I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order, 1977,
a copy of which Order in draft form was laid before Seanad Éireann on the 25th day of October, 1977.
Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order, 1977: Motion.
The Housing Act, 1969, was brought into force in July, 1969, in order to provide statutory controls over the demolition or change of use of habitable houses. It does this by requiring that a habitable house may not be demolished or its use changed except with the permission of the appropriate housing authority. The Act is a temporary measure and is due to expire on the 31st December, 1977, unless continued in force by an order made by me, after it has been approved by resolution by each House of the Oireachtas.
When determining an application for permission under the Act the housing authority is obliged to consider the state of repair of the house to which the application relates and the adequacy of the supply of housing in its functional area. A housing authority may refuse a permission or can grant it without conditions or may attach conditions requiring the provision or replacement residential accommodation or a contribution towards the cost of providing it. In the event that a planning permission under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 and 1976, is also required for the proposed works, the planning application must not be decided until such time as the application under the 1969 Act has been determined.
The Dublin and Cork areas have accounted for most of the activity under the Act since it came into force. To the end of September this year, Dublin Corporation received 1,710 applications for permission, granted permission with conditions in 979 cases and refused it in the remaining 731 cases. Out of a total of 214 applications received by Cork Corporation in the same period, permission was granted in 137 cases and refused in 55. Apart from cases that reached the application stage, the existence of the Act and its controls and the penalties for breaches of its requirements have. I am satisfied, ensured that habitable houses are still functioning which would otherwise have been lost to the stock.
The Act contains a provision for the right of appeal to me against the decision of a local authority. Of the total 595 appeals received up to the end of September last, 30 were invalid because they were not received within the statutory period, 79 were withdrawn, 425 were determined and the remaining 61 were under consideration. Of the appeals determined, 94 were allowed, 159 were allowed subject to conditions and 172 were refused.
Though a considerable number of houses have been provided in recent years I am advised that a number of local authorities foresee a continuing need for controls of the type provided by the Act and consider that permanent legislation for this purpose should be provided. The necessary drafting is well advanced and I hope to include appropriate sections in a forthcoming Housing Bill.
The Draft Order now before the House proposes to continue the 1969 Act in its present form for a further two years to 31st December, 1979, by which time I am satisfied the permanent legislation will have been enacted.
I commend the motion to the House.
Firstly, as is customary, I should like to extend a welcome to the new Minister for the Environment and to wish him every success in his efforts in that Department in the years ahead. I hope his efforts will have the success they deserve. We, on this side of the House, have no objection to the motion before us. Naturally, it is the sort of order that must be renewed and we appreciate the reason why. For no economic considerations should it be possible for anybody to lessen the number of habitable dwellings when there is so much pressure and suffering at present by couples bringing up families who urgently need the shelter and comfort of a habitable home adequate for their requirements. No economic considerations should override the necessity to ensure that the maximum number of these homes are available at all times.
While I realise that this is a measure which is most applicable to the industrialised urban areas — the Minister referred particularly to Dublin and Cork — I can see the importance of having the maximum number of homes available in every part of the country. Successive Governments have done their best in this field, but I have always felt that no Government in recent years made sufficient effort to make it possible for more people to provide their own homes. I have always felt very strongly about this. Orders or stop gap measures such as this will be necessary as long as we fail to provide the right conditions in which everybody can be the owner or occupier of his own home. In areas like Dublin and Cork we have to fall back on the high rise flats, people renting homes temporarily and all the other methods used in the absence of a sufficient number of houses being available and the ability of people to pay for them.
