In Committee on Finance. - Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1931—Committee. – Dáil Éireann (6th Dáil) – Thursday, 26 Nov 1931

In Committee on Finance. - Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1931—Committee.

Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lemass

I just wish to call attention to the point that amongst the Acts amended are the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1930. These Acts were continued by the Expiring Laws Bill passed last week. In the first place, is the definition right there? Secondly, has the Minister considered the point I raised that if it was intended that the Acts should remain in operation for a longer period than one year they should be made permanent by this Bill?

General Mulcahy

As far as that is concerned, for the purposes of this Bill there is no necessity to make it a permanent Act, and there may have been certain objections to doing it. I have not gone into the matter, but it creates no definite difficulty except that the Expiring Laws Bill has to include it every year. As I said, this Act is the precursor of a codifying Bill, and the only difficulty that will arise is that the Labourers Acts must be continued in the Expiring Laws Bill until such time as they are included in the Codified Housing Bill. As far as the definition of the Act is concerned——

Mr. Lemass

Should you not put in 1931 instead of 1930?

General Mulcahy

There may be a point in that. We had a Labourers (Ireland) Act last year dealing with certain small things. Lower down, we include it in the general type of Labourers Acts, 1883 to 1931. On the 1930 Bill originally there was some small change made to enable rating difficulties to be got over last year.

Section put and agreed to.

SECTION 2.

(1) In this Act—

the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Local Government and Public Health;

the word "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister;

the expression "unhealthy area" means an area the dwelling houses in which are by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects unfit for human habitation or are for the like reason dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area, or are by reason of their bad arrangement or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, dangerous or injurious to the health of such inhabitants, and in which the other buildings, if any, are for a like reason dangerous or injurious to the health of such inhabitants;

the expression "clearance area" means an unhealthy area declared by a local authority to be a clearance area for the purposes of this Act.

General Mulcahy

I move amendments No. 1 and No. 2 as follows:—

1. In page 5, lines 42 and 43, to delete the words "or are for the like reason dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area".

2. In page 5, lines 45 and 46, to delete the words "such inhabitants" and substitute therefor the words "the inhabitants of the area".

These are drafting amendments. The words which it is proposed to delete are really redundant, and they might give rise to obscurity.

Mr. Lemass

I am not so sure that is so. When is a building unfit for human habitation? Has that phrase been defined?

General Mulcahy

It is the sanitary officer of the local authority who decides when a building is unfit for human habitation.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Section 2 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5, SUB-SECTION (1).

(1) Where a local authority are satisfied upon consideration of an official representation or other information in their possession that any area within their district is an unhealthy area and that the conditions in such area can be effectively remedied only by the demolition of all the buildings in such area to be defined on a map so as to exclude therefrom any building which is not unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health and shall by resolution declare such area to be a clearance area, and shall in accordance with the provisions of this Act proceed to secure the demolition of all buildings in that area in one or other of the following ways, or partly in one way and partly in the other according as the local authority shall determine, that is to say:—

(a) by purchasing land comprised in the area and demolishing or otherwise securing the demolition of all buildings thereon; or

(b) by ordering the demolition of buildings in the area.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 3:

In sub-section (1), line 13, to add after the word "area" the words "which are unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health."

The purpose of this amendment is to make clear the difference between an area definitely defined as a clearance area and the original area that has been under consideration. If there are buildings in an area which is declared generally to be unhealthy, and that these buildings are not themselves in an unhealthy condition, it is not the purpose of the Bill either that these buildings would be destroyed or that they would be included in what is strictly defined as the clearance area.

Mr. Lemass

Would not the word "all" in line 19 require to be deleted then?

General Mulcahy

The words "all the buildings in that area" refer here to the clearance area, mentioned in line 17. It is the intention that all the buildings in the clearance area will be destroyed, but the clearance area may have in it islands of good buildings. These would have been referred to in the words "any area" in line 10. All the buildings referred to would be in what has been definitely marked down as the clearance area.

Amendment put and agreed to.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 4:

In sub-section (1), line 17, to add after the words "such area" the words "as so defined."

This is consequential on the other amendments.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 as amended stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lemass

I would like to know in regard to sub-section (3) whether it should not be the function of the council rather than of the city manager to declare an area an unhealthy area.

General Mulcahy

That is what it says. The declaration of any area is a reserved function. A reserved function is a function reserved for the council.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

In page 8, at the end of the section to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(5) The amount of any expenses due to a local authority under this section shall be a charge on the premises in respect of which expenses were incurred and the local authority shall for the purpose of enforcing such charge have all the same powers and remedies as if they were mortgagees by deed having powers of sale and lease, accepting surrenders of leases and of appointing a receiver."

This is to set out more fully the position of the local authorities. It puts them in a position of power to recover expenses that have been incurred by them in carrying out the demolition under Section 8.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 9, 10 and 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

(a) the demolition or repair, as circumstances may require, of those dwelling-houses within the area which are unfit for human habitation; and

(b) the purchase by the local authority of any land within the area which it is expedient for them to acquire for the purpose of opening out the area and the demolition of any buildings on such land so far as may be necessary to demolish them for that purpose;

the local authority may cause that area to be defined on a map and may pass a resolution declaring the area so defined to be an improvement area.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 6:

In sub-section (1), line 32, to add after the words "such area" the words "which are unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health."

Amendment agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

Section 13 and 14 agreed to.

Mr. Corish

I move amendment 7:

Before Section 15 to insert a new section as follows:—

"For the purposes of providing accommodation for persons displaced by the demolition of buildings under a clearance order the local authority may purchase by a compulsory purchase order any habitable house which has been vacant for a period of not less than three months."

I do not think in many places in Ireland at the moment the state of affairs prevails that I have in mind, but in case it does and houses are closed down for some selfish reasons as far as the landlords are concerned, I think the Minister should give the local authorities power to take them over and to use them. If the Minister would agree, I think it might be acceptable in the case of barracks and buildings of that sort also.

