On this section, I want to know whether nominated Committees such as the Committees of Management of Mental Hospitals will be entitled to the same facilities, by way of grants, under this Bill, for the erection of houses, as local authorities are?
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - HOUSING (BUILDING FACILITIES) (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1924—THIRD STAGE.
Sections 1 and 2 put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(1) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make grants out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas to local authorities erecting or reconstructing houses under the provisions of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921.
(2) The amount of any grant made to a local authority in respect of any houses shall not exceed the total of the appropriate sums specified in Part I. of the Schedule to the Principal Act as the maximum grant by the Minister in respect of each of those houses.
(3) Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Principal Act is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that the aggregate amount of the grants made or to be made (whether before or after the passing of this Act) under the said section, together with the aggregate amount of the grants to be made under this section, shall not exceed the sum of £250,000 in respect of the erection of houses or the sum of £50,000 in respect of the reconstruction of houses.
Is the Minister aware that these Committees are bound to provide accommodation for their employees, and that it would be a great saving in lodging allowance if they were enabled to build houses for their employees under this Bill? It would be much more effective than giving the grants to Urban Councils or County Councils.
There is only £50,000 allocated altogether for the purposes of this Bill. To include bodies of the kind the Deputy mentioned, we would require a sum nearer to £1,000,000.
Will a County Council be able to get facilities under this Bill and be empowered to transfer those facilities to the Committees of Management of Mental Hospitals?
Might I ask whether this section will give local authorities power to step in and build on derelict sites—say, sites in the city of Dublin, which have been lying derelict for ten years, and in respect of which the landlords are doing nothing in the way of clearing or selling or rebuilding? Will the Minister say whether, under this section, a Council will have power to build on these sites, and, if not, whether he would give them that power?
The Council has certain powers. The extent of those powers I am not in a position to state at the moment.
Mr. BYRNE
May I remind the Minister that Councils have power to acquire only virgin soil. The city, at the present moment, is dotted all over with derelict sites. Would the Minister consider the advisability of giving local Councils authority to step in, clear those sites and build houses on them?
That is not one of the purposes of this Amending Bill.
Will the Minister say whether Rural District Councils will have the same power as Urban District Councils?
There will be no Rural District Councils.
Will the Minister say, if a Rural District Council applies for an allowance under this Bill for the purpose of building workers' houses, that they will be entitled to receive that allowance?
The provisions of the Bill do not apply to Rural District Councils.
I want to try and make them apply to District Councils.
Would the Minister say whether the Bill applies to County Councils?
No; they are not a housing authority.
Section 3 put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(1) All expenses incurred before or after the passing of this Act by the council of a county in the execution of the Principal Act or this Act shall be defrayed out of the poor rate and shall be charged upon the whole area of such county exclusive of the area of any county borough, urban district, or town having town commissioners situate in such county.
(2) All expenses incurred before or after the passing of this Act by the Council of a county borough or urban district or by the commissioners of a town in the execution of the Principal Act or this Act shall be raised and defrayed as if they had been incurred by such council or commissioners in the execution of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921.
There is a verbal amendment necessary in the second last line of sub-section (1) of Section 4. The word "county" should be deleted before the word "borough" and the line should read: "the area of any borough, urban district or town having," etc.
I accept that amendment. The word "county" before "borough" is redundant.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Motion made—"That the section, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
I would like to know if a public body gets a grant to build houses in one end of the County, will the other end of the County have to pay portion of the expenses incurred by that building grant?
It is quite obvious that it is meant to be a County-at-large charge and that includes the whole County.
But why make the people of the North pay for the facilities to the South?
Because we make the people of the North pay for the facilities to the North.
Would you not confine it to the place where the houses are built?
Section, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
In addition to the houses mentioned in Section 3 of the Principal Act, that Act shall apply and be deemed always to have applied in special cases approved of by the Minister to a house which fulfils the following condition
(a) the total area of all floors of the house measured inside the external walls does not exceed 1,400 square feet;
(b) the erection or reconstruction of the house was begun within six months before the passing of the Principal Act;
(c) the house complies with the provisions of section 3 of the Principal Act other than the provisions relating to the maximum total area of all floors of the house and the provisions relating to the date on which the erection or reconstruction of the house is to be begun.
