DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - HOUSING BILL, 1925.—THIRD STAGE (RESUMED—SECTION 8, AMENDMENT 11).
Amendment 11.—In Sub-section (1), line 11, to delete the words "and when required by the Minister shall."—(Mr. Connor Hogan.)
I moved to report progress upon this amendment, when it was under discussion this day week, and as a week has elapsed since that discussion took place, it would be well to review, and perhaps somewhat to reiterate, the arguments that have been put up in connection with this matter. I was dealing with it, and the President, on that occasion, said that no case had been put forward for the acceptance of the amendment, or that the case put forward was so poor that it was still sufficient to warrant a ring in his voice—something approaching the tone of the celebrated "mahogany" speech, or the "antique-furniture" speech. He said that no more than ten houses would be affected in the Deputy's constituency by this thing. I had to join issue upon that statement. I had to show that we were not alone dealing with this, but that other measures had preceded it— the Housing Act of 1924, and a section put into the Local Government Bill, and which was carried and has become law, and giving a remission of rates on all buildings erected since 1920 and up to 1927, inclusive. Furthermore, any buildings that had been restored or repaired or renovated would have a further advantage of a reduction in the assessed rates equal to two-thirds. I was endeavouring to demonstrate that this was inimical to the welfare of the agrarian community. I was endeavouring to point out that the land, already unjustly rated—a contention that no man can deny—must still, owing to all these cumulative effects of these ameliorative measures, as the President calls them in the House, bear a greater and a more undue burden than what it has heretofore borne.
The President was rather sarcastic and was endeavouring to twit me with not having his experience of public life. Quite true, I have not had his experience, but I have had an undesirable experience; I have had the experience of paying rates for some years back which exceeded my land purchase annuity by about 50 per cent. That is a thing I never want to have revived, but if we continue in this policy—and, remember, this Housing Bill is not the last that will come before the Oireachtas, we are promised Bills for the next 10 or 20 years to come—the effect will be that the urban interest—the bourgeoise interest—will have secured an undue influence over the agricultural community. That is a proposition which we can scarcely stand over. We cannot be silent assentors to that. We farmers have been put up on a definite issue, to secure as far as possible justice for our people. We have been, so far, beaten all along the line, but I do not believe, at this time of day, in making a surrender. We have got to fight every one of those questions on its merits, and, beaten at one point, we must make a strategic retreat to another.
The President was inclined to twit me with inexperience. I could retort, and ask him was it his experience, acquired in the Dublin Corporation, he was boasting of. Remember, the Dublin Corporation is of blessed memory, and the President who is, perhaps, the epitome of this tradition which the Minister for Local Government, inferentially, by his act of suppression, characterised as infamous, if I may use such a word with propriety, still asserts and puts himself on this pedestal. But we see what the thing really is. I am afraid that in the statement of the President we have something like this psychic gravitation to egoism, and perhaps another thing, a rather restricted vision—a vision so restricted, perhaps, that he loses sight of the verities. His attitude may very well be held to mark perhaps a recission of the ethical principles from his consciousness, while he is at liberty, I admit, to stand up in his defence and come to the House more or less as an ancient mariner. But as friend to friend, despite all this, I would suggest to him for prudential considerations, that he must know that the imputation of senility in politics is damning. It is a question for himself and his own good judgement whether we are to continue in this harangue, in this strain or not. I submit then that taking this thing into being it is a desirable thing to restrict the powers of the Minister to remit rates; that he should not supersede and override the wishes of the local authorities who are elected by and are primarily responsible to the people. If the local authorities are willing to remit the rates, that is their concern. They are directly answerable to their electorate, but it is not a fair thing or scarcely a correct thing, that the Minister should override their wishes and grant remission, perhaps, on the demand of a clamorous minority. I move the amendment standing in my name.
I observe that no case was made against this particular suggestion in the Bill by the Deputy who has just spoken. If a case had been made I would be prepared to consider it. The Deputy said that in my speech the other day I said there would be ten houses built in his constituency. I did not say that. I have the report here, and I said, "taking the Deputy's constituency, if we build ten houses in Clare, what expense on the local authority is that?" The Deputy might have concerned himself with that. It is a pretty just proposition; it is sensible, and does not mean great speeches of big words or anything of that sort. It is solid business. Why does not the Deputy concern himself with it and show that in connection with the 69 houses in the course of construction in his area, and which has benefited considerably from this grant, that the constituency has improved, and that the valuation will be increased by something like £690 by reason of this particular addition that was made last year under this Act. As a result of that sum so given, something like £20,000 was spent in the Deputy's constituency. A good deal of employment was given in that particular area, and the Deputy has not shown by reason of the building of those 69 houses how a single penny expense was put on the local authority. If he would concern himself more with that and leave the dictionary alone, we would get on more quickly with the business.
The President seems to miss the point. I am concerned with the cumulative effect of all the Acts adopted on this housing question, the Act of 1924, the Amendment of the Local Government Act, and this. True enough, the houses erected under the Act may, on a narrow basis, be held to have occasioned no loss to the local authority. You must take a wider outlook, and look at things perhaps in a larger perspective. We must be concerned with the incidence of taxation. How many of those 69 houses are being erected in urban areas and how many in rural areas? If a house is erected in a rural area, it is a fair assumption that it is put up by a farmer, but as to the house erected or reconstructed in an urban area, who would benefit by this section if it is passed? It is well to bear in mind that it is the monied people and the monied interests who will receive the direct benefit. The demand of the well-to-do is for a modern house, and the old houses are relegated to the slums. Therefore, the people who can afford to build a house in your urban areas will benefit, and it is from those areas that the whole demand will come for the remission of rates. On the general principle, I submit that we ought not to agree with the wording "which when required by the Minister shall," for it is really the demand of the well-to-do that will come up before the Minister. They will seek to get a dole at the expense of a public, poorer than themselves.
I do not think the President ought to pass over the real aspect of this case so lightly. The last Act offered inducement to people to build houses. A great number of people took advantage of that fact and built houses down the country. These houses are being built by people with money, and they would have done that without this inducement of exemption from rates which is offered to them. They would do it as a speculation. The average man will have to bear the burden of taxation without any remission, and he is generally living in a poor hovel. His position everywhere is worse than that of the people who built houses. There have been more speculations in this country than in housing. People have speculated in land, paid extraordinary prices for it, and found themselves in the Bankruptcy Court as a result of it. What exemption is offered to those people who are in a bad position because of that? People who entered into speculation other than in lands also are in a bad position. The people of the country are crying out. "We cannot pay our way," but the people who could pay their way better than any and who entered into those speculations outside of what is offered to them now, and with their eyes open, are offered this additional benefit. It is all right to say the people who are paying will be no worse off, but it must make some people very much better off. It is an unfair discrimination, and, to my mind, it is not sound. It will establish a principle on which I think any responsible Government should be very slow to embark. I do not think it is even honest from the point of view of the people of the country. To my mind, it has much more far-reaching reactions than the President seems to think, and I would ask him to think very carefully about this amendment before he rejects it.
The wording of the section shows that in the first place the local authority has to exercise its discretion. If the local authority unfairly discriminates against persons the matter can come before the Minister, and if there be wealthy persons concerned it would be for the consideration of the Minister whether or not he should prescribe that this particular benefit shall be derived by the person who is building the house. The Deputy instanced the case of persons who bought lands. I have very great sympathy for those people who bought land at prohibitive prices, and who now find themselves in difficulties. As far as the State or the people or the district are concerned, how are they benefited by the big prices that were paid for land? Only the individual who sold the land benefited. Who is benefited by expenditure in housing? Various people, such as the mason, the carpenter, the slater, the plumber, the plasterer, and so on. Some advantage is derived in the locality by reason of such expenditure, and the expenditure is incurred at a time when, as we know, the market value of the house when built is not what it cost. Consequently, some consideration must be given a person who does a little more than speculate, as in a case of this kind. Speculations are of various kinds. One can speculate on the Stock Exchange, one can speculate on the Turf, or purchase a business, but when one gives employment in a district to various people in the course of a speculation, that is a speculation of a sounder character than the ordinary one that one thinks of on the first or the last pages of a newspaper.
