It seems a pity to me that that type of house which was built to house the working classes is in many cases passing out of the hands of the working classes. It can be said, and perhaps rightly so, that section 98 covers this but according to section 98 it appears necessary to have the consent of the local authority. It should be written into the Bill that loans can be made available for vested cottages the same as for any other type of house and that that type of house can be mortgaged.
Those points have already been made and dealt with, at least I thought they were dealt with, very fully on the Committee Stage. There is really not anything I can add to what I have already said other than to repeat that the amendments are unnecessary because of the actual power contained in the section mentioned by Senator Fitzgerald, namely section 98. I really cannot add to what I have already said.
What I am really concerned about is that under section 98 it appears to be essential to have the consent of the local authority. The local authority may feel that having regard to the number of vested cottages coming on the market it would not be economic to give money to people who might be looking for a loan to buy this type of house. Most of those houses might be sold and the local authorities would not be in a position to provide loans to enable those houses to be bought.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 29, section 39, between lines 51 and 52 to insert the following:—
"( ) Notwithstanding regulations made by the Minister under the Act of 1962 (namely, S.I. No 130 of 1964 and S.I. No. 137 of 1965) or regulations to be made under this section, any person who is qualified to receive a supplementary grant from a housing authority under section 26 of this Act shall not be disqualified from receiving a loan under section 39 (or by reason of any departmental or administrative decision) where the applicant's income enables a housing authority to make a supplementary grant."
In many cases a person might be regarded as being, if you like, too poor to get a loan. Very often at the moment when a person builds a house and he applies for a loan it is usual to have an investigation made as to his means, income, and so on. While that person might qualify for a grant of £900 by reason of the fact that he is a person who would normally be housed by a local authority, he might be debarred from getting a loan by reason of the fact that his income is too low.
You have a situation in which a person is, if you like to put it that way, so poor that he would qualify for housing by a local authority if houses were available but because houses are not available he wants to build his own house. He knows he will get £900 of a grant but that he will require another £1,300 or £1,400 to build the house. But the local authority officials might say his income is insufficient and that, therefore, they could not give him a loan. In spite of the fact that a grant of £900 is available that person is precluded from getting a loan because his income is insufficient.
The point being made by Senator Fitzgerald is somewhat away from what I expected he would say on this particular amendment. If I understand him correctly, the amendment would not do what the Senator is asking the House now to do. He is dealing, as I understand it, with a matter which is not really covered by the amendment. He is dealing with a situation in which the SDA loan might be paid in circumstances where the income was too low. This, I think, is the point the Senator has been making. I would say that this amendment would not cure that at all.
On the amendment itself, the situation really is that in dealing with this matter of loans and grants it is wrong to have it understood that these things are inseparable in all respects. Indeed, the past situation has been that had the amendment been in operation as a law the limit for SDA loans would have been reduced to the level of the grant limit. Until this new order of things came along we had a limit of £832 for the grants and £840 for loans. If the amendment were accepted we would have to bring back the limit which was higher for SDA loans than it was for grants to the lower limits of the grants.
What I am trying to get across is that we had the experience of the SDA income limit being higher than that which was allowable in the case of grants. At present, in certain circumstances, the income limit, where there is a number of dependants, may exceed the limit which will allow a person to get a SDA loan. My point is that these are not inseparable. Because we have a standard by which we judge whether or not a loan should be paid and having arrived at a conclusion as to whatever the amount should be, we should not then say that the same limit should apply in respect of grants, or vice versa. They are two separate things and we should not confuse the issue by over-simplifying them in the belief that they are the same. They are not. I again repeat that the case made by Senator Fitzgerald has not dealt with the intent of the amendment. Even if it did, the amendment would not, I submit, have the effect the Senator has been advocating.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 29, section 39, between lines 51 and 52 to insert the following:—
"( ) the fixing of the rate or rates of interest to be charged by a local authority in respect of a loan advanced under this section shall be a reserved function."
Again, this is an amendment we had on Committee Stage. We feel it is a pity that it is not written into the Bill that local authorities can make loans available at a rate of interest applicants can pay. I mentioned on Committee Stage that the Meath County Council have since 1963 been operating a loan for people who would be normally housed by the local authority and who are providing their own houses under the SDA grants and qualifying for a four per cent loan.
The scheme has been very successful and has been a very progressive step in so far as we are concerned. Quite a number of people have availed of it. In many ways it would be a good thing if we had the amendment written into the Bill—that local authorities could make loans available to applicants, at a rate of interest that would enable more people to avail of the SDA loans and grants in order to build their own houses.
I should like to support Senator Fitzgerald in his plea to allow the elected representatives to have a say in the fixing of the loan interest rates. It has been the general experience that the manager fixes the maximum rate of interest even when the elected representatives advise that he should apply a lower rate. Lower interest rates, as Senator Fitzgerald has told us, would be an added incentive to many people to buy their own houses and this would mean relief to the local authority and to the community at large. The idea behind the amendment is to enable local authorities to introduce schemes even where managers might oppose this. Has the Minister the power to make regulations to give effect to what we seek in the amendment?
This matter of rates of interest, as the House knows, has been decided at local level and not centrally. By and large, during the years the situation has developed that the rates of interest chargeable on SDA transactions have been related to the actual cost of borrowing and ultimately lending by the central authority with a small fractional percentage added to cover administrative costs. It has operated at as low as one-eighth per cent, sometimes without any cost to the rates. The suggestion that this system should now be tackled in such a way that we would be putting it to the local authorities to reduce interest rates on top of all their other commitments has not, I submit, been made at the proper time. If we had intended to embark on this suggested method of aiding and assisting house-building during the years it would be a different matter. Even if at this stage we should decide in our wisdom to have this reorganisation of house-building financial aids and have another look at supplementary and State grants, it might well be we would so reduce the rate of interest that we would have this system rather than capital grants payments which have now become the accepted thing.
It is against that background we should look at this question of directing, as it were, members of local authorities by inserting this type of provision in the Bill. This would be an invitation, to put it mildly, to local authority members to reduce interest rates for the purpose of SDA transactions. The situation, as everybody here knows, is that local authorities have operated reduced interest SDA schemes in a number of cases. That a number of local authorities have done it clearly indicates it is possible for them to do it. It has been demonstrated and I assert it is possible to do it in all cases. I am not aware that it may rest with the manager. I am not aware of any majority view in any council in the country at present or during the years that had in mind a subsidising of interest rates and was aborted by a manager failing to act. If there was such a manager who stood in the way of a council he would be a very foolish manager because the provisions of section 4 could be used to a degree that would make life intolerable for him until he came to live and work with the council instead of against them. I do not see the necessity for this.
As I have said, the pattern has been built up during the years and if we were completely to review the aids to housing we might come up with something more positive in the matter of reduced interest rates contributed to by the Government and the local authorities. At the present time, this on top of what we have already done in this measure would be without doubt an invitation if not an exhortation to local authorities. If it is possible, local authorities will do it. That has been demonstrated by practice and by actions in the past. It is possible to do it, and I am inclined to leave it to councils to operate such a scheme if they think fit, even to the extent of dropping part of their supplementary grants if they cannot afford both. If they feel they can afford to do it we in the Department will not stand in their way and the manager, unless he is really not interested in the views of his council or, indeed, in the work of the council, will fall in with the council. I do not think the amendment is necessary. It could work as an attempt to stampede councils into doing this on top of the other contributions they make to housing at the moment. That is the picture I have of the amendment.