Can we have information on this section as to what the policy of the Ministry is in regard to paragraph (a) of sub-section (1)? I see that the size of the floor space has been extended under paragraph (a), and that, to some extent, may alter what was the original intention of the Bill. Before we discuss that aspect of the situation, I would like to have some information as to what the policy of the Local Government Department in this matter is, particularly with regard to the size of the house, and also if the Minister can give us some information as to the relative sizes of the 1,300 houses already started under this Bill or the other Bill.
I am afraid, at the moment, I am not in a position to give the Deputy the information he seeks. On the occasion of the Second Reading I think I explained the reason for this sub-section (a). The policy of the Bill, of course, was to provide houses for the working-classes. It was not intended to provide houses for people who could afford to build big houses, but at the same time we did not want to build houses that would be really so very small as to be unsuitable for proper human habitation. Accordingly, we laid down restrictions that the houses should not exceed the number of five rooms, and should not be less than three rooms. This sub-section does not interfere with the general provisions of the Act; it only applies to those cases where houses were built by individuals within six months before the Act was passed. Several people knew that we were going to facilitate building in the country, and they started to build houses, and the Act, not having been passed at the time, they did not know what restrictions we were going to impose with regard to floor area. The result was that a great number of those people built houses that were a little over the margin, some of them of 1,100 feet, and some up to 1,400 feet. We thought it was only equitable to include those people who had started building their houses on the assumption that they were coming in under the Bill, so long as the only point on which they went outside the Bill was in the matter of floor space, but it does not apply to houses since the passing of the Bill.
Will the Minister say whether it is the intention of his Ministry to confine the various councils to the plans and specifications already issued in connection with the original Bill or will they be permitted to vary the plans and specifications in order to try and secure cheaper houses for the people concerned?
I do not know that we laid down any hard and fast rule as to the construction. In order to facilitate building, we drew up certain plans which we consider suitable for the various houses, but so long as they come within the main provisions of the Bill, builders will not be confined to hard and fast regulations.
On this section of the Bill I would like some more information. It appears that the Ministry desires to make gifts of money to private builders whether they started to build under the terms of the principal Act or not. That is to say, persons who entered upon the work of building houses on their own account, without regard to any Government subsidy, are invited to come along and say they began to build their houses within six months of the passing of the principal Act—that irrespective of the purpose and motives of such building they are entitled to draw a certain amount of this £300,000. And the Government proposes to hand it over to them. I would like a little explanation of that. Why confine it to six months? To say that those people commenced to build in expectation of the subsidy not knowing what the nature of the subsidy would be, or how much it would be, or what the Dáil thought about it, but banking on the promises they got from Ministers—that does not seem to be satisfactory procedure at all. These houses were begun as part of a private venture by the persons concerned, and they would have been built whether this Bill was passed or not, whether a subsidy was to be granted or not. If there was no complaint regarding the difficulty of raising money there might be something to be said for this Section. But while we are told, as we are so often, that there is difficulty in raising money for the purpose of these subsidies we are asked to go out of our way and to say to men building houses without any prospect of a subsidy: "We are prepared to bring you in with the rest and make you this free grant or bonus." That does not seem to me very satisfactory or very easily explained. Then I would like to know what is meant by the term "begun within six months before the passing of the principal Act." When does a house "begin" to be built? Is it when the plans are drawn up? Is it when sanction is given? Is it when the first sod is cut? When is a house begun? I would like to have some satisfactory explanation of these two points before we pass this Section.
That provision of the original Act—to include those people who built houses six months before the passing of the Act—was put in by the President at the earnest representations of various Deputies that great hardship would be inflicted if that six months clause was not allowed. It was not in the Bill originally, and I think Deputies on the Labour benches were amongst those anxious to have it included.
Name?
And it is more or less as a corollary to that proviso that this is being inserted. I am not myself at all enthusiastic about it and I will leave it to the free vote of the House to decide whether this section be included or not. I am not at all keen on it.
I admit it is hardly fair to ask the Minister to give information about the 1,300 houses already built under the Act, but if he could have that information for us on the Report Stage it would be very useful.
