The point in dispute when progress was reported yesterday was as to the taking out of the word "one" and leaving the local authority an option to grant all or any of the items mentioned under sub-sections (1) of Section 6, (a), (b), (c) or (d). I explained that the proposal which was outlined in the amendment was put in by the Government in the sub-section and was to the effect that we calculated the maximum amount of value in the nature of a contribution from the local authority would be £100. That was not taking into consideration Part II of the Schedule: that is the relief from rates over a certain period. Some objection was made by certain Deputies on the ground that we were restricting the local authorities by not giving them an option to give greater advantages if they thought fit, and I stated the Government side of the case. I do not know whether Deputies wish to say anything more with regard to the sub-section.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - HOUSING (BUILDING FACILITIES) BILL, 1924.—THIRD STAGE.
I understand that the President was to look into this matter of the value of the work which the local authority was presumed to do under this Bill, because we pointed out yesterday afternoon, while we were discussing this clause, that the local authority was limited in its contribution. The total value of the assistance given by the local authority is limited to the equivalent of the grant given by the Government. The grant given by the Government in the case of a three-roomed house, as one can see by reference to the Schedule, is a sum of £60, and it is pointed out that if the local authority was limited to a sum of £60 it would not be able to provide the different items necessary if houses are to be erected at the rates provided in the Schedule. I understood, on the adjournment last evening, that the President was to look into that particular aspect of the case. In the limited time that has elapsed since, and the difficulty that a Deputy has of getting at figures which are readily accessible to the Government, one has not an opportunity of inquiring as fully as one would like into this particular item. But in the local authority that I happen to be connected with and which is engaged in erecting twenty-eight cottages on one site—the other cottages on another site are practically finished, and they are erected on land that was already the property of the local authority, so that the question of the purchase of the land did not arise at all—the cost of the land works out at £35 14s. 3d. per house. Only three-roomed houses are to be erected on this particular site.
That land was purchased by agreement, so that the cost would be much lower than if the land had been acquired compulsorily. Even purchasing by agreement and avoiding all the other expenses, it works out at £35 14s. 3d. The development of the land will cost another £35 14s. 8d. It costs practically £1,000 to purchase the land, and the estimate for the development of the land—that is, including the different items we were discussing yesterday—amounts to another £1,000. In fact, it did amount to £1,100, but I understand that it has been reduced to £1,000, so that between these two items we have an outlay on this particular scheme of £71 8s. 11d. Then you have to add to that the expenses of the local authority. I have put them down at the exceedingly small sum of £5 per house. I happened to be looking through some figures in connection with the Government scheme, and to show you that £140 in connection with that site is small, I notice that in the Fairbrothers' Field scheme—and I must be cautious about this matter, because I am speaking about the Dublin Corporation in the presence of Deputy Byrne—the local costs were computed at £27 10s. per house, so that I think the Dáil will agree that I have taken a reasonable figure. This does not include any provision for interest and sinking fund on the money that is being provided by the local authority, and I think that is absolutely essential, because you will find in the amendment proposed by the Government the words: "Provided that the total value of such assistance, as determined by the Minister, shall not exceed the value of the grant payable by the Minister in respect of such house." So that it is only reasonable to infer that that must include all the expenses of the local authority. I quite agree with the President when he says that the remission of rates is not included in this particular item, but in this connection, as in many other clauses in the Bill, I would like to see words added to that effect, because local authorities are not lawyers, and if they see in a particular clause that the total value of the assistance given by the local authority is limited to so and so, they are very apt to think that total assistance means assistance of all and every kind. The figures I have given in connection with that particular scheme hardly constitute a fair example, because out of the twenty-eight houses in that scheme, eight adjoin the public road: consequently, no development at all is necessary in connection with eight, and the £1,000 for development should really be applicable to the others. That would mean £50 per house, but I have not taken it on that basis. That means that per house the expense of the local authority there would be approximately £80. Under the provisions of the Bill, the utmost to which the local authority could go would be a sum of £60 per house. I think that proves very clearly what I stated last evening, that the provision proposed by the Government is wholly inadequate to meet the expenses that the local authority would have to incur.
It has just occurred to me to suggest that Deputy Johnson and Deputy O'Mahony might accept the Government's amendment and withdraw theirs, if the President agrees to add: "This to be exclusive of any site at the disposal of the local authority."
To add to the proviso, "provided that the total value of the assistance"—exclusive of what?
Exclusive of the value of any site at the disposal of the Urban Council. As the President knows, there are Urban Councils that have acquired large pieces of land with a view to providing houses.
I think there is a weakness in the amendment. "At the disposal of the local authority"—does that mean at the present moment at their disposal, or if they were to wait for three months and then acquire a site, would that also be covered by this amendment? The amendment has a certain ambiguity about it that would open a very wide avenue of experiment to local authorities. If the intention were simply to include sites at present in the possession of local authorities, it would certainly be unfair to a Council anxious and willing to provide a site, but who are prohibited by reason of the fact that they have had no inheritance, such as the Council has that is in the happy position of possessing a site. I do not know that that would be very acceptable.
You see the intention. The President understands what I mean, I am sure.
Yes, but still we have to contrast the various costs, not one particular item of cost alone. If we take it that in the town of Gorey, for example, the local authority has a site, which it is willing to provide, and that the building costs in Gorey are relatively less than, we will say, in Timbuctoo, and that a greater case could be made in respect of the latter place as against Gorey, obviously in that case the Bill would lean favourably towards the more favourably circumstanced case, and would deal harshly with the town not so favourably circumstanced. I do not think in equity there would be a case for the acceptance of the amendment. I think Deputy Good will plead guilty to having some knowledge of the cost of sites and cost of development, and how much they vary. With regard to those local authorities generally, they pool the whole lot with regard to the costs of the site. In other words, if you take the cost of a site in Dublin you cannot start in alphabetical order running down the costs of the various sites acquired since the Housing Acts came into operation, but one would be able to say at a moment's notice what would be the average price. Deputy Good has mentioned one case in which the cost of acquisition for virgin soil was rather high. I could have told him of two other cases where the cost of acquisition of virgin soil in the City of Dublin was relatively low, amounting to something like £300 per acre, and the cost of development bore a favourable comparison with the cost of development of other sites. If I were Minister for Local Government and if I were asked to determine what the value of this particular Section meant, I would put down a certain figure which I would earmark for a site, and put down a certain figure for development in places like the City of Dublin. The fact that it costs more would not weigh with me very considerably if I had the average amount. It is no advantage to a person who is going to occupy one of these cottages to know that it costs the local authority, as it did in some instances, £10,000 per acre, as against cases where they were lucky enough to get the soil at £300 per acre. What is the difference to the occupant of the house, whether it is the former or the latter? None whatever. With regard to development, the Deputy's figure was rather high. Development cost might be run up from more causes than one. It might not be a well-developed site, or might have been developed expensively, or the lay out may not have been considered with due regard to the economy which ought to be practised in matters of this sort. That would be the concern of the local authority, and I do not see why if they spent more money than would be reasonable the occupier or builder should be called on to suffer on account of that. I do say the Minister should have some discretion with regard to the cost of development in certain cases. With regard to the general question, £100 for a five-roomed house can be divided into various different compartments. There might be a free grant of a portion of the £100. The cost of acquisition might in many cases approach a figure of £40, and development £20. There would then be a case for a grant of £40, where the cost of acquisition and development may be £60. If the Minister were to ear-mark a sum of, say, £60 for the site, and £30 for development, then the local authority would be able to subscribe £10. I do say that in the majority of cases in large cities, such as Dublin, Cork, Waterford, and other places, the Minister should certainly put down a figure which he would estimate as the value to a builder of the site that he would get and of the development cost of it.
If the President would alter the Section so as to leave it in the discretion of the Ministry, I quite agree, then, that the Section will be a workable one, but as it stands it is an unworkable one. The President has referred to the example that I have taken as possibly being an excessive cost, that is £35 14s. 8d. per house for development. If I might again refer to the Corporation, I may say they are carrying out a scheme at Marino, and I do not know whether the President is aware that the development there amounts to £53 15s. per house.