A point in favour of the amendment may be the Minister's reference to practice in the past. In view of recent happenings relative to access to various loans for the purchase of houses and the erection of houses and the fall-back or complete stoppage in local authority housing, the category of people who would have recourse to these loans is now of very serious proportions and it will increase as a result of the curtailment in local authority housing. The efforts of people to build their own houses in face of increased costs are laudable but the increased building costs put the possibility of building their own houses beyond the reach of many people unless they get the credit they require to make up the balance between local authority aids and the actual cost of the houses. Many of these people were met half way by the availability of loans in the past for the purchase of existing dwellings. The Minister now, by order, has directed councils and various housing authorities to cease this practice which means more and more people must erect their own houses if they are to have new homes. On top of that, we have the dreadful situation in relation to the financing of local authority housing. Many people have been added to the list of those who up to now have had recourse to loans. The conditions imposed on these people have worsened considerably in recent months. Therefore, the cost of loans available to these people has become far more important than it was and consequently I appeal to the Minister to meet this situation in some measure.
It is pleasing to know that while the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, he advises the allocation of loans at a little below what is required at the moment. I was glad to hear him mention that this situation may be reviewed in the future, whereby it might be possible that the Department would help the local authority to subsidise a lower rate of interest to enable people to house themselves. My concern with this particular amendment is that I feel quite a number of local authority representatives might be rather hesitant to ask their local authority to introduce a scheme of this kind. It is a pity that many more local authorities do not operate a lower rate of interest loan because, if they did, many more people could house themselves rather than be waiting to be housed by the local authorities. Furthermore, since the 1962 Housing Act, which made it obligatory that all houses erected must contain water and sewerage services, local authorities have not built what we in rural areas know as rural cottages.
There have been cottages with services built in towns and in villages but, in the rural areas, the old isolated cottage, as we knew it, has not been built since 1962. It was only in 1965, when an attempt was made to resume the building of isolated cottages, with the sanitary services provided by the local authorities, that any of those people could hold out any hope of being housed by a local authority.
I do hope the Minister will keep in mind what he has just mentioned—that at some stage the Government and the Department may come to the aid of local authorities who are prepared to make loans available at a lower rate of interest.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 37, between lines 13 and 14 to insert new paragraphs as follows:
"( ) to what extent provision has (or has not) been made for the objectives in sections 55, 56 and 57;
( ) to what extent persons eligible to be housed by the housing authority are obliged to acquire houses or accommodation beyond their means with or without the loan facilities under section 39."
This we had before. We put it down again because we still feel that the scope of section 53 subsection (1), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) is not wide enough. We propose the addition of these two paragraphs. This amendment is quite clear and does not require long discussion. Everyone knows that many people who are entitled to be housed by local authorities and who have got sick of waiting for such houses, made moves for themselves and now find themselves in the position that they have tied millstones around their necks and cannot meet their obligations except, in some cases, by cutting down on food and other essentials, with disastrous health results. We feel these other people should be listed in the report to which this section refers on future housing requirements.
As to the relevance of the amendment to sections 56 and 57, I do not see where it arises because these two sections really relate to the provision of sites or of houses. To have regard to all the other things mentioned here—I do not see how it could apply—we would really be back to dealing with the effect of the amendment on section 55, which is the programming section.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The amendment is to section 53.
Which one is this we are on?
Page 37——
Between lines 13 and 14?
Yes.
To insert a new paragraph as follows:
"( ) to what extent provision has (or has not) been made for the objectives in sections 55, 56 and 57;"
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is the one.
As I have said sections 56 and 57 deal with the provision of sites or the houses. What I am saying there is that the amendment does not, to me at any rate, appear to be of any real relevance to the provisions of those two sections. In am inclined to reply to what has been said in relation to this amendment as it refers to section 55 and the content of section 55. In that regard, I feel the amendment is similar to that tabled on Committee Stage, which we had at some length. I should say also that the adoption of this amendment here, to my mind at any rate, would tend to do little of any value and would tend also, by elaborating on the section as it stands, to obscure the real purpose of the section, thereby defeating the very purpose which, no doubt, the Senators putting down the amendment intended. Again, on Committee Stage, we had this thing out to a considerable degree and, indeed, earlier in the other House. I can add nothing to what I have already said on the matter.
I should like to ask the Minister would he not think it would be a wise provision that, in any assessment of housing needs in the future, to include:
"( ) to what extent persons eligible to be housed by the housing authority are obliged to acquire houses or accommodation beyond their means with or without the loan facilities under section 39."
making sure we shall not be forcing people to take on obligations we know they are unable to meet; merely making provision in the future for any class of person who appears to have been overlooked and, because of being overlooked, has been forced into a very bad position from their own point of view and from the point of view of the community.
The Minister might just have another look at that. It really does not ask for an awful lot except that he would make a fair assessment of the local authorities' needs in the future.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister may have the permission of the House to intervene and reply.
One of the features of this matter put forward by Senator Miss Davidson is that if we were to have this provision inserted there would be, without doubt, an outcry by all of the people whose means would be perused and searched out and who, in fact, did not have anything to gain from it in the long run. They are the people who would scream about it. We have had that experience before when it came to a far more definite point which is, for instance, the ascertaining of means when renting of houses is about to take place and after it has taken place. In addition to that, in this case, the fact that a person may be in a house which could be regarded, from a structural point of view, as suitable but is costing the world in so far as that person's income is concerned, there is no barrier to that person being rehoused. The imposition of this inquiry into the incomes of the persons in the areas and in all areas said to be in need of housing would be an unnecessary exercise, an exercise which would be resented, an exercise which would not have any great bearing on 99 per cent of the cases, and as to the other one per cent they may get housing in the future even though their own accommodation may not be structurally unsound. I feel this, in itself, is a very good reason why we should not add this scrutiny of means to the other scrutinies that already have to be exercised. For that reason, among the other things I mentioned, I feel we should not insert this into the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 38, to delete lines 46 to 56 inclusive and substitute:
"( ) (a) A housing authority shall, unless it shall by resolution specifically decide otherwise in any particular instance, in connection with dwellings provided, to be provided or which in the opinion of the authority will in the future require to be provided under this Act, provide and maintain in good order and repair roads, playgrounds, places of recreation (including swimming pools), parks, allotments and open spaces.
(b) It may also in the same connection provide, if it thinks fit, sites for places of worship, factories, shops, schools, offices and other buildings or land and such other works or services, as will, in the opinion of the authority, serve a beneficial purpose either in connection with the requirements of the persons for whom the dwellings are provided or in connection with the requirements of those persons and of other persons."
This amendment is a little difficult to understand and a little more difficult to explain. Under the subsection as it stands at the moment, a housing authority may, in connection with dwellings provided, to be provided or which in the opinion of the authority will in the future require to be provided, provide and, if they think fit, maintain in good order and repair roads, shops, playgrounds, places of recreation, parks, allotments, open spaces, sites for places of worship, factories, etc.
The purpose of the amendment is to split this in two and say that in respect of certain of these things the housing authority shall, unless they opt out by resolution specifically determining that issue, provide and maintain in good repair roads, playgrounds, places of recreation, including swimming pools— and that is an addition—parks, allotments and open spaces. Under the section a housing authority may provide these things if they think fit, and the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that they shall provide them unless by resolution they specifically decide otherwise.
