Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Feb 1924

Vol. 6 No. 20

DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - HOUSING (BUILDING FACILITIES) BILL, 1924—FOURTH STAGE.

SECTION 3.

I move:—

"In Section 3 (1) (a), page 2, line 49, after the word "its" to insert the words "site, aspect."

The amendment is introduced in pursuance of an undertaking given in Committee by the President to, I think, Deputy Nagle.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

"In Section 3(1) (b), page 3, line 3, after the word "plans" to add the words "or with such other plans as may be approved by the Minister."

This gives the Minister discretion to approve of plans other than those prescribed by him.

Will that set aside the authority the Minister has under Section II, which states: "That the Minister may by order prescribe all such rules, conditions, plans and other matters?" I say that because it would appear to be a mandatory order.

It is not exclusive. It still permits of plans. The plans that we prescribed are intended to be of assistance and guidance rather than to be compulsory. I undertook to bring up an amendment such as this, an amendment which would satisfy Deputy Good. I hope that the amendment does satisfy him. I would like again to assure him that it was not the intention, at any time during the course of this Bill, to prescribe plans to which builders would have to conform. The general lines are, to some extent, compulsory. That is, one must have four walls, and so on. But apart from that, it was not intended that our plans were the only plans that the Minister would approve of.

I think that was quite clear from the President's statement all through. But I cannot agree that the draftsman was of that opinion when drafting the Bill. I expressed that opinion before. It was quite obvious that it was their intention that the word "prescribed" should apply to plans that were already in existence, and which would be supplied by the local authorities for houses built under this scheme. The President made it quite clear that was not the point. The point was that those anxious to build under this particular Bill would not be confined to these prescribed drawings That has now been made clear.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I would like to ask is five the maximum number of rooms. There might be a case where a man building houses of this kind would wish to have a six-roomed house. Would that exclude him from the grant?

I think he would be excluded from the grant. I think I explained that we are dealing with only a certain type—houses from £240 to £450. It was intended to exclude six-roomed houses from the Bill. No suggestion was made that we should include them. I waited somewhat patiently, and with a good deal of trepidation, for any such recommendation, but, as none came, I did not think it was my duty to have mentioned it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move:—

In Section 3 (1), page 3, to add at the end of paragraph (c), line 6, the following words "and the total area of any self-contained two-roomed flat in the house measured as aforesaid shall not be less than 400 square feet."

This amendment was rendered necessary because of the decision to make provision for two-roomed flats; and it was considered that 400 square feet was a reasonable area.

I should explain that in connection with this particular amendment it is not that we are standing for or recommending the reconstruction of houses so as to enable two-roomed flats to be made available for accommodation. But it was put to me that there was a certain type of house which, by reason of the size of the rooms in it, and other considerations, would not be suitable for letting in three-roomed flats; and, that by reason of the figure 3 coming in, we would exclude quite a number of houses which in themselves would afford sufficient cubic capacity perhaps in excess of those houses which would accommodate three-roomed self-contained flats. The only reason why we put forward this particular amendment is in the event of there being houses capable of reconstruction and letting as two-roomed self-contained flats, which would, to some extent, relieve congestion. We thought that it was desirable to insert an amendment of this sort. Generally, I should say that the Ministry and anybody who has any experience in the matter of housing does not approve of the proposal to have two-roomed self-contained dwellings at all.

From that explanation are we to understand that the intention of the Ministry in the case of reconstructed houses is to turn them into flats of three or four rooms, and that the same amount of grant will be made as if they were new houses? If that is the effect of the amendment, I do not think that was the intention. But the President's statement now rather suggests it is the intention.

I think in the Schedule it will be found under the list of amendments that the amount which we propose to allocate for this is £26 13s. 4d.

That is only for two-roomed flats?

In Section 1 it will be seen that the word "reconstruct" means "to repair or reconstruct an existing house or building, including the making of alterations and additions so as to convert the same into one or more houses or self-contained flats." Under Section 2 there is a provision to make a grant "out of monies to be provided by the Oireachtas to persons erecting or reconstructing houses." Now that included 3, 4 and 5-roomed flats?

Then there are provisions made for grants to houses. Each flat is a house under the definition. There is of course a new Schedule proposed which will allow a grant of £26 13s. 4d. to self-contained two-roomed flats?