The President did not state the case exactly as it is in the Bill. He said that if the local authority unfairly discriminates against a man who built a house, he can apply to the Minister and the Minister will inquire into it. Is it not the fact, whether the local authority fairly or unfairly discriminates that the Minister will be applied to?
As a matter of fact, no case came on in which there was an application to the Minister. In all cases I believe the local authority agreed.
That proves that there is no case for these words, and you should agree to the amendment and delete them.
What has happened proves that it is unnecessary to have them in the Bill.
They were in the last Bill.
I agree, but no case came on.
Therefore, if they were not necessary I ask you to agree to the amendment. The principle is wrong. Local authorities are the people in charge of the rates, and they are the best judges. If they decide that the rates ought not to be remitted there should not be interference from headquarters. I think there is a very fair case for the amendment.
May I point out that a good deal of the discussion has centred around the question where there should be a remission of rates. Most of the arguments have been directed to that question. It is not the question raised by the amendment. The question raised by the amendment is whether the Minister shall have power to override the decision of the local authority. As I see it, whether the Minister has that power under this section or not, he will have it by another section. It is clear, if that is the Minister's mind, that he will not make grants to the local authority unless in the case of houses in districts where the local authority has already decided to remit rates, so that the question raised by Deputy Hogan's amendment does not arise. It is clear that no difference will accrue in the Minister's power whether the words are deleted or whether they remain in. Powers are given under Section 3 where the Minister may make grants to persons, local authorities, and so on. Of course he may make conditions, and one of the conditions may be, as has been publicly announced, that the local authorities shall make a remission of rates for a period of years. It may be well to know publicly whether it is the present intention of the Minister to continue to restrict grants to those local areas where the local authority has decided to make remission of rates for this period. As I see it, unless some understanding is arrived at regarding Ministerial policy, which, of course, can only be the present policy, acceptance or deletion of the four or five words make no difference whatever.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 15; Nil, 41.
Tá
- Pádraig Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John Conlan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
Níl
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Sir James Craig.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- David Hall.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
Tellers—Tá: Connor Hogan, Risteárd Mac Liam. Níl: Séamus O Dóláin, Patrick J. Egan.
Amendment declared lost.
I propose:—
In sub-section (1), line 12, to delete the word "nineteen" and substitute the word "eight."
Deputies will notice that the proposal contained in the section is to give over a period of nineteen years remission of rates specified in the schedule. In the first year it would be a remission of 19/20ths or 95 per cent. The whole effect of the proposal is that for ten years those houses erected, or reconstructed, under this Bill would escape liability for rates. I submit that that is an undue period—even if we accept the principle that such houses have a right to have the rates remitted—and that to give it for nineteen years is excessive. I move that eight years should be substituted, because in my opinion a remission for that period is desirable. It is true that further on the schedule will require amendment but that can be done. A remission of four years at 50 per cent. would be a very good thing, and so also would be a remission of 25 per cent. for the subsequent four years. I do not quite agree with the principle that nineteen years should be accepted. It is scarcely fair to the other taxpayers, and, remember, in this connection the proposal means to give it to houses which are reconstructed. When those houses are reconstructed they will be revalued, and it is just a problem whether the valuation will be increased or will remain stationary, but it is possible that an increase will take place. Let us think what this proposal in regard to ten years will mean. Supposing a house in an urban area gets a remission for ten years. It might have an original valuation of £12 and the subsequent valuation might be £15 or £16. The State is giving £40, which, I take it, will be a maximum and it will be more or less pro rata to the amount of repairs executed. The effect will be that in the first year, if the valuation is £16 and if the rates were 10/- in the pound, rates would amount to £8. Under the old scheme the rates would be £6. I submit that, having regard to the poverty of many people, this proposal of nineteen years is one which should not go through and I ask the Dáil to accept my amendment.
This is practically saying the same thing as was said before. Under the Local Government Act just passed, new houses come in for special consideration, and that special consideration starts, I think, in 1926 and runs to 1933. To put in the word "eight" and not to take into account any amendment of that Act would mean, obviously, that those persons who would build would take advantage of the clause passed last week. It is not customary in legislative institutions to pass an Act one week and to restrict it the next, but that is exactly what we will be doing if we pass this amendment. Compare—and this is the real question at issue—the advantages provided under this Bill, and the clause which was inserted in the Local Government Act a fortnight or three weeks ago, and, we find, in the case of a valuation of £16, with rates 10/- in the pound, allowing for the 5 per cent. valuation, that the Local Government Act advantage is £30 16s. 9d. for a period of twenty years, whereas in the case of the Housing Act of last year the advantage is £38. There is not much between them. This advantage, which was given last year, was, I believe, responsible to some extent for the very great success of last year's Act. There is a shortage of houses, and every effort must be made to try to have houses erected. We had evidence of that only yesterday at a meeting in Dublin of persons keenly interested in housing. I very much welcome such meetings, and I hope that good results will come from them. As to the point about which the Deputy said he did not wish to refer in extenso, that is, in connection with reconstruction, I may say that that is the only weak point, and we propose to amend it. I think on the next stage I will be able to introduce an amendment which will provide that the old valuation in the case of reconstructed houses would stand for seven years. That would be an advantage.
On the assurance of the President I am willing to withdraw the amendment, and to leave the figure "nineteen" stand.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
My next amendment is:—
"In sub-section 1 to delete all after the word ‘society' in line 15 down to and including the word ‘society' in line 18."
I think that this amendment would be covered by what has already been stated. I will read the proposed new section. "For the purpose of assessing and levying any rate raised by a local authority for the service of any financial year ending within seven years from the completion of reconstruction of a building in respect of which grants shall have been made by the Minister, the valuation of such building under the Valuation Acts shall if the local authority so decide be deemed to be the valuation in force immediately before such reconstruction."
Will it mean that these houses will actually pay on the valuation and that they will not get the benefit of the nineteen years' clause?
They would not get the benefit of the nineteen years. The only benefit they would get is this. Take the case of a house reconstructed and the valuation of which is £20, and that valuation is raised to £25, £40 or £50, the only advantage they would get is, if the local authority so decided the old valuation, whatever it was previous to reconstruction, would run for seven years.
I accept that and desire to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I propose:—
To add at the end of Section 8 a new sub-section as follows:—
"The provisions of Section 69 of the Local Government Act, 1925, shall not have effect in the case of any house in respect of which a grant is made by the Minister under this Act."
That means that where a grant was made in respect of houses under this Bill the remission shall be regulated by the provisions of this Bill, and that Section 69 of the Local Government Act shall not apply.
Will the Minister tell us what the provisions of that section are?
The one I referred to in connection with remission with respect to rates—that the rates, or the assessment in respect of rates, for any house reconstructed up to 1926 would be on one-third of the valuation from 1926 to 1933.
That is the amendment that came from the Seanad?
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 10—SUB-SECTION (3).
Section 4 of the Housing (Building Facilities) Act, 1924, is hereby repealed.
(4) Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Housing (Building Facilities) (Amendment) Act, 1924, is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that the aggregate amounts of the grants made or to be made (whether before or after the passing of that Act) under Section 2 of the Housing (Building Facilities) Act, 1924, together with the aggregate amount of the grants made or to be made under the said Section 3 shall not exceed the sum of £300,000 in respect of both erection and reconstruction of houses.