I am, and I think, if my recollection is correct, that the original valuation of the cost of development in that particular case was even in excess of that sum. I pointed it out when the Report first came before the Corporation for consideration.
I only wanted to show that the figure I had taken was a low one.
I can cite also a case in which the Corporation paid £9 in one instance for one particular site and £59 in costs for the proof of title for the very same site. You will find it in the records of the Council for the year 1910 or 1911. These are isolated instances. At the moment I would not like to express an opinion as to how this Marino site was developed, but I would like to know whether there is not a road joining Drumcondra with the Malahide Road, and if the cost of that highway, that has nothing whatever to do with the houses to be constructed is included in the cost of development.
Might I ask if the President could explain the effect of the present proposals on the second note on the schedule regarding the maximum price—a sum equal to half the value being deducted from the total maximum. My attention has been called to this. It may have some effect on the general discussion if the President would explain what the effect of the various proposals now before us would have upon the note or vice versa.
It is not intended to alter the note by reason of the provision of this amendment.
Would that mean that the builder would be benefited by the increase of the local grant?
No; to the extent of 50 per cent. of the value of the grant as determined by the Minister. I am inclined to think that the amendment as drafted meets the point that Deputy Good asked me to insert; that is that the Minister should have discretion. It is mentioned that the Minister should determine the value.
Yes, but I think the power of the Minister is limited. I am afraid there is too much, what we might call in ordinary language, ambiguity about this Bill. I am afraid it will keep our new Courts of Justice busy for some time. I am not very experienced in the drawing of legal documents, but from what I have seen of the Bill, except some of those who have been engaged in drawing it up are present, there will be some difficulty in interpreting it in future. I think that is exceedingly unwise. This is another one of the ambiguous Sections. It reads as follows:—"Provided that the total of such assistance as determined by the Minister shall not exceed the value of the grant payable by the Minister in respect of that house." As to whether that particular wording gives that discretionary power, that one is anxious that the Minister should have, is exceedingly debatable to my mind, reading the Section as it stands. If the Minister will undertake that any ambiguity will be put right, as far as I am concerned, I am quite satisfied.
If the Deputy would do me the justice of allowing me to explain, that places me also in a difficulty.
The President has cleared up some matters of detail which I had intended to raise. One was that in cases in which the combined value set upon the site and the development of the site did not reach the equivalent of the Government grant of £100 in value, would the person applying for the grant then be entitled to draw on the local body for the balance represented by the £100 grant? The President has said yes.
I would like to qualify that by saying that the local authority "may, with the approval of the Minister." It is not mandatory on the local authority.
I have an amendment further on which, in the event of refusal on the part of the local authority, would give the person applying for the grant the right to appeal to the Minister to get a decision on it from the Minister. In urban areas it will be found that, as a rule, the free grant of a site by the local authority and the relatively small amount of development in such cases will by no means reach £100. If it were optional with the local authority, under such circumstances, to repudiate any further liability, then persons intending to build would be at a serious disadvantage and loss. It may be urged that they have the alternative of applying for the grant of £100 in lieu of these concessions. But, in some cases, even though the grant of £100 may represent more than the actual value of the land and development, it may not be possible for the person desiring to build to secure land for the purpose. Therefore, even though land and development would have a combined value of considerably less than £100, the fact that the person applying for the grant would be unable to get a site, will compel him to accept the site and the development associated with it, though they represent substantially less in value.
I think, however, after all that has transpired, that it would be possible to accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Duggan provided that in the event of the site value and development not reaching £100 the person applying for the grant would get an additional sum to make up the £100 in value, and in addition placing no value on the concession with respect to rates, and no value on the provision of a loan I suggest, though it might not be possible now, that the President should insert a Section entitling a person applying for the grant to get the equivalent of £100 even if it be necessary to make that up by raising the site value, development value or money grant and making it clear that no value will be placed on the concession with respect to rates, and also on the concession with respect to raising a loan to the extent of £200. We might come to an agreement to accept that amendment.
I do not know if I am in order in discussing the matter that has been raised by Deputy O'Mahony, but I should like to point out some grave difficulties that would arise in the event of that particular amendment passing into law. In order to keep within the strict rules, perhaps I had better not touch upon that aspect of the question now. The Minister for Local Government is here and I think in the absence of any statement to the contrary that his interpretation of this Section is governed by what I have stated—that is, in the case of large urban districts, or even small urban districts, he would himself assess the particular value for a site upon which a house is to be constructed under this Act, and a certain sum for development. Then I think most of the fears and apprehensions of Deputy Good would vanish. This is not a matter which will be interpreted in Court. It will not and need not be the subject of legal argument by Counsel. It is a matter at the discretion of the Minister who is responsible to the Dáil, and not to me or the Executive Council. It is his discretion that will be exercised in interpreting this particular Act. If the Minister has no objection to what I have stated as to the interpretation he will put upon it then I do not see what fears Deputy Good can have on the point.
I would just like to say on that question, that I hope it will be recorded somewhere what value was placed on the site so that if any accretions come to that value in future years the beneficiary will be made to pay upon them.
That is another very difficult and complicated subject that I am not in a position to deal with at a moment's notice.
I wish to say that I would have expert advice with respect to the value of the site and other things. The President has interpreted my views on these matters.
I think that in assessing the value of sites in possession of Councils in no case will the Minister place a higher value on the land than that which it cost the public bodies.
I think I can give that assurance.
That disposes of Amendment 36. The word "one" is already deleted.
I move amendment 37:
In sub-section (1) (c), page 4, line 17, after the words "possession of" to insert the words "or acquired for the purpose by."
I do not exactly understand the sub-section as it stands. You would think the word "then" would mean that a local authority would have power to grant land or lease land in their possession at the time the houses were built. I would like to know if it would be possible for local authorities, after the houses have been started, to acquire the land on which the houses are being built, and grant it to the owner or the builder? I merely want to get information on the point.
Might I ask the Minister before he replies, would he elucidate one point in the Sub-section. What is the point of the word "then." A time limit is set up by Section 3 so that there seems no use in having the word "then" on line 16.
I will have it looked into. It appears to me that it is not necessary there.
Is it the intention that the word "then" shall apply to land in the possession of the local authority at the time the grant is payable, or at the time of the passing of the Act? Is it intended to prevent a local authority from purchasing land for the purpose of facilitating the building of houses? I suggest that the local authority ought to be allowed to purchase land or acquire it by gift, if some good landlord would be generous enough to hand it over to the rightful owners—the community. May they acquire that land?
They have the power already. I do not quite understand the amendment put forward by Deputy Nagle. Is it a proposal of this character: that A intends to build and gets a lease of a site, and that he desires the local authority should then come in, and acquire that particular land? If that is the intention—to acquire the land after building has started, and after a bargain has been made between A and the landlord, I do not think a good case would lie there for the local authority acquiring the land, in the circumstances. We ought to examine what is really meant by a proposal like that. It would mean that A has made a bargain in respect of certain land and accepted it in good faith, and the only advantage that ought to lie, as far as A is concerned, is the commutation or purchase by agreement, for a certain number of years purchase, of the rent of that particular site. In the Acts which provided for the acquisition of land, various scales are laid down for the valuation, and I think under the Land Clauses Act there was some small percentage allowed for disturbance. In that case it is more than possible that A has paid for the disturbance already.
He might be mulcted for a higher percentage for disturbance, the disturbance in such cases meaning the change of investments. I do not think that it would facilitate the building of houses. It would be more in the nature of a purchase scheme for ground rents than one which would affect the Bill. I think, on the whole, it might limit the opportunities that prospective builders would have of taking land on a lease, which might be much the easier way to acquire land for the purposes of building.
In that event, I withdraw the amendment. Do I understand that the word "then" has been knocked out?
I am not so sure.