General Mulcahy

The local authority has already this power under Section 8 of the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, and we amplify that in Section 49 (1) by the addition of the words "are suitable for." Section 8 states: "The powers of a local authority to acquire land for the purposes of Part III. of the Act of 1890 shall be deemed to include power—

(a) to acquire any houses or other buildings on the land proposed to be acquired as a site for the erection of houses for the working classes; and

(b) to acquire any estate or interest in any houses which might be made suitable as houses for the working classes, together with any lands occupied with such houses."

The amendment to Section 49, sub-section (1) will give power to local authorities under (b) (1) of Section 8 to acquire any estate or interest in any houses which are suitable. These words are added "or which might be made suitable as houses for the working classes," so what the Deputy seeks to include in his amendment is covered by that section and made more in accordance with what he wants.

Amendment 7, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 agreed.

SECTION 19.

(1) Where a local authority, upon consideration of an official representation or a report from any of their officers, or other information in their possession, are satisfied that any dwelling-house which is occupied or is of a type suitable for occupation by persons of the working classes is in any respect unfit for human habitation they shall, unless they are satisfied that it is not capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered so fit, serve upon the person having control of the house a notice requiring him, within such reasonable time, not being less than twenty-one days, as may be specified in the notice, to execute the works specified in the notice and stating that, in the opinion of the local authority, those works will render the house fit for human habitation.

(2) In addition to serving a notice under this section on the person having control of the house, the local authority may serve a copy of the notice on any other person having an interest in the house, whether as owner in fee simple, mortgagee, lessee, or otherwise.

The following amendment stood in the name of Deputy Corish:

"In sub-section (2), line 18, after the word ‘may' to insert the words ‘at their discretion'."

Mr. Corish

I suggest that Deputy O'Connell's amendment should be taken first.

Mr. T. O'Connell

I move amendment 9, to delete sub-section (2).

Amendments 8 and 9 are really bound up together, and deal with the same thing. The trouble is that the word "may" in the second line of the section, it is feared, would have the effect of "shall". We were told here a few evenings ago by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that "may" when applied to a local body has the effect of "shall" and it is felt that if "may" there in fact meant "shall," it would make for delay, because the local authority might feel bound to serve that notice on persons other than the person in actual control, and that in that way it would lead to a great deal of delay to find out who those persons were. I propose to delete the sub-section altogether. Deputy Corish suggests that "may at their discretion" would meet the position. The difficulty we have in mind is if "may" is mandatory it would make for a good deal of delay in finding out those people who may have an interest or who may be entitled to serve a notice.

General Mulcahy

The purpose of the sub-section is that where there are a chain of owners it is desirable in so far as they may be conveniently found that they will all be advised as to the steps that are being taken with regard to an unhealthy house, because the person who is immediately in control of the house might not be prepared to suit the local authority's wishes, and the local authority might be driven into the position of taking action itself, whereas the person next or second next in the chain, if advised as to what was taking place with regard to the dwelling, might approach those people closer up in ownership, and might come to an accommodation by which the immediate owner might part with his interest to the other owner, and that local owner might meet the local authorities in their wishes, so that I think it would be undesirable to take that sub-section out.

With regard to Deputy Corish's amendment, whatever Deputy O'Connell read into anything said by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I think it would be desperate, considering all the "mays" we have passed through, in one way or another, if we allowed ourselves to give approval to the idea that every place there was a "may" in anything passed through here it shall be construed to mean "shall."

Mr. Everett

That was so in the Vaccination Act.

Will you accept that interpretation of it in the case of the Vaccination Act?

Mr. O'Connell

There are many cases in which it does mean shall.

Amendment 8 not moved.

Amendment 9, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."

I was merely asked to put the point.

Professor Alton

Has the landlord any power to add to the rent the expenses he has been put to in repairing a house?

Mr. Corish

He has, under the Rent Restriotions Act.

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. S.T. O'Kelly

I move amendment 10.

10. Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"Any such expenses may be recovered in a summary manner as a civil debt by the local authority from the occupier or occupiers for the time being of the house in respect of which the expenses were incurred and the person having control of the house shall allow such occupier to deduct any money which he pays under this enactment out of the rent from time to time becoming due out of the house or the part of same occupied by him, as if the same had been actually paid to such person having control as part of such rent: Provided that no such occupier shall be required to pay any further sum than the amount of rent for the time being due from him, or which, after demand of such expenses from such occupier, and after notice not to pay the person in control of the house any rent without first deducting the amount of such expenses, becomes payable by such occupier, unless he refuses, on application to him by the local authority, truly to disclose the amount of his rent and the name and address of the person to whom such rent is payable; but the burden of proof that the sum demanded from any such occupier is greater than the rent due by him at the time of such notice, or which has since accrued shall lie on such occupier: Provided also that in case any house or part of same in respect of which any such expenses were incurred becomes vacant before the whole of such expenses shall have been discharged the local authority may make a letting or lettings of the same for a period or periods and at a rent or rents not less favourable to the tenant or tenants than those of the former letting or lettings.

The local authority shall during the whole time they are in receipt of the rents of the occupier or occupiers of any house under this enactment maintain the same in a sanitary condition in accordance with the requirements of any statute or by-laws in force in relation to same, and the expenses incurred by the local authority in that behalf shall be added to the expenses recoverable under this section, and shall be recovered as part of same."

This amendment has been suggested by the City Manager and the law agent. They are of opinion that while the provisions in Section 20 are valuable, in practice they may be proved, to some extent at any rate, unworkable. It will be necessary to have arrangements such as are suggested in this amendment whereby the recoupment can be obtained from the occupier of the premises. I do not know whether the Minister has seen the statement sent around by the City Manager and the law agent, dated 18th November. If he has not, perhaps I will be permitted to read it.