I move to delete sub-section (3). The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the removal of restrictions on the selling price and rent. The Act of 1924 definitely laid down in the schedule the prices that should be obtained for these houses when built, or the rent that should be charged. I contend that those restriction clauses should be incorporated in the present Bill, for if that is not done the Housing Bill will become nothing but a speculation. I take it that the object the President has in view is not that, but rather to provide houses for the people who are badly housed at present. The removal of this sub-section, taken in conjunction with the fact that there is to be a remission of rates, is to my mind going to militate against the person who will eventually occupy the house. As I said in the discussion on the amendment proposed by Deputy Connor Hogan, there are houses in respect of which landlords are liable for the payment of some of the rates, and those people may, if they get the grant under this Bill, charge a sufficient rent to pay rates without having an obligation to pay any rates at all, and thereby take part in a speculation which has for its object a different thing altogether to the object I believe to be in the President's mind. Another thing in connection with this section is that it is more retrospective legislation. The people who built under the 1924 Act did so with their eyes open, and it must have been a good business proposition or they would not have embarked on it. I think in the best interests of the object that the President has in mind that that clause ought to be retained.
As far as we have been able to discover, only something like 200 houses out of all those of which notice for reconstruction has been given were reserved for sale or letting. The remainder were intended by those who had them built for occupation by the person paying the money. One of the arguments, I suppose, that would get least consideration either in this House or in the Seanad would be to say that it is a matter of administrative convenience. Well, it is certainly, to my mind, one slight consideration in this matter. Will the extra trouble, expense, waste of time, and all the rest, be worth reserving that particular section restricting the sale price, considering all that we will get for it? I was told in the Seanad last year by a member of the Labour Party that I might have what restrictions I liked, and people would get through them. We thought they were so tightly drawn that it would not be possible to get through them, but we are informed from nearly all sides that the restrictions in respect of the sale or letting were the main obstacles to the Act being a real success in the cities and towns during last year.
I quite agree with the Deputy that I had in mind a proposal to provide houses for people who at present are very badly housed, in other words, for occupants of the slums. I would much prefer to see these people benefit by the activities of the local authorities. In dealing with those people that ought to be taken into account, and in several cities where there is congestion, and where there are large areas of slums, very particular attention is being given by the local authorities. In Cork we know there is a very big scheme on hands, and in Dublin I believe there is a proposal to construct over 1,000 houses during the next twelve months. While all that is the case, and while, as can be seen, we are giving more advantages to local authorities, we nevertheless wish to resuscitate the speculative builder for many reasons, and if for no better reason than that his activities and co-operation are essential towards a reduction of the congestion, and the real slum problem at present is the congestion. I do not think that in the history of the country housing congestion has been so marked, so intense, as at present, and we believe that taking out those restriction clauses, which, so far as our experience of last year is concerned, affect something like eight per cent. of the houses built, will have more satisfactory results.
Would the Minister consider it fair if a person were to be permitted to charge a high rent over and above what he would expect to get as an ordinary profit out of the transaction, and who will also have his rates remitted? Surely there ought to be some check in the matter. Would the Minister between this and the next stage give consideration to that point?
There is scarcely any question I have given so much attention to as this particular one. I put up that particular objection to a number of experts. My own answer to it was that if a man could get an exorbitant rent, a rack rent, it was obvious that there was a field there for rack rents. If he could sell a house at a higher price than we have specified it is obvious that there is a market for houses of a higher price. It means then on his part greater activity during the next twelve months than during the last twelve months, and we achieve one thing that is essential towards any solution of the housing problem, not an ideal thing, I agree, but an absolute essential if you are going to deal with that problem.
I quite agree with that, but at the same time—I am sorry if I am somewhat out of order in going back to the rates question—I take it that if you are going to remit the rates you want to relieve the tenant. If a person is permitted to charge a rack-rent, an exorbitant rent, is it fair to allow him to drift away from his obligation to pay rates to the local authority for that year? There should be some restriction.
No; I admit it is not fair. But, even though it is not fair, you are certainly enlarging that man's activities by reason of this. You are showing him there is a market, and I believe that in order to reduce that market, and in order to bring down those rack-rents, you will have to build more houses. As more houses are built, the rack-rents will fall. The people in the rack-rented house will not remain there in two years' time if there are cheaper houses to be got by reason of our activities under this Bill. Prices will have to be brought down.
I take it the Minister is more or less thinking that the position created by this Bill is that there is no other way of getting houses than by holding out a particularly fruitful prospect to the speculative builder, certainly for the next two or three years. The possibilities of getting a rack-rent are obvious. People are badly in need of houses, and, with all restrictions removed, the ability to pay on the part of prospective tenants will be exploited to the utmost. Every possible penny will be squeezed out of the prospective tenant by virtue of the fact that he needs a house more than anything else. He is more or less compelled to live up to the margin and he will pay up to that margin, whether that includes rents and rates or rents alone. We are now going to give the speculative builder not merely the value of the subsidy, but, in fact, the value of a remission of rates for twenty years. I have no doubt it is calculated that will bring into the field of building operations a large number of people who have not hitherto been in that business, and will thereby invite the building of a great many more houses than would otherwise be built.
As I said on the Second Reading, as a building trade subsidy Bill, this is, no doubt, very good. Indirectly, also, in the long run it will, no doubt, assist in relieving the housing pressure, and it will possibly ease to some small degree the conditions in the overcrowded areas. The degree will be so small that I doubt whether it would be appreciable before five or ten years. It is not the building of houses for the working-classes, as generally understood, that this Bill will effect. On the assumption that we are providing money to enable speculative builders to make rather extravagant profits for the first two or three years, this Bill can be justified. But to remove all restrictions, to give them the benefit of the rates remission and to allow them to make, either by selling or letting, any price they can, is certainly a happy prospect, provided the speculative builder can reach the people who have any money to spare. It will lead to a contest between the urgent clamour on the part of people for houses and their ability to pay, and every penny of that they may be pressed to pay for the purpose of getting a house will be transferred in capital value some way to the speculative builder.
As a subsidy to the speculative builder, this Bill is going to be effective. I cannot bring myself to agree to the insertion of the section which is going to have that effect without any restriction whatever either in regard to rent or price, and especially in regard to houses which have already been contracted for. People have entered into engagements, prepared to pay certain prices and prepared to build a particular kind of house on the basis of last year's Bill. Having, within twelve months, decided to pay a certain subsidy for house-building under particular conditions and those people having applied for that subsidy under those conditions, we are now saying to them: "Well, you were very brave; you took risks. You took the risk that if you had only waited you might have had a better subsidy. We are going to reward you for that risk by offering you an absolute freedom of purchase and renting."
Where is the better subsidy under this Bill? Where is the better subsidy that the Deputy refers to, and that he says is given to the speculative builder under this Bill? I thought it was otherwise.
The better subsidy lies in the fact that you have still got a great mass of people clamouring for houses, and while, under the other Bill, you paid them subsidies of one hundred and an additional hundred, or some such figure, provided the houses were not sold within a certain number of years, and were not sold beyond a certain price, you are now removing those restrictions, and you are handing over £200 or £250, as the case may be, and telling them that they may get the most they can out of the market—the best out of the market.
With all respect, that is not so. We are talking now of subsidies. The subsidy for a five-roomed house under the present Bill to the builder is £75. The subsidy to the speculative builder under the 1924 Act for the same size of house was £100. He was 25 per cent. better off under the 1924 Act. Therefore, I fail to see the point of the Deputy's argument.
The Deputy—I do not want to be rude—is surprisingly difficult of understanding at the moment. A subsidy was given under the 1924 Act, under conditions——
Which were worthless, and which were pointed out in this House to be worthless.
Deputy Good can make a speech after Deputy Johnson has finished, if he wishes.