So that when the house is reconstructed so as to contain three or four-roomed flats it seems to follow that the provisions of the Schedule, Part I, allow in the case of three-roomed flats £40 and four-roomed flats £55. I think that follows from the amendments and provisions as the Bill stands. But I do not think it was the intention of the Minister.

The £40 that the Deputy has mentioned refers to a three-roomed house; £53 6s. 8d. to a four-roomed house, and £66 13s. 4d. for a five-roomed house. The amount proposed for a two-roomed flat would be £26 13s. 4d., so that if one were to put in another column the £26 13s. 4d. would be followed by £40 for a three-roomed flat, £53 6s. 8d. for a four-roomed flat, and £66 13s. 4d. for a five-roomed flat.

I must have misunderstood the Minister in his answer to my first question. Am I to gather now that it is the intention to make the same grant under the same conditions regarding letting in respect of houses which are turned into flats containing four rooms as if they were newly-built and self-contained houses?

If the Deputy will give me a concrete example I think it would help me to understand his point.

If a body of gentlemen such as those to whom the President was speaking the other day agreed to erect or reconstruct a number of houses each containing five rooms they are entitled to a grant of £100 per new house, or £66 13s. 4d. for a reconstructed house, which may be a single house reconstructed. Now, the original provisions do not provide, as I understand, for turning a mansion into four houses, that is to say, four self-contained flats. But the Bill has been amended so as to allow a grant being paid for a mansion to be reconstructed and turned into flats, and if such reconstruction resulted in four-roomed flats being the outcome of the reconstruction, then four times £46 13s. 4d. would be paid for that operation.

Four times £53 6s. 8d.

Yes, four times £53 6s. 8d. That is to say, £200 odd for the reconstruction of a mansion into four self-contained flats. That is the intention?

That is the way the money will go, therefore?

I am very much afraid that very little of it will go in that direction, from the experience we have had in Dublin in this matter. There is the fact that if we had in Dublin, ten, twelve, or fourteen years ago, five or six of these large houses, which at one time housed the aristocracy of this country, presented to the Corporation of the time for nothing, it would have been a more economic proposition for the Corporation to have built new three-roomed cottages than it would have been to reconstruct these houses. The real point with regard to reconstruction is that those who reconstruct get but two-thirds of the subsidy which is given for the building of a new house. I believe the examination which we had of the problem at the time I have referred to disclosed the fact that the bricks and mortar constituted only one-third of the price of the house, and the many alterations that had to be made, and the extent of the reconstruction, rendered it an uneconomic proposition. I fear, although we are making provision for this, that unless some such bodies as have already interested themselves in the problem take it up now it will not be a success.

Quite a number of those bodies are mentioned in the report of the Departmental Committee which inquired into housing in 1913. Only such bodies as those that have experience of the problem and who are, by virtue of their experience, in a position to get very much better value for any money expended, will make a success of the scheme. There is one other matter I would like to mention. The actual amount of the subsidy for rooms is £20 in the case of a new house, and £16 13s. 4d. in the case of a reconstructed house.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I take it, it is quite clear the provision regarding local authorities' assistance in the case of reconstructed houses, will generally apply. That is, the local authority may make an equal grant in the case of flats as well as houses, and the remission of rates will be imposed.

We could take these general questions on the motion for the final consideration of the Bill.

Very good.

I move:—

In Section 3 (1), page 3, to delete paragraph (f) and to insert a new paragraph in lieu thereof as follows: "(f) in the case of the reconstruction of an existing house or building, that existing house or building shall be certified by an appointed officer to be capable of reconstruction as a house fulfilling the foregoing conditions, and except where the reconstruction is begun before the passing of this Act, such certificate shall be given before the reconstruction is begun."

The paragraph which it is proposed to delete limited the operation of the Section to houses which were in a ruinous or defective condition. The amendment would extend the operation of the Section so as to cover any house or building which would be certified as being capable of reconstruction.

I do not want to press this too much, but it seems to me there should be some understanding as to what might be the result of this amendment if houses were in the course of reconstruction.

Presumably, it was expected they would be let, and it would have been carried through quite irrespective of this Bill. One does not quite understand why it should be necessary to say to those people, who have already begun the work of reconstruction and rebuilding, that they may now apply for a grant. Perhaps, it is the intention that they will agree only to charge so much rental, and that they expected to get more?