The provision of a home has become more difficult for the ordinary young married couple than it ought to be. Of course, one of the greatest obstacles at the moment is the cost of a site. It is terrible to hear, even in rural areas, of people having to pay £5,000 or £6,000 to get a site in a reasonably good location. I have heard of cases where this amount of money was paid in less densely populated rural areas. In the cities the problem is worse. Local authorities should concern themselves more with the availability of sites for housing than with the building of houses. No house can be built as economically as the house where the job is undertaken by the person who needs the house. Far too many young people see this as an impossibility to achieve. Not enough people realise that at present the building material for an adequate new home can be bought for a figure of less than £5,000. That can be done at a time when many people consider themselves fortunate to be able to buy a four-bedroomed house for £12,000 to £14,000, depending on the location. This sort of money should not have to be spent by young people on a home. When we convert this into annual repayments over a period of 20 years we see that a very high proportion of the ordinary working person's total earnings must be spent on the provision of a home. I do not think people should have to invest this sort of money in a home.
If this whole business was taken in isolation, taken away from what we normally regard as the building industry, and looked at from the point of view of the necessity for this for people and try to seek the cheapest and most efficient means by which this amenity, a most important amenity, can be provided for everyone we would find that local authorities would feel it their duty to make available sites at the right price. This could be done. In some cases, the smaller towns, particularly in rural areas, instead of looking for sites in advantageous positions large farms should be bought, land that can be bought even at £2,000 an acre or less. A complete development scheme could be organised, a supply of water and electricity laid on and sites provided for people who need them. One would find that in those circumstances people would avail themselves of the site and provide their own home. This could be done at a fraction of the cost housing is costing people at present. The more local authority housing we have, the more expensive and the less efficient it will be. The more people housed in local authority houses, the less independent these people will be and the more careless they will be about the manner in which the houses are maintained and the more it will cost to keep them in good repair. This and measures of this sort should lead to consideration of the whole problem of housing. It is only fair that in the context of the measure before us we should point out the necessity for such measures. The Minister should think about the points I have raised.
I should like to speak purely on the business before the House. It would be easy to launch into a full scale debate on housing and Senators, like myself, would be tempted to do that because it is a wide subject. The statutory control this measure proposes to continue in the 1969 Act is very wise. Some local authorities are acting contrary to the controls imposed in the 1969 Act. There is large scale clearance of buildings taking place and much of this work is done without due consideration for road widening and realignment and traffic control or the easement of traffic problems around towns and villages. It is very easy for a local authority to wipe out buildings without taking into account the need for the replacement of houses. I have a first-hand knowledge of the benefit of the retention of this Act and its provisions in my area. I see daily advertised on television, channels that may not be received as far south as Dublin, an advertisement offering more than £2,000 for the reconstruction of old buildings. That makes sense because the State is involved on expenditure of almost £8,000 to £10,000 in the provision of a new house for anybody. There is no magic or miracle in promising the money. The taxpayer, the local ratepayer or somebody provides that money and, in a lot of cases, subsidises the rent on the house thereafter This is a serious matter and one that everybody in the State should be interested in. They are involved in n whether they realise it or not. I strongly support the retention of the provisions in the 1969 Act and I support the Minister in reminding local authorities of their obligation as contained in this Act. There is a serious consequence if local authorities are allowed to embark on the demolition of houses without replacing them. While the new houses might replace those being demolished local authorities are not making progress in the provision of houses. All they are doing is standing still. This matter has to be highlighted. There is no point in claiming we have built so many houses in a county if, in fact, we are only taking people out of houses that we were demolishing. There is a greater need for housing.
Senator McCartin would be inclined to say that no Government has done enough. Certainly, this is not the forum for having political crossfire but we are very conscious that the Minister, and the Government, have done a lot more than their predecessors. They have sowed new seeds of confidence.
Quick work.
Ballymagash Urban Council.
It was the lack of will rather than the lack of cash. The new seeds of confidence have been sown and, in fact, there is now private building of houses on a large scale. I am certain the Minister will confirm this. Many people are now prepared to build their own homes and provide a home for themselves. They were reluctant to get involved or committed under the previous administration. I hope this is only a start because I would like the Minister, when the new Housing Act is introduced — he stated it will be approximately two years — that every public representative will have an opportunity of contributing to that and influencing to some measure the provisions of the Act. Many of the proposals I could think of might not be acceptable but it is necessary for the State, the Government, to have a consistent policy regarding housing. It should not be a stop-go affair. On the change of a Minister or change of a Government, it is important to have a constructive policy regarding housing. I suggest that we should have an in-built grant increase support. It should automatically increase every year. It should not be left until political pressure builds up from the public, or the demand builds up, or until inflation outswamps the present grant system. It is necessary for any house support grants to have safeguards and that they will improve yearly on a sliding scale.