In relation to the other matters the position is left as it was. They may provide, if they think fit, sites for places of worship, factories, shops, schools, offices and other buildings or land and such other works or services, as will, in the opinion of the authority, serve a beneficial purpose either in connection with the requirement for persons for whom the dwellings are provided or in connection with the requirements of those persons and other persons.
I hope I have said enough to explain the purpose of the amendment. It is to divide these into two, and say that in respect of certain things a housing authority shall provide them unless they specifically decide otherwise. We also add the provision of swimming pools. It may be that the Minister and the local authorities may not regard swimming pools as amenities. However, many people think otherwise. One purpose of the amendment is to underline the need for the provision of swimming pools with other amenities like parks, allotments and open spaces. I do not think the amendment affects the Bill in any fundamental way and I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept it.
I oppose this amendment for two reasons. The first is that in our present financial circumstances, if I read the amendment correctly, this would put an unreasonable burden on the authorities. If I read the amendment correctly—and I am subject to correction—this would mean that a swimming pool would have to be provided with each of these groups of houses. Swimming pools are desirable, but I think it would be better to provide them on a municipal or a regional basis in connection with new developments.
My second reason deals with a matter of deeper principle. It is wrong to make it mandatory to provide swimming pools and permissive to provide sites for places of worship. If I were choosing between the two I think the places of worship should be mandatory and the swimming pools permissive.
Senator Stanford has dealt very succinctly with at least one aspect. I should like to add that consideration should be given to the situation as it has been obtaining. Under the present law all these things may be done. Not only may they be done, but so far as roads, playgrounds, places of recreation, parks, allotments, and so on, where appropriate, are concerned, these things are not only capable of being done under the present law, but time and again they are being advocated by me, and were advocated by other Ministers down through the years. Putting an obligation of this nature on the local authorities to opt statutorily out of doing these things would make little sense surely, because if a sufficient number of them take this view—which I doubt—the chances are that they would be sufficiently strong in their views not to deal with the essential which is the housing estate.
This is all against my very definite view that all these things, within reason, in their proper concept, and within reasonable cost, should be in every new housing estate. At every opportunity I have advocated that we should at least plan properly in this direction and try to provide these things as soon as we may. The elementary amenities should certainly be provided at the outset, and there should be an integrated planned development which would entail the provision of all the amenities necessary for community life, community existence and community centres. Those are the trends today. I do not think it would serve any purpose to put this in the Bill. To put it in baldly as in the amendment would serve the reverse purpose, in my estimation.
That is in regard to paragraph (a) of the amendment and in so far as paragraph (b) is concerned—this would give the housing authorities enabling power to provide schools etc.—I do not think it is necessary because section 56 already takes care of that aspect of the matter. They may do these things as the amendment proposes they should be allowed to do. On Part (a) of the amendment I agree with the spirit and intention but I do not agree that it would be useful or a good thing that we should add this amendment because I believe that instead of adding to the amenities that may be provided at present and in the future it could have the effect of preventing or slowing down the provision of housing. This is something which we must avoid. I am not sure whether the amendment would have any effect, but if it had it might have the effect of slowing down the building of houses on the estate itself rather than adding anything by way of amenity. For that reason I am not at all in favour of the amendment, though the first part is the only part I take exception to, because the second part is already covered by section 56. Local authorities may avail of it as they wish.
It is a pity that the other Senator from Trinity College is not here to reply to Senator Stanford. He was a bit unfair to get up and put swimming pools and sites for churches in the same bracket, because we are dealing with two separate things. I did not say that local authorities should build churches. That is not advocated, and nobody here says that it is the duty of a local authority to build a church, though we say that it is the duty of the local authority to build and maintain swimming pools. This does not mean that we regard swimming pools as more important than churches. We are talking about the responsibilities of local authorities in this matter, and any comparison linking them together like this is a bit unfair.
I did not talk about the building of churches, but the provision of sites for churches, which is quite a different matter.
The provision of sites is in the second part of the amendment. The first part deals with the things that local authorities should build and maintain themselves.
Senator Murphy misunderstands my view. The amendment is one amendment, and I am balancing the two clauses and pointing out this discrepancy, that one is mandatory and the other permissive.
It provides here that the local authority may provide sites for offices, schools, factories, and places of worship. It does not say whether a school or a place of worship should be built. It simply provides a site, and that has been done for Ballymun in which the Minister is most interested. That brings me back to the swimming pool again. The Minister is very involved in the development of Ballymun, and I wonder whether he is so involved as to provide for a swimming pool.
Yes.
I am very glad to hear that, and I welcome it. With that I shall withdraw the amendment. I am very glad to know that in Ballymun the Minister is providing for this development of the housing estate with a swimming pool and I hope that in other similar developments similar provision will be made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 39, line 53, before "determining" to insert ", the provisions of which shall be publicly displayed,"
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair would suggest that amendments Nos. 10 and 14 be taken together.
Again, I am left holding the baby. This amendment deals with the display of a scheme and the determining of priorities. In the absence of the prime mover in this I must say that I think it is met by ministerial amendment No. 14.
I think it should be clearly understood that there is no real difference in this matter other than that the amendment as framed here might give rise to difficulty in execution. We are proposing that the priorities should be displayed in the local council office, which is not a public place, and as such it would conflict with our intention in that it could probably be said legally that they were not publicly displayed. What is contained in the official amendment was intended to meet the points raised by Senators on the Committee Stage, and even before we left the Seanad that evening it was almost agreed as to what form this matter might take.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 40, to delete lines 15 and 16 and substitute "the enabling of persons suffering from communicable disease to have individual bedroom accommodation".
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair suggests that amendments Nos. 11 and 12 be taken together. Is that agreed?
Yes. Senator Sheehy Skeffington spent some time talking about this section on the Second Stage of the Bill and again on Committee. The objection here is to the idea of segregation at all and, secondly, to the specific reference to tuberculosis. The objection is being partly met in amendment No. 12, but that still leaves references to tuberculosis, and I think amendment No. 11 is better. I hope that the Minister will agree, unless he has some specific reason for not doing so, that we should not mention tuberculosis in dealing with this problem, but that rather we should deal with it as in amendment No. 11.
I should like to support this amendment. I do not see why—perhaps the Minister can enlighten me—tuberculosis should be specifically mentioned like this. Why not leprosy or any other diseases? Leprosy, I understand, is on the increase in these islands, certainly in the neighbouring island, and it might be well not to specify tuberculosis but leave it open by reference to any dangerous disease.
Sometimes one wonders whether an attempt to meet a situation as represented is worthwhile, when, having done the best one can to meet what was probably somewhat difficult to determine at the time, it was finally boiled down to the objection expressed to the words "segregation of", and we were getting rid of that by amendment No. 12 which substitutes other words, which are "adequate and suitable housing accommodation for." As to the real value of amendment No. 11, I would say to the House what I said earlier, though it is not my domain, that tuberculosis is not beaten in this country yet. The evidence and the figures would indicate that it is still quite a problem in our community, and that unless it is pursued with the same vigour as it has been in the past we could easily revert to the conditions in which we were 20 years ago, and that special consideration should be given in these cases, which is something which has been carried right up the years.