General Mulcahy

I have seen the statement. We have had discussions both with the City Manager and the law agent, and amendment 11 is intended to meet the purpose the City Manager has in mind. It gives the local authority power to require that rents will be paid over to it until such time as the amount is fully repaid; that is, having got a decision that certain moneys are due to them from the owner, the local authority can get the amounts paid over. The main objection to the section as it stood was that it was thought a separate application would have to be made for every week's rent. Amendment 11 avoids that; and amendment 12 gives the local authority power to keep tenants in a place if the owner, for any reason, does not do so. It enables the local authority to rent any section of a house that becomes vacant after suitable notice of twenty-one days has been given to the owner.

Mr. Corish

I suppose there is no danger of this becoming a general rule rather than an exception? Are we to take it that this will not be brought into operation unless the landlord, by whom the repairs are carried out——

General Mulcahy

He has an appeal to the Circuit Court if he feels aggrieved.

Amendment 10, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 20 agreed to.

Amendment 11 agreed to:—

Before Section 21 to insert the following new section:

(1) Where a demand for the recovery of expenses incurred by a local authority under the next foregoing section has become operative and such expenses or any part thereof remain unpaid the local authority may, after giving not less than ten days' notice to the person having control of the house in respect of which such expenses were incurred, serve a notice in the prescribed form upon the occupier or occupiers of such house, stating the amount of such expenses remaining unpaid and requiring such occupier or occupiers to pay to the local authority any rent then due or thereafter to become due by him or them until the amount of such expenses with any interest due thereon is fully repaid.

(2) The service of any such notice as is referred to in the foregoing sub-section upon an occupier shall operate to transfer to the local authority the exclusive right to recover, receive and give a discharge for the rent required by such notice to be paid to the local authority.— (Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí.)

Amendment 12 agreed to:—

Before Section 21 to insert a new section as follows:

(1) A local authority, to whom any expenses are due in respect of the execution of works to a house under Section 20 of this Act which is or has become vacant, may, if satisfied that payment of such expenses cannot be recovered from the person having control of the house and after giving to such person twenty-one days' notice in writing of their intention so to do, make in the name of such person a letting of the house to a suitable person at such rent and for such period and on such terms and conditions as to the local authority shall seem proper having regard to the circumstances and to the nature of any previous tenancy in the house.

(2) Every such notice as is referred to in the foregoing sub-section shall state the rent period for which and the terms and conditions on which the local authority propose to make a letting of the house.

(3) For the purposes of this section and for those purposes only the local authority shall be deemed to be the agent of the person having control of the house with power to make a letting without his consent and the word "house" includes in the case of a house habitually let in separate apartments, a part of a house.

(4) Any person aggrieved by a proposal of a local authority to make a letting of a house under this section may, within twenty-one days after the date of the service of the notice referred to in sub-section (1) of this section, appeal to the Circuit Court, who may make such order in the matter as to the court shall seem just and reasonable but the decision of the court shall be final and conclusive and not subject to any appeal.—(Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí).

Section 21 agreed to.

SECTION 22.

(1) A room habitually used as a sleeping place the surface of the floor of which is more than three feet below the surface of the part of the street adjoining or nearest to the room, or more than three feet below the surface of any ground within nine feet of the room, shall for the purposes of this Part of this Act be deemed to be a house unfit for human habitation, if the room either—

(a) is not on an average at least seven feet in height from floor to ceiling; or

(b) does not comply with such regulations as the local authority with the consent of the Minister may prescribe for securing the proper ventilation and lighting of such rooms, and the protection thereof against dampness, effluvia, or exhalation.

Amendment 13 agreed to:

In sub-section (1), line 22, to delete the word "seven" and substitute therefor the word "eight."—(Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí, Deputy Corish, Deputy Seán T. O Ceallaigh.)

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

Section 23 agreed to.

SECTION 24.

(1) When a demolition order under this Part of this Act has become operative, the owner or owners of the house to which it applies shall demolish that house and clear and level the site thereof within the time limited in that behalf by the order; and, if the house is not demolished and the site thereof cleared and levelled within that time, the local authority shall enter and demolish the house and clear and level the site thereof and sell the materials thereof, and the provisions of subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 8 of this Act shall apply in relation to any expenses incurred by the authority under this sub-section and to any surplus remaining in the hands of the local authority as they apply in relation to any expenses or surplus in a case where a building is demolished in pursuance of a clearance order.

General Mulcahy

I beg to move amendment 14.

In sub-section (1), line 60, to delete the word and figure "and (4)" and substitute therefor the figures and word "(4) and (5)".

We put in an additional sub-section to Section 8, and this is consequential on that.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

Section 25, 26 and 27 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. O'Kelly

I beg to move amendment 15:

Before Section 28 to insert a new section as follows:—

"(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to consider the housing conditions in their area and the needs of the area with respect to the provision of further housing accommodation for the working classes and for that purpose to review the information which has been brought to their notice by the medical officer of health or as a result of inspections and surveys previously carried out or otherwise and as often as occasion arises or within three months after notice has been given to them by the Minister, to prepare and submit to the Minister proposals for the provision of new houses for the working classes, distinguishing those houses which the local authority propose to provide for the purpose of rendering accommodation available for persons to be displaced by, or in consequence of, action taken by the authority under this Act.

(2) In the year 1932 and in each fifth succeeding year the council of every county borough or other urban district which for the time being contains according to the latest published census returns a population of more than five thousand shall furnish to the Minister, in addition to any proposals submitted by them under the last preceding sub-section, a general statement of the measures which they propose to take during the five next succeeding years for dealing with housing conditions in their area and the provision of further housing accommodation."