The subsidy was given under the 1924 Act on conditions. One of these conditions was that the house would not be let beyond a certain figure per week nor sold beyond a certain price. I think the Minister has indicated that no matter what conditions we laid down for the payment of the subsidy the persons who built houses have not complied and they are inclined to get released from these conditions by one way or another, legal or illegal. The difference between this Bill and last year's Act is that we are now paying a subsidy, perhaps a smaller subsidy in the case of an individual private builder, but we are telling him that he may go into the market and that he can get the highest price possible. I think Deputy Good told us last year that the limit of prices was too low. If that be the case, we are now removing any limit whatever, and we are telling the builder that he is to take the most out of the market that he can get. He is to exploit the demand for houses. A starving community will pay any price for bread within the limits of their pockets, and that, within a degree, applies in respect of houses. People will pay a rent for houses to the utmost limit they can afford. With this particular subsidy, we are telling the private speculative builder that he is to take advantage of that hunger for houses and to induce him to do that, we are giving him a subsidy of £75 and £75 or £150 in all, or in the case of an association £200. As a house building proposition for the housing of the workers the Bill is not going to be very much good. As a proposition for the speculative builder, I think it is very good, but I am not going to agree without opposition to the removal entirely of restrictions which I say are mainly in the interests of the speculative builder.
The case which Deputy Johnson makes might hold if it were not a fact that local authorities are getting still greater advantages under this Bill than private builders. The actual number of houses which it appears the Dublin Corporation are considering under this Act is 1,200. In the case of the Cork Corporation the number is about 200. That shows— and I think even Deputy Johnson will admit it—maximum activity as far as these large municipalities are concerned. I have not got the figures for any other area. I believe Waterford has been active under last year's Act, and I believe their activities are not yet finished.
In addition to what the local authorities themselves would do we have the advantages that are given to private builders. If it could be shown to me that private builders would by any way, in which we could restrict them, do the same work as the Corporation, or any of these corporations, I would prefer to deal with them. I do not see how that is possible. I do not see any likelihood of private builders, no matter what inducements are given, doing the same thing as the corporations do, but having corporations actively engaged in doing gigantic work under this particular Bill and bringing in these outside agencies as well, I think that within a few years at such a maximum output, we should be able to deal with the question of congestion. My experience of profiteering is that it occurs where there is a shortage. This evil started anywhere when a shortage was noticeable. I think that you will have profiteering in the matter of housing until the shortage is disposed of.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 37
Tá
- Pádraig Baxter.
- John Conlan.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- David Hall.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Sir James Craig.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Conchubhar O Conghaile.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Liam Thrift.
Tellers:—Tá: Risteárd Mac Fheorais, Tomás de Nógla. Níl: Eamon O Dúgáin and Séamus O Dóláin.
Amendment declared lost.
Question: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 11 put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
(1) This Act may be cited as the Housing Act, 1925.
(2) The Housing (Building Facilities) Act, 1924, and this Act so far as it amends those Acts may be cited collectively as the Housing Acts 1924 to 1925.
—I move:—"In sub-section (2) to delete the word ‘Act' where it first occurs, in line 12, and substitute therefor the word ‘Acts.'" This is a mere verbal alteration.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question: "That Section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Rules to be Complied with by Houses to which this Act applies.
1. In these rules the expression "floor area" means the total area of all the floors of a house measured in the prescribed manner.
2. A self-contained flat shall contain at least two rooms and a house other than self-contained flat shall contain at least three rooms.
3. The floor area of a house shall not exceed 1,250 sq. ft.
4. The floor area of a self-contained two-roomed flat shall not be less than 400 sq. ft. and the floor area of any house other than a self-contained two-roomed flat shall not be less than 500 sq. ft.
5. The erection or reconstruction of a house shall have been begun after the passing of this Act, and shall have been completed within eighteen months from the passing of this Act, or within such further period not exceeding four months as the Minister in any particular case may allow.
6. A reconstructed house shall be situated in either a borough, or an urban district, or a town having Commissioners under the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854, or within 880 yards of any of the areas aforesaid, or within a town, having no Commissioners as aforesaid, of which the population, according to the latest census return, is at least 500.
I move:—
To delete Rule 2 and to substitute therefor the following rule:—
"A self-contained flat in a reconstructed house shall contain at least two rooms, and the floor area thereof shall not be less than 400 square feet."
The effect of the amendment is to make it clear, without reference to Part 1 of Schedule 2, that the grants for the two-roomed flats apply only in cases of reconstruction.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 17 contains an error?
Yes. Six hundred square feet should read "sixteen hundred," and I ask leave to amend that.
The amendment that is being proposed therefore is:—
To add at the end of Rule 3 the words:
"in any functional area of a local authority as defined by paragraph (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of this Act, and shall not exceed 1,600 square feet in any other functional area of a local authority, to which paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 6 of this Act applies."
I move this amendment. Deputies who look up Section 6, sub-section (2), of this Bill will realise that the expression "local authority" has two interpretations— first in respect of the council of any borough or urban district or the commissioners of any town, and in the next in respect of the area governed or administered by a county council, which is roughly the rural area. This amendment would have the effect of enlarging the floor space by 350 square feet. I am not very keen on the erection of small houses under this Bill; in my opinion it would be much better to erect large houses, even though they were sub-divided into flats. However, I cannot speak with authority on the needs of the towns so much as on the needs of the country. Perhaps some Deputies who come from towns would rather like to see the figure of 1,250 feet deleted and the house subsequently divided into a number of flats. Even if it had an area of 2,500 square feet two or three flats might serve a very useful purpose. But my point is that in the country a house with an area of 1,250 square feet is rather small. A two-storey house 40 feet by 20 feet internal measurements, which would include the space occupied by the partitions and passages, would just give 1,600 square feet. I submit that that is not an unduly large house; it is only just a reasonable size. A man in a town can do with a smaller house than a man in the country. In addition, the walls, as a rule, are stronger in the town, and the same must apply to the partitions. It is all very well, of course, for us to say that Euclid's definition of a line was length without breadth. That may perhaps be the ideal of a builder, but we want to put up good and substantial houses. We have got to make a certain amount of allowance, and while you may have a floor space inside the walls of 1,600 square feet, a large deduction must necessarily be made for passages and partitions. I think inasmuch as the Bill will not demand anything further from the Treasury than the grant fixed, a little latitude might be allowed in the case of a house built in a rural area, and I ask the President to accept this amendment.
I am afraid that I could not accept this amendment. The Deputy really seeks to change the order that we try to benefit. We cannot go into the order into which he desires to bring us. He wants to bring this within the scope of people who can afford to pay for their own houses, and that is not the class we propose to benefit by this Bill. We propose to benefit people who cannot afford to build their own houses, and the person who ambitions a house 40 feet by 20 feet can really afford to pay for it.
But surely the President cannot argue that a house 40 feet by 20 feet can be regarded as a mansion? It is not a very large farmer's house; it would be a decent size, a very good size, but it would not be a mansion.
I was not dealing with mansions, neither did I mention them.
I would like to say a word in support of Deputy Hogan's point. After all, if the Bill is to apply to rural districts, the President, having gone so far, ought to try to make it as suitable and as applicable as possible to conditions in rural areas. It is easy for the President to say that a man who can build a house 40 feet by 20 feet is able to pay for it. If the President understood rural conditions, he would know well that a site in the country is not as valuable as a site in a town or city. If a man proposes to build a house on his own farm a few feet one way or the other will not matter very much with regard to the amount of ground the building will cover. Further, the house would be very largely built by the labour of the farmer and his own family, and the cost to him would not be as much as it would be in a town or city. If the cost were to be half as big, the small farmer for whom we seek some extension of the benefit could not face it at all.