Amendment No. 11 is one which does not commend itself to me particularly as in framing my amendment I was given to understand that if I could meet all the words objected to the principle involved was quite acceptable. This apparently is not generally acceptable and this amendment is the result. I feel that amendment No. 12 is the one which on the earlier consideration was regarded as adequate to meet the situation as we then discussed it. Any departure from the emphasis, by way of special or additional consideration being given to a person suffering from this disease, on this disease in the past, is something which would not commend itself to me. It would not be wise to agree to this at this particular juncture. I would commend the official amendment, if you like to call it that, No. 12, to the Seanad.
I am rather puzzled by the Minister's attitude in regard to amendment No. 11. There are diseases other than tuberculosis which it would possibly be desirable that the housing authority would have special regard to. It is unnecessary to have this specific pointing of the finger to tuberculosis. I quite agree with the Minister that we still have tuberculosis in this country and we will always have it here. Of course, it is not anything like the problem it was 15 or 20 years ago. We should be particularly thankful to the people who gave leadership in bringing about the present happy position in that respect. I refer to Dr. Noel Browne, for example. The Minister could agree that amendment No. 11 is the better amendment. I am still satisfied it is the better amendment. It satisfies both the needs of the Minister and the housing authorities. The Bill would be a better one with amendment No. 11 than with amendment No. 12. Therefore, I press the amendment.
On a point of information——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
A point of information would not be in order.
Have I the right to reply in regard to the later amendment?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
As I understand the position, when two amendments are taken together the right of reply rests with the mover of the first amendment.
That is the information I wanted.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand".
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 13.
Tá
- Ahern, Liam.
- Brennan, John J.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Martin, James J.
- Nash, John Joseph.
- Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Honan, Dermot P.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Ryan, James.
- Yeats, Michael.
Níl
- Crowley, Patrick.
- Davidson, Mary F.
- FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
- Fitzgerald, John.
- McDonald, Charles.
- McHugh, Vincent.
- McQuillan, Jack.
- Murphy, Dominick F.
- O'Quigley, John B.
- O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Rooney, Éamon.
- Stanford, William B.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Ó Donnabháin and Farrell; Níl: Senators Murphy and Fitzgerald.
Question declared carried.
I should like to raise a question about the vote on amendment No. 11. A number of us were over in the new offices and we had not a clue about the vote. A buzzer was sounded but nobody knew what it was all about. When it did sink in, it took us about five minutes to get a lift and to get across from the new offices to the Seanad took another five minutes. That is the position as far as we are concerned.
There are stairs leading down from the new offices. Are the Senators too old——
The stairs would not do for a man with weighty problems——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
If the Whips are dissatisfied they should take the matter up with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.
Government amendment No. 12:
In page 40, line 15, to delete "segregation of" and substitute "provision of adequate and suitable housing accommodation for".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 40, between lines 16 and 17, to insert:
"(e) the establishment as far as practicable of a demographically balanced community."
The purpose of this amendment is to add this new subsection (e) to the factors to which housing authorities should have regard. This is the establishment, as far as practicable, of a demographically balanced community. The Minister will have sympathy with us, whether he thinks it is necessary to write it in or not. We have all seen the situation in which you have big housing estates and large numbers of people moving into them, particularly young married couples. Then you have a few years with the streets full of young children who later on start going to school. There is a general build-up of the school-going age group for the next ten to 15 years. The school-leavers leave before the school is built and we hope we might have a school before the children reach the school-leaving age. There is a population usually of the same age group—young married couples coming in and young children of from ten to 15 years of age. At this stage the school accommodation provided in that area is largely redundant because it will be another ten to 15 years before more children will grow up in that area.
It is desirable in determining priorities in this matter that the housing authorities should have regard as far as practicable to a demographically balanced community. There are other factors beside the question of schools. A community composed of different age-groups is a happier community. It is bad to have a situation in which you have all old people living in the same area. They should be mixed and balanced with people of different ages—young people especially.
The purpose of putting down the amendment is to draw the attention of the Minister to the desirability of having regard to this in dealing with the question of house priorities.
The amendment does not commend itself to me. The amendment would put local authorities in a pretty impossible position in trying to decide priorities. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that they would find it difficult enough to get things straight when they have cleared their accounts as to what they must have regard to, without adding this amendment with this phraseology. Quite honestly, what does it mean in relation to the placing of tenants? I know from what Senator Murphy has said what the intention is but, taking it on its face value which is how it would be interpreted if it became law, it does not appear to me as something we could insert here with any useful purpose whatsoever. It would make it pretty impossible for local authorities to decide priorities which, God knows, are difficult enough already in relation to house allocation.
While on this matter, I agree that the age groups, the newlyweds, going into new houses create a problem but I do not think it is such as to cause the whole pattern of the community to change in a couple of generations to the extent that we started off with all young people in an estate and would end with all old people. This could happen if we had estates entirely devoted to newlyweds but the unfortunate situation, if you like, is that we have many people in larger centres where next-door neighbours are not of the same age group, where, side by side, there are young families and families ten years older. If the amendment were to mean anything more than a gesture it could well be that well-off people would be brought into estates to the exclusion of badly-off people who could not be housed because they were not of a certain age group.
I agree that the suggestion of a balance is an ideal thing to aim at but I do not think it is possible to achieve in an area like Dublin where there is such great need for housing and a great waiting list of families of all ages ranging over a wide field. This could be very confusing and I do not think it is advisable in any sense other than to make a gesture that this sort of balance is something we should like to see, even if it is impossible of attainment. Otherwise, the amendment could not be said to have any merit.
In this instance the Minister has met the case and I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 14:
In page 40, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following new subsection:
"(9) A housing authority shall, upon request, permit a scheme made by them under this section to be inspected during office hours by any person."
Amendment agreed to.
I wish to state that because the principle involved in amendments Nos. 15, 18, 19 and 21 was not before the House on Committee Stage, it is now to be understood that amendment No. 15, on which the discussion will take place, is being recommitted.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 15.
Government amendment No. 15:
In page 42, line 19, before "and" to insert "subject to the modification that where as respects an application under subsection (1) of this section, the name of the occupier of a dwelling or building or part thereof cannot by reasonable enquiry be ascertained, a summons under the said section 86 may be addressed to ‘the occupier' without naming him,".
The purpose of these amendments is to get over defects in the legal position of vested cottages where the owner dies intestate and letters of administration have not been taken out, and where nobody is paying the annuity. The property may be going derelict. These amendments will enable the required notices and summonses instituting court proceedings to be addressed to the owner without naming him or her. The procedure will also apply to urban houses which have been sold.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported and agreed to.
Additional Government amendment No. 15a:
In section 62, page 42, line 33, to delete the word "to".
The word "to" was inadvertently inserted and I should like the House to delete it by accepting this verbal amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17 may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 16:
In page 61, after "housing" in line 39 and before line 40, to insert the following:
";
(c) any attempted or purported mortgaging, charging or alienation in contravention of the condition shall be null and void against all persons; provided, however, that in any case where the consent of the housing authority is given after the attempted or purported mortgaging, charging or alienation, such consent shall, if the authority so direct, so operate as to validate with retrospective effect such attempted or purported mortgaging, charging or alienation".
The purpose of these amendments is to render null and void any mortgages which were devised in contravention of section 90 or section 98 of the Bill or of section 17 of the Labourers Act, 1936.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 17:
In page 65, section 98, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
"( ) In case any person, without the consent of a housing authority, attempts or purports to effect in relation to any cottage, plot or part of a plot held with a cottage, a charge, mortgage, subdivision or alienation as respects which the consent of a housing authority is required by this section or by a vesting order made under section 17 of the Act of 1936, such attempted or purported charging, mortgaging, subdivision or alienation shall be null and void against all persons; provided, however, that in any case where the consent of the authority is given after the attempted or purported charging, mortgaging, subdivision or alienation, such consent shall operate, if the authority so direct, to validate with retrospective effect, such attempted or purported charging, mortgaging, subdivision or alienation."