That is the main point. There is another point. If the Deputy had any experience of building, I do not know that he would be in as happy a frame of mind as he is in at present. He probably would have had the experience that the contracts he got, which he thought would not be exceeded, would at some time or other scarcely bear an exact resemblance to the original contract. In a case of that sort, where a person was in good faith going to reconstruct, and would find afterwards that the sum he had earmarked for the purpose was not sufficient, he would have some satisfaction in knowing that there was a grant like this available. There would be these two instances; in the first instance, we might get a reasonable reduction in the rent proposed to be charged, and in the second instance, the person having embarked on a certain commercial experiment that far exceeded the amount of money he thought would be expended, there would be relief for him here.

One of the objects I think the President had in mind in bringing forward this amendment was to clear some ambiguity that existed in the Bill as introduced with regard to these reconstructed houses. I have a little doubt as to whether that object is achieved by this amendment. If the Deputies will refer to Sub-section (f) in the Bill as reported from Committee, they will find in the case of the reconstruction of existing houses that those existing houses shall have been in a ruinous or defective condition. That, to my mind, seems to be the condition precedent to any grant for such a house, and it was pointed out when the Bill was in Committee that it would be very unfair to limit the application of this particular grant to such houses. In fact it was pointed out that it would be a great matter for the general appearance of our city if many of these old houses— fine old houses—which we find surrounding these squares could be adapted to the new conditions before they get into a state of decay. In all interests it would be a very advisable course to take.

That is the view, I think, that was generally approved by the House, and the President undertook on report to have the matter looked into. Now I find that unfortunate condition still exists, and I am afraid its interpretation will prevent, notwithstanding what Deputy Johnson has said, a good deal of work being undertaken under this Section that one would like to see undertaken. I do not know whether the President has considered that aspect of the question. It was considered pretty fully in Committee, and, if so, I would be glad to know how this proposed amendment meets this particular provision under Sub-section (f) of the Bill.

Sub-section (f) goes out so that in the Bill there will be no reference whatever to a ruinous or defective house. Sub-section (f), as it left the Committee on the last day, is moved out, and for that there will be substituted a new paragraph which states that in the reconstruction of an existing house or building, that existing house or building shall be certified by an appointed officer to be capable of reconstruction as a house fulfilling the foregoing conditions, but there is no house such as the Deputy has in mind that would not lend itself to be capable of treatment under this new sub-section.

I did not follow that the intention was to move the whole of the Sub-section out, and if that is so I think it is very desirable because it was ambiguous as originally framed.

I think the Section as originally framed was intended for ordinary houses and not for flats, and the suggestion was that such a house must be in a ruinous condition, and that an ordinary house could not be turned into flats. The suggestion was that the house must be in a ruinous condition; that, being in a state of ruin, it would be used as a fully self-contained house. I do not think the amendment covers that kind of a house. It was moved in order to meet the objection raised on the last day, and this objection arose because the word "flats" was used. The amendment now moved in substitution for Sub-section (f) will cover self-contained houses being converted into flats, but I do not think the proviso about an ordinary house being in a ruinous condition before it could be converted into a fully self-contained house will be found in the new provision. I am sorry to see that gone. I think the original intention was quite good, referring to a particular type of house to which it was applicable.

I do not think, with all respect, that ruined houses have been ruled out in the new clause, but that the new clause requires that they should be certified as houses coming within the meaning of the Act before work is started on them.

I think the condition that houses should be in a ruinous condition was a perfectly reasonable provision in the Bill as it originally stood. That is not now a condition, and I think it is a pity. Here a person can get a grant for taking up a house which is in rather good condition and making some repairs to it, whereas originally it was intended that if a house was in a ruinous condition and a man made a habitable house out of it he would get a grant.

But a man to get a grant now must get a certificate.

A certificate that will fulfil the conditions herein provided, but the question about the ruinous condition is gone.