The President may think that our point of view is that it is men with 200 or 300 acres who might be able to build their own houses and who would come along and benefit under this Bill. I can assure the President that in my county men with 15 acres of the very poorest land have built houses under the last Act and they would not have faced the proposition of building houses but for the grant under the Act. The complaint of these men was that if they could build their houses a little bit bigger that the houses would be much more satisfactory from the farmers' point of view. The work of the rural dweller differs very much from that of the man in the town or city. His rooms would be utilised for different purposes. His kitchen, sitting-room and bedroom will be different. All that ought to be taken into account, and I do not think it can be disregarded. It is not to the benefit of the rural dweller. A house of 1,600 square feet in the country would be as much in accord with the conditions in the country as a house of 1,200 square feet in the city or town. I think the President would be doing the fair and right thing in accepting this amendment.
I would like to say that when Deputy Connor Hogan spoke about houses of 40 feet by 20 he must not have been putting the case fairly from his own point of view, because it seems that a 40 by 20 house would be very big. A 40 by 20 house would be a very irregular house. If the President would consider a house now of 30 by 25, that would mean two rooms in the front with a passage of three feet, which is very small. That would leave him 12 by 12 in front and the same behind and the same in depth. There would be only four rooms on the floor and the same on the first floor. Twelve by 12 with a passage of 3 feet would make up the floor space that Deputy Hogan is pleading for. That would not be a big house. When the Deputy talks of a house of 40 by 20 it gives a wrong impression. Houses with rooms 12 feet by 12 are what would be required, and these rooms would not be too large at all.
I think the Deputies on the Farmers' benches have made a very good case. I think it is quite reasonable to say that the houses in the country ought to be as large, if possible, as the limit that has been stated.
If the Deputies will refer to last year's Housing Act they will find: "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." This Bill says "the aggregate amount shall not exceed £300,000." I want to say that if it is possible that the Bill is to do what the Minister hopes it will do, that is, to give a better chance to the urban dweller, I would like to see, if possible, that under this Bill the balance will be altered somewhat. Under the Act of 1924 there were 464 houses built in urban areas and 2,423 houses in rural areas. If you pass this amendment with a view to inducing the farmer to go as he did last year we shall have a multiplication of the 2,400 houses built in the country and less than 500 in the towns. Give us a chance this time, or, rather, let us have the same opportunities for urban houses under this Bill as for the rural houses under last year's Bill.
I would like to say to the President that the passing of this amendment does not mean anything extra from the Treasury. Deputy Johnson says there were over 2,000 houses built in the country and only 400 in the towns. Why is that? Housing shortage is as serious in the country perhaps as in the towns. A very large proportion of our people are living in insanitary dwellings, and seeing that they are taking advantage of these facilities and putting their labour into the thing—I stress the word "labour"—I put it to the President that they ought be met as far as possible. A house of 1,600 square feet is not an unduly large house. He need not put it up to 1,600 if he wishes. The words are "not exceeding 1,600 square feet." If he builds a house of 1,200 square feet, it is his own lookout, but at least an opportunity should be given to put up some good houses in the country which may perhaps serve a dual purpose. The farmer has to carry on his business under his roof to some extent, and we feel it is necessary that he should get a little extra space to enable him to carry it on successfully. I will ask the President to accept this amendment, because it will not mean any cost to the Treasury.
I would like to say a word in support of the amendment and in the interests of rural dwellers. I think the main case made by the President against the acceptance of this amendment was that it would bring in a class of persons for whom this Bill was not intended. I do not think that will be the case if this amendment is accepted. What I think will happen is this, that it will encourage the small farmer to build a house. That man would not undertake the building of the house at all if it were not for this subsidy, but he does undertake to build it because the subsidy is there. What the President will do if he rejects this amendment is to make that man build a smaller house. The difference between the limit set in the Bill and the limit set in the amendment is not such that it would bring in a special class of people who would be able to build a house without the subsidy. As Deputy Baxter explained, we all know that conditions in the country are different from what they are in the towns. The site, for instance, would not be so valuable in the country as it would in the town, and labour can be obtained on a different basis in the country from what it can be obtained in the towns. The fact that a bigger house is being built will not, in the end, cost more to the individual in the country than the town house would cost to the individual in the town who is putting up a house within the limits set in the Bill. The only thing that will be achieved by keeping the limit at what it is, is to force the individual, who would otherwise perhaps build a larger house, to have a smaller house, because in either case he would not build a house unless he got the subsidy.
There is one point that I would again force on the attention of the President, and it is this: that if a farmer builds a house with five rooms, it may be taken for certain that in reality you can only call four of these apartments rooms, because the kitchen is where the general work is carried on.
Mr. O'CONNELL
It is the farmer's workshop.
That is really what it is—the farmer's workshop, as Deputy O'Connell so accurately describes it. In view of that, it must be remembered that only four rooms are then left to the farmer in which the members of his family can find accommodation to eat and to sleep. That is a reason that I would urge on the President to give due consideration to the amendment.
I think some of the Farmer-Deputies are labouring under a misconception with regard to this subject. Deputy Wilson was good enough to give us some figures with which I have been making some calculations. I have figured out a house of five rooms, 15 by 11, which gives a total floor area of 825 square feet. The Bill provides for 1,250 square feet, so that even with five rooms, 15 by 11, you have not exhausted all the provisions of the Bill.
If we are going to exceed five rooms I think we will be carrying out very much what Deputy Johnson prophesied when we started on this Bill. He then said he was afraid it was not a Bill that was going to make provision for those whom we were anxious to help in connection with houses. I think the debate this afternoon, particularly in connection with this amendment, is bearing out that prophecy. I notice that Deputy Johnson is assisting this amendment, and therefore is assisting to achieve the point of view that he set out with in connection with this Bill. I am quite with those who are anxious to build a good house, but I am not with those who are anxious to call upon the State to subsidise those who want to build good houses. I think if the State is to be called on to give subsidies it should only subsidise those who are unable to help themselves, and, goodness knows, we have enough of these without increasing their number. I would suggest to the Farmer-Deputies that if they want a house larger than one with a superficial area of 1,250 square feet they should not come to the Government and ask for subsidies to enable them to get a house of that description. I do not think that the amendment is one that ought to be supported.
Perhaps my reading of the Bill is wrong. It says a house with not less than five rooms. That does not mean that you could not have more than five rooms.
Perhaps you would like to have eight rooms.
I think it is a reasonable proposition to put forward to ask for a house with eight rooms, 12 by 12. I think that it is a bad idea to have people reared up in small, confined houses. Children who are reared in suitable houses will have a better outlook on life, and will become better citizens than if, in their youth, they have been "cribbed, cabined, and confined." What better off are you, I ask, if a man builds a big house on the subsidy which is given?
You are calling on the State to give you a subsidy?
If I say to you that I will build a large house on your subsidy what better off are you? I will not build at all if I do not get the subsidy.
The outlook of the farming community on life is an excellent one if we are to judge the recent decisions at the elections. They are sane, well-tempered, and stand for stabilisation, and so on. Statements have been made that the adoption of this amendment would not cost the Treasury any more money, and that there are people who will not build if the section stands as it is. If there are, then we are going to save money by not altering the section. This is meant for an uneconomic class, and Deputies who are hard-headed, level-headed, and sensible business-men would not, I think, of themselves, if they were on these benches, seek to subsidise a class of the community who do not require it. I think that will be admitted, and if that be admitted then there is no case for including such proportions as are suggested in this amendment. Last year 1,000 square feet was the maximum. We have increased it this year by 250 square feet, making a total of 1,250 square feet. That is a very marked increase—an increase of 25 per cent. I thought, judging by the criticisms of the Government in the 1923 General Election and recently, that we would be attacked for our extravagance in increasing the size of these houses, but instead of that we are invited to be still more extravagant by the most economic party, I suppose, in this House.
Amendment put, and declared lost.
I beg to move amendment 18:—
To delete Rule 4 and to substitute therefor the following rule:—
"A house not being a self-contained flat in a reconstructed house shall contain at least three rooms, and the floor area thereof shall not be less than 500 square feet."