Looking over it again, I would say at the time of the giving of the grant the word "then" would be inserted.
Does not this dispose of amendment 39 as well?
Amendment 39 has for its object the clearing up of certain ambiguities. Deputy Johnson asked the President whether local authorities had, under this Bill, power to acquire land. The same question is being put to me, and to clear up that point I put it as an added section as one of the powers which the local authority would have.
Not under this Bill, but under other Acts. It is not necessary to include any provision here unless one intended to alter the methods and costs with regard to the acquisition of land.
Reading the Act which is in operation in England, one sees that it sets out under which provisions of the Act local authorities will acquire land or can purchase the land for the purpose of carrying out the objects of a particular Act. If it is only put in an explanatory way, it would help laymen like myself to understand the Bill. Local authorities will look through the Bill to see how they can facilitate the erection of houses, but they are all laymen, and, consequently, in my opinion, the system which appears in the English Act could with advantage be adopted here.
I should have stated that it is the municipal authorities who have had power to acquire land up to this. The County Councils had not got that power. I would not like in a clause like this to insert a provision for the acquisition of land without looking into the previous Acts. No case has been put to us by any local authorities that I know of for extending their powers, but I will look into the matter before the Report Stage.
Might I suggest that even if a mandatory clause were not inserted an explanatory clause should be put in to the effect that land for the purposes of the Act can be acquired under clause so and so?
Yes, I understand.
I beg to move amendment 38, which is as follows:—
In sub-section (1) (c), page 4, line 22, to add after the word "applies" the words "and that nothing under this paragraph of the Act shall prevent local authorities from borrowing the amount required for the reconstruction of amalgamated workhouses into suitable dwellings, and that all rents be paid to said local authorities as part of repayment of the loan raised under this Act."
I wish to point out that this amendment runs more or less in conjunction with amendment 23, which was discussed yesterday, and in connection with which the President agreed to send an Inspector to inquire into these amalgamated workhouses, to see if they are suitable for conversion into dwelling-houses. If this amendment is accepted local authorities will have power either to make gardens out of the land attached to these workhouses, or to allow other people to build on them where sites are scarce. There is a large number of these amalgamated workhouses in the country, and if each of them only house 30 people, I am sure you would find accommodation for two or three hundred people. In Westmeath and Longford we have three or four such institutions which would be capable of housing 110 or 120 people at least. The amount of money raised by the local authorities by way of loans will not fall on the ratepayers, as the rent of such dwellings will go to repay the loan. I think it is necessary that such buildings should be utilised for some useful purpose. In the near future I am hoping to see all the military barracks evacuated, and these, too, can be used for the purpose of housing. If people in the locality were provided with housing accommodation in such barracks, it would be much less expensive than erecting new houses. We have heard a good deal about the necessity of providing houses in the city of Dublin, and I am of the opinion that Deputy Good, Deputy Johnson and other deputies simply imagine that the whole of Ireland is condensed and compressed into the city of Dublin, and that they must get all the facilities in the city, while the people in the country must be forgotten. These workhouses are situated in the heart of small country towns, and it is essential that the people in the country should be housed there. You may have a great number of people in the slums in the city, but the people in the country are suffering as much hardship as those in the city. I do not see why local authorities should not get permission to have these workhouses converted into suitable dwellings for the accommodation of the people, and they should be allowed to raise a loan for that purpose.
I do not know whether the Deputy has made an estimate of the cost of adapting any one of those institutions to house a certain number of people, or whether he is speaking speculatively. I think the Dáil ought not to be asked to pass an amendment so strangely worded as this. Nothing can prevent you from doing something but who is to give you power to do it? The Deputy is a member of a local authority. He knows where one of those building is and whether it is suitable for re-construction and he should be able to show us that it is an economic proposition to adapt one of those.
I think it is economical. I gave you a case yesterday of a workhouse in the town of Athlone where you could house 35 families, each for four persons, for the sum of £500. I think that is far more economical than the provisions of this Bill. Then you have the town of Granard, where the people are in dire want of houses. This building in Granard can be reconstructed for £300 or £400.
May I ask where the plans come from, who drew them, and where are the estimates?
Is there anything to prevent local authorities from doing that without this Bill at all? Why put a matter into the Bill that is not required?
The Town Council of Athlone some time ago wrote to the Minister for Local Government asking for permission to convert the workhouse there into dwellings. He wrote back saying he thought it would not be a business proposition. That is why I brought up the amendment, because people there who paid for the upkeep of the workhouse should be allowed to house people there now. I see no reason why those buildings should go into decay.
Have local authorities got those powers?
The workhouses are vested in the Minister for Local Government as a trustee. Even the Boards of Guardians or Rural Councils have no ownership and if this amendment were passed it would be absolutely inoperative.
The local authority which would undertake to do any reconstruction work provided in this Bill would first have to acquire the premises. Some person owns them. The ratepayers own them. The poor rate district comprises, in the City of Dublin, ratepayers out as far as Tallaght. If the Dublin workhouse were acquired by the Dublin Council what about the ratepayers in Tallaght who have contributed for a number of years to this institution? The question is too complicated to be put in an amendment of four or five lines.
What good is such an institution if left idle?
I see you driving a car. I notice you are not driving it properly, and that it is no use to you. Does that destroy its value? Will you give it to me because it is no use to you?
I would say if I am not able to drive it, you would not. Will I get an assurance from the President that if a local authority wishes to do this it can do so? I do not want the County Home Committee to get it. I want the people who paid rates, the Town Council, to get it.
Amendment 39 is disposed of, and is not being moved.
I beg to move Amendment 40:—
To insert before Sub-section (2) a new Sub-section as follows:
"And should any local authority decline to do any of the foregoing matters outlined in paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d) the person or persons applying for the grant shall be entitled to appeal to the Minister, who shall have power to direct the local authority to grant any or all of the matters appealed on."
The amendment is simply a precautionary one. It is only intended to apply in cases that may arise where the majority of a Board opposed to an individual applying for a grant may refuse to give him the facilities provided for in this section. Possibly, the occasion would be very rare, but at the same time to prevent hardship, it is only fair that if such a circumstance should arise, an appeal should be given by the individual to the Minister.
I very much fear that in this case great complications would be likely to arise. Everybody knows that the local authority must estimate, just before the financial year closes, its expenditure for the forthcoming year. Everybody equally knows that the local authority which has not made provision in its estimates for any particular service, is not entitled to spend money on that service. Granted that is the case and no provision is made on the estimate, the question arises, what power has the Ministry to get the money which has not been struck? That leads us into a veritable vista of difficulties. You sue the local authority for a sum of money that has not been struck under its estimates. Our law prescribes it can only spend money for the purpose estimated, and if called upon to provide the money, their Treasurer has an excellent case for saying, "Such moneys were not raised by us and cannot be paid by us." How will you make them do it? By getting an order in Court compelling them to strike a rate. Striking a second rate costs as much for striking one penny as for ten shillings. The same machinery has to be used. Whatever way a matter of this sort is looked at, we could not countenance here any provision in any Act compelling a local authority to pay money which it has not raised and has not got. Usually what would be done is to see where funds would be at their disposal, out of which such charges might be made. The British Government had a happy knack in the case of the Corporation of Dublin of prescribing that the sum should be paid out of the Borough fund.