This is taken practically bodily from the British Housing Act of 1930. I was looking through that measure and comparing it with the Bill now before us, and I notice that practically all this Bill might be said — of course with amendments — to have been taken bodily from the British Housing Act of last year. I thought it rather surprising that the Minister did not include this section as well. I think there are very useful powers contained in it, and that it would be an advantage to the Department to have returns of that kind so as to be able to see the progress made over a period of years. It would enable the Department to take a census of the number of unhealthy houses and the number of houses requiring to be erected in cities and towns. I think the powers would be valuable, and they would help to make certain that the Minister and the Department would be fully aware of the exact circumstances in regard to the housing of the people in the towns and cities. It would also afford opportunities of bringing housing conditions directly under the notice of local authorities and officials.

General Mulcahy

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Section 28 agreed to.

SECTION 29.

(1) In any contract entered into after the passing of this Act for letting for habitation a dwelling-house at a rent not exceeding—

(a) in the case of a house situate in the County Borough of Dublin or the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, thirty pounds per annum;

(b) in the case of a house situate elsewhere, twenty-five pounds per annum;

there shall, notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary, be implied a condition that the house is at the commencement of the tenancy, and an undertaking that the house will be kept by the landlord during the tenancy, in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation;

Provided that the condition and undertaking aforesaid shall not be implied when a house is let for a term of not less than three years upon the terms that it be put by the lessee into a condition reasonably fit for habitation, and the lease is not determinable at the option of either party before the expiration of three years.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

I move amendment 16:

In sub-section (1), line 14, after the word "into" to insert the words "either before or" and to delete all after the word "implied" in line 23 to the word "and" in line 24.

This section provides that a landlord shall keep a house in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation. I cannot understand why that should only apply to houses in which the contract is entered into after the passing of the Act. Why should not that apply to houses where the contract is entered into before or after the passing of the Act? It seems to me only reasonable that the obligation should be on the landlord. To my mind there is a danger that by putting it in this way and applying it to contracts entered into after the passing of the Act, there will be an assumption that it does not apply to houses where the contract is entered into before that, although there is undoubtedly and ought to be an implication. I do not know whether it is already the law, but it is implied, in any case, that the obligation already rested on the landlord. The fact that a tenant rents a house to live in would mean that there was an obligation on the landlord to keep it in a habitable state for him. Objection might be made to making this retrospective, but we have many precedents in this House for doing that. In any case, it seems to me that that is a condition which ought to apply in the case of every rented house.

General Mulcahy

I am opposing the amendment, because we put in here a definite provision that will enable us to operate generally the provisions of this Bill. There may be many houses as to which definite contracts have been entered into already, and it would be dangerous perhaps to introduce a provision that would affect contracts already entered into.

General Mulcahy

Perhaps we might let this stand until the Report Stage and we will have the matter considered. The only objection to letting this section stand is that it might prejudice a local authority in declaring a clearance area, in ordering a person to destroy a house because it is unfit for human habitation or to repair it— principally destruction.

Mr. O'Kelly

I would risk leaving the provision in and giving the discretion to the local authority. This will be always subject to the approval of the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

His consent is only required in the case of business premises.

Mr. O'Kelly

If the Minister found that the amounts paid in some cases were high, he would take steps to ensure that that would not happen again. The matter would come under the notice of the Department, and the local authority would be informed that the Department would not give its sanction to such a high scale of allowance in future. I am still worried by the question of licensed traders. I do not know that I should be regarded as a defender of the licensed trade, but I am satisfied that under this section demands will be made on the Dublin Corporation for what some people might regard as extravagant allowances, because of the forced removal of persons occupying licensed premises, this removal following upon a clearance order. I have in mind a very wide area in the constituency of the Minister and myself. It extends from Gardiner Street down to the North Strand and from the quays up to Summerhill. All that area is not an unhealthy area, but a very big portion of it is. There are very wide areas within these boundaries that will probably, at some future date, be cleared as unhealthy.

Within that area and the sub-areas included within its boundary, there are a very large number of licensed premises. The owners of these premises are to be paid, with the consent of the Minister, a reasonable allowance towards the loss which a trader will sustain by reason of the disturbance of his trade consequent on his having to quit the house or building. In estimating the loss, regard is to be had to the period for which the premises might reasonably have been expected to be available for the purpose of the trade or business. That may or may not be long but efforts will be made to make the amount the local authority might think reasonable such a sum as would cover the value of the licensed premises. In so far as the amount of compensation or allowance is increased, the cost of clearing the area will be increased. The cost in such an area as I have mentioned will be very considerable indeed. If this cost were added to the other costs of the clearance, the amount would be very high and the consequent loss on any housing scheme afterwards engaged in by the local authority would be very high. Some provision is necessary to deal with cases of that kind— either a provision making licences available elsewhere or a provision for the retention of a certain number of the licences in the area. If we are to prevent extravagant claims and heavy cost being placed on the local authority, which cost will fall upon the ratepayers later, some provision such as I have suggested is necessary.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy is going on the assumption that houses would come into a clearance scheme which, in fact, would not come in because they would not be in the condition that they would be marked down for destruction. As regards the acquiring of land for the purpose of development, where houses might be cleared that were not actually condemned, compensation payable in these cases would be fixed by an assessor. The trade or business premises that might be involved in one of these clearance schemes where houses would be marked down as unfit for habitation would be more of the little huckster type, with a couple of bottles of lemonade in the window, or the coal shop type, or something like that. Local authorities would not, I think, be confronted with the question of allowance for disturbance in the case of a licensed premises of any reasonable kind.

Sections 34, 35 and 36 agreed to.

SECTION 37 (2).

(2) A derelict site so acquired by a local authority may with the consent of the Minister, pending its ultimate appropriation for the purpose for which it was acquired, be used temporarily by the local authority as a playground or recreation ground for persons of the working classes and other persons.

Mr. Law

I move amendment 17:

In sub-section (2), line 38, to delete the word "temporarily."