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 18:
In page 66, line 55, after "occurs" to insert "and ‘subject to the modification that where as respects an application under subsection (1) of this section the name of the owner of a cottage cannot by reasonable enquiry be ascertained, a summons under the said section 86 may be addressed to "the owner" without naming him' is hereby inserted after ‘this section'".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 67, after "necessary" in line 47 and before line 48, to insert the following:
";
(d) paragraph (d) of section 29 is hereby amended by the insertion of ‘addressing it to "the owner", without naming him and' before ‘delivering' and by the substitution of ‘or' for ‘or by'".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 69, to delete lines 29 to 32 inclusive and substitute the following:
"( ) In determining for the purpose of this section whether or not a cottage or dwelling is in good structural condition regard shall be had to the provision of the Second Schedule to this Act."
I wish to draw the attention of the House to a typographical error in this amendment. The asterisk should not have appeared before the figure 20.
I really thought it meant the Minister had decided to accept the amendment as his and I was very happy for a while. This is a slightly changed form from the amendment I pressed on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister will agree to apply the requirements of the Second Schedule to all housing. If the Minister did that, we would be reasonably satisfied that our demands for good sanitary conditions would be met. As the Bill stands, the Second Schedule requirements seem to apply to private houses but not to local authority houses. We would wish it to apply to all housing.
On this matter I am still very curious as to the Minister's desire to get rid of the words "and sanitary condition". The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to imply that the description applied to finicky repairs and that this should be removed from the responsibility of the local authorities, which we could agree with. But in the report of the Dublin County Council Housing Authority of 28th February, 1964 under prescribed repairs, under existing requirements of good sanitary conditions, I find the Minister sanctioned an item reading—"provide a septic tank £90". This could scarcely be described as a finicky repair. It is also something which was evidently necessary for good sanitary condition. The date of the Minister's determination of the provision of this septic tank was 25th July, 1963.
What I would suggest here, which might meet to some degree both our points of view, is that subsection (4) of section 106 should be deleted—nothing added or substituted; just leave it out.
I am not so concerned about "stability", really——
——"Condition?"
Yes, "condition".
By taking this subsection out we would, I suggest, take the emphasis off the question of "structural stability", and that the matters mentioned earlier in the section would not then be laid down as they are in subsection (4) but that the "condition" of the house would then be determined by the local authority in question, without being tied absolutely as they might be regarded as being tied by subsection (4). It would give them that bit of further flexibility without, at the same time, re-introducing the situation wherein necessary repair work—as has happened on many occasions—has probably been neglected in one set of houses because of the necessity, under the present law, to carry out many little finicky repairs which were eating up money which could more usefully have been spent in a more comprehensive or definite way on more houses. In other words, we might have more houses repaired to a reasonable standard rather than a few repaired to what might be regarded as a rather high standard with disadvantage to the many which still remained to be repaired. The deletion of subsection (4) of section 106 would reduce the danger feared by the Senators who put down the amendment. By taking the subsection away we are taking away what they fear most, in the sense that we are not reiterating that local authorities must have regard to it.
I should be grateful to the Minister for doing that and it would be of some help but I should still like to know why the Minister will not apply his own standard in regard to private houses to local authority houses.
The Second Schedule is very wide indeed and would, for all intents and purposes, not only re-introduce but would even worsen that situation to the detriment of those who wish to get repairs done and are not having them done at all at the moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Additional Government amendment No. 20c:
To delete subsection (4) of section 106.
Would the Minister explain to the House precisely what he wishes?
It is the deletion of all the words in subsection (4) of section 106.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 21:
In page 70, line 15, before "and" to insert "subject to the modification that where as respects an application under subsection (1) of this section the name of the owner of a house or dwelling cannot by reasonable enquiry be ascertained, a summons under the said section 86 may be addressed to ‘the owner' without naming him,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 73, line 47 to delete "shall" and substitute "shall not" and in line 48 to delete "also".
This amendment applies to the voting of councillor tenants. I need not repeat the case I made on Committee Stage for this amendment. We still consider it is unjust to deprive a tenant councillor from voting on general housing matters, such as rents. When I spoke on Committee Stage we suggested that he might reasonably be excluded from voting when the matter included his own dwelling. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, would he consider the proposal I made on Second Stage that he would take powers in certain cases to remove disability to vote?
In reply to that request, the only matter not already covered by existing law and practice we are talking about in essence here in this section and in this amendment would be the question of the fixing of rents, for instance, by virtue of a section 4 resolution. In the circumstances there, I do not see why we should not ensure that a member may not, by his vote, influence the result of a section 4 resolution from which he himself, as a tenant of the house of the council of which he is a member, would benefit, because under Parts I and II of the 1890 Act councillors are already in a position where they may not vote on matters dealing with lands or houses in a manner which would be beneficial to themselves.
While the provision here would seem to be all-embracing, the fact is that the only thing of real importance is that a member may not vote in a specific section 4 resolution affecting rent where he would be beneficially affected. That is the essence of what is intended. These things are already covered in the 1890 Act and members may not vote beneficially to themselves in relation to many other things related to their functions as local councillors.
I spoke about this on Committee Stage and I felt very strongly against this because, while I agree with the Minister's fears, I think the dangers contained in it are so negligible that they are unworthy of having a section of this kind in any Bill. As we all know, the fixing of rents is practically a managerial function, and the instances where section 4 would be invoked to prevent him fixing what he might fed was an economic rent as against what the council might feel was an economic rent would be very negligible. I do not think we should stigmatise this Bill with a section which prevents a certain section of the community who might be elected as members of a county council, a borough council, or any other local authority, from exercising their rights, merely because one might happen to be appointed a tenant of one of a terrace of 20 or 120 houses. He could benefit also if his brother or his sister were being appointed a tenant of one of those houses. In this year we should get away from the type of legislation which appertains to an Act passed in 1890.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 74, section 115, between lines 19 and 20 to insert the following:
"( ) A person voting as a member of a housing authority (or any committee mentioned in section 110) upon any resolution or question which is proposed or arises under sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 40, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 70, 90 and 97 shall not be deemed to be beneficially interested therein."
I should like the Minister to balance the case of the tenant councillor who is being refused the right to vote because of a beneficial interest against the case of a mill owner, a publican, or a wealthy landowner, who will vote on the tenant councillor's rent, but will not be looked upon as being beneficially interested when, in fact, he is greatly beneficially interested because when the rent of the house goes up his rates go down. He can be very beneficially interested in a reduction of rates rather than in the raising of the tenant councillor's rent.
I do not think that analogy is a true one because in that case the mill owner or the factory owner would not be entitled to vote on the matter. I think the analogy should be between the mill owner who may be a member of the council and another person who may be a tenant, whatever else he might be. Those two situations should be set against each other rather than the broad principle that every person who is a ratepayer could be said to have an interest that could be regarded as beneficial if by putting up rents he could get down the rates. The fact of the matter is, as we know to our regret, that we have never seen—and I do not suppose we ever will see—rates being reduced as rents are being increased. I do not think it will ever happen that we will get a decrease in rates as a direct result of an increase in rents.