The main point I have in mind is this: that it should not be forgotten that the grant was originally made for the purpose of encouraging the building of houses some eight or nine months ago. We were anxious then to get as many houses built as was possible under that grant in order that it might go as far as possible in alleviating the grievance. If that money—the Minister will see the point I am at— is to be absorbed in providing larger houses rather than smaller houses, it will not alleviate, at least it will not help in the direction in which we are anxious it will help, and I think in this connection we should keep in mind what the President mentioned here last week when the Bill was under discussion. He pointed out what is happening in connection with a number of new houses and, most unfortunately, that there is an amount of sub-letting. It is not, I am afraid, altogether unconnected with this question of compelling tenants to occupy houses larger than they can afford to pay for. Naturally, if a tenant wants to get a three-roomed house and that is not possible, and a five-roomed house offers, he will jump at the five-roomed house in order to get accommodation for himself and his family. He finds after he is a few weeks in occupation of that house that the drain on his financial resources is greater than he can bear, with the result that he is forced to sub-let to pay the rent.
That sub-letting, I am afraid, is a growing evil that will have to be met. I have come across cases in which two of the rooms were sub-let in a four-roomed house—two of the rooms sub-let and the family living in two rooms —but there are even worse cases than that and my attention was drawn within the last few days to the case of a man who is actually living out of a house. He found this sub-letting so remunerative that he has given up his ordinary occupation. That is a form of abuse that is not desirable and that should be counteracted. Therefore I say the important point to consider at this stage is: what is the policy of the Ministry with regard to housing? I have advocated, as the Minister is aware, that the proper line to adopt is the building of the smallest house, that is the three-roomed house and get as many as you possibly can with the amount of money you have at your disposal, but I am not altogether of opinion that it is the view of the Minister's department. I do not know what his own view is but I think I am justified in saying that it is not the view of his department from some experience I have had. Therefore I would ask the Minister to give this information on the Report Stage, as to the number of three-roomed houses, four-roomed houses and five-roomed houses that are at present in progress under the scheme so that we can discuss the question of policy on the Report Stage.
I think that Deputy Johnson's remarks in connection with this matter are most pertinent because it would appear to the ordinary observer that what is happening now is this: that a number of men who were building houses irrespective of this assistance that we are giving under this scheme have brought pressure to bear so that they might participate in the benefits of this Act. I do think that when we were discussing the principles of the Act would have been the time to have decided whether any houses that had been started were going to be subsidised or not. At this eleventh hour it seems to me that certainly what the Deputy has said on the matter seems very weighty indeed— that unless there is some very good reason why the provisions of the Act should be extended at this stage, it should not be done. Certainly the Minister has made out no case for doing it at all.
I have already informed Deputies that I would leave it to a free vote of the Dáil. I am not interested one way or the other, and the proposal has been inserted on the representations of various Deputies. That is my sole interest in it.
I am not aware what the position is in the cities and urban districts, but in reference to the application of this Act to the country, we want to say that we are not receiving the benefits that the cities or towns are getting, because in the country we can build but we cannot reconstruct. We should like to hear from the Minister whether he has come to any decision. He told us the other day he was considering the application to the rural districts of the same rights to reconstruct as the people in the towns and cities are enjoying. The point Deputy Hewat has made reference to is one that affects rural districts perhaps to a much greater extent than the towns or cities. We have perhaps more liberty than the towns or cities when we are going to build houses, and we were anticipating a measure like this for a considerable time. In anticipation of that, a considerable number of our people set about building houses. They did not know when they started the houses what the area was to be or if there was to be any marking out or confining them to a certain floor space. They went on and made considerable progress with the houses. They came along then and discovered when they made application that they had really a greater floor-space than the Act permitted them to have. Their neighbours, who were perhaps a little more fortunate and had made their floor space a little smaller, were entitled to the grant. It is to remedy that state of affairs the Minister has introduced this section, and very rightly so. Down the country there are very many cases which will be entitled to come under this Bill when it passes and becomes law. If it is proved that they were started within the six months' period I cannot see why Deputy Hewat, or any other Deputy for that matter, should wish to object to a man building a bigger house than he would be permitted under the terms of the Act, if he is fortunate enough to have the ground space and to be courageous enough to spend a little more than his neighbour would spend. That is really the position we are faced with, and Deputy Hewat like every other Deputy has to make up his mind on which side the greater amount of justice is. We want to say that we in the rural districts will be very considerably affected if this amending Bill is not permitted to pass.