But there are few local authorities which have anything in the nature of a Borough fund. A Borough fund is a sort of revenue that comes in irrespective of rates altogether, and in the case of Dublin it amounts to a sum of between £28,000 and £30,000. When certain moneys have been expended out of that fund, the remainder goes in relief to the rates. In the case of an Urban authority, unless it has an estate and has set aside or earmarked a portion of the revenue from the estate, I do not know of any other source from which it could get this money. I think it would precipitate much the same sort of uproar as occurred here when the British Government did the same thing with regard to the Criminal and Malicious Injuries Acts of 1919 and 1920. They in an evil moment, gave way to a very evil temptation to undo everything that they had spent twenty, thirty, or forty years in trying to do, and that was to make local authorities safe for democracy. I am satisfied that, in most cases, Urban and Borough Councils and other public bodies, will deal favourably under this Act, and I am satisfied it would be a very unpatriotic action on the part of any local authority not to render all the aid they possibly could towards facilitating the working of this Act. It is in their own interests it has been put forward. For something like ten, fifteen, or twenty years one of the duties of local authorities was to look after housing in their district. For a great number of years they did that according to their means, in some cases rather well, in other cases badly; but, generally, the means of the local authority was one of the controlling impulses with regard to any facilities that it might provide or in the attempts it might make in the nature of housing. We are coming in now to help. We came in rather generously last year and the year before. It is brought home to everybody now that the cost of housing is a cost which ought to be reduced. There is scarcely any other service in the State that requires reduction more than this particular one. In that connection, I am sure local authorities will realise their responsibilities, and if they are not prepared to do so, I do not know that by a clause like this you are likely to compel them.
I do not know whether the name of Deputy O'Mahony appeared in the list of those present at a meeting recently addressed by the Minister for Education, but whether he was present or not I will guarantee that he approved most heartily of the proposition of the Minister for Education that people should not look to the State for everything. He assents, but he desires the State to come down upon the local bodies and to compel them to be generous with their rates. I was glad to hear the President express the view that he did about the local authorities—the development of their powers as one means of insuring the safety of democracy. I commend that sentiment to the Minister for Local Government, whose views I would like to hear expressed on this motion. If we had his views we might then have some clue to the state of his mind with regard to local authorities and their position in the State. I think it is a very good thing that when local authorities are really negligent of their obvious duties there should be a supreme authority to interfere, but I decline to approve of this amendment, which says that the Minister for Local Government, whose mind we do not know, should have authority to come down upon a local authority and tell them that they must comply with A, B, C, D, or E in this Section under such penalties as he may have power to inflict. I think the amendment is quite impracticable, but I think it is worse in principle, and I would like to be present when the Minister for Education is talking this matter over with Deputy O'Mahony.
I would like to join in condemnation of this amendment, mainly on the principle that Deputy O'Mahony embodies in the amendment compulsory powers against local authorities. In connection with this Bill, the President has appealed to us for our co-operation. Many of the clauses in the Bill, in the nature of Deputy O'Mahony's amendment, will, I think, be fatal to the good will that is so necessary in the carrying out of this measure. Deputy Johnson has not given very enthusiastic support to the Bill on the whole, but I hope that before we are finished with it his mind will have taken a firmer stand on the condition of housing for the working classes. As regards the working classes, I suppose Deputy Johnson represents them. He talks about democracy, but we have to look now for a new definition of democracy. We find the Labour Party in England now including within its ranks Lords and Earls.
And even ship-owners.
It seems to me that the old Labour Party is spreading its tentacles in such a broad way that we may all become members of it before very long. I hope, at all events, that the Dáil will unanimously reject this amendment as being bad on the face of it.
It appears to me from Deputy O'Mahony's speech that he has pretentions to becoming the Napoleon of contractors. If the Government were to accept his amendment, his battalions of contractors would simply move on Government buildings and there besiege the Minister, and their ranks, I suppose, would extend as far as Fermoy. I maintain that local authorities have already done many of the things specified in sub-Sections A., B., C. or D. They have already contributed a large and generous effort towards solving the housing question, and I hope the Government will not accept this amendment.
One would imagine from the statements of several Deputies that compulsory powers had not hitherto been exercised by public bodies in Ireland; one would also imagine that neither Minister nor Deputy had hitherto uttered a word of condemnation as regards the administration of their powers by these public bodies, or that it had not been necessary in more than one case to supersede these local authorities. The first objection raised by the President was that public bodies could only dispose of such moneys as had been raised by them during one particular year for the purposes for which the money was earmarked during that year. That is a doctrine or a maxim that is well known by everyone who has been connected, or in association, with the public life of the country, but surely it is equally well known that before this Bill comes into operation all, or nearly all, the public bodies of the country will have struck their rate, and that if the objection raised by the President to this amendment is valid it will also be valid as regards the provision of funds in those cases in which public bodies approve and make grants under this particular Section.
I do not remember that I was present at the meeting to which Deputy Johnson refers, but this I do know that he is quite right in surmising that I am in active sympathy with the doctrine laid down by the Minister for Education as expressed by the Deputy when he said we should not call upon the State to spoon-feed in all things. I have not asked the State to spoon-feed in this case. I have drawn attention to the fact that it may be only in rare cases that public bodies, because of hostility to an individual, might refuse to grant facilities that they are entitled to grant under this Section and it is only in such cases, if such cases arise, that the Minister for Local Government would be called upon to exercise what I say is a legitimate duty that ought to be exercised by the State in such conditions.
I confess to the mentality of the Scotchman as regards the joke attempted to be perpetrated by Deputy Connor Hogan. It would take more finesse than I am capable of to see the point of that joke. I am not going to address myself therefore to a matter outside the compass of my intelligence and for which you would have to create a new era of Irishmen, actively alive though the present generation is to the spirit of humour, to see where the point of the Deputy's joke comes in in this case. No one has addressed himself so far actually to what the amendment stands for. The amendment operates only in a case where a public body, through personal hostility to an individual, refuses to grant to him the rights they would grant to gentlemen in more favour with them, and in such an event, which may be rare and indeed which may not occur at all, the individual would have the right to appeal to the Minister for Local Government to be placed in the enjoyment of the facilities granted to others under the operations of this Bill.
I would like to say that the case put by Deputy O'Mahony, in regard to an individual against whom the local authority would appear to have some grudge, is a difficult one. Generally if the local authority does not enter into the spirit of this Act then the people of that district or town or city, as the case may be, would suffer a disability as compared with people more fortunately situated, but I do not know that the case would be remedied or improved by the amendment moved by the Deputy. But the case he has made is one with which I am in entire sympathy. It would be lamentable if out of a hundred local authorities ninety-five are willing to grant these concessions and five were not, but I think local opinion ought to be able to exert sufficient influence to compel a local authority in a case like that to review any decision of that sort in a case of that kind.
, at this stage, took the Chair.
SECTION 7.
(1) Any local authority having power to levy rates may, and when required by the Minister shall, in every of the first nineteen financial years after the valuation for rating purposes of a house in respect of which a grant shall have been made by the Minister under this Act, remit a portion of the rates leviable in respect of that house in that year by the local authority.
(2) The amount of rates leviable in any such year as aforesaid which may or shall be remitted by a local authority under the foregoing sub-section shall not exceed the proportion of such rates specified in the second column of Part II. of the Schedule to this Act opposite the number of such year in the first column of the said Part II.
I beg to move Amendment 41:—"To delete the Section." I do not propose at this stage to advance any argument in support of my amendment, but I feel that facilities should be afforded to the President, who is in good fighting form, to defend this novel proposal.
In regard to this amendment, I hope not to take up any more of the Deputy's time than is absolutely essential. The facts are, as I stated, almost ad nauseam, that in consequence persons who are now under the disability of having to build a house or buy one suffer in comparison with persons who purchased or built houses ten, nine or eight years ago, and therefore a person coming forward to build a house now, deserves some consideration at the hands of the community. The State is giving a certain subsidy towards the building of houses. This subsidy in this Section is a subsidy we are asking from the local authorities, and I think, if the Deputy examines the accounts of every local authority in the country, he will find, in the vast majority of cases, as those who have indulged in housing, pre-war, during the war, or post-war found, that it was not an economic proposition. Now I have proved my first premises, and, as to my second premises, I put it to the Deputy's generosity that the ratepayers should be called upon to forego some of the advantages conferred upon them by persons who build houses during the period mentioned, that is for the first year to the nineteenth year.
All I have to say with respect to this Section is that I wish to draw the attention of the Deputies, who denounced my attitude a moment ago as undemocratic, to the fact that in this Section it is provided that any local authority having power to levy rates "may," and when required by the Minister "shall" do certain things. They are actually accepting the undemocratic principle which they denounced a moment ago.