I should say, in answer to Deputy O'Sullivan's point, that the provision of flats is not mentioned in the new Sub-section we are proposing. A ruinous and defective house would scarcely lend itself to any reconstruction. For the provision of bricks and joinery work and plumbing and slating the amount proposed to be given would scarcely be sufficient to induce any person to take on the work, and from that angle the very exclusion of the word "ruinous" is rather helpful than otherwise. The point in regard to this is that a house may have a defective roof or one floor may be defective, and in that case it would lend itself to reconstruction, if certified by the competent officer. I take it that the competent officer, or the appointed officer, has in mind what the Bill aims at—that is, if it is a house that is going to go out of commission, and that a certain sum of money expended on it would keep it in commission. We give two-thirds of the grant that we give for the construction of a new house, exactly the same as if a new house had been constructed, and to that extent there would be an advantage in it. The difficulty that has been experienced in Dublin is, that a house reaches a certain stage of deterioration. At that moment, if a man were assisted by the local authority or the Government it is very possible he would invest money. It is just that proportion that we think will be of use in this case.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I beg to move amendment No. 5:—

In Section 8 (1), page 5, lines 7 and 8, to delete the words "any county, county borough, town, district or other area" and to insert in lieu thereof the words "Saorstát Eireann or any particular parts or part thereof."

This amendment is introduced in consequence of an undertaking given to Deputy Johnson in Committee. The intention is for the Minister to hold a local inquiry in any part of Saorstát Eireann.

I must say there is a slight improvement provided for by the amendment, but I cannot understand yet why, having agreed to hold an inquiry as to prices in Saorstát Eireann, the Minister should still confine the inquiry to a local inquiry. The Section says: "The Minister may, at any time, if he thinks fit, order a local inquiry into the cost" in Saorstát Eireann. That obviously refers to an inquiry into a particular place, and suggests that it is only where something excessive, or apparently excessive, in relation to other parts of the country is being charged that an inquiry will be held, whereas I want to submit for the consideration of the Minister that there might well be an arrangement in the trade to charge excessively all over the country, and in such a case the Minister has deprived himself of any power. Why the restriction to local inquiries is retained I cannot understand. If the Section read: "The Minister may at any time, if he thinks fit, order an inquiry as to prices in Saorstát Eireann and after the holding of such inquiry, and so on," all that he is aiming at would be attained, and something more if necessary, but while you retain these words "local inquiry" you are limiting your powers, and I submit that the amendment, while it is a slight improvement on the original Section, does not go far enough in removing the objectionable restrictions, and would leave the Minister in this position, that even if he thought fit to order an inquiry into charges covering the whole country, this Bill does not allow him to do so. It restricts him to a local inquiry, so that he would have to make inquiries into twenty different localities when he might secure the same end by one national inquiry.

I suppose the Deputy will hardly credit me with giving him information when I say that there are two Governments in this country There is the ordinary Government and the local Government. The Local Government Board always inserts the word "Local" wherever it holds an inquiry or does anything of that sort. Even in the case of the inquiry held in Dublin in 1913 into Housing, it was called a Local Government Housing Inquiry. Strangely enough, when in International affairs a Government is mentioned of a particular area it mentions the local Government; that means the Government of the place in question. In the same way the word "local" here has not got that restricted interpretation which Deputy Johnson puts on it. The fact of a Local Government inquiry in Dublin does not postulate that it is held only with reference to the city of Dublin. Local Government inquiries, as such, are inquiries which in the minds of the officials and of, I presume, the Minister— it was mine when I was Minister for Local Government—always mean that the inquiry was one in which the person authorised to hold it had authority to administer oaths and to hear evidence on oath, and later in the same Schedule it is provided that Article 32 of the Application of Enactments Order shall apply, meaning that he has got that authority. There is no restrictive interpretation to be put upon that. That is all the word "local" means. It simply synchronises with the terminology inseparable from that second Governmental institution we have got in this country.

If this is the opportune time, I desire to raise a question on Section 8. If this is not the time, I can raise the matter later.

I think the Deputy might deal with it now.

A point I was anxious to make clear is one that was not at all clear when the Bill was in Committee, and that is with regard to the operation of Section 8. I have not altered in the least with regard to the opinions I expressed on several occasions as to the effect of Section 8, and I would like to point out to Deputies that the Dáil was not at all clear as to the limitation of operations under Section 8. Some Deputies so expressed themselves in voting in its favour. Deputy O'Mahony stated that it was quite obvious that the operation of Section 8 was limited to houses erected under this Bill. I differed from that view. Deputy Egan agreed with that view, and went further and said that it was only right that the person who paid the piper should call the tune, so that it was quite obvious it was in the Deputy's mind, when he voted for the Section, that if the Government provided a certain sum of money for the erection of these houses they had the right to have a say as to the cost of the materials that would be included in these houses. From these two statements, I think it is quite clear that what was in the mind of many Deputies was that the operation of Section 8 applied only to houses included under the Bill. I differ from that view, and in the last speech the President made on the subject, he expressed the view that the operation of this particular Section in this Bill was not confined to houses built under this Bill, but that it would apply to all houses built during the time the Bill was in operation.