I have put down the amendment primarily for the purpose of eliciting some information from the Minister as to his policy in regard to open spaces, particularly in the cities. This section, as Deputies will see, deals with the acquisition of derelict sites. The first sub-section gives a local authority power to acquire, either by agreement with the consent of the Minister or compulsorily, a derelict site, notwithstanding that such site is required for such purpose. Sub-section (2) goes on to say that a derelict site so acquired by a local authority may, "with the consent of the Minister, pending its ultimate appropriation for the purpose for which it was acquired, be used temporarily by the local authority as a playground or recreation ground for persons of the working classes and other persons." I want to call attention to the wording of this. If Deputies look at Section 38 they will see that there power is given, among other things, to the local authority "to provide and maintain, with the consent of the Minister and, if desired, jointly with any other person in connection with any such housing accommodation, ...any playgrounds or recreation grounds, open spaces or other buildings or land which, in the opinion of the Minister, will serve a beneficial purpose in connection with the requirements of the persons for whom the housing accommodation is provided."

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 18:

To delete sub-section (3) and substitute therefore the following sub-section:—

"(3) Where a local authority acquire compulsorily a derelict site for any of the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts the compensation to be paid by the local authority in respect of the acquisition of such site shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions contained in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act and, subject as aforesaid, shall be assessed in accordance with the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as amended by the Acquisition of Land (Reference Committee) Act, 1925 (No. 22 of 1925)."

Elsewhere, in response to representations from the City Corporation, we change the compensation in respect to clearance areas. Originally the compensation to be paid was the value of the sites cleared. On representations made it is reasonable to consider that the compensation paid should be the value of the site cleared, less the cost of removing the buildings. The Third Schedule is, by amendment, altered so as to indicate that that will be the compensation. The result is that the lines upon which compensation will be determined will be the same for a derelict site as for a clearance area. Instead of putting in there the special way in which compensation would be determined in respect to derelict sites, we simply refer to the derelict site section in the same way as we refer to the clearance area section to the Third Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment 19 not moved.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 20:

To delete sub-section (4) and substitute the following sub-section:—

(4) For the purposes of this section the expression "derelict site" means any land situate in an area inhabited mainly by persons of the working classes or in close proximity to such an area which is

(a) the site of a building that has been demolished or which is in a ruinous and uninhabitable condition; or

(b) land which has not been and cannot be built upon without clearance and levelling and is or is likely to become in such a state as to be a nuisance or injurious to health by reason of the deposit thereon of filth, rubbish or other insanitary matters or otherwise; and

(c) which is land which has been lying undeveloped or not re-developed for a period of not less than three years from the time at which the local authority determine by resolution to acquire the land.

This amendment meets the intention of amendment 19. I ask leave of the House to amend this amendment by reason of the fact that the word "from" in the third line of paragraph (c) may give rise to a certain amount of ambiguity. I ask the leave of the House to delete the word "from," and to substitute the words "immediately preceding."

The paragraph will then read:

(c) which is land which has been lying undeveloped or not re-developed for a period of not less than three years immediately preceding the time at which the local authority determine by resolution to acquire the land.

Leave granted.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Section 37, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 38 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 45.

(1) For the purposes of this or the Act of 1890 the expression "official representation" means, in the case of any local authority, a representation made to that authority by the medical officer thereof.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 21:

In sub-section (1), line 26, to insert the word "Act" after the word "this".

This is just a drafting amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 45, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 46 to 48, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 49.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 22:

In page 24, to delete sub-section (6) and substitute therefor the following sub-section:—

"(6) Section 17 of the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, which confers powers on the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to make loans to private persons shall become a permanent enactment and any provision in any Act in force at the date of the passing of this Act which limits the period for which the said section is to remain in force shall cease to have effect."

This is an attempt to meet the House to some extent in eliminating the matter of the Expiring Laws Bill. This section is continued under the Expiring Laws Bill year after year and we are making it permanent here.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 49, as amended, put and agreed to.

Section 50 agreed to.

SECTION 51.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 23:

In page 24 to insert before Section 51 a new section, as follows:—

"Where a local authority acquire compulsorily any house which is suitable or might be made suitable for persons of the working classes for the purposes of Part III. of the Act of 1890, as amended by any subsequent enactment including this Act, the compensation payable in respect thereof shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II. of the Third Schedule to this Act."

Part II. of the Third Schedule makes it clear that when a house is compulsorily acquired in an area, not being a clearance area, in making an award in respect of the compensation that will be paid for it and in taking into consideration the rents, etc., received out of it, the arbitrator will take into consideration whether the house has been used illegally or in an overcrowded way. It also provides that the arbitration will be based on a consideration of what the rent would be if the house were not used for illegal purposes or were not overcrowded.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 51, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 52 to 55, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 56.

(2) Paragraph (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Small Dwellings Act, 1899, is hereby repealed.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

I move amendment 24:

At the end of sub-section (1), to insert a new paragraph (e) as follows:—

(e) In lieu of an advance in cash an advance under these Acts as amended by this Act may be made to a public utility society on behalf of a person or persons qualified to receive an advance by means of a supply of materials suitable for the construction of houses and when the local authority decide that an advance shall be made in the form of material such advance may be made as soon as the local authority is satisfied that such material will be used for the purpose stated in the application for an advance.

This amendment seeks to empower local authorities to make advances of building materials to a public utility society. I might say that it has been put down in response to representations which we received from groups of workers. It has been pointed out that it might be possible to find a group of workers who would be anxious to erect one, two or three houses for themselves, men who would be engaged in their ordinary work in the building industry and who would do this in their spare time. If they were to take advantage of the Act they would require a certain amount of capital, in any case, to go on with, but, as the Bill stands at the moment, the advances are made only to them by instalments. It is to be assumed that a certain amount of the work would have to be done before they could get any payment. The point is that they would want capital right from the beginning, and it is thought that if the materials were made available to them it would facilitate them in their desire to get on with the erection of the houses. The argument might well be put forward, that if you were to advance cash right from the beginning, you would not be quite sure that the cash would be used for the purpose for which it was intended. That is the reason why the advance is only made when a certain amount of work is done. That is the difficulty we require to get over by this proposal, namely, that an authority will be in a position to advance building materials to a group of workers, who are prepared, and who satisfy the local authority in that way, to take on the building of a few houses for themselves.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

The idea is not so new as people think. In 1913, a group of unemployed tradesmen in Dublin formed a society on merely nominal shares. They bought material and actually constructed houses. I was a shareholder myself. I was on the committee, and knew the inner working of the scheme. They constructed houses somewhere near Fairview, but then there was an epidemic of wars. We had a few of our own and there was the big war, and these put an end to it.