The President, in defending this measure, stated that houses cost more to erect now than ten years ago. We admit that. But the President should have taken into account also that, relatively, the general wages paid ten years ago were low, as was the cost all round. I do not think on a comparative basis that houses are more costly to-day in relative terms of money than ten years ago. Wages have gone up 200 to 300 per cent., and I do not think the cost of erecting a house has advanced to such an appreciable degree. In the measure proposed in this Bill the rates are to be relieved for a period. I think the period is too long. During that twenty years the fortunate occupants of those houses will not bear their full share of local responsibility, but will the remission of rates in the first year, amounting to 95 per cent., prove such a great boon to those people?
Would you like to get it yourself?
Mr. HOGAN
A penny is often welcome, but is this a time when the State should set a bad example by giving doles when the Minister for Local Government has a penal Bill before the Dáil for the collection of rates, which means that many ratepayers are financially unable to meet their obligations? Under Section 7, however, their burden will be very largely augmented, because they will have to bear the rates remitted from the fortunate occupants of houses that are being erected. Now let us examine what the position is. What will the valuation of one of those houses be in Dublin? For a five-roomed house it will not amount to more than £15. Even under the regime of the Dublin Corporation, about which we hear so much, the rates are not more than 20s. in the £, so that the normal rates of such a house would be about £15. That is not a very large sum in rates. However, it is the only contribution in rates, or contribution to local services that the inhabitant of such a house would make.
If we take 5 per cent. of £15, it only represents 15s. How can you build up a civic spirit with a man paying 15s. for one year, 30s. for a second year, and 45s. for the third year? It is merely flooding the country with cheap voters. There is even a larger principle involved. The principle of doles and subsidies has been the ruination of this country. Doles represent the incipient state of decay, but unfortunately in this country they have put us to the last gasp.
I do not know that I am called upon to defend this particular Section from such an extraordinary attack. The Deputy, I am sure, is not so young as not to remember the Land Act of 1903, and he remembers that there was a bonus given at that time.
It came from the State, not from the local authorities.
Does it not matter, then, in the least what comes from the State? Is the Deputy concerned only with what comes from the local authorities?
Yes.
Very well. If we have to admit that some big contribution must come from somebody, and that the matter in dispute is that the State should bear the whole of it, then I understand the Deputy's position. If this particular imposition ought to be put on the State, in addition to the £100, £80, or £60 of a grant, as the case may be, I quite understand him.
The President misunderstands my point, which is that the occupants should pay the rates in full and should not get any preferential treatment.
It is argued that the local authority, which is having £500 spent in the district, the expenditure of which sum improves its valuation and enhances the health of the citizen, the local authority thereby deriving more benefit directly and indirectly, should not be asked to forego its full pound of flesh in the very first year. The Deputy apparently does not understand how far things have moved since 1914. A house valued now at £11 would have been valued in 1914 at possibly £7 or £8, and the occupier of a house now will be at a potential and reversionary disadvantage by the end of twenty years. From practically the fifteenth or sixteenth year he has to bear a valuation that his brother, who had a house built in 1914, has not to bear or will not have to bear during his lifetime.
I do not know if I have made the point clear. It is that a house built in 1914 bears a valuation of £7; the same sized house now would bear a valuation of £11. The house constructed in 1914 gets the benefit of the Small Dwellings Act. Houses valued at £8 and under were allowed off something like 33? per cent. of the municipal rate. In essence it comes to this, that some of the smaller houses which were built by the Corporation during the last twenty years paid in rates something like 1s. per week. Houses built within the last four or five years, valued at £11, when the rates were 21s. in the £1, paid almost 5s. a week. Just weigh in your mind what the respective liability is that has to be borne by two citizens, one of whom has the misfortune to be ten years younger than the other, and it is the young man I am speaking of now. He must pay five times what the other pays. I do not mean to say that it is a fair parallel. I would say that a parallel of 1 in 3 would be fair.
We are taking that into account in this Bill. The house which now costs £500 could have been built in pre-war for something like £200. We are not able to pay a larger subsidy than £100, but we are looking around to see who is. I do not like to put on the Deputy's constituents, or on his particular section of the community, valuable as it is to the State, any undue burden, and I am restricting to the Urban Districts in which these houses will be erected, an ordinary small share of the liability of the cost of erection. In essence it will not be a liability at all, because if it were not for the State subsidy they would not get the 5 per cent, and some of these people might be lodging in houses and might not be paying any rates whatever. The local authority will benefit by such men and the families of such men.
I recognise the case that the President has made, but I would prefer if the difficulty were met in some other form without establishing this precedent. I do not know that it is a very wholesome precedent. It leaves the door open to people who may find themselves aggrieved with regard to their financial position. The case made by the President is that the occupants of these houses will be put financially in a worse position than the people about them. They can make a case, and a case can also be made for most other people who pay rates. I do not think that it is sound local finance, and I would like to see the difficulty met in some other way. It will lay the foundation of many local agitations, and of cases being put up by people who consider themselves aggrieved. I am in sympathy with the position the President has put forward, but I think it will lead on to unhealthy ground. I do not like it, and I think the President will admit that it establishes a precedent that is not desirable.
If the proposal were that for twenty years no rates would be paid, I would say yes. It is, however, a gradually increasing burden. The man who gets a house of this sort, if he has to borrow money, pays at a high percentage, something like 6 per cent., and an effort ought to be made to relieve him as much as possible so that he can reduce the amount. The idea is that in one or two years the house he will occupy, as soon as it is built, will be coming down in value, because we hope and expect that the cost of house building will come down. If he built for £400, in one or two years' time the value will be about £20 less. What, then, is his compensation, or how can you compensate him unless by some gradual process like this, which enables him to see that even though the article he has purchased at a given time is deteriorating in value, nevertheless he has another advantage which will come by way of compensation to him?
If the President is satisfied, I am.
I am satisfied, and I would like Deputy Hogan to be satisfied, too.
I am not satisfied.
I shall put the motion.
I beg to propose amendment 42:—
To insert before Section 8 a new Section as follows:—
"If the Minister is satisfied, by local inquiry or otherwise, that the erection of any buildings within any borough or urban or rural district is, or is likely to be, unreasonably impeded in consequence of any byelaws with respect to new streets or buildings in force therein, the Minister may require the local authority to revoke such byelaws or to make such new byelaws as he may consider necessary for the removal of the impediment. If the local authority do not within three months after such requisition comply therewith, the Minister may himself revoke such byelaws and make such new byelaws as he may consider necessary for the removal of the impediment, and such new byelaws shall have effect as if they had been duly made by the local authority and confirmed by the Minister."
In view of the atmosphere that is being created, unintentionally, I am sure, by Deputies O'Mahony and Hogan, against any interference by the Dáil with any of the rights exercised by the local authorities, I have some hesitation in proposing the amendment that I have put down. It is a new Section, and the object of the Section is, that in the event of any of the bye-laws requiring revision, that that should be possible. Many of the existing bye-laws of some of our local authorities are antiquated, and some of them, at least, require revision. These local authorities, seeing that these bye-laws have been in existence for a great many years, may be unwilling to alter them. Then the Minister would have the right, in order to get facilities for the erection of houses, to ask the local authority to alter the bye-law, and, in the event of the failure of the local authority, to take steps to have the bye-law altered so that housing facilities would be provided. It is only a power that will be exercised. I am sure, in very few cases.