Now, that was giving a much wider interpretation to this clause than either of the Deputies who voted for the Section gave to it, so that Deputy Egan—I am sorry Deputy O'Mahony is not here— will see from the statement of the President—I can refer the President to his speech if necessary—that this particular Section, in his mind, applied to houses outside the Section, in fact, to houses which may not be getting any Government grant at all; in other words, to houses erected during the period of this Act, quite irrespective of whether they came under the jurisdiction of this Act or not. The plenary powers under this particular Act would apply to these houses because they happened to be erected at this particular period. Even in that view of the President's, he was beginning to see exactly what apparently he had not seen previously, the wider field that this particular Section would have. That particular view did not satisfy me, because I expressed the opinion on that occasion that I was quite satisfied, from information I had, that though it was his view that the operation of this Section was confined to the time that the Bill was in operation, that that was not so. A body which I happen to be connected with has, in the meantime, got an opinion from one of the leading lawyers in our city on that particular aspect of the question, and he says, beyond any doubt, that the operation of this Section is not confined either to the houses proposed to be built under this Bill, nor is it limited by the time limit attached to this Bill, bearing out exactly what I stated that it was a much wider and a much more drastic Section than ever was intended. That being so, I would like to hear from the President what course he proposes to take with regard to this Section.

On a point of order, is this discussion in order on this particular amendment?

I think it is not in order, but the President said he would answer the point raised.

I am quite in your hands. I raised that very question before, and I remember the President saying that he thought this was a suitable opportunity to deal with the matter.

I have to defer to your judgment in the matter, Sir. I am prepared to deal with it now, or when this amendment is disposed of. If there be a point of order in connection with it, it might be said that as we have introduced Saorstát Eireann in even a more extended sense than Deputy Johnson thought was the original intention in the Bill, and as the particular matter to which Deputy Good is addressing himself, amongst others, is that it refers to houses other than those in the Bill, it is a favourable opportunity. However, it is a matter for your judgment, Sir.

I do not want to object, but it did seem to me that there might be other matters of a general character that would be discussed on Report, and it would be better to use that opportunity for doing that. I have no objection to allowing the Deputy to go ahead.

As the Deputy has continued for so long, it would be as well for him to finish his speech.

I have practically finished. I was putting to the President the question that, in view of the fact that the operation of this clause is very much wider than was his intention, or the intention of the Dáil when it approved of it, I would be glad to know exactly what course he proposes to take in connection with it.

If it is right for me to follow now, Sir, I will give an answer to that question. If you consider that it is not within the terms of the amendment I will leave it over until the amendment is disposed of.

I suggest that it might be brought within the terms of the amendment in this way. When this was last before the Dáil in Committee the President promised to consider the point made by Deputy Good. This amendment, I presume, is the result of the consideration, and therefore possibly he could now discuss the points raised by Deputy Good.

That is a very good point. I stated last day that it was not intended to exercise this particular authority for a longer period than it was intended that the Bill should run. I do not think that it would be right, when we introduce legislation dealing with one particular matter, that we should put into one of the clauses a power that would extend the particular term of the Bill further. To that extent I think that I would not be justified in asking for this particular right for the Minister for Local Government for a longer period than the life of the Bill. I admit that I have not examined the problem since from that angle, and the Deputy has had the advantage of legal opinion of the very highest standing. I will undertake, before the Final Stage, to consider it from that point. In regard to the houses, I certainly did intend from the very commencement to influence the construction of houses and the whole building industry by this Bill. In other words it might have been put up to us, as I think I stated here on one occasion, that certain accommodation could have been procured, say, from the operators, if that would be the proper description, when building these houses, and I said no, we would not take that, that we were concerned with the whole building industry, in all its phases and in all its aspects.