The real point here is that all down the years the general principle has been that a councillor may not vote if he has a direct personal interest. This is an extension of that principle to this related matter of an increase in rent by way of a section 4 resolution. The principle is already applicable to all and sundry whether tenant or otherwise in relation to matters in which they would have a beneficial interest. They are already precluded from voting on it. This is merely bringing it into line, and it is unlikely to happen very often—in fact, quite seldom.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
We now see the passage into legislation of what is a very comprehensive Housing Bill, having been closely examined by both Houses. Now that we are finished with it in the Seanad the Minister and his officials will have to return to what is the prior interest of local authorities in meeting the housing situation, and that is their housekeeping job. In this respect we can now only hope that the Minister will be in a position in a very short time to implement many of the admirable inclusions in this legislation. We cannot let the occasion pass without referring to the fact that the situation since this debate began here in the Seanad has worsened, with the information that has been brought to light relative to the current housing situation.
The Senator may deal only with what is in the Bill. The debate may not range now over other than the sections specifically covered in the Bill.
Very well. We may ask the Minister how he proposes to implement the sections that are contained in the Bill when we cannot obtain the moneys even to meet current commitments. The local authority of which I am a member met yesterday and we found that we are £25,000 short of our existing commitments without a single proposal to build one additional house this year. That is the position in the southern region of the Cork Housing Authority, so that in those circumstances is it any wonder that we regard this as window dressing?
The Senator is going outside the scope of the Bill.
I accept your ruling. Sir, but I should like to say that we hope and trust that the enactment of this Bill will bring to those who are sorely in need of housing throughout the country some measure of relief from the circumstances in which they are at the moment. We regard many of the statements made in the process of seeing this Bill through both Houses as being completely different from what is the actual situation.
The Chair cannot permit a debate of this kind on this Stage.
I shall not pursue this aspect other than to say that this enables county councils, urban councils and corporations throughout the country to implement certain improvements in the housing of our people, but if these improvements are to be effected then we need drastic and immediate change relative to the financing of housing. It is with these remarks that we welcome the passage of the Bill. We would wish that it was passed in different circumstances relative to the financing of housing in face of the drastic curtailments that all local authorities have suffered at the hands of the Minister this year.
We have here a Bill which extends over 84 pages, with numerous sections. By any standard this Bill was not very easy, even for people who are skilled in the reading of Bills, to comprehend even after a good deal of study. I hope, therefore, that the Minister for Local Government will, in so far as he can do so, make the provisions of this Bill known widely among those sections of the community to whom particular parts of it would apply, in some more intelligible language than necessarily can be contained in a measure of this kind. I hope that he will give full publicity to the improvements in grants and loans and so on and the facilities which are available under it to the public at large and to those authorities concerned with its implementation and application.
Necessarily, I suppose, in a measure of this kind it will be found inevitably that when the best design has been worked out and incorporated in the Bill there will be defects. Up to now housing legislation was something in the nature of a jungle, and one has only to look at the First Schedule to see the myriad enactments over which the legislation regarding housing was spread. It may well be that there are some lacunae and defects which will arise in its application. I hope that if these arise during the Minister's term of office as Minister for Local Government he will not hesitate to rectify them by bringing in Bills at fairly frequent intervals to deal with them if they arise, and that the standard practice of waiting for two years in which to introduce a housing Bill will be departed from if any defect arises which the Minister finds cannot be dealt with, and that he will not hesitate to bring it in. I am quite certain that so far from being criticised for bringing in an amendment of that kind the House will have nothing but commendation for speedy action in bringing in the necessary amending legislation.
Like Senator D.J. O'Sullivan I hope that this Bill having been prepared and pushed through, the necessary wherewithal will be speedily made available to achieve the objects for which the Bill is designed.
Like the other speakers, I, too, am very pleased to see that we have come now to the end of the 1965 Housing Bill and that it is about to go on the Statute Book. I am sure that it will see a big advancement in our housing programme. During the discussion, and especially in the Minister's introductory speech, it became apparent that a great task devolved upon every local authority and everybody connected with housing to ensure that adequate housing is provided. In this Bill the Minister has gone as far as he possibly can to provide legislation to enable that task to be tackled. I sincerely hope that the credit restrictions and lack of finance which seem to be apparent at the moment will ease, and that this Bill will be put into operation by all local authorities to enable us to clear up the great backlog of housing that remains to be cleared up. There are many useful sections in the Bill, making it one of the best pieces of housing legislation passed in this State. I hope, as I say, that money will soon become available to enable us to put all these useful sections in it into operation.
It is, as Members of the House are fully aware, almost a year since this Bill was first introduced, and since then it certainly has had its fair quota of debate in Dáil and Seanad, but despite this fact I would like to express my appreciation to all concerned both here and in the other House for the manner in which those discussions took place in that despite the size of the Bill containing 120 sections and four Schedules and all that goes with all those things only five divisions took place on the Bill in its entirety. I feel that even those five might have been avoided if we each really understood what was the intention of others. I should like to say that this was mutual, to be charitable. However, continuing in the same charitable strain might I very genuinely say thanks to all in both Houses for the manner of approach to this Bill. In reply to Senator O'Quigley's request that if, as might well happen, when he and some of his colleagues have had time to peruse it in a more leisurely manner——
I am thinking of the Minister and his officials.
——either by my officials or by Senator O'Quigley and his colleagues, there might be found as in the case of any measure of this kind that in its administration certain mistakes would be found to have been made which can only emerge as we meet the particular circumstances and bring them into the floodlight, in so far as the correction of any of those are concerned and in so far as I am permitted to amend them in any way, I certainly will correct, as quickly as it is possible to do so, any shortcomings that may emerge. I shall certainly not be slow to come to the Dáil and the Seanad to make those corrections or additions if experience dictates that they are necessary in connection with housing as a whole.
The length of time we had this Bill before the Oireachtas is naturally a good reason why I am particularly anxious it should be put into operation as quickly as possible. Indeed, I might say, before we got to this point at all, that some of the provisions of the Bill, as agreed by both Houses, are already in operation to quite a considerable degree. The time taken by all those who spoke on this Bill, for and against particular aspects of it, is to my mind indicative of the widespread interest that the Members of both Houses have in this very important matter of housing. Indeed, it emphasises the important place that the building of houses for our people must continue to have if we are to make any real impression on the bad housing which undoubtedly exists in far too many places at this moment.
The cost of all this has been mentioned. When tackling housing, financing plays a very important role. Lately it has seemed impossible to finance housing to the degree necessary. We should not over-emphasise this aspect and we should not forget, in doing so, the great results achieved and the fantastic amount of money which the various governments and the Irish people have put into housing in a relatively short time. We should not be too taken up with comparisons abroad. Many of them can be misleading. While we should make note of them we should not be too ready to accept them. We should realise in this matter of housing that over the years we have made a very great effort. We should have regard to comparisons with other countries without being too dogmatic about their application to our own efforts here.
We should continue with the job of housing and do our utmost in the years ahead. The magnitude of the job which has yet to be done cannot be over-emphasised. For too long too many of us had the idea that the housing survey carried out some years ago, as a result of which the White Paper of 1948 was published, was the cause—although it was not intended to be—of misreading of the projections then made. The projections were made for that particular time without any regard to projections for the years ahead. This feeling undoubtedly still exists. Unfortunately, there are many thousands of bad houses and there are many thousands of people who are still in very poor housing conditions.