But a little inquiry into the matter will show that it is a power that is absolutely necessary. The Deputies will remember that, on yesterday, we had under discussion a very important question, the question of the time to be allotted for the erection of these houses; and some of us who have had practical experience in connection both with working local authorities, and also with the erection of houses, are quite satisfied that the time put forward in the Bill was wholly inadequate. Twelve months was put forward as the time for the operation of the advantages under this Act. After a great deal of pressure we succeeded in getting the President to go as far as extending that clause to eighteen months. But he was adamant against going any further. I am quite satisfied, from my experience of this particular matter, that it will require all the co-operation that can be exercised between the local authority and those who build houses to get the houses erected within the stipulated time. It is obvious, therefore, that if variations were necessary in some of the old and antiquated bye-laws of some of those local authorities, alteration should be made immediately; otherwise if there was any delay it would be impossible to have the houses erected within the time required by the Act, and, therefore, it would put that local authority outside the Act. This clause is brought in with that intention. May I say, further, that it is taken word for word from the clause that is at the moment in operation in the new Housing Bill recently introduced at the other side, where they have just the same difficulty to deal with as we have here. The bye-laws are not up to date. Building construction, and building materials suitable for the erection of houses, have altered very materially since many of those bye-laws were drawn up. Consequently to erect those houses with modern materials would be contrary to the terms of the bye-laws in many cases. I hope I have made it clear that this Section will only come into operation when absolutely necessary, and will not be, therefore, to the disadvantage of the local authority. I, therefore, move that this clause be added.
Deputy Good asked me to support him. I am afraid it is a case where friends fall out, or where thieves fall out, but I rise to oppose this amendment. I oppose it on the same grounds as before. I think Deputy Good makes a good case. He turns this into supporting the local authority, but I do not agree. It is putting in "shall" too often, making it compulsory on the local authority to do certain things, within a certain time, and if they do not do them the Government will step in and throw them out. Now, the local authorities are elected by the democracy; at all events, they are elected by constituencies which send representatives to the local authority, and all the pressure that is necessary on this housing question will be as acute in one local authority as in another. But I think it would be a healthy state if the different local authorities were competing with one another to see who would build the most houses. If the bye-laws of the local authorities are obsolete, then the sooner they start to work to amend those bye-laws the better.
I do not know if Deputy Good has read Section 11, Subsection 3. I do not think it is so elegantly worded as his amendment, but I think it gets there, and there is more punch in it than in the Deputy's amendment.
Will the President give us an undertaking when we come to Clause 11, that if Deputy Hewat and others will raise similar objections, they will be ruled out?
I will try to undertake to ease their minds with regard to it.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
Yes, provided it is covered by Section 11.
I beg to move the deletion of Section 8. I have already drawn attention to Section 8 of this Bill. It is, to my mind, a most drastic and far-reaching Section, and it establishes a most dangerous precedent. I do not know whether the Deputies have read this Section. I will not take up the time of the Dáil in reading it in detail. But what it means is that the Minister may at any time, if he thinks fit, have a local inquiry made into the prices charged for any material necessary for the erection of houses. Furthermore, as the result of that inquiry, he may fix the selling price of these materials for the future, under a penalty of something like £100 for each breach of the decision arrived at.
I said that this is a most drastic and far-reaching clause. I am not aware that such a clause has appeared in any Act before, either in this or the sister country. This drastic section is not confined to the time during which the Bill will operate—in other words the operation of the Bill, as regards the assistance it gives to houses, is confined to houses erected in 18 months, whereas this particular clause is not so confined. It goes on after the Act and the provisions of the Act have passed away. What strikes one about this is, first of all, what does it hope to accomplish? As I said before here, there has been no evidence of any kind of profiteering in connection with building materials, in this country. I challenge anybody to give me evidence on that particular point. Possibly, before we are done with this Bill we will know where the profiteering is in the building industry and who are the profiteers. But suffice it at the moment to say—and I have some knowledge of the subject—that there is no profiteering in connection with building materials. Having had a considerable knowledge of the trade, both in this country and in the adjoining island, I have yet to get any evidence of profiteering. When no such evidence has been forthcoming, I cannot understand the reason for such a drastic clause. On the other side they appointed a committee some years ago for keeping in touch with the prices of building materials. That committee meets frequently, reports on any variation in the prices and the reasons for the variation. That committee, with all the powers at its disposal, has not been able to bring forward, as far as I have been aware— and I have been in touch with its decisions—any evidence of profiteering in the building industry. Nevertheless it keeps the department in touch with variations in the prices of building material and the reasons for such variations, which is of advantage to the department. If the Government had set up such a committee, one would not have taken any exception to it, but to take the drastic step that it has, without any evidence of profiteering, is exceedingly unwise. I say so because I am quite satisfied that the clause will do no good, but will do an infinite amount of harm. Capital is exceedingly shy; men will not invest a large amount of capital in any industry when the Government can walk in at any moment, hold an inquiry, and fix a selling price for the output of that particular industry.
A few days ago I was approached in the hall of the Dáil and asked if I would use my influence towards establishing a cement industry in Skerries. I was possibly one of the first to draw attention to the necessity for establishing such an industry in Ireland. Cement is a product that ought to be easily and economically manufactured in Ireland. Before a Commission which sat on the other side to deal with building supplies I drew attention to that fact, and gave some figures in connection with it. That was several years ago. Since then nothing has been done, but an English company is anxious—it has so expressed itself—as soon as conditions are favourable, to start a factory in Skerries, which is considered a suitable place. What would be the effect of this proposal on those people? The Government take powers in this clause as soon as that factory is erected—and it will cost between £200,000 and £250,000— to step in and fix a selling price for its product. What will the effect of that be on the industry? I am sorry to say that people on the other side do not look with favour on this country of ours as a suitable place for investing capital. These people were prepared to take the risk, and how will they view this clause? If you or I were advising them, what would our advice be? I am afraid that in that particular instance it would do a serious injury to the country.
Let us look at it from another point of view. The Government is establishing a precedent in this. In the absence of proof of profiteering, they have thought it wise to bring in such a clause. Having once done so, there is no reason why they should not extend this to other industries. We were all proud of the fact that three tobacco factories have been established here, and are expending some hundreds of thousands of pounds at the moment. If such a clause were to operate in connection with that industry, does anybody think for a moment that that money would have been spent? I know something about capital; I know the minds of those who have capital; I am quite satisfied that if there was any fear of such a clause, in no circumstances would they have invested the money that they have invested. All this will do will be to frighten capital out of the Free State across the border, where it can supply the requirements of the Free State and be free from such a burden as this. I ask those who are responsible for the Government of this country: is that a state of affairs that they desire to promote, or that they ought to support? I think if they consider the matter, in view of what I have said, they will come to the conclusion that the clause is exceedingly unwise and undesirable. I have no hesitation whatever in moving, for the good of this country of ours, that this clause be deleted from the Bill.
I am again going to be consistent, and I am again going to give the Minister power to exercise control when the circumstances of the case demand that he should do so. Of course I anticipate that Deputy Johnson will support Deputy Good on this occasion.
Wait and see.
I assume that he is going to be consistent, and, as a result of consistency, that, I think, will be the natural attitude he will adopt. Deputy Good has raised objection to the inclusion of this clause, mainly because of the adverse effect it would have upon the building providing trade, but he has visualised this evil effect as if the provision the Government is making in this Bill was a provision that was to be applied generally to industrial products in the country, and not, as is actually the case, the conserving of their powers only with respect to such interests as are concerned, and to such an extent as they are concerned, in relation to the new housing proposals. These, as we all know, in relation to the general business of the firms concerned, are a negligible factor. He suggests that it may be laid down as a precedent, and he cites a particular case in which a cement industry may be established in Skerries under the auspices of English industrialists. The Deputy knows just as well, or better, than I do what has been the effect of English association with that particular industry in Ireland. He knows that that association has with respect to the few cement industries that were established in this country had the effect of wiping them out of existence, and I feel that in this particular case, too, realising that sooner or later a cement industry must be established and developed in Ireland, at any rate to the extent of our own requirements, that they are going to take time by the forelock, and secure control of that industry in favour of British interests, and to sell the article not in relation to its value as determined by the cost of production in Ireland, but in relation to the amount they can impose on the country that ceases to produce for itself, and is dependent on outside firms to provide material factors of this kind for the purpose of national development. I fear the Deputy was not wise when in consultation with our friends across the Channel he gave them a complete analysis of the position in Ireland. It is not always wise to go to the outsider with information that pertains to national development in this country, because I need hardly suggest that the natural utilisation of that information on the part of people whose sympathies are less Irish than British will always be developed in favour of that interest which stands first with them. Deputy Good, and Deputy Hewat also, have on different occasions complained of the high rate of wage paid to the worker, and the relatively small output for the wage paid to him, and we have claimed that the Government ought to take cognisance of that. We have claimed that the worker has been a sinner in that respect, and that he should do penance for his sin.