May I say that this motion has very restricted terms and it cannot be extended to cover a general debate on housing?
I am only referring to the provisions of a new Act which the Minister hopes to introduce inside two years. I hope the Minister will consider some of my proposals. I will keep to the Cathaoirleach's ruling as far as possible. I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak on housing and I am sure we will have this opportunity in the future. At the same time as this measure is being extended, could we ask the Minister to consider updating and upscaling grants for the reconstruction of houses? It is a very welcome measure and for the economy of the nation it is well worth while. There is a great need for it.
There was no up-scaling of grants for reconstruction during the term of the last Government and we know what happens to money values in four-and-a-half years. I am expecting the Minister to announce an improved reconstruction grant. It would be the best measure he could introduce, because many people who are now allowing buildings to be demolished would have second thoughts if there was an improved grant.
First, let me add my voice to the usual congratulations and welcome to the new Minister for the Environment on this occasion in the Seanad. In parenthesis let me say to him that while I think the change in title to Minister for the Environment is a welcome one, if it is no more than window dressing it will not be satisfactory. Nothing happens in a moment and I hope that in time he will be able to pull together the different environmental concerns into a single Department. I do not think that the old Department of Local Government currently is yet a Department for the Environment. I hope he will be able to make it one. In so far as he tries to unify the different environmental concerns in a single place he can expect support, certainly from the Labour Party in this House. I want briefly to address myself to the motion. We have, first, a need for improved housing. We have had for decades and it will continue. Secondly, this is an inescapable heavy social charge, however it is paid for. I am not entering the question of how it is financed at this moment. Thirdly, we possess a stock of old houses which can be brought to or maintained in suitable condition for good dwelling houses at much lower cost than building new houses. Therefore, in general economic terms it is sensible to see that our old stock is maintained and improved. We have forces working against that tendency, some psychological and some economic.
The building industry which is dominated in its council by large builders would obviously like to knock down the old and build the new. They would like to build the new in a semi-machine way of uniform houses of the sort of feelingless and rather ugly suburbs we have seen springing up all over Ireland. The interests of the small builder of course who is much less powerful in the council of the building industry is the opposite. He is often a man without the big financial or big technological back-up. He is interested in the question of improvement, of maintenance, renovation and the maintaining of the old housing stock. We have a cultural objection to old houses too which is very funny. It is strikingly evident in parts of the country where a great deal of thought is given to the maintenance of musical culture, of verbal culture, of traditional culture as expressed in language, in dance, in music and so on. Yet we seem to hate the old houses and knock them down. Our cities and towns have varied architecture, some of it of great beauty and of great value. We make our environment much the poorer by permitting the old to disappear by having things that are uniform in age and uniform in design. Both economically and culturally it is desirable that we maintain the old along with the new that is also essential. It is for that reason that this seems to me something that certainly we can support. I urge on the Minister, as Senator McGowan did, that when he produces his Housing Bill — we will have our larger debate on that occasion, not now — he will have regard to the incentive for the maintenance and the improvement of older dwellings. In the UK — I am not suggesting that we copy the UK — what exists there is interesting. It is something from which both the physical environment of people requiring houses and the whole, what one might call, the aesthetic environment of Britain, the maintenance of old buildings, has benefited. There is a more generous regime of aid to those who wish to maintain and improve old houses than exists here. I hope the Minister will see some of the solution of a continuing housing shortage in the encouragement of the maintenance and, indeed, the reconditioning and improving of old houses and that there might be an improvement in the financial incentive environment, possibly by direct plan, possibly also in the taxation area for doing that when the time comes. That is a thought for the future and for the Bill which he made mention of in his introduction. In regard to the continuation order itself we are happy to support it and we look forward to the definitive legislation.