The projections of the more recent White Paper again are naturally subject to greater error than the White Paper of 1948 because in our more recent White Paper we have dealt not only with the needs as calculated at the time the calculations were made but also, which is much more difficult, with future needs from the point of view of the additional houses which will fall to be built, either as renewal of houses which had become obsolescent or as the result of growth in population and so forth. We have tried to do this in our recent White Paper but as I say it is a much more difficult task to undertake and there can be a greater margin of error. However, we feel it is a fair guide to the magnitude of the task before us and, if anything, it has probably clarified the situation in regard to house-building in a thriving community as opposed to a dying community.
Housing in a thriving community can never be solved to the point where you can say: "That is all we have to do. We have everything done now." That can never happen unless you are dealing with a community which is dying. We are not dealing with a dying community and, therefore, our housing problem can never be said to be solved. We can never look forward to the day when any Minister or any Government will be able to say: "We have finished our housing programme. Our housing problem is now over and that chapter can be closed." This can never be done. It is a continuing problem and a continuing job. It will require the combined efforts of the Dáil, the Seanad, the local county councils, the urban councils and so forth. Everybody will be required to co-operate and to continue to cooperate. They will have to work to the utmost of their capacity to build houses for the people of Ireland whilst there remains one family who is badly housed.
During the past four or five years, despite what has been said about the shortage of capital and despite what has been said about the credit squeeze, we have made great strides compared with the position we were in about eight or ten years ago. The amount of money given has continually climbed.
House building costs have also climbed.
I suppose if I were to say they have declined in the last few years the Senator would disagree with me. We are trying to outline the situation that we have a lot to do. We have done a lot but we should not be satisfied with what we have done. We should not criticise too severely the manner in which the job has been done over recent years. With regard to the proposals in this Bill, it is quite obvious that costs have increased in recent years. The amount of capital provided by the Government and local authorities has risen in the past five years by as much as 80 per cent. House building has not risen by that percentage in the same period though there is a true upsurge in the input of capital during recent times. This applies to this year despite the difficulties we have encountered, and it applied last year despite the difficulties we encountered then and will, so far as we can forecast at this stage, apply at least in like measure next year with always the hope that we can increase the amount being put in.
Some people now say, with the truly amazing clarity of mind which undoubtedly hindsight gives, that we should not have put in so much of our capital in these years because it has an upsetting effect particularly on the building industry.
I am the first to admit that ups and downs in the building industry are to be avoided. The urgency of building houses, particularly local authority and State financed houses, is of such importance that we must admit that whatever may be the repercussions we must at no time slacken but do our utmost in so far as our physical and financial resources will allow us to provide houses. For that reason, I do not agree that we were unwise to put too much in too soon because we must continue to put in more money in the progressive way we did put it in in the five years up to the present year.
Another thing I think should be said at this stage is that while we have people living, as they are, four, five, six or eight in one house, and some more appalling cases we hear of people living in one room and of 15 to 20 people living in one small house, we must push on with building with the utmost urgency our circumstances will allow. We have been doing that over the last five years, and if during the past year our expansion in the earlier years had an unsettling effect on the building industry I am extremely sorry because it does no good to the building industry that this should happen. But the circumstances are such that I think priorities must be got right and all the families I spoke about must be housed, and there are far too many of them — they run into thousands—and we have got to go for what in my estimation is the more urgent matter and put all we have into it. Even though this may mean a slowing down, a levelling off, and a rather abrupt levelling off of an upward progression that was very evident for some time, this is the situation we have experienced in these recent months and it is one which, I say, we are justified in having happen because of the urgency of housing needs. Nevertheless, it is one which I deplore and regret and I shall, so far as it is within my power and the power of the Government, get on with the job of input in the upward direction again. This I feel I can assure the House will be done so soon as it is possible for us financially to do it and it may not be all that long delayed. It will not be so long delayed as some people think but possibly it may be a little longer than others have projected. The time should not be too far removed when we can hope for a further injection of a greater amount of capital than we had available within the last 12 months into housing.
Can the Minister give any indication in months?
The Senator should know better than to ask such a question on an evening like this. There is always a chance that I might reply to the Senator's question although it is a very slim chance.
Vague statements are not much good. I was interested and there are hundreds more who are interested.
The imput of capital by the Government and local authorities into public housing and local authority housing might occur to some people to have been restricted somewhat in order that we should not create or add to the boom in industry that grew up in recent years. I should say that this would not have had all that effect on it for a great deal of the boom conditions were created by the local authorities unfortunate though it is to say it.
The Minister can say that again.
Much more so by the private sector and they in turn were to some degree financed from taxation, and the Exchequer to quite a considerable degree, and to a much higher degree they were financed by other lending agencies. Even if we had it then we could not have had that much effect on the conditions then in the building industry so far as house building is concerned merely by rationing out the cash available. We were pushing it out.
In fact it could not have been used as fast as we supplied it. A situation developed that we had not the supply to meet what was being used. One was a direct result of the other.
Strange how that happened.
I hope it will revert to its former state again and push it along both ways. It is an explanation to those who do not agree of the situation which has been criticised in that we put too much in in circumstances when we were not sure we could continue to do it at an accelerated rate. I feel we have to do it because of the urgency of the situation. Even if we did control it was only to a small degree; the rest of it could have come from outside. If we had curbed the local authorities by keeping back the finances we did make available in those years we would not have had the effect of having a balanced rational non-boom condition in the industry— not letting them go up too far and having a slow bump down.
This is the first time the Minister has admitted the building industry is going down. This is the first time we got that out of him.
It is an honest Ministerial confession. We will give him full pardon at the end of it.
If I thought I was depending on that pardon. I should not be here at all.
Is the Minister saying when money was available local authorities had not schemes and were not able to avail of them? Now that they have schemes they have no money available.
Is this called planning?
This would be planning as per economists but not per the Department of Local Government. I am not saying what Senator Fitzgerald says.
It sounds like it.
With a decided difference. We had more money than there were schemes to meet the local authorities in these years. I am on record on many occasions as advocating and exhorting that more could come through because of the known need for houses. I do not need to go further than to say we now have schemes and no money. It is not that we have not any money. It is not that we have no money but that we have not as much money as the schemes would absorb if we were to build them all at once. There is a difference of £11 million between Senator Fitzgerald and myself. It is a fair figure and we understand each other. There is £11 million going into housing this year as distinct from nothing.
What the Minister is saying is that there is not enough money.
The money was not there—an interesting example of planning.
I should imagine that when the money becomes available which, I hope, will not be too far away, we shall have schemes and plans available to utilise it. That could be regarded as planning properly.
If it works it can.
If there is money it will work. Money makes most things work. Another matter about which there has been a lot of talk is covered in this Bill. It is the question of rents. I have been blackguarded in a blunt way by a number of those who have contributed to the debate on the question of the intention of the Bill on the question of rents policy in the future. I have been misrepresented very much and very deliberately to the effect that the Minister for Local Government is putting up rents. That is not the intention of the Bill. It is not what has been stated by me at any time. It is not what I have conveyed to the Dáil or Seanad. My anxiety in this respect is to rationalise the rents structure so that there will be more money more readily available to build more houses more rapidly for more of our people who are so badly in need of them.