The matter appears to me in a different light, perhaps, from others. It is a question of whether the money can be afforded. We cannot pass this provision which practically says that a man who began to think about building a house twelve months ago—more than twelve months ago, because the house which was begun in October last, that is to say, when the specifications were approved —could be brought into the provisions of the principal Act and receive the subsidy if he complied with these provisions. People who began to think about building under these circumstances were thinking about building irrespective of any subsidy at all; they were going to build on their own account. If the Ministry has money to give away, all right; I am not going to object. But if there will be any complaint about the amount of money available for subsidising house-building you cannot receive that complaint and answer it after passing this section. We are now proposing to make a grant to people who had no expectation of such a grant when they started to build houses, or started to consider about building houses and put in their specifications. If the Ministry can afford it well and good; if they cannot afford it, it seems to me that we are simply going to meet the case of people who, as an afterthought, put in an application for public funds to assist them, and I do not feel justified in supporting it. I made this same complaint when the matter was brought forward in the original Act.
I would like to say that I agree with Deputy Baxter regarding this section. I know a number of cases where men actually started building houses three months before the passing of this Act. We all know quite well that for considerably more than three months before this Act was introduced we were promised a Building Act on these lines, and many of these men were actually compelled to start to build houses in order to get some kind of shelter. They took their courage in both hands and they said: "Well, this Building Act is promised us. When it comes along we will be recouped to a small extent for the money we are going to spend." They did so, and in some cases they exceeded the 1,000 feet set out in the Act, not knowing, as they could not, what the area was going to be.
I have in mind the case of a particular friend of mine, who is also a constituent, which is, I suppose, even more important, and he was under notice of eviction. He lived in a small three-roomed cottage on the side of a road, sandwiched in between a group, and the owner served him with notice of eviction. He said he wanted to turn the house into a stable for some horses and cars. This man came to me long before he started building the new house and asked was it possible to prevent the notice of eviction being put into operation. I told him immediately that I thought he had a very good case, as he could prove that it was more important for him to live in the house than for the landlord to have it for his horses. He got a bit cowardly and said: "I will not chance bringing it into court. I will build a house." He had a site and he made the best use of it that he could, the result being that the house was something over 1,000 in floor space. I do not agree with Deputy Johnson that there are a great many such cases. I think they are comparatively few, but I think that the comparatively few people who built houses shortly before the Act was passed are as much entitled as anybody else to get something from the Government in the way of help.
This is something very like a storm in a teacup, because there are only something like 30 or 40 houses involved in the whole thing.
How does the Minister know?
That is one of the things I was going to ask, as to what is the number of houses involved in this matter, because it seems to me a most extraordinary thing for this House if, having passed an Act, it is going to be called upon to amend it. Why? Is it because the Minister sees the necessity for amending it? The Minister comes to the House and says nothing in justification of amending the Act at all. He does not even stand by it. I do not know whether he would even vote for it, as far as this clause is concerned. The Minister says that certain Deputies have brought pressure to bear upon him to bring in this Bill which will include, amongst others, Deputy Nagle's constituents. Is that right? As a matter of fact, the discussion has illuminated the position for me very considerably, because on the face of the Act I really would not have read into it what appears on the surface now. What it amounts to is that we are bringing in a Bill to allow people to participate in the benefits of an Act when no case was brought forward. All the arguments that have been used here to-day in connection with the advocacy of this might have been brought forward at the time of the passing of the principal Act. All those houses that were started before the passing of the Act were known, and any case could have been brought up where a man was damnified because he had already started building his house. But it was only after the Act was passed that we heard anything about these houses participating.
I thought that the spirit of the Act was entirely to give employment and to give people homes in which to live. Now we are cavilling at the very small point as to whether a man who commenced to build his house four or six months ago is to get the benefit. I think it makes very little difference, because that man foresaw what was going to happen, and he took advantage of it and wanted to be in time. I know cases in my own constituency where building was started before the rules were laid down, and there was a certain amount of difficulty. The Department found that there was no difficulty in the matter at all; they came to the rescue of these people and made what I consider a very workable arrangement by allowing ten per cent. for any mistake there might have been in putting forward their original plans. It does not matter if a house is built to-day or tomorrow if the purpose for which that house is built is carried out, that is to give the accommodation that is necessary, both in urban and rural districts, and secondly to give employment. I think that is what the Dáil should consider, and there should be no little points as to whether a man started to build his house a month or six months before the Act was passed.
Would the Deputy put any restrictions on size, because this clause deals with that?
This clause, I think, deals with houses of 1,400 square feet. That is the maximum, and the minimum is not set out. If he does not exceed the limit a person will be entitled to build and I think that he should be. If a man says that the house is sufficient at 1,000 or 1,200 feet, so long as the plans are sanctioned by the Department I think it is quite sufficient.