This order is very important because of the grave housing situation here. We cannot afford to demolish houses that are capable of remaining. Because of the serious housing situation local authorities should be given the opportunity of deciding whether a house is capable of occupation, should be used for that purpose or for otherwise. I was somewhat amused when Senator McGowan made a statement a short time ago that this Government, this Minister, had done more for housing than his predecessor, by Senator Keating's reaction. He called across, "Ballymagash Urban Council."
I did.
Senator Keating should know all about the Ballymagash Urban Council because he was a member of it for the last four years. It was in this field of housing that Senator Keating's colleague failed, and that his Government failed, more than in anything else. One of the reasons why it is important that this order be passed is that the claims of the last Government, particularly of Senator Keating's colleague, the then Minister for Local Government, that they were building — Senator Keating says this is disgraceful and I realise that he——
I said it was prostituting the Seanad and that is what it seems to be.
I realise that he naturally does not want it spelt out and does not want to be reminded of one of the greatest failures of the National Coalition Government. Their claim that they were building 25,000 houses a year was, of course, completely dishonest as we on this side of the House told the Minister on numerous occasions. Because of their failure we now have——
Does the Senator say that those houses were not built?
I want to confine this restricted motion to its terms, mainly the demolition of housing. I do not want it broadened.
If the Senator makes a statement like that I will ask the Minister to deal with the point when replying.
True, a Chathaoirleach, but my claim is that there would be no call for this order if the National Coalition Government had built sufficient houses here in the last four years.
The Senator said the claim that 25,000 houses were built was dishonest. What does he mean by that?
It is Ballymagash; it it political abuse; it is nonsense.
I would prefer if Senator McGlinchey was allowed to continue.
It is not worth taking seriously.
I apologise for interrupting but the Senator has made an allegation.
Senator Cooney has asked me a question. It is true that the figure for the last few years is around the 25,000 but it is also true to say that that 25,000 includes demountable dwellings that were provided for old people throughout this country.
Your's included.
I have asked the Senator to speak on the terms of the motion rather than have a general debate on housing.
There would be no call for this order if we had sufficient houses. The figures given to us in the last four years, as I said earlier, included the demountable dwellings provided at a cost of £1,000 or £1,500. The figures also included the sale of council houses to tenants, houses that were built under a Fianna Fáil Government. These figures were used to provide a statistic in the Department of Local Government which would now suggest that the National Coalition built 25,000 houses in the last four years.
In each of the last four years.
If we get down to actual new houses provided, the number falls far short of that figure. Senator McGowan was perfectly right when he said that this Minister has done more for housing in his short period in office than his predecessor. He has done more for housing by one simple act in providing a reasonable incentive for people to building their own homes without a means test. The "Ballymagash Urban Council" abolished these grants and left a situation where a person would only get a grant to build a house if he was earning under £47 per week. It was the opinion of the National Coalition Government and the socialist members of it that any person earning over £47 per week did not need a grant to build his own home. With the change of Government the people who were denied these grants by the National Coalition may now be in a position to receive a grant of £1,000. That act alone has done more to stimulate the housing industry than anything else.
On the preservation of houses, I would agree that the financial incentive should be provided by the Government. For years the reconstruction grants in the Six Counties were much higher than new house grants. In this way people were encouraged to preserve these houses who otherwise might have let them deteriorate. I would like to see a situation on this side of the Border where grants larger than new housing grants would be paid to the owners of such property. This would be an incentive to have these houses repaired.
It is not often that we get an opportunity in this House of speaking on housing. The lack of housing frustrates us all. As a member of the urban council in Letterkenny, I personally saw plans for a new housing scheme on the second Monday of November, 1974. I am aware that those plans were delayed and never sanctioned by that Government who built so many houses.