The object of this amendment is similar to that of amendment No. 16, which has already been adopted.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 19:—
To add at the end of Rule 4 the words: "The floor area of a self-contained flat shall not exceed 900 square feet."
In connection with the houses to be erected under this Bill we put a minimum and we put a maximum as regards floor space. In the reconstructed dwelling we put a minimum floor space, but here we have no maximum whatever, with the result that a man who reconstructs a house in Fitzwilliam Square and provides some flats letting at £300 a year can claim the subsidy. Now, that is in direct opposition to what the President has just stated in reply to the last amendment, that the intention in this Bill was only to help those who were not in a position to help themselves. If we do not put in some limit with regard to the size of these self-contained flats the very reverse of the argument which has just been advanced will be applicable in the case of flats. I do not know whether that is an omission or not, but I cannot understand if we put a minimum and a maximum into the Bill in the case of houses why it is we only put a minimum in the case of flats and no maximum at all.
I do not think the Deputy has read the first section, in which "house" is deemed to include a flat, and therefore the area of the flat would be restricted to 1,250 square feet.
Why put in a minimum for reconstructed houses which shows that there was a distinction?
The only reason for a minimum is that it is possible that there might be such a thing as two rooms in a flat. That would not otherwise be allowed in, if we had not put in a minimum. It only applies to reconstruction.
Will the definition make that clear, that this maximum applying to houses will apply to the reconstructed flat? If so, it meets my point.
Section 1 says that "a self-contained flat" means "any part of a building suitable for separate occupation as a dwellinghouse." The word "house" means dwellinghouse or building suitable for occupation as a dwellinghouse and includes a self-contained flat. I think that makes it clear that you are limited.
Does the limitation that applies to a house apply to the flat?
If that is so it meets my point, and I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment 20: to delete Rule 6.
The point of this rule, of course, is that it seeks to restrict the reconstruction of houses to urban districts and to towns having a population of 500 or those 880 yards outside a town. I cannot understand by what means the President and the Ministry have arrived at the decision that it is right and just and feasible to reconstruct a house in a town of 500 inhabitants or within 880 yards of a town, and that it is not right to reconstruct a house in a town of 490 inhabitants. Nor can I understand why it is not right to give a grant for the reconstruction of houses in rural districts. I cannot see how that decision is arrived at. The point whether it is just to promote the reconstruction of houses and to give grants for the reconstruction of houses in a town or city and prohibit the inhabitants of a rural district from receiving such grant is what we take exception to. It is unfair discrimination that often makes itself apparent in legislation and administration against the rural inhabitants as compared with people in towns and cities.
I know the President's point is that the conditions in regard to houses are nothing like so bad in the country as in the towns and the cities. I agree with the President that the conditions are very bad in the cities and in some of our towns, but the conditions are just as bad in towns where there are only 300 inhabitants as in towns where there are 500 inhabitants, and if it is right to give a grant for reconstruction in towns of 500 inhabitants there is no argument against giving it to a town with only 300 inhabitants. The conditions with regard to reconstruction in rural districts are the same as in the big towns or in the cities. Many of the houses that farmers are living in on the hill-sides are just as bad as in Dublin. I think Deputies on the Government Benches from rural districts will agree. Some of them who have been in my constituency during the elections know the conditions of the small farmers there are as bad and deplorable as in Dublin.
A DEPUTY
The conditions are not comparable. It is easy to say that this Bill is for the inhabitants of the slums. We would all like to see the conditions better there, but we do not like to see our people discriminated against, and particularly when you come to the smaller towns and rural districts that are excluded from the operations of this section. As I pointed out previously on another Bill, there are many people in the rural districts who are not, despite the advantage of the grant, prepared to tackle the proposition of building a new house. It is too big a thing for them. I have spoken to many of them who make that complaint. But these people would be prepared to reconstruct the houses they have, and I cannot see why these people who are contributors to the Exchequer should, because they live on the hill-sides, be denied the right accorded to the people of the towns and the cities. I do not think it is fair or just, and we on the Farmers' Benches cannot stand for that unfair discrimination against people in the rural districts.
The President made the point on the Second Reading of this measure that the cost of administration had to be taken into account. I say that the cost of administration with regard to the question of reconstruction can be borne as the cost of administration is borne in the matter of the grants for building new houses. The fee of the inspectors that the Ministry send to see the sites and to see that the work is carried out to the satisfaction of the Ministry are paid by the men claiming the grants and whether the grants are given or not the fee has to be paid by the applicant for the grant. I cannot see why the same rule should not operate in regard to the application for a grant for the reconstruction of houses, and the cost of administration in that way can be borne by the applicant just as it is in the case of the application for a grant for a new house. I do not think that argument can hold water. I think the President, in justice to the rural inhabitants, should concede to them what he is prepared to give to the people of the towns and the cities. I cannot see why a man living in a town of 500 inhabitants can get the grant, and a man living in a town of 490 inhabitants cannot, and I should like to hear some arguments on that point.
I wish to support my colleague. I think I was the sponsor of the original amendment in the last Bill. I have never been able to understand why the President has taken up such unbending opposition with regard to this matter. I can assure him, with Deputy Baxter, that the necessity for housing in the country is very great. I am not going to say that it is quite as great as in the towns, but we are giving our full support to construction and reconstruction in the towns and no other party is more anxious to see the slum population of the large cities provided with houses. We are not so sure that this and the previous Bill are going to do it, but we hope they will. We think there is an unfair discrimination between the people in the country in so far as they are prevented from getting a grant for the reconstruction of their houses. Those people contribute more than their share of taxation, and they find that they are excluded from certain privileges which the people in the towns have. From my knowledge of the country, there is a necessity for the reconstruction of houses. Over and over again you will see farmers building on the old walls. That does not happen very often in the towns. I received many applications asking me if there is any possibility that the Reconstruction Clause could apply. If it does, it will affect principally the small farmer with an old house which he wishes to improve. He has not the funds to build a new house. Very often he lives in a portion of the house while he is reconstructing the other part. I would like to add my voice to the arguments of my colleague and ask the President to consider the amendment favourably. I think he will have found out that since the passing of the last Bill there has been a demand for reconstruction.
I would like to ask your ruling on amendment 21. If amendment 20 is defeated, will I be in order in putting forward 21?
Amendment 21 will fall if amendment 20 is defeated.
Then I will try to say now what I would have said on amendment 21, as owing to your ruling amendment 21 has got to die a natural death without judge and jury. I do not agree with the section as it stands. To my mind, if the words "rural districts" were added, and the words after the figures 1854 were deleted, as in amendment 21, it would meet the case. The President, when he was speaking earlier to-day on the necessity of considering those who built in 1920, stated that houses can be built in the country 20 to 40 per cent. cheaper than in the city. If that is so, then it is essential that the people in the country should be encouraged by giving them an opportunity to reconstruct their homes. According to last year's Bill, no person 880 yards outside a town of a population of 500 was eligible for the grant to reconstruct. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, there are at least 140 people anxious to improve their holdings if they get some little help from the Government. The small farmer with 10 or 12 acres of land or less and the artisans and labourers in those rural districts are living at the present time under deplorable conditions as far as housing is concerned. If they were encouraged by giving them the same facilities as are given to people in the towns, it would be a good thing. When we are going canvassing and seeking votes we do not put any more value on votes in a town of a population of 500 than outside it. We place as much value on the man in the country then as in the city. If we do, why not recognise him now in the same spirit and say: "We recognise you as a citizen when we want your vote, and we are now going to give you the same facilities as we give to the people in the large towns and urban districts."