The most important phase of the building industry to our mind is the provision of houses for a class whose needs have not been ministered to in the last 30, 40 or 50 years. That is not the only trouble in connection with this matter. We do know, and it has been put to me by business people, that the high cost of building limited development which, in other circumstances, they would be inclined to indulge in so far as their business is concerned, and therefore we do consider that the housing problem is not a service in itself distinct but is a part of the building industry and should not be separated from it; while it should be ministered to, that it should not be ministered to in that respect; that so far as the building of a particular class of dwelling is concerned, that alone should get consideration from one side and not from the other. If that be our interpretation with regard to the operatives, surely we have a right to say, in connection with the provision of building materials, that there should be some corrective all round so that business itself, contributing its due share to this £300,000, would get any of the benefits that might possibly be derived from the inclusion of a clause such as this. To that extent I think I did make it clear all through that when we were considering this Housing Bill we had at the back of our minds the fact that a very considerable sum of money would be decreed before, during, and after the passing of this Bill for the reconstruction of certain houses destroyed during the last two or three years, and that as those houses had to be paid for out of State funds it was our obvious duty to see that the compensation would be on a basis which would get for the State as much value as it possibly could for its money. It was not intended at any time that this Clause 8 would operate longer than the lifetime of this Bill. I anticipate that there will be another Bill next year; I anticipate that there will be a Bill for the year after; I anticipate that there will be a clause such as this in next year's Bill and in the Bill the year after, until we arrive at that time when everybody in the building industry can place his hand to his heart and say "I am an honest man."

Amendment put and agreed to.

I did not deal with the question of the appeal. Might I leave that in the hands of the President?

Yes, I will undertake to see if I can possibly meet that on the next stage.

I would point out to the President that it will not be possible to make a further amendment on that stage. You will have to trust to the good fortunes and the good graces of another House.

Perhaps the Deputy would not object to extending the Report Stage until next week, and taking the final stages next week.

I am not going to facilitate any modification of this Section.

It is scarcely a modification. It is a fact which has been brought to my notice that there are infirmities which affect not only the point of view held by Deputy Johnson, but the point of view held by Deputy Good. It comes to this, that as it stands it suffers from an infirmity. The Order made by the Minister, I have been told by one legal opinion—I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Attorney-General—would stand. That Order made by an Appeal Court might stand, and what I would like to have inserted would be an attempt to limit any Order made by the Minister; in other words, if the price of a commodity is £100 to-day, and it comes down to £90 to-morrow, I do not think it was Deputy Johnson's intention that an Order made by the Minister to-day would entitle the ordinary dealer in that particular commodity to charge a higher price when the lower price was the market value. It is with regard to that particular angle that I would like to see that this clause was fool-proof, and I believe the Deputy will agree with me in that.

I take it, then, that the other method is to report progress and allow time for further amendments to be put in before we pass from this stage.

Would you leave over that Section and go on to Section 9, leaving Section 8, as it were, suspended?

Amendment 5 is already passed.

Very good; we will have to take No. 6, so.

Amendment No. 6:—To delete in Part 1 of the Schedule, page 6, the figures opposite the words "Maximum rent on letting for one year" and to substitute in lieu thereof the figures "£13 0s. 0d., £17 6s. 8d., £21 13s. 4d., £15 12s., £20 16s., £26."—(Seán O Laidhin.)—Not moved.
Amendment No. 7:—To delete in Part 1 of the Schedule, page 6, the figures opposite the words "Maximum rent on weekly letting" and to substitute therefor the figures 5s., 6s. 8d., 8s. 4d., 6s., 8s., 10s.—(Seán O Laidhin.) —Not moved.

I move:—In the Schedule, Part 1, to add a seventh column as follows:—

Self-contained two-roomed flats

£

s.

d.

26

13

4

180

0

0

2

0

0

14

8

0

0

5

6

Amendment put and agreed.

I move:—

"In the Schedule, Part 1, in the first and fourth lines of the first "Note" to delete the word "twelve" and to insert in lieu thereof the word "eighteen."

This is consequential on an amendment already made extending the period of completion from twelve months to eighteen months.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move:—

In the Schedule, Part 1, second "Note," first line, to delete the figure "5" and to substitute in lieu thereof the figure "6."

This is merely correcting a clerical error.