I want to remind the Senator again that this motion deals mainly with the demolition of houses. This is not a general discussion on housing.
I will finish with one appeal to the Minister, to do something that his predecessor failed to do, namely, to sanction the scheme I am talking about.
Pending the introduction of more comprehensive legislation suited to the late seventies, I, in common with all the speakers here today, am prepared to agree to the passing of the resolution to continue the Temporary Provisions Act. I am in total agreement with the idea behind it. It is applicable to the rural areas as well as to the conurban areas like Dublin and Cork. There is a large stock of strongly-built oldtime farm houses that could be reconstructed and which would add to the existing housing stock without imposing on central and local authorities the financial burdens necessary to build new houses.
For some extraordinary reason various Governments — I am not condemning this one or the last one— have refused to give to people wishing to reconstruct their houses sufficient grant money to enable them to embark upon it. They have also restricted loans for this purpose. They have stymied the efforts of many people who would have embarked upon the reconstruction and repair of their houses. In all sincerity I would say to the Minister that this is something that has to be looked into quickly by the Government because a lot of these old houses are deteriorating at an alarming rate. In many cases people in their latter years, and indeed people who have young families, are not able to embark upon the reconstruction with the meagre minimal grants available at the moment. This is something that all of us here should support to the limit.
One of the reasons the Bill was introduced in the first instance was that it was found that cities such as Dublin and Cork were rotting at the centre; houses were being demolished left, right and centre and the people were being sent out to the perimeter of the cities with consequent transport problems. Everybody knows the problems of coming into Dublin from any direction with traffic jams all over the place. This has been occasioned by the fact that people were pushed out into the suburbs by a policy that allowed the city centre to deteriorate and rot.
It may be a bit late in the day to talk about the centre of Dublin city. I would not know so much about this but I spoke to some people at local authority and Government level and they have a feeling that it will not be too easy in the future. The fact that legislation exists to prevent the demolition of houses still capable of being reconstructed will be some brake on the rot that has been taking place in this and in other areas. It is too big a question and the mass of irrelevancies introduced this morning might lead me to go down that kind of by-way, but I will not strain your patience in this regard. Sir.
I wish to say again that the Minister should take heed of what I say about the examination at local authority level of the housing stock which exists, with a view to finding out how many houses can be reconstructed, and at the same time designate a proper financial structure of loans and grants so that the people concerned can avail of them. It will be a worthwhile exercise and one which should be pursued. Most of the people here, including yourself, Sir, come from the country and would like to see the thatched house preserved. The people who have thatched houses have never got sufficient grants. They should be entitled to extra grants from the central and local authorities to preserve the wonderful old thatched houses that are getting so scarce throughout the country. Many of them are still there and can be preserved. It is only a matter of providing a certain extra amount of money. The old traditional Irish house is worth preserving. All of us who look around today and see many of the things we valued in our youth disappearing would love to ensure that the thatched house will live on. I would like the Minister to take heed of my remarks in that regard.
I am sure everybody will bear with me when I welcome the Minister, Deputy Sylvester Barrett. I am shaking at the knees standing here for the first time. I also welcome the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach.
Housing is something I have lived with for about 26 years because of my husband, Derry. I would take a poor view of somebody who would be critical of the Department of Local Government. Usually at a meeting I am corrected and brought back to what it is all about because I stray away. I will stick exactly to the point. The planning of a housing Bill is only as good as the planner. I have lived in an area where there was a very good county manager. Even in times when there was no money, he seemed to plan for housing. Therefore, I am not as critical of what I see around me in Clare as previous speakers.
I would ask the Minister to up-date grants for old houses because this has not been dealt with in the way it should. I have seen houses disappear when they could have been saved if the Department or the local authority could have at the time given the family a little more money. I welcome the motion and again welcome the Minister to the House. I would also ask the Minister not to let it go for two years. Who knows this morning how many of us will be here in two years? I never think whether I will be here tomorrow. I started the Seanad campaign and I did not know whether I would finish it, but I did, thank God.
