Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 Oct 1928

Vol. 26 No. 10

HOUSING BILL, 1928—THIRD STAGE.

The Dáil went into Committee

Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I move:—

Before Section 6 to insert a new section as follows:—

"If it appears to the Minister that the number of houses, the erection or completion of which is begun and completed within the period prescribed by Rule 5 of the First Schedule to the Principal Act as amended by this Act, is such that the aggregate amount of the grants payable under the Principal Act and this Act is less than Eight Hundred Thousand Pounds, the Minister may by Order fix such dates later than the 17th day of October, 1928, and the 18th day of October, 1929, as may appear to him expedient for the purpose of ensuring that the aggregate amount of the said grants will be, as nearly as may be, Eight Hundred Thousand Pounds, and such other corresponding dates as appear to him proper for the purposes of the note at the end of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act, and upon the making of such Order, Section 5 of this Act shall have effect as if the dates so fixed were substituted for the dates specified therein.

This amendment speaks for itself, and there is no necessity for me to explain it except to say that the purpose of the amendment is to secure that the £200,000 which the House is giving shall be fully spent. On the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed a doubt as to whether the £200,000 would be spent. So far as we understand, the last of the money allocated under this Act was allocated in April or May. Intimation was given to people building houses in, I think, about the month of May that no more money was available, and that it had all been allocated. I am not sure that a sufficient number of houses have been built or were started between that time and the 17th October to absorb the full £200,000. and all the amendment seeks to do is to give the Minister the power to extend the date if he finds that the number of houses that will have qualified for the grant up to the 17th October would not have fully absorbed the £200,000. It gives the Minister power to extend the Bill.

Mr. RICE

I support the amendments in Deputy Morrissey's name, so far as they go. But my objections to them and to the Bill we are now discussing is that they do practically nothing, because to pass this Bill in its present form, even with these amendments, would be applying a very small plaster to a very large wound. The Housing Act of 1925 is sought to be amended by the Bill now before the House. That is, it is a winding-up of the present housing policy of the Government, but it creates a hiatus between what has been done in the past and what remains to be done in the future. We will be left completely in the dark if this Bill as it stands is passed, as to what the housing policy of the future is to be. It seems to be suggested by some Deputies here, and the President seemed to accept the view, that before we can get on with the housing problem we must first get prices down to an economic level.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy is unfortunately later than the Deputy before him—he is too late altogether. This is a simple amendment to a particular section of the Bill. Deputy Rice cannot discuss the Bill on an amendment, and still less can he discuss what is not in the Bill at all.

Mr. RICE

I am pointing out the objection to the Bill, and the amendment, in the fact that they are stopping the policy which was in existence up to now, and substituting nothing new for it.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I might be prepared to agree that on Second Reading the Deputy would be in order, but not on this amendment.

Mr. RICE

This Bill provides for the expending of a sum not exceeding £200,000, and Deputy Morrissey's amendment is moved to ensure that that sum at least shall be spent. By this amendment he proposes an extension of the date to provide for that. I submit it is in order for me in discussing it to point out that this is not a remedy for the situation intended to be dealt with, and that the Government before they attempted to pass this Bill with or without the amendment should announce what their housing policy is to be in the future.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

In Committee on this Bill it would be quite out of order for the Government to announce their policy for the future. Nothing could be further from what may be discussed on the Committee Stage of the Bill than a statement of that nature. On the Second Stage the Deputy would be quite in order in making the speech he is endeavouring to make now, but he cannot make it at this Stage. The very limitations of the Bill itself, of which the Deputy complains, limit the Deputy's rights of speech on such lines at the moment.

Mr. RICE

I suggest instead of Deputy Morrissey's amendment and the dates 17th and 18th October a later date, say, the 1st of April or May next year. No doubt that would let in a number of people who could not come in under the Bill or the amendment. It would mean a further expenditure of money on the project, but it would carry out a little further the policy contemplated by the Act of 1925. I ask the Government earnestly to consider doing that and if it is not in order to refer to the suggestions that I have already put before them that before passing this Bill, with or without amendments, they should consider announcing their new policy whatever it may be.

Mr. MORRISSEY

May I say, in reply to Deputy Rice, that it would not be in order for me to move an amendment that would increase the charges. I do not think I would be allowed to do that because of the Money Resolution already passed.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (General Mulcahy)

I do not know that Deputy Rice is correct when he says the present Bill is no remedy for the situation with which it is intended to deal. I suggest that it is a remedy that will completely and effectively deal with what it is intended to deal. There is no use saying that this Bill does not continue the Government's building policy. The first thing that was done was that £1,000,000 was granted and no one complained that nothing more was done. Certain further proposals were brought in in May, 1924, and continued in 1925 and 1926. As the President said, this Bill is to bring these proposals to a conclusion.

The position is that the 1926 Act which allotted certain additional amounts of money gave people, in the first place, twenty-eight months in which to complete their houses. It gave an additional four months in certain circumstances. That Act which it is proposed to wind up gave people actually thirty-two months to wind up their building schemes. The present Bill takes into consideration that people were slow in taking advantage of the Acts and by the time all the money under the 1926 Act was used up there were people who might have entered into commitments and expenditure and in some cases begun the building of their houses. That was so far as private persons were concerned. Certain local authorities, it is recognised, purchased ground and had taken up very elaborate schemes which had been sanctioned by the Department. It was pointed out that a number of houses had actually been begun before 17th October and it was thought that commitments to build houses on the part of local authorities ought to be taken into consideration.