Who will forgive him?
And I say that if that is our attitude towards Labour, and if we demand that an inquiry should be made with regard to the high wage and low output, if we are consistent we should also demand that in connection with the materials required for the building trade inquiry should also be made, where the circumstances warrant, as to the prices charged for these materials. We may rely on it that the Minister will take no action except in cases where he is in possession of a statement that warrants him doing so. Therefore, there is no hardship, because before the Minister will act a case will have to be presented to him by people competent to do so, showing that there is an abuse in the trade rates that these people are charging. I have no fear of this establishing a precedent, or that it is going to keep away industrial ventures. This Section is only intended to apply and operate in cases in which it is shown that the trading is not conducted on the basis of legitimate trading, that the trader is not satisfied with a legitimate profit in connection with the business. This Section can have effect only in those cases in which it is conclusively proved that that trading is detrimental to the general interests of the country, and when trading is detrimental to the general interests the Government would be failing in its duty if it did not see that the prices are regulated in accordance with the requirements of the country, giving to the trader a legitimate and proper profit on the transactions.
What about the price of porter?
I do not apply the inquiry into that, although the extent of my personal consumption would not affect my budget very much, one way or the other. I think as this Section is only to be applied in connection with the relatively small amount of material to be associated with this housing scheme——
That is not so.
Used in the building of houses.
But not the building of houses under this Bill.
We all know what the expression "building of houses" means. It only refers to houses constructed under the provisions of the Act, and we have no power to go beyond that. I take it that in the circumscribed circumstances in which this Section will be applied, and bearing in mind also the necessity there is that these houses should be constructed as economically as possible, the Section is one that ought to stand. No case has been made against the Section, except that it may favour trusts, and the Dáil is not going to support, as against public policy, the sustenance of trusts.
It is a real treat sometimes to attend this Dáil, because you will be convinced, I think, gradually that we are becoming an Island of Saints. Some time ago when Deputy Milroy was speaking it was the manufacturers who were the competitors for the halo. To-day, when Deputy Good was speaking, it was the building trade. There is no evidence of profiteering in the building trade, according to Deputy Good. There is certainly a very strong feeling amongst the ordinary public that there is profiteering. There is a principle to which, I think, Deputy Good gave his assent some weeks ago—the distinction between legal proof and common knowledge. I wonder would he accept that to a certain extent in connection with the building trade? Personally, I have had the good luck not to suffer much at their hands. Some time ago, however, thinking that the consumption of coal in the house was a little too much, and sorry that I could only give Deputy Good's friends an opportunity for philanthropic work by interfering a little with the equally philanthropic work of Deputy Hewat's friends, I went to see whether the grates could not be looked after. I went to one of the big contracting firms in the city. They sent out a man.
One of Deputy Johnson's friends.
I will come to that in a moment. Personally, I am not able to settle the figures I got, and I will leave them to Deputy Good and Deputy Johnson to dispute between them. The firm sent out a man, who spent an hour taking some measurements. A couple of days afterwards a mason and his attendant turned up, and spent the best portion of a working day settling the grates. Then came the bill. They charged for every item, naturally; mortar, bricks and everything else. The only item I am interested in at the moment is this: "For one day, mason's and labourer's time, repairing grate and furnace range, £2 17s." It is a pleasure to me to know that masons and labourers in Dublin are paid as much as that. I waited, I will confess, until the collector came. There are reasons, unfortunately, at this period of the year. I cannot go into them, but I did wait until the collector came. I protested against the charge, and incidentally dropped a hint that in this Dáil I had heard a discussion between Deputy Good and Deputy Johnson about the charges in the building trade. I suggested that I doubted if a large portion even of this £2 17s. went to the mason and his assistant. The collector asked if I required a reduction. I said not, that I would pay the bill then, but I asked him to send me an itemised receipt. The receipt came, not in the form that I first got the bill, but with an interesting amendment:—"Foreman's time measuring, 12/-; mason's and labourer's time, £2 5s." Even at that, I was glad to see that there were such high wages given to the masons and labourers in Dublin, because there is a chance of their purchasing these houses if they get a fair portion of what I was charged for one day's work.
They will be able to pay the rent now.
On this occasion, I rise to support my friend, Deputy Good. The Section is objectionable. One asks, why is it there at all. The answer that I give is "eyewash." It brings in the principle of Government interference in connection with trade, which is generally recognised as being of no advantage to trade or anybody else, but distinctly disadvantageous to everybody. It introduces at principle, which if once adopted, one would find it very hard to know where it is going to end. If it is logical to put it into this Bill, it is equally logical to put it into force in every business transaction. The basis of the Section, I think, is the cry of the man in the street as to the cost of living. That has been largely fomented by the fact that when the time came for a reduction in wages, the labour leaders raised, I would not like to say a parrot cry, but, at all events, a cry that was not genuine, and put it forward as a reason why uneconomic wages should be paid in connection with all industries. I would like the Dáil to consider what is the position in business. On the one side, the business man has to buy, and on the other, he has to sell. There is very little difference in the importance of both these operations. In every business, whether that of manufacturing, banking, or stock-broking, the state of the profit and loss account will be largely a matter of good buying or good selling. Does the Minister who introduced this Bill imagine that he is going to regulate prices? If he does, he never made a greater mistake in his life. He has no more power to regulate the price of articles than I have to stop the tide coming in. Supposing you regulate the price of any article, and say that a certain profit is to attach to it and a certain cost of production, the seller of that article is going to make the maximum price his minimum price, and if he has got a fair margin of profit, he is going to have a good time of it, because the incentive to increase his business, or otherwise, will be gone. This takes away the personal initiative altogether, and leaves the trade stagnant. That is the effect of Government interference in the control of any industry. Deputy Professor O'Sullivan has given us an amusing instance of his personal experience in connection with a grate.
It was not amusing.
I think he has given us an instance also of how the buyer can look after his own affairs. I think the basis of his argument was that these poor unfortunate buyers are very helpless. But are they? I think not. In business and in dealing with the public I do not think you come across so many "mugs" as the man in the street would have you believe. I do not think that a man's business is going to prosper in any way, whether in Dublin or anywhere else, by charging more than the value of the article he is supplying. I do not think such a man is going to be long doing a very prosperous business.
What about "the ring"?
This is one of the biggest firms in Dublin. Do you want the name?
I do not.
Name.
In exactly the same way Deputy O'Sullivan gives part of the case. Might we hear the other side of the case? Probably the man on the other side, the seller in this case, could put a very different complexion on the transaction as between himself and Deputy O'Sullivan. I do not know. At all events, are you going to put a Section in a Bill like this, so enormously far-reaching, on the assumption that Deputy O'Sullivan and his like, are such a lot of "mugs" that they are going to submit to be overcharged for every article they buy? If you are going to legislate for "mugs" I am afraid you are going to have a busy time of it. Some Deputy on the opposite side said "rings.""Rings," as a matter of fact, very often reduce prices. "Rings" do not occur, and will not occur—in the ordinary way. They will occur under certain conditions. These "rings" are always liable to competition, and competition is the only way in which you will satisfactorily regulate prices in any trade. I object to this Section in the Bill mainly on principle. I say that the whole basis of business is that both buyer and seller are very well able to take care of themselves, and that this namby-pamby Government interference in trade matters is good neither for the individual nor the community as a whole. Deputy O'Mahony went into some matters—Irish affairs—and it seemed as if his principal aim and object was to keep foreign capital out of the country.
No.