And did it well.
With regard to the local government role, I would be wrong not to pay tribute before I sit down this morning because it was my field and my husband's field. I pay tribute to the men in the Department of Local Government, now the Department of the Environment. I am not putting anybody down because it is something I do not do.
Some Senators are worried about this being a Dublin, Cork or Ennis motion. The Minister is a countryman and I am a countrywoman so it will be an all-Ireland motion. The Government have removed rates from private houses and this makes it much more attractive, though it has not been mentioned by any previous speaker, to reconstruct a house. I should like to thank the House and I am sorry I left Senator Cooney out when I was welcoming the other top brass. I welcome him and am delighted to see him here. I am sure he will go back to the other House.
I am sorry I was not here sooner. It is a most pleasant place.
I thank the Minister for his time and I thank the Senators. The important thing is that the Department of Local Government, now Environment, has played a very important role. I have seen a town and county built up — I am speaking from experience of what I have seen done. We should plan in times when we have no money, as well as when we have it.
I should like to welcome the Minister. It is a difficult Ministry he has. The problems he will be faced with will not all be solved but I hope his dedication and application will make them less acute. In this respect I offer my co-operation with any measure which comes before the House which tends in that direction.
Even though I am supporting the motion wholeheartedly without reservation, the problem is that a continuance order in the long run is a stopgap measure. One of the problems is that if it is decided somebody cannot build because the law has not changed in another area, he can appeal and it can go on for years and so on. The machinery gets clogged up. There is a problem in co-ordinating one Department with another in respect of the law. By the time a case gets into court the whole housing problem in this particular area is choked up a bit and some thought should be given to see if there is any way to expedite procedures for dealing with these problems.
I will not enter into the argument as to who built what. No matter what Government are in power, there is one fundamental point which nobody has grasped. It is this. There are two types of private ownership. One is the private ownership of the means of production, the second is private ownership of consumer goods. Until housing is accepted as a consumer product the "nettle" of housing problems will not be grasped. A house with all its contents is a consumer product. Therefore, laws should be introduced whereby the consumers would be the beneficiaries and not the private owners of the means of production. I do not say this in respect of everything but particularly in the housing area. Unless we ensure that the Government, through the various local authorities, purchase land and allow speculators to develop it, the problem of housing will be unsolved. I want to put that point on the record.
I did not intend to subject the House to the ordeal of my maiden speech at such an early date but I am encouraged by the example of my distinguished colleague who, describing himself as a new boy equally shy in both official languages, went on in his maiden speech to make what I can only describe as a devastating contribution to the business of the House. Therefore, I am emboldened, as one of the shy new girls, to make one brief general comment on this motion. I would wish above all in my first address to be brief.
It is a very good motion, if for no other reason than that it concerns families in the building and reconstruction of their homes. It concerns an ordinary matter, something which bedevils us in our everyday lives. Surely, that is what good government is, or should be, all about. For a State which enshrines in its Constitution the notion that the family is the natural primary unit of society, we have done remarkably little to ensure that the family, either as a unit or the individual members of it, are adequately protected by our laws or adequately represented in Government. The family is one of the institutions to which we have become accustomed to paying lip service.
While conceding that the prime function of the House is to consider the implications of all legislation laid before it so that we, including the general public, can understand them, I would hope that within the limit of our jurisdiction we might be able to bring some pressure to bear on those institutions to which we pay lip service; that we might, as Senator Murphy said the other day, begin to realise our potential. I should not like to consider this House as an upper-class debating society or, indeed, as a forum where Senators could ride their individual hobby horses to death but, to quote Senator Murphy again, it is time we realised the full potential of the House. From what I have seen, there is here the ability and the courage to do just that.