Mr. Lemass

It was not that put an end to it.

Mr. Hogan

They did not become bankrupt. I was at the winding-up of the scheme, and know what happened. I do not know whether Deputy Lemass was closely acquainted with it or not— I do not remember meeting him at either the general meetings or the committee meetings. Therefore, the idea is not so new. I know perfectly well that there was good and effective work done, and what we heard so much talk about—good construction.

Mr. Coburn

While I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment, I think it would be very hard to work such a scheme. After all, a body of men going in for the building of houses must have some little credit in the country, so that they would be in a position to obtain credit from local suppliers. The scheme would be all right if we were sure that the persons who got these materials would use them to the best advantage. Would the Minister agree to the local authority guaranteeing the builders providers that they would be responsible for the payment of the material delivered to such groups of men as Deputy O'Connell speaks of?

General Mulcahy

I am prepared to hear any local authority on the matter.

Mr. Coburn

Of course men could form themselves into a utility society for the purpose of building houses themselves without first asking for the material. It has been done already. I can quite appreciate the point raised by Deputy O'Connell, that there are certain types of people— bricklayers and carpenters—who would get together and build a few houses if this amendment were passed.

Mr. O'Connell

The Minister said that he is prepared to hear any local authority on it. He may hear local authorities on it when this Bill is passed.

General Mulcahy

I quite realise that I am to hear no local authority on it if this proposal is enshrined in this measure.

Mr. O'Connell

There is nothing revolutionary in it.

General Mulcahy

It is a bit revolutionary. Following on our general housing policy it is now proposed that local authorities will buy building materials and distribute them as an advance to persons who will go out and build their own houses. The implication is that they have no credit of any kind. What we are providing here is that persons who are going to have their houses built or who are going to build them themselves can be secure that the local authority would advance them at the time the house is built a considerable portion of the cost of the house, and that the local authority may make arrangements to make instalments of the advance to them, but only up to 50 per cent. of the approximate cost of the work that is done. That is a very considerable provision. As I say, the other contemplates a very special class and a very special way of dealing with that class. I wish, particularly in rural parts of the country, that we had circumstances in which a scheme like that were possible of being worked. I would more favourably consider any statement of the circumstances from any local authority that would show that the circumstances were such as to warrant a scheme such as that proposed.

Mr. Good

I would not limit it to the rural areas.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. O'Connell

I move amendment 25:

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Section 34 of the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, is hereby amended by the insertion of twelve hundred pounds in substitution for eight hundred pounds as the limit on the market value of houses in respect of which advances may be made.

I am accepting the Minister's £1,000 instead of £1,200, but I am proposing to put it into Part VI, whereas the Minister, and I think Deputy Morrissey, are proposing to put it into Part VII.

An Ceann Comhairle

In Part VI, before Section 57.

Mr. O'Connell

I understood that putting it in there would apply it only to new houses, and that is what I intended to do. The grants would be made only to people intending to construct houses.

I feel it is better that if a capital advance is to be made available it should be made available for the building of new houses. There is not much gained by an advance of capital to transfer the ownership of the house from, say, Deputy Corish to me, whereas, if there is capital advanced to me to build a new house, something new is being created. It seems it would be of greater advantage if it were used only in that way.

Mr. Morrissey

There is a difference between the amendment in Deputy O'Connell's name and the amendment in my name. As the Deputy pointed out, under his amendment it would be confined to a new house. My amendment leaves it open to have the advance made either in respect of existing houses or in respect of new houses. I am rather surprised at Deputy O'Connell saying that there is not much to be gained by giving a man an opportunity of becoming the owner of his own house. That is contrary to what the Deputy has always preached.

Well, since this State came into existence. The history of Ireland did not start until two years afterwards.

Amendment 25, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Connolly

I beg to move amendment 26 on behalf of Deputy Law:

Section 4 of the Housing Act, 1930, is hereby repealed and in lieu thereof it is hereby enacted that the aggregate amount of grants made are to be made under Section 3 of the Housing Act, 1925 (No. 12 of 1925), as amended by Section 3 of the Housing Act, 1928 (No. 31 of 1928), together with the aggregate amount of the grants made or to be made under Section 3 of the Housing Act, 1929 (No. 12 of 1929), shall not exceed the sum of £1,280,000.

Amendment 27 not moved.

Amendment 28 agreed to:

In page 25 to insert in Part VI before Section 57 the following new section:—

"Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, as amended by the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, shall be amended by the substitution therein of one thousand pounds for eight hundred pounds as the limit of the market value of houses in respect of which advances may be made."—(Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puiblí.)

Section 57, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 58.

The First Schedule to the Housing Act, 1929 (No. 12 of 1929) as amended by Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1930 (No. 22 of 1930) shall in its application to houses erected by private persons have effect as if there were inserted therein the following rule, and the said schedule and also Section 2 of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed and have effect accordingly, that is to say:—

The amendment is in order then?

General Mulcahy

It all depends on the word "may."

An Ceann Comhairle

I came to the conclusion that the Minister had a discretion, and I accepted the amendment for that reason. It appeared to me that the amendment merely extended the period during which the £30,000 could be spent, and that it would be at the discretion of the Minister and on that basis I accepted the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section put and agreed to.

SECTION 59.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Housing Acts, 1925 to 1930, as amended by this Act, the Minister may under Section 3 of the Housing Act, 1929 (No. 12 of 1929), as modified by this section, continue to make grants to private persons erecting houses to which that Act as modified by this section applies.