There is no future for those who say that the intention of the Minister and the Bill is to put up rents. What the Minister is trying to do is to get local authorities to look at their rents pattern to find out if there are in that pattern people paying too little rent who could afford to pay a proper rent and if, as a result of their paying too little, they do not help to provide local authorities with the additional wherewithal to build more houses for those who need them. There should be no question about my outlook in regard to rents. I should like to illustrate that further. I have already done so but it did not get across.
My outlook is that where a person can afford to pay it he should be asked for the full economic rent but that where a person cannot afford any rent he should not have to pay a rent. This is the background in which I am asking local authorities to look at their rents policy. If that policy is fair, I am satisfied but we are entitled to expect from local authorities an examination of the position in their respective areas as regards all houses now rented. We all have an interest in those houses. We all have contributed to them and we shall all continue in the future to contribute to the estates of local authorities.
We are not asking from local authorities anything we are not entitled to ask. We are doing this in the interests of those who have not yet got houses partly because of the inability of the local authorities to add to their rates burden. All of us who are members of local authorities have a part to play here. We must look on the rents policy as a possible source from which money additional to that being put up by the taxpayer and ratepayer will become available to build a few additional houses each year. If this is done I do not mind being blamed for it. What I resent is the outspoken condemnation on more than one occasion that the Minister for Local Government is putting up rents.
They blame the Custom House for everything. It is a bit unfair.
It is not the Custom House that is being blamed and the Senator well knows it. I should be allowed to finish. I am not carping about criticism. What I dislike is that from these charges an inference is to be drawn that nothing worthwhile will come of a rationalisation of the rents policy for the benefit of the community. I think there is something worthwhile in such a rationalisation and that is why I ask for it. If I were merely to seek to be popular with rentpayers I should do what some of my colleagues do and vote for a reduction of rents, disregarding at the same time that rents will have to go up and disregarding the prospect that as rents go up the amounts made available from those rents which go up will go to the benefit of those who have not yet got houses. I do not fear misrepresentation except in so far as its effect on the progress of local authority housing is concerned.
My concern is that each local authority should make a true appraisal of their rents position. If there is nothing to be got out of such an appraisal, in fairness and justice to those already housed and to those not yet housed, then let the local authorities leave the rents alone. On the other hand, if they find people paying low rents who could afford to pay more, the charging of the full economic rent in such cases would benefit those not yet housed. If there are people paying too much, they should have their rents reduced. It is the aim that those who can pay should pay in full and that those who can pay nothing should not be asked to pay anything.
The question of sales is another important item in the Bill. Speaking earlier of the advantages of owner-occupation, my intention was to try to encourage it. It may have a sort of selfish aspect from the local government point of view. The efforts of individuals to own their own houses contribute to some degree to lessen the demand ultimately falling to be met by housing authorities. Therefore, in a selfish sort of local government way, owner-occupation is something we should all agree with.
However, it has more far-reaching consequences and we cannot at any time be anything but helpful and as liberal as financial conditions allow us to those who undertake the building of houses, particularly by those who, if they were to sit back, could truly claim to be the responsibility of the local authorities. Many thousands of such people have built their own houses. It is true, at the same time, that many people who should have built their own houses have not, probably will not and are sitting waiting for the local authorities. But those who have not and who could have sat and waited for the ratepayer and the taxpayer to do the job deserve commendation from all of us. Any encouragement we can give them in whatever way possible, through the provisions of this Bill or otherwise, is something which is most desirable and commendable indeed.
The selling of houses is one matter which we are dealing with in this Bill. We are dealing with the sale of local authority houses and the methods by which they may be sold in the future. One of the things we should keep quite clear in our minds is that, in the future, if local authority houses, the building of which was commenced after the 1st January last —and let nobody quip that they have not because they have—come up for sale which have in the meantime been vested, there is the arrangement that the value of the houses will be the price on vesting. If there is a subsequent sale by the vested owner, a proportion of the price received for the house, in direct relationship to the number of years of annuity already paid off, must be paid back to the council.
Even though there may have been much more favourable schemes in the past this is one in fairness and in justice to the public taxpayer and ratepayer and is something we must stand over, even though it may not prove as popular as the almost "give away" terms which we had in operation quite recently—indeed, are still in operation and will continue in operation at the option and demand of the occupiers. For, I think, six months after this Bill becomes law anybody who is living in a labourer's cottage, who has not opted to purchase up to now, may in the six months after the Bill becomes law, demand that he be given this right and whether it takes six months, a year or 18 months to get the sales scheme and the vesting scheme into operation, this is no loss to that particular person. He will have protected the rights which he at present enjoys under the old scheme.
Will that option be brought to the notice of those people, or will it just be left like that?
It depends on what would be satisfactory notice.
I should imagine that the county managers and the local authorities should inform them of this option and that it is to their advantage.
This is probably what we will do. The intention, of course, is that this option will be undoubtedly made known to those who have a right to opt. In what way this will be done, it is not clear at the moment. To write to the manager to inform all those on his books is probably the way we will do it. I do not know but we will try to do it. In fact, it is in the Bill. We have forgotten nearly what is in it, it is so long since we have been dealing with some of the matters. However, that is covered in the Bill.
Without wearying the House any further talking on a number of these matters, all of which we have discussed in such detail that really to hear oneself talking about them is as boring as it must be to the listener, let me finish by expressing the hope that the Bill will be the vehicle whereby we can from now on deal more quickly with some of those who are in need of housing. If it requires amendment, if we have made mistakes in it, whether inadvertently or otherwise, I certainly shall try to amend it in double quick time if this seems desirable and, overall, to say again I have great belief in the worth of this Bill. It may be big but, at the same time, it wipes out so many of the old enactments we had to the benefit of the legal people who can understand it and I think most of them will understand it, although there are doubts. Nevertheless, this is a Bill which does away with the many obstacles which existed by way of knowing what all the housing legislation was about spread over a number of years, amendments and so forth. Big though it is, it is an advantage I think, from the legal point of view and from the point of view of the public and what it, in fact, means in as near ordinary language as is possible. This is something I have been giving thought to. I think Senator O'Quigley, who mentioned this particular point, will agree and probably already appreciates that to do this is not at all simple because we cannot, obviously, hope to put in easily understood language the intentions which it took many of our legal people many, many long hours to understand in legal language. We cannot hope to untangle all that again in a form which would probably be three or four times the length of the Bill.
Therefore, if there are any suggestions about how we might simplify this; to whom we might refer particular parts of the Bill and thereby reduce the size of circular that we might need to get across what is contained in it, I would be glad to hear of them. It is terribly easy to say that it is hoped we will do this. To get it done is not a simple matter at all but we will try and it is something I have been quite conscious of all along in regard to this legislation and, indeed, other sizeable legislation we have tried to have understood by as many of the people concerned in housing and related matters as is possible.
One suggestion I might make there is that where any member of the public or a member of a local authority wants to ascertain what the position is that if he writes to the Department of Local Government or to the appropriate local authority that the local authority will inform him of his position on the information then available.
The legal advisers would probably object to the interpretation. When I asked for suggestions here I really meant that if there are any suggestions about simplification of the difficulties with regard to circularisation from any part of the House, I will be very glad to have them after we have concluded this, in your own time and in your own way.
With that, again, I think the enactment of this Bill is a tribute to all in this House and in the other House as much as it might be a tribute to a Minister for Local Government and his Department. I thank both Houses for their co-operation in getting it this far.
Question put and agreed to.