I welcome the Minister to the House and offer him my congratulations. I should like to make one brief point. When we consider reconstructing old houses it is not necessarily so that the old is always beautiful but there are those houses which add considerably to Ireland's culture. They should be looked after and money provided for their maintenance. However, there are old houses which are not beautiful and in order to make them habitable one would have to spend very much more money upon them than would be needed to build new houses. This may not be a very popular point of view but one must consider those people who have no houses. Is it not better to build new houses for the homeless than to invest a lot of money in reconstructing old and not very good-looking houses?
I should like to thank the Senators for the manner in which they have received this motion. I wish to express my appreciation for the kind words and good wishes extended to me by the Senators.
With regard to Senator Keating's point about the re-naming of my Department, he, more so than anyone else, will appreciate that it takes time to get Departments organised as one would wish, especially when additional responsibilities are involved, but it is my intention to do so. Senator McCartin made the point about providing adequate aid for young people to own their own homes. He felt that we should make it as attractive and easy as possible for young people to do this and he mentioned the problem of sites. As everybody is aware, in an endeavour to do this we increased the new house grants quite considerably in recent months. We also increased the income limits for the SDA loans. Already it is quite evident that these measures have given great impetus to the housing drive. The importance which people place on owning their own homes has been shown very clearly to us. Although it may be too soon to decide, these measures seem to have taken the pressure off local authorities to provide more houses. All the signs are that the measures I have referred to are having the desired effect, as expressed by Senator McCartin and other Senators, with regard to the building of more houses and increasing interest in home ownership.
Senator McGowan mentioned the demolition of buildings by local authorities for road widening and other purposes, I presume in his own county. This is not in contravention of the 1969 Act. In all these cases, people are either adequately compensated or other acceptable accommodation is made available to them.
I am satisfied that quite a number of local authorities have availed of the provisions of this Act. I referred in my opening speech to Dublin and Cork in particular but it is not correct to assume that these were the only local authorities who used this Act. Senator Lyons made the point that the Act should apply to rural communities and areas. The Act does apply to them but the Senator's local authority, for some reason, have not used the Act whereas neighbouring counties, such as Roscommon, have been doing so. It is a matter for the individual local authority as to whether they think it necessary to use this Act.
A number of Senators have mentioned reconstruction or improvement grants. I appreciate that the grants available up to now were inadequate and made very little impression on works that were necessary on some of these old houses. But before we are many more days older I will be in a position to announce a new scheme of reconstruction and improvement grants which will be much more attractive and beneficial to the people who will be availing of them.
I trust that these improvement grants will have the desired effect in city and town centres for renewal — urban renewal, or call it what you like — for the reconstruction of older houses. I can foresee that in some instances, by recontructing some of the older houses in towns and cities, it will be possible to create two residences where formerly there may have been only one. By converting one floor into a flat, which would be suitable for married couples or very small family, you would be increasing the number of residences or the amount of house accommodation available.
One Senator spoke about the availability of loans for reconstructing old houses. These loans are available and this scheme is operated by each local authority. With regard to very old houses where you may have maybe an old couple or one old person, there is the scheme known as the essential repair scheme under which, in many instances, the total cost of making that house more habitable and maintaining it in a habitable condition for some further years is provided. These schemes are already in operation and are being generally availed of. With regard to grants I have said a new scheme will be announced in the near future and loans are already available through the local authority for the purposes of reconstruction, as well as SDA loans for new houses.
I said in my opening contribution that I was looking for an extension of two further years under the 1969 Act. I also said that legislation is under way, a new Housing Bill, which will give Members of both Houses a chance to debate the housing situation in a broader sense. This legislation is at a very advanced stage. It may well be that we may not require the extension provided for in this motion for the two years. Indeed, I would say it is pretty definite that we will not, but in order to be sure of where we were going, and to renew the 1969 Act, we decided to look for two years. Hopefully we will have introduced the Housing Bill referred to far in advance of that and we will have a further debate when it is introduced. I should like to thank the Senators for the manner in which they have received this motion and for their good wishes. They are fully appreciated.
Question put and agreed to.