This correction may seem a simple matter on the face of it, but when we are making Section 6 applicable to the grants made under this Bill we will find it makes a very drastic change in the amount of the grants. The note it is proposed to alter is as follows: "Where assistance is granted by a local authority under Section 5," and under Section 6 as is now proposed, "the maximum price on sale or maximum fine on lease shall be reduced by an amount equal to half the value of such assistance, and the maximum yearly or weekly rents on letting shall be reduced correspondingly." There is a little ambiguity here like a great many other Sections in this Bill when it says the selling price is to be reduced by a sum equal to a moiety of the State assistance. When you reduce the sale price you reduce the price the building owner will get for the house; in other words you reduce the Government grant by a moiety. I might remind the President that it has been pointed out on many occasions during the discussion on this Bill that it was the basis on which this Bill was framed that certain works, including the provision of the site, the lay-out of the site, and the incidentals thereto, were to be carried out by the local authority, and the amount included in the houses in the Schedule is practically the minimum amount, taking all these and other factors into consideration, at which a house could be sold. If the operation of this clause is going to take a further £50 from the value of a five-roomed house, and reduce the Government grant by that amount, it will only put another mile-stone around the neck of this Bill, because it was always the intention that these local authorities were to carry out this work. Having carried out that work, if the building owner is to have the selling price cut by £50 it is obvious that we are taking away in fact a moiety from the grant which is one of the attractions of this Bill. I am quite satisfied, as one who knows all the difficulties of getting houses at the rating set forth in the Schedule, that it would be an exceedingly difficult matter for local authorities to get houses erected under the Bill, but if the grant is to be reduced—which is what it means in substance, the reduction of the grant by a moiety, and in fact it might be more than the moiety—under this particular clause, the Bill is dead.

I think the Deputy is under a misapprehension with regard to this. Where the local authority gives a grant which the Minister estimates at £100 the sale price of that house, which appears in column 5 of the Schedule, Part I., is set down at £450, and it will be £400. I think the Deputy had in mind that, where the local authority gives a grant, the Government grant is reduced in consequence. That is not the case. The case we are putting up is this— take a five-roomed house, the Government can give a grant of £100 and the local authority is entitled to give the equivalent of £100 either in site development, acquisition of land, or other things of that sort. Whatever way it is put there is the £100 and, in addition, the local authority may, by order of the Minister, which I should say will invariably be the case, be compelled to give the reduction in the rates which is laid down in another Section of the Bill, paying only 5 per cent. of the rates in the first year and so on.

The advantage in this case is given to the tenant—most of it is given to the tenant, not the whole of it. There was in mind this particular type of town or county borough and the cost of the acquisition of land and the development cost might be excessive. In other words, the actual cash value of the advantage might be more nearly £50 than £100. In consequence the reduction might not be honestly arrived at, and you would be entitled to take £50 off. It was also made for such cases where there was not a sufficient number of persons capable of putting down £450. In other words, there would be a market for a £400 house, but not one for a £450 house. If the Deputy had in mind the idea that wherever the local authority gave a grant or advantage the Government grant was reduced, I would like to correct him, as that would be a misrepresentation of the Bill.

The criticism I have heard of this note with which the Deputy has dealt is just from the other angle. It is that under it the builders will get a special advantage, and that the grant which the local authority might be allowed to make up to £100, is going to be shared as to half of it by the builders. The criticism I have heard is that that was too generous to the builder. The Deputy seemed to approach his consideration of the Bill on the assumption that in all cases the local authority would make grants equal to that of the Government grant. If he approaches it from the point of view that local authorities will not make such grant, then he would find that in so far as they do depart from that, that half the value of the grant will go to the builders. Probably he will see that it is not so detrimental to their interests as would appear at first sight on the other assumption. I was asked if I would object to this note on the ground that it is simply a special subsidy to the builders and an invitation to builder-employers to use their influence with local authorities to make the grant. That is, the builders would get the advantage from the local authorities. In accordance, however, with the policy which I have adopted in regard to this Bill I refrain from making that criticism. Deputy Good approaches it from the other side, and rather desires that the whole advantage should go to the builders.