(2) For the purposes of this section the aggregate amount of the grants made or to be made under the Housing Acts, 1925 to 1930, as amended by this Act, shall be increased by the sum of twenty-five thousand pounds.

(3) The Housing Act, 1929 (No. 12 of 1929) shall for the purposes of this section, have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say:—

(a) Paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act shall have effect as if there were substituted therein "£20" for "£45";

(b) Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (3) of Section 5 and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 7 of the said Act shall not apply;

(c) No grant shall be made by the Minister under the said Act unless the local authority within whose functional area the house is erected make a grant in respect of the house of an amount equivalent to that made by the Minister;

(d) For rules 2 and 4 of the First Schedule to the said Act there shall be substituted the following rules:—

2. The floor area of a house shall not be less than 500 square feet and not more than

(a) 750 square feet if such house is erected in a county borough, borough, urban district or town; or

(b) 1,250 square feet if such house is erected elsewhere.

4. The erection of a house shall have been begun on or after the 1st day of March, 1932, and shall have been completed before the expiration of this section.

(4) A local authority having power to levy rates shall in every of the seven local financial years after the valuation for rating purposes of a house in respect of which a grant has been made to a person by the Minister under this section remit two-thirds of the rates leviable in respect of that house in that year by the local authority.

(5) Sub-section (4) of this section shall not apply to any house to which Section 13 of the Housing (Gaeltacht) Act, 1929 (No. 41 of 1929) applies.

(6) This section shall continue in force until the 31st day of December, 1933, and shall then expire.

Mr. Law

I move amendment 29:

In sub-section (1), line 60, before the words "private persons," to insert the words "public utility societies or".

Section 14 of the Housing Act of 1919, to which the Minister has referred, is the foundation of our present housing legislation. You will find that in that Act—and, I think I am right in saying, ever since—provision has been made by way of loan and by way of grants to public utility societies for the erection of houses.

Mr. Corish

Does not sub-section (e) of Section 60 deal with that?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. Law

We are on a different point. We are now on the question of grants. Not only was that provision made both by way of grant and by way of loan, but distinct preference was given in the regulations under the Act of 1919 and, I think, ever since to public utility societies, and that, I venture to suggest, is not done without good reason.

General Mulcahy

I do not like to interrupt the Deputy, but, as Deputy Corish has pointed out, paragraph (e), sub-section (1), Section 60, provides that "in the case of houses erected by a public utility society, the erection of which is begun after the passing of this Act, 15 per cent. of the annual loan charges in respect of such houses covers a period not exceeding twenty years."

Yes.

Professor Thrift

I think there is a good deal in what Deputy Law said, that this will interfere with the work of the public utility societies. They have been able to carry on their operations so far and pay their way by means of the initial subsidy for the most part. Even if there is a prospect of ultimately getting some amount in payment of debts that have occurred on account of that, that will only apply in certain cases, but in many other cases they will not be able to carry out their operations and set the houses at a satisfactory rent.

Mr. O'Kelly

It appears to me that Deputy Thrift has struck the real defect here. Public utility societies, generally speaking, have no great credit. They have a certain limited amount of credit, and the subsidy was of very great advantage to them in carrying on their work, and when finished selling their houses, then going ahead with the aid of another subsidy, and building another house or series of houses. While the new scheme will eventually mean, so far as the Government is concerned, the same amount actual of capital outlay spread over a number of years, it would not be of the same practical value to the utility societies. I am informed by those who have practical knowledge of the working of those societies that it will mean that their work will be greatly hampered, and that so far as the smaller societies are concerned probably their work will have to cease. They would not be able at all to meet their liabilities with the same prospect of building and selling houses as they have been able to do owing to the grants previously made under the housing schemes. I think in regard to public utility societies, if the Minister could continue the grants made under the last Act, the good work done by those public utility societies so far in providing houses for the lower middle classes, and which has relieved the pressure, would be able to continue. Otherwise there would be a considerable falling off of the work.

Mr. Good

Could the Minister say what advantage the State will derive by preventing utility societies disposing of their houses?

General Mulcahy

I am not preventing utility societies disposing of these houses, but we are anxious that, outside local authorities, there would be societies that would build houses for persons who require houses slightly better than those that local authorities build, and who would be able to take these houses at rents they can be let at. I think a very considerable portion of our population want such houses at present, and that it is very difficult for them to acquire their houses by buying them. If there are people who want to acquire their houses by buying them, then they ought to be able to do it through some other channel than by preventing the development of public utility societies. That would be what we want, that is, to provide houses somewhat above the local authority class of houses for renting. Private persons anxious to buy their houses should take advantage, as they can, of the facilities given here for getting grants and forgetting credit under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, they ought to be able to secure them in some other way. They might even be able to cooperate with the public utility societies in finding contractors who would build their houses, or as part even of a public utility scheme. We do not want that development to spoil the development we very urgently wish for from the development of public utility societies. If there are people who can buy houses from a public utility society there is nothing to prevent such a society selling these houses at a cost that to them is reasonable, but then they lose the annual grant.