The number of houses people were committed to under the facilities granted under the 1926 Act amounted to about 800 in the case of private individuals and to about 1,600 in the case of local authorities. It is proposed to wind up, definitely, that matter. As well as the twenty-eight months originally given to people to complete their schemes they are now given an additional twelve months and in all reasonableness I suggest that is quite sufficient.

There need not be any fear in the mind of Deputy Morrissey that the £200,000 will not be spent, because if there is any falling off in the building of houses by private individuals money will be available for local authorities who are not bound by any considerations as to length of time in which to complete their schemes, so that whatever is saved from individuals can be used by local authorities. So far as that is concerned there is no question of money not being used. With regard to the question of time it is undesirable that people should not be clear as to what is required of them in order to get the grant under this scheme. Prior to the announcement being made about June last that further moneys would be available under this particular scheme, there was a certain amount of excuse for people doubting that they were about to get money, but there is no excuse for them now not realising that they must have had their houses started by a certain time and that they must be finished, at least, by the 17th October, 1929. From that point of view, I think it would be undesirable for them that the Minister should have power to vary the date. There may be a case for removing the date from the 17th October, 1928, and passing it on for a short period. I would be prepared, between now and the Report Stage, to consider the advisability of changing that initial date.

Mr. MORRISSEY

To what date?

General MULCAHY

Changing that particular date, in the case of a number of houses for which there are commitments, would involve an additional expenditure of money. There can be no doubt about that. I am not prepared to accept Deputy Morrissey's amendment as it is unnecessary and undesirable but I would be prepared between now and the Report Stage to consider a change in the date from the 17th October, 1928, to a subsequent date.

Mr. MORRISSEY

The Minister is referring to my second amendment.

General MULCAHY

I am referring to your first amendment because, so far as the effect is concerned, both of them go together. There can be no possible chance, under the wording of this Bill, that the £200,000 will not be spent.

Mr. MORRISSEY

If that be so, there is no reason why the Minister should not accept the amendment. This does not commit the Minister to spending more than £200,000 unless there was a surplus.

General MULCAHY

I will tell you what it would do. A certain number of local authorities have entered into commitments and the Budget has been made accordingly. If we do this in a loose way and if a large number of private persons are induced to come in, the question of their being entitled to receive grants will arise, so that the number of persons coming in in that uncontrolled way would be large, and they might be left without money which they thought they had a reasonable chance of getting. Otherwise, you would have to cut down the moneys which local authorities expect or else exceed the £200,000.

Mr. MORRISSEY

That does not leave the date in a loose way. The dates in my amendment would not be looser than they are in the Bill, which gives the Minister power also to alter the closing date. I do not think that people will be under any misapprehension. It will be quite clear that it is only in the event of there being a surplus that the Minister will have power to alter the dates. My only concern is that £200,000, at least, will be spent. If the Minister can assure the House that a sufficient number of houses were in process of being built up to the 17th October to absorb the £200,000, and if he is satisfied that the local authorities will carry out their programme and will avail of the £200,000, I would not press my amendment. It is one thing for local authorities to talk about acquiring sites and it is another thing for them to build, because very often they do not build.

General MULCAHY

So far as the Budget is concerned, with regard to local authorities it is based on certain definite schemes, and I have every confidence that they are going ahead with them. There is no limit of time in regard to them. I would ask the Deputy to consider the position of a private individual beginning to build on the 1st November this year, and saying that he did not know whether he was going to get a grant. That would be an impossible position and the only reasonable way of meeting it would be to shift the date from the 17th October, 1928. When I get an opportunity I will go into the matter.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I am satisfied with the Minister's assurance, and I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I move:—

Before Section 6 to insert a new section:—

If the Minister is satisfied that not later than the 17th day of October, 1928, the plans for the erection or reconstruction of a house had been submitted for approval in accordance with Rule 8 of the First Schedule to the Principal Act or that other substantial preparation for the commencement of the work of erection or reconstruction of a house had been made, and that, in either case, the commencement of the work was not unreasonably delayed, the Minister may direct that the erection or reconstruction of the house shall be deemed to have been begun not later than the 17th day of October, 1928.

This amendment deals with a different matter. In the Bill reference is made to a building begun before the 17th October, 1928. I submit that there are a number of people who had started to make preparations for building houses some months prior to 17th October. In many cases plans would be submitted to the local authority and there might be considerable delay before such plans would be returned, before the contracts could be placed or building started. If the Minister is satisfied that there would be no unreasonable delay, I am suggesting, if a person proved that his plans had been deposited with the local authority and that a reasonable effort was being made to start building, but that there was an unavoidable delay, the Minister should have power to extend the date.

The PRESIDENT

Is not that covered by what the Minister has already said-that he is going to consider the question of a later date?

Mr. MORRISSEY

Very well?

The PRESIDENT

There is that point of substance in what Deputy Rice said. I might perhaps take some slight exception to his rather scathing remarks about the Government. There is this weakness in the matter. It rather winds up a policy without having another one ready.

Mr. CAREY

Will this Bill include schemes of housing uncompleted by urban authorities? In the town from which I come we adopted a scheme some time ago, and there are about nine houses to be completed. Will these be completed under the Bill if we get the money at a reasonable rate of interest for a certain term of years?

Mr. MORRISSEY

In view of the undertaking given by the Minister to look into this matter between now and the Report Stage I withdraw my amendment.

General MULCAHY

I would like Deputy Carey's question to be more specific. I do not think that this is the place to answer that particular question. A local authority may intend to put up 29 houses, may, in fact, put up 20, and may proceed with the other nine if it gets the money and a particular site. I think that that question is too wide to answer here.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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.

Bill ordered to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 7th November.