Including the rural districts in the Bill will not increase the expenditure. I am not asking you to increase the £300,000 given by the Government, but more people would take advantage of it. If the £300,000 given for the erection of houses is spread over a wider area, it will give better opportunities to people to house themselves than were given in the past year. I cannot see why the President should deny to one section of the community what is given to another. You are denying this to the workers, the small farmers, artisans and people who are not in a position to build because they are living in a rural district. Why? Because you imagine that those people must always continue to live in slavery and under deplorable conditions. In your opinion they are only slaves.
Do you give them any credit?
So far you have given them no credit. As long as I am in this House I have only seen legislation to facilitate the big fellow. To my mind for the last four years every Bill that was introduced in this House has some clause in it to prevent the workman from benefiting under its provisions, and in this Bill you have the same clause.
May I ask the Deputy if he has read the return which states that 2,462 houses were built for the countryman? I can give him the names of the various counties in which they are built.
I understand that there were 2,462 built. How many were built in the country districts?
Does that include houses built in small towns? I think it must.
Not in county boroughs, urban districts, or towns with Town Commissioners.
How many were reconstructed in the country districts?
54 in towns, urban districts and county boroughs, and 45 in the counties.
The 45 who reconstructed did not benefit by the Bill.
Forty-five benefited. The houses were within the limit of 880 yards from a town.
I want to bring in those a mile or three miles from a town, so that they can obtain the privileges conferred by the Bill. When the privilege is given to one section of the community it should be given to all sections. I would ask the President, who is such a democrat, to live up to the real spirit of a democrat by applying the Bill to the rural districts. I can assure the Dáil that people are living under deplorable conditions in the rural districts. Some little encouragement should be given occupiers to improve their houses either by adding additional rooms or removing the old thatched roof.
In supporting the amendment, I would like to recall the old saying, "If you want to understand me you must come and live with me." I would like to ask the President to try and understand what the conditions of life are in country districts. That is one of the things that I think has not been sufficiently stressed in the Dáil. In country districts and in country towns the conditions of life are very drab and colourless. After working daily, week in, week out, at a dull and dreary occupation, the people have to go home to insanitary houses with little light and little ventilation. There is very little reason in asking people to live in the country districts under such circumstances and in such surroundings. If there is one thing that should recommend this amendment to the Government, it is the ease with which most of these houses lend themselves to reconstruction. Those who favour the amendment only want these houses made more convenient and more suitable for the necessities of the people. Speaking on this housing question last year, I stated that I heard no reasons advanced why the privileges extended to the towns should not be extended to the country districts. If we want to make life in the country parts brighter and improve the mentality and the physique of the people, this is an opportunity that should not be overlooked.
I wish to support the amendment. There are many houses in the constituency I represent that lend themselves to reconstruction. They are in places where the population does not reach the number required by the Bill. I would ask the President to include in the Bill towns with a population of 300 or less, so that the residents may come within the scope of the Bill. I know many houses in villages where reconstruction could be carried out with great advantage to the community.
Before the President replies I want to raise a point that I raised previously, as I think he did not understand me at the time. I think the return published in the Official Debates of the 26th March with regard to the grants given under the Housing Act of 1924 may be somewhat misleading. As far as I can see, the return does not give any record of houses in towns or villages with populations under 500. The numbers given include rural areas, but if the return is to be taken as accurate there should be a record of houses built in country districts, apart from small towns.
I wish to support the amendment. The class that appeals to me are small holders in rural districts. In my time I have heard frequent denunciations of British administration in this country owing to the way in which small holders have been treated. We have had legislation to provide cottages and plots for labourers and also cottages for artisans. Farmers of a certain valuation could borrow money from the Board of Works to build houses. What has been done for the small holders who, as Deputy Baxter stated, are living on the hillsides and in the bogs?
I say that it is time that an Irish legislature should make provision and do something for that unfortunate class of people. By extending the benefit of this Bill to the rural districts the Government would be doing the right thing. I am not asking for charity but an act of justice.
The Deputy, I think, must not have read the return published last week from which it will be seen that in the counties there have been 2,462 houses built out of 3,000. If that is not doing justice to the country I do not know what is.
What has been done for the smallholders?
The Deputy did not say what he meant by reconstruction. That has been done so far as one Act is concerned and I draw the conclusion from what the Deputy said that he suggested that reconstruction does not apply to the country. So far as reconstruction is concerned, this clause would not be in the Bill were it not for the fact that there are barracks and workhouses which could be adapted for housing accommodation. If during the coming year we have exhausted these barracks and workhouses in that connection, this reconstruction clause will not appear in any future Bill. It was originally put in to endeavour to utilise some buildings, mainly in towns, cities and urban districts, which would be suitable for adaptation as dwellinghouses, flats or making some other use of them to provide dwelling accommodation.
For accommodation for people in the towns. At no time in the history of the British Government or any other time has there been such an Act which conferred such benefits on the rural population as this. It happens that they are excluded from one particular portion which was never intended to deal with them or their order and which was only intended to meet the terrible conditions under which people in the towns and cities have lived, and for which the war was mainly responsible. Building was held up and there was, in fact, no building for a few years. The Deputy and those who sit with him know that in the rural districts during the last twenty years something like £10,000,000 has been spent. How much has been spent in the cities and towns?
It was not spent on the small farmers.
So far as the small farmer is concerned, he is included in the 2,462. Taking the figures into account, they mean that the number amounts to 550 or 560 for the towns and cities and almost to 2,500 for the country districts. Is that unjust to the farmers or the small farming community? This particular section dealing with reconstruction has been canvassed beyond what it is worth, and canvassed unfairly. It was never intended to reconstruct dwellings for people who could afford to reconstruct them themselves. Do Deputies consider how much it would cost to reconstruct these small dwellings? Would it cost £100? I doubt if it could be done for that, and is it fair to ask the State to pay half the sum for the reconstruction of these small houses? I do not think it is.
I think the President has taken a wrong view of this amendment.
It is not necessary to get so excited over it. If there have been 2,462 houses erected in accordance with the Act of 1924, they have been erected by people who wanted houses, and only for the introduction of that Act the majority of those houses would not have been built. It is necessary, therefore, to apply reconstruction to country districts and to get as many houses reconstructed in 1925 as were built under the 1924 Act. There are several people in country districts who cannot afford to pay £100—if it only costs £100—and the small farmer with five or six acres, who is very often worse off than the labourer, finds it impossible to maintain his children, especially if he has to pay Land Commission annuities at the rate of from £2 10s. to £3 per acre.
Only this week I had to send to the Land Commission four or five most deplorably glaring and barefaced cases of robbery where from £3 to £3 5s. an acre was demanded, and I promise that if I do not get a satisfactory reply I will bring the question up in the Dáil. These people are not able to pay £100 or £150 for reconstruction. I would give them the privilege, when they have carried out their reconstruction, of getting £20 or £30 as a grant. The President says that more money has been spent in the rural districts— £10,000,000 for labourers' cottages and other houses—than in the cities. I quite agree that a lot of labourers' cottages have been built, but several of those who live in them are as badly off as it is possible for anyone to be. Nothing has been done for them either by the British or the Saorstát Government. I am sure that Deputy O'Connell will tell you that children cannot go to school in the daytime as they are really out all night, because you can see the sun, moon, and stars through the roofs of their houses, and when a shower of rain comes at night, the beds have to be moved, as the rain pours through the roofs. It is that class that we are asking you to help—people who cannot afford to pay for the reconstruction of their homes. I ask the President to reconsider the speech he has delivered, to try to be more patient, and, above all things, to facilitate the people who want these houses.
It seems to me from the President's last statement that reconstruction is introduced only for the benefit of the Government. He has mentioned about barracks and workhouses around the country which the Government has on hands, and said that these are the only places requiring reconstruction. If the President had any idea of the country he would not have made the heated speech which he has made against the small holders who require these grants for reconstruction.
I made no speech against the small holders.
The President must have no idea of the country when he states——
I made no statement against the small holders, and the Deputy's statement ought to be withdrawn.