On that point I would prefer that this clause were more clearly understood than it appears to be. The original Act limits the subsidy to five-roomed houses. I think a five-roomed is the largest house. The original Act provided, like the Act in Great Britain, that that five-roomed house should not exceed 1,000 feet.
There are some circumstances in which it might exceed, but in ordinary circumstances that house was not to exceed 1,000 feet. We are adding practically 50 per cent. to the size of that house. That means that we are subsidising a house for a class of person quite different to the person for whom houses were intended under the Act. I do not want to drag the Deputy or the Dáil into technical details, but it is possible to build a five-roomed house under this amended Bill in which each of the rooms will be 16 by 17 feet and still come within the Bill. Any Deputy who is at all accustomed to the measurement of rooms will understand that 16 by 17 feet is quite a large room in modern construction. We are to have five such rooms in a house subsidised by the State. That means a great big house, and to my mind the Act was never intended to apply to such a house or to the class of people who would occupy it. The Act was intended to help those who are without houses and to help any of the unfortunate people who are at present housed in tenements to get houses for their families. As I understood it, that was the intention of the Act. This section would prevent that. Speaking from memory, such houses under the Act are to get a subsidy of something like £100. If we could get the Bill to work in the other direction, rather in the construction of small houses which the President was in favour of when the original Act was introduced, we could practically get two houses for the same subsidy. By admitting this extension of size we defeat the object we had in view. Deputy Hughes takes an intelligent view of this matter, and I think he will agree with me that in extending the superficial measurements under this section we are defeating not only the original object of the Act, but the object we had in view in giving the subsidy. I urge the Dáil from that point of view not to adopt the section.
The section is rather an involved one, and I was not altogether clear about it myself when I read it for the first time. It applies to houses which will fulfil three conditions:—
The total area of all floors of the house measured inside the external walls does not exceed 1,400 square feet; (b) the erection or reconstruction of the house was begun within six months before the passing of the principal Act; (c) the house complies with Section 3 of the principal Act...
I take it the Minister is to some extent considering the need of houses in this clause. It is a generous clause, and deals with a particular class. It might be necessary for certain Deputies in order to appreciate the necessity for a clause of this kind, to be in the position of Ministers administering Departments where, notwithstanding what regulations may be laid down, or what conditions may be attached to any particular document, or what attempts are made to make it perfectly clear to persons what entitles them to certain benefits, in a large number of cases no attention whatever is paid to these details. In a very large number of instances the persons whom it was intended to benefit put themselves out of court by reason of inattention to these three conditions. Some thirty or forty cases occurred where persons built houses far in excess of the measurements laid down in the Act. If we give way on this it will cost something like £3,000. The question the Dáil has to consider is whether or not there is sufficient justification for such a large sum of money. More than once we have stressed the fact that houses were useful, and that any attempt whatever, large or small, would to some extent help to relieve the terrible congestion that there is, which is not confined at all to the urban districts, but exists also in certain rural districts. I had a letter the other day from a person urging a claim for some allowance for a house which was 1,700 square feet. That would be a pretty large house, but it was mentioned that the parties had started in good faith, understanding that it would come within the provisions of the Act. They were not in a position to finish that house. I have known cases of the same sort where persons started in good faith expecting the cost would not be as heavy as it ultimately turned out, and as a result other people occupied the houses. It might happen that in the thirty or forty cases mentioned much the same thing occurred. I have known cases where the houses cost 50 or 60 per cent. more than the persons who were building them thought they would cost. Whether there is a real case for including these thirty or forty people who built anticipating that any house would get the subsidy is the question the Minister has got to consider. I was in doubt for a long time as to whether I could support this clause. Deputy Good at once points out the weakness of having five rooms, 16 by 17. On the face of it there is no case there for a subsidy, but when one recollects that the persons who built such houses cannot sell them at the price which they cost there is justification for considering if they are not cases in which we would be justified in paying the subsidy. Personally I believe it would be justice. I think more care will be taken in future. With regard to persons building, the parties will confine themselves to the smaller houses. On the whole I should say that there is a case for considering these thirty or forty persons.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- John J. Cole.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- John Daly.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mac Aonghusa.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhair O Conghaile.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill. Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Aindriú O Laimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
Níl
- John Good.
- William Hewat.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
Section declared carried.
Question—"That Section 6 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Title stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Would I be entitled to raise a question now in connection with the Bill?
On the Report Stage the Deputy will have a better opportunity.