This is quite a helpful clause for that. It does not do much in the building-up line. I think the more commonsense view would be to encourage as much capital as possible to come into the country. It is then under your own control, or under the control of the State. Make your own regulations, but do not make this sort of regulation.
Deputy Hewat says: "Encourage foreign capital to come into the country, and then it is under your own control." Apparently he desires that it should be under the control of the State. I ask him does he desire that foreign capital, having come into the country, should be regulated in its activities by the State? This Section, as far as I can read and understand it, just purports and intends to do that very thing, and also to control and regulate the not less omnivorous parasites that are homebred. One is amused to hear Deputy Hewat occasionally expounding the economics of the early nineteenth century, and proclaiming the gospel of free competition; the inability to regulate prices, and saying that you might as well try to keep back the tide as to regulate prices. He then tells us, in almost the next breath, that trusts and "rings" do not always raise prices. They sometimes lower prices. The fact remains that they fix prices higher or lower, and if that is not regulating prices, doing what it is alleged one cannot do, my reading is very faulty, and my understanding of the movements of trade and commerce as well as the official declarations of public companies, is at sea. Deputy Hewat might be aware of the existence of combinations which quite effectively rule out competition, which he says will always regulate prices, if trusts or "rings" endeavour to overcharge. He is very innocent. Perhaps he will remember the experience of the tobacco manufacturers in Ireland and England, and the very great fight they had to try to be independent. Perhaps he will remember the experiences of some of the shipping companies who gobbled up competitive lines, made "rings," raised prices, and then covered over their faults by enlarging the nominal capital, and saying they are only paying a moderate dividend. Perhaps Deputy Good would remind Deputy Hewat of the existence of, say the Light Castings Association, or the Cement Combine. Perhaps in his reply or further contribution to this discussion the Deputy will tell the Dáil what he knows about the Light Castings Association, the Cement Combine, and any other of the combines in the building materials trade. Deputy Hewat says you cannot fix prices. There exists a combination of Portland cement manufacturers, formed in 1900 as a union of thirty undertakings, the purchase consideration being £6,335,000. It extended its power in 1912 by merging thirty-three other firms. One of its declared objects is to control prices in the home market, which is divided into specified areas, each with a committee of manufacturers appointed by the Federation. Perhaps Deputy Good knows something about it. These committees are empowered to make increases in the prices ruling in their respective areas, and any such increases are binding in all the areas upon all the members of the Federation.
Have you to be a member of the Federation?
In dealing with the distributing trades rebates are granted, the maximum allowance being made to those merchants who bind themselves, to buy only from members of the Federation and to sell to the consumer at not less than the scheduled price, and conform to all the other terms as to discount, packages, etc.
Of course that is not peculiar to the associated cement manufacturers. You might ask Messrs. Cleeve if they knew anything about combinations in the condensed milk trade, and the way prices were regulated in that business ultimately to the detriment of Messrs. Cleeve. In very nearly all the big trades there are combinations, more or less effective, but for Deputy Hewat to say that anybody can come into competition is, I say, childish, because we know what the effect of the competition of the small manufacturer is against a big consolidated capital of these trusts and combines. We know how the small competitor is met when he tries effectively to meet the competition of the combine. It is a matter of common experience. For Deputy Hewat to say that you cannot control prices, when it is done every day in the week and every month in the year, is, as I say, childish, and is asking us to believe that which we know is not accurate. Of course it is true, I will admit at once, that with the development of modern industries, trusts are able to make more than the average profit by saving in expenses by a more efficient organisation, and by improved methods of production. I quite agree that it requires big organisation to do it. I am not objecting to the big organisation, but I am objecting to the way the big organisation is too often used. Sometimes it is said that the development of the trust is the necessary preliminary to taking over the trust in the common interest. I do not know whether Deputy Hewat would subscribe to that as the inevitable course of industrial development or not.
All in good time.
Deputy Hewat says all in good time.
The world is going to be greatly improved between this and then.
Now it is quite clear to anybody who will follow the proceedings that the organisation in the building trades in Ireland is very defective indeed, so far as efficient output and service are concerned, but there is some kind of a general lackadaisical feeling amongst those engaged in the trade that if by going easy they could make as heavy a profit as by going hard, well, then, they might as well go easy. Of course it is not quite true to say that the firms in the building trade are having such hard times as has been suggested. I cannot give all the details of the financial position of all the companies, and I cannot tell you how they manipulate their shares, and how they grant bonuses to reduce the apparent rate of profit, and make bonuses in the form of new shares, but I have some figures which may not be exhaustive, I do not think they are, but they indicate that the building trade providers were not in such a very bad condition during the last two or three years of very bad trade in the building industry. I find, for instance, from the official returns supplied by the companies themselves that for the four years ending 1916 the amount distributed in the shape of dividends in ordinary shares of Messrs. Brooks, Thomas and Co., averaged £3,000 a year, while the average, distributed in the four years ending 1922, was £5,100. That is to say, there was an average increase of from £3,000 to £5,100 at a time when the building trade was supposed to be out of action. When it is retorted, as it probably will be, that the rate of increase is not as great as the rate of increase in the rate of wages, I agree, and, of course, here we come across the fundamental opposition that there is a very different tale to tell when you are dealing with payment for work done, payment for personal service, and payment for allowing money to lie in a particular concern.
If it is contended that the rate of profit must always increase concurrently with any increase in the rate of wages, I dissent. The figures I have quoted in regard to Messrs. Brooks, Thomas & Co. certainly show that during those bad years the amount of money distributed as dividends upon the ordinary shares has increased on an average from £3,000 per year to £5,100 per year, while the rate of preference shares of course remains stable.
Was there any increase in capital?
I have another illustration of a firm in the same business where for the four years ending 1917, the amount distributed as dividend on ordinary shares averaged £3,500, and for the four years ending 1921 that average increased to £8,900. That again shows that people in that trade, at any rate, did fairly well notwithstanding the slump in the industry. The case that Deputy Hewat makes is particularly interesting, coming from a man who sat on the Profiteering Committee, the inquiry into the cost of living in the city of Dublin and country.
I did not sit on any profiteering committee. I would not do such a thing.
One can, perhaps, understand the failure of that committee if Deputy Hewat was able to dominate it as he would like to dominate the Dáil on this question.
Do not draw me on that subject.
, at this stage, resumed the Chair.
Surely one would not agree to make inquiries into the profits of private distributors of food-stuffs, and be afraid to make inquiries into the profits of the manufacturers, and builders' providers in the building trade. I suggest that having entered into one inquiry, and having learned some lesson as to how that inquiry ought to have been conducted, the lesson should be taken to heart, and applied in the case of the building industry.
I think that the Section under discussion is probably the most valuable in the Bill. I hope it will be amended before it passes from the Dáil so that the inquiries will not be merely confined to local inquiries, such as are suggested in the Section itself, but that they may be enlarged to cover not only local prices, but prices over the country as a whole. Deputy O'Mahony desired to know whether I would likely be consistent and object to the interference by the State authority in the activities of those engaged in the building trade. I tell Deputy O'Mahony that if he will support me in advocating that the local authorities should have power to enter into the building industry, to provide building material, and if he will say that the building material providers are to be elected publicly, as the local authorities are elected, and that they will be responsible to the public for the conduct of their affairs, then I will object to undue interference by the central authority. Considering that builders' providers and manufacturers of building materials are not prepared to enter into any understanding regarding the public services, but are only prepared to enter into it with a view to private profit, and while they are doing that, and while there is every evidence that they will persist in taking advantage of the public need for their own aggrandisement, then I say that a public check upon that aggrandisement, such as provided in the Bill, should be retained and carried into immediate effect.
I beg to move that we report progress, and sit again to-morrow.
Agreed.
In answer to my appeal last evening, I have received from a member of the Dáil an intimation of his willingness to be liable for a sum of two thousand pounds towards forming a company to carry out the purpose of this Act. I am not at liberty to divulge his name, but if I get his permission I shall give it to the Dáil later on.