I am not at all satisfied with regard to this particular proposal. The President does not apparently see the effect of it. If he takes £50 off the selling price by reason of something that is to be done by the local authorities he is really taking £50 off the grant. I do not mind whether it is taken by the Government or by the local authority, but it is taken by one of them. It reduces, as I said, the value of the grant which is one of the attractions of this measure. One of the difficulties, as I pointed out, which the local authority would be in is to limit its expenditure to a sum equal to the Government grant. It is unnecessary to take up the time of the Dáil at this stage, as I went into the figures in connection with this point when the Bill was in Committee, and pointed that out to the President. His reply was that the Minister would have power to average these things. That is another of these wait-and-see proposals. We will have to find out what they mean as time goes on, but I think the figures which I gave were reasonable, and the local authority will find itself in considerable difficulty, particularly one anxious to provide three-roomed houses. They will naturally say: "The cost of building is so high, let us get as many families housed as we can with the money at our disposal." Naturally they will go for a three-roomed house. The cost of purchasing the site and developing it would be practically the same as in the case of a five-roomed house, and there would be very little difference with regard to a scheme embodying three-roomed houses, and one embodying five-roomed houses. The local authority is thereby handicapped by this proposal from getting the largest number of houses it can, at the least amount of expenditure. My experience leads me to think that if this Section is rigidly carried out by the Minister for Local Government, local authorities will be compelled to go in for larger houses, much as many of them would like to go for smaller houses. From that point of view I think it is very inadvisable to put in such a clause as this. I do not mind whether the money is deducted under that particular note or not, but it means the reduction by one-half of the amount of the Government grant whether it is taken by the Government or the local authority. It is taken from the builder and it takes from the attractiveness of this measure.

We will take the case where the local authority supplies land, roads, sewers, and so on, and where the cost estimated by the local authority for that particular advantage is £75, and that in addition they put up a sum of £25. The total value in that case is equivalent to the grant that is given by the Government of £100. I think £500 would be a fair cost for building a five-roomed house.

They have not been built so far for that figure.

Recently we got a tender for £490. Supposing the actual cost is £490. There is £100 of value from the local authority. The advantage is to the person purchasing the house. We have in our possession a tender for the construction of those houses at £460 for a five-roomed house.

In bricks?

Would that be the all-in cost?

Yes. It does not provide for the site or development. In the ordinary way a house of this sort is subject to ground rent. If the local authority gives a free site, and has it developed, there is no necessity for ground rent. That £460 will be actual cost. I would not mind putting on a few pounds to make it £500. There is £50 open for somebody. The builders say that there is no money in this Bill. They apparently look to a free market rather than to the real needs of the situation. If the case is that they are not employed, everybody knows if you want to make a business a success you must attract the public, and the only attraction we can see is that there ought to be something to show that it is going to be a commercial proposition. £450 is the sum we have down for the sale of this house. If the local authority gives value, it can be sold for £400. What is a man getting who pays £400 for that house? He gets £100 Government grant, £100 from the local authority, and for £400 he gets £600 value. Obviously there is something in the nature of a commercial proposition there. I imagine that we shall see every young man anxious to get married in order to get a house worth £600 for £400—if the builders respond, that is the real issue. Where assistance is granted under Section 5, the maximum price on sale, if £100 is given, is £400. We will take it, on the other hand, that the local authority will give the same grant as the Government, namely, £100. Can there be built anywhere in the City of Dublin a five-roomed house for £600? I believe there can, and that the misgivings in regard to the Bill will be removed when the Bill is in operation.

I would like to see the President work out those figures on a three-roomed house. Under this a three-roomed house must be sold for £240. Can he give us any figure to justify £240 for a three-roomed house? £270 is the maximum selling price. Under this foot-note, assuming that the local authority can get its portion of the work carried out for £60, the amount of the Government grant under the foot-note, there is £30 taken off the selling price. That would require a three-roomed house—even were sewers and water mains provided—to be sold for the sum of £240.

The house would be then £360, with a double grant of £60 from the local authority and £60 from the Government?

£300, because we would have to take off the £30.

That has been taken off.

That would be £100 a room. I think Deputy Good will admit that it is possible to construct a three-roomed house at £100 a room.

We have not been able to get there. We hoped, with Deputy Johnson's assistance, to have been able to.

I hoped that, with Deputy Good's assistance, we would be able to get them much cheaper.

Deputy Good's assistance is available at any moment Deputy Johnson desires to call it in.

Deputy Good declined the offer made long ago.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I would like that point looked into. I am afraid that is going to detract from the usefulness of this measure.

I beg to move to report progress until next Wednesday.

Agreed.

The Bill has now left Committee. If the Bill were recommitted to Committee we would have more latitude.

It will be recommitted next Wednesday.

Sitting suspended until 7 o'clock.
The Dáil resumed at 7 o'clock.
Top
Share