I quite willingly withdraw if I have outstepped the bounds. I say that the President must be utterly ignorant of what is going on in the rural districts. As regards the housing conditions, they are really a disgrace, and accommodation is much worse than even in the slums of Dublin. In my own county, I am sorry to say, there are as bad houses as are to be found in any of the towns in the Saorstát. I hold that it is no compliment at all to extend this Bill to the rural districts, where the people are paying their share of taxation just the same as the town dwellers. The President has told us about the houses that have been built recently for the workers throughout the country, but I say that it is the country people who are responsible for these houses and not the Government, for they have to foot the Bill. I think the President will be well advised to extend this reconstruction clause to the rural areas.
I think the Bill will, in a short time, apply generally to the rural districts, because the Local Government Act recently passed provides that we are to have a whole-time medical officer who will look after the sanitation of the districts and the housing of the poor. I agree with Deputy Lyons that a great many poor farmers are just as badly housed as the labourers. It will be the duty of the whole-time medical officer to condemn houses that should be condemned. I am sure that those who were responsible for the Local Government Act will act justly and provide funds to enable good houses to be substituted for the bad ones, and that will enable an improvement to be made in those houses that can be improved. Under these circumstances I think it is not necessary that we should press in the present instance for the application of this to rural districts, especially if the Government will support in good faith the whole-time medical officer.
What Deputy Hogan, of Clare, said struck me forcibly—if you want to know a man you have to go and live with him. I invite the Minister for Defence to say what he thinks about the housing conditions, as he saw them when he was in my constituency. I understand he is going there next Sunday.
You may be mistaken in that.
In bringing forward this amendment we were doing what we considered fair to the rural community. In our opinion not a single house has been built in the rural area that was not built by a man who was already in possession of a house. Every one of those 2,000 houses given in the schedule, as having been built in the rural areas, were built by men who owned houses, and more houses will be built under this Bill when it becomes law. It is highly probable that very many houses will be built now where, in many cases, people would be satisfied to reconstruct, if possible, old houses if they got a grant for reconstruction. That is denied to them, and the alternative is that they make application for a grant for the building of a new house and they get it. In our opinion many houses in rural districts very badly need reconstruction. If the Bill were amended to permit reconstruction of houses in rural districts there will not be that demand for new houses there otherwise would be. It is easy to say that the conditions in the country are nothing like what they are in the city. They are as bad, and even worse, in the country. Serious as the conditions in the slums in Dublin are, they are not so bad when compared with some of the houses in the country, the roofs of which are in such bad repair that they provide no protection against inclement weather, and let in the rain, as they did during the past year, which is one of the wettest we have had. Bad as the housing conditions in Dublin are that cannot be said of them. What is wanted with regard to reconstruction in the country is that something should be done to enable people to re-roof the houses. That is very largely what I mean by reconstruction. I cannot see why it is not possible for the President to reconsider his attitude on this matter. I do not think that the demand on the fund will be so much greater.
Putting in a new roof would not be reconstructing.
I have listened with very much interest, and not a little concern, to the debate that has taken place. I feel that in the circumstances in which the nation is placed the problem cannot be approached in the way in which it requires to approached. I am sure it is possible in the circumstances only to touch on the fringe of the question, but I can never see what is the necessity for the President standing firmly behind this door and keeping it closed against reconstruction, and the distribution of grants for that purpose. Notwithstanding this, I am in the most complete sympathy with the case that has been put forward from all sides with regard to rural areas. The position is bad in the cities undoubtedly, and very serious, but I feel that it is not really as bad as it is in many of the rural areas, particularly in the congested districts. The conditions there are simply deplorable; the health of the people is suffering to an extraordinary extent, and many people are undoubtedly dying owing to the housing conditions in the rural areas. A few days ago I had the pleasure of—I should say rather the misfortune of—having an interview in which the necessity for having something done to assist these people in having their houses made possible to live in, was put before me. In the discussion on the subject I, of course, pointed out that the problem was such a big one that in the present circumstances it would be impossible to deal with it in the way it should be done, and that must be done. I asked if they had any suggestion to make with regard to the way in which the problem might be met without involving the distribution of grants which are not available from the funds of the nation, and the suggestion was made, and I was asked to put it before the authorities, that provision should be made by which they would be enabled to cover their roofs over the thatch with corrugated iron, which is considerably resorted to in the Six Counties, and which was proved immensely successful, and has made a very superior roof, warm and comfortable, at the same time doing away with the necessity and extravagance of providing straw to keep these houses thatched.
That is one of the things that I think is worthy of consideration. It has been working already in other counties. I have seen it myself, and I have heard a great many people boasting of its immense success and the very satisfactory roof that it gives. Notwithstanding Deputy Baxter's hope, it is impossible, I think, that we can go to any further extent in this matter in view of the financial conditions prevailing. You cannot go beyond a distance of 880 yards outside a centre of population of 500. I think the whole pressure of the House will have to be brought to bear upon the Government to go even a step further in another direction, not in the way of providing grants, but in the way of giving the necessary facilities and the necessary easements by way of loans to those small holders, so that they will be enabled to put their houses into a living condition. That is an absolute necessity. It is much more of a necessity, to my mind, than the provision of new homes, excepting, of course, in the slum areas and in the backward parts of cities. That is my suggestion on the matter, and I feel the President cannot do anything but stand behind this. This problem is such a big one that, if carried out fully, it would consume the resources of the nation. The course I have suggested, if adopted, will go a long way towards remedying existing evils.
Most of the discussion on this point has been carried on under some misapprehension. In regard to the reconstruction of houses, it seems to have been forgotten that there is already a definition as to what is a reconstructed house. That definition differs from the definition in last year's Act. Even though the amendment be carried, it would not allow a house to be re-roofed. A reconstructed house, under the definition, means a house converted. The word "reconstruction" means the conversion of an existing building into one or more houses. It does not include the repairing of the existing brokendown house and the making of it into a good house. I suggest that most of the discussion is beside the point. It is quite clear from the discussion on last year's Act, that the intentions were to make it possible for a large house to be so altered as to make it capable of being inhabited by more than one family. While it did speak, in the definition clause last year, for safety sake, of repairing an existing house or building. I imagine the definition this year has been altered, and it quite strictly confines the meaning of the term "reconstruction" to converting an existing building into one or more houses. The advocacy of the amendment, with a view to making it possible for small farmers to re-build their existing houses, or repair them, is, as I said, beside the point, and would not be secured by the adoption of the amendment.
I think it must be admitted on every hand that the housing conditions of the small farming-class, and small holders generally, is woeful in the extreme. Anybody who travels through the country must see that the houses of those people have been going to the bad, especially during the last few years. That is due to one or two reasons. In the case of old thatched dwellings there was great difficulty experienced in getting proper straw for repairing the roofs during the last two or three years on account of the very wet seasons. Then there was the poverty of the people, and that has become more accentuated every day. Those people are placed in the position that they are forced to live in insanitary dwellings and at the same time they are repaying loans arising out of the expenditure of ten millions which the President has alluded to. They have to contribute their portion of the amount that is annually raised in order to repay the loan. As we all know, the provision of housing accommodation for the labouring classes has not been a success economically, inasmuch as the rents paid are not sufficient to repay the loan. That being so, as I say, those people have the double grievance of living in wretched hovels and at the same time contributing to the repayment of the cost of building houses for another class.
Do not the labourers pay rates?
Yes, but those men that I have alluded to, who live in the bad houses, have also to pay rates. They have the double grievance that I have mentioned. Deputy Baxter, in touching on the question of repairing roofs, did not assert that that was the only thing that should be done. It may be possible in the case of small houses to extend them and so make proper provision for the accommodation of families. I think it would be well if the President and the Government would hearken to what I may describe as the unanimous voice of the Dáil and extend the Bill in the direction indicated.
I move to report progress.