Mr. Coburn

I think the section makes the work of public utility societies very ineffective. I am one of those who visualises the time when the provision of houses for the working classes will be entrusted wholly to public utility societies, because the members of these societies have an opportunity of mixing with the working classes. The fact that these societies build houses and sell them is an incentive to people to become members of these societies. It has been stated over and over again, in this House and outside, that the mere fact of a man being a working man means that he has no money. Never was there a greater fallacy. From my experience of the working of Dundalk Public Utility Society, working men have put down sums ranging from £60 to £100. Some men have put down deposits of £300, who, before the creation of this public utility society would be classified as poor working men. If you exempt public utility societies on the plea that they build houses to sell, I think you will destroy the good work that has been accomplished by these societies. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind on the Report Stage. There are working men in this country anxious to become the owners of their houses. Ownership creates civic responsibility. There is no better way of making a good citizen than by making a man the owner of his own house. That class of person would not touch public utility societies were it not for the fact that he was going to become the owner of his house after a certain period. We were able to tap a source of wealth that very many people thought could not be tapped before the introduction of public utility societies. As the Minister is aware, we carried out a building scheme in Dundalk at a cost of £20,000. The houses are inhabited by men working on the railway. We paid the last penny to the builder a fortnight ago, there being a little profit left after clearing all expenses. In the near future it is the intention to build more houses in Dundalk. No matter what argument is put up about the State taking over the control of housing accommodation for the working classes, I maintain that, without co-operation and self-help, it will be impossible to solve the housing problem. You must have the co-operation and the help of the community, and the best means of securing such co-operation is through the instrumentality of public utility societies. If you exempt them from the benefits of the grant of £20, on the plea that they only build houses for sale, it will be difficult for the Dundalk Public Utility Society to carry on. Although the houses are actually sold, the period of redemption is very long, I believe, from twenty to twenty-five years. Another advantage in selling houses under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act is that the expense on the societies is lowered, because the tenants who purchased simply paid their rents weekly, monthly, or half-yearly, to the clerk of the urban council, who takes over the administration of the scheme until the debt is cleared off. There are many disadvantages in excluding public utility societies from the benefits of the grant, and I hope that on the Report Stage the Minister will consider the point.

General Mulcahy

Deputy Coburn contemplates a public utility society as the kind of society that would help private individuals handling the getting of their own houses.

Mr. Coburn

Quite so.

General Mulcahy

Is there any reason at all why a public utility society, limited in its profits, registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, while dealing with its right hand with the erection of houses suitable for the better paid working classes, and facilitated in the doing of that to the extent of having 75 per cent. of the capital cost of the houses advanced from the State, and of having an annual grant towards paying off the loan charges, should not also, with the left hand, act as guide, philosopher and friend to persons in the area who wish to build their own houses? Is there any reason why they should not help them with whatever amount of control they wish to set up, as a kind of information bureau, and in getting them advances from the local authorities under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act? I do not think that would in any way conflict with the other work of the public utility society itself. At any rate, our policy is to get the public utility society to turn its mind in the direction I speak of. I do not think it would be at all prejudiced by doing that, and by assisting in every way those who wish to provide their own houses to take advantage of the State loans and the State grants that we provide. Instead of having not very solid or responsible public utility societies we would have solidly organised societies acting as a guide to private persons.

Mr. MacEntee

If I correctly caught the drift of the Minister's words, it was this: that the policy of his Department is to confine public utility societies to building houses for letting purposes.

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. MacEntee

The President

What is the disadvantage?

Mr. MacEntee

I am not going to be cross-examined by the President. I did not interrupt him, and if he would endeavour to follow my good example in this debate we would get on better. I do not see that the two things mutually exclude each other. Apparently the Minister for Local Government thinks that they do, and that it would be inconsistent with the general purpose of the Bill to make an immediate grant to a public utility society for the purpose of enabling it to build houses to sell. I suggest that the Minister should leave an option to the public utility society to take either of these two things, whichever in its opinion will best enable it to meet the immediate needs with which it is familiar. If a public utility society wants to build houses to sell them, surely it ought to be facilitated to that extent.

It seems to me that the Minister is wrong there. I agree with the Minister that we should try to secure the provision of the greatest possible number of houses for the working class who must live, because of economic circumstances, in small dwellings. I believe that we should use every incentive we can to do that at the earliest possible moment. At the same time there is the other problem which the Minister himself indicated, the problem of the worker who can afford a better house, who wants a better house because of his family and who wants to own that house. If the Minister wants to encourage the provision of houses for renting, he can do that by making the terms more favourable for the public utility society which will rent houses, but that is not a reason for cutting off altogether any State aid or encouragement from the public utility society which is going to build a group of houses to let them to certain unnamed individuals. The Minister will only think of a public utility society acting as agent for some particular individual who has approached it.

There is the other mass of people, the people who have not yet come forward to the public utility society, the people who have in mind the possibility of owning their houses, who have not yet taken a definite decision in that regard but would be stimulated into taking that decision if they saw some society providing houses for them. That is the class of public utility society for which I am speaking. I think the Minister's point could be met by giving that society somewhat less favourable terms than the public utility society which will build houses to let. My opinion is that anybody who will build houses for people in that social grade which we commonly describe as working class—it may be the unskilled labourer, the clerical worker or others, people like that of limited means—should be encouraged. After that, if the Minister wants to have his way, let him give greater encouragement to the people who build houses to let, but let him not cut off all State aid from the society which builds houses even for the purpose of selling them.

Mr. Good

May I appeal to the Minister to look into the matter between now and next stage? He will freeze up the capital of the utility society. The utility societies are like a number of other bodies. They are out to build houses and make a little money at the same time. If they cannot sell houses——

Dr. Ward

There is another aspect of the position of public utility societies to which I would like to call the Minister's attention. That is the position of public utility societies who are operating in rural areas. The Minister, of course, is aware that the number of these societies is quite small. They are not very numerous and I think it will be admitted that where these societies exist they have been doing good work under the Housing Acts, 1925 to 1930. If grants are not made available for such societies they will for all practical purposes have to cease operations in rural areas. The biggest difficulty that exists in rural areas for small farmers, especially uneconomic holders, is that they cannot get credit for building materials. They have been organised into building societies and public utility societies and the society has been able to secure credit with traders and to get building materials advanced to these uneconomic holders to build their houses. If this amendment is not accepted by the Minister it means that these people will be thrown back entirely on their own means and, as well as that, that with the amount of money that will be at their disposal, it will be utterly impossible for small farmers to take advantage of the terms of the Bill.

General Mulcahy

I do not admit that the public utility societies formed in country districts do serve any more useful purpose than getting for persons who were building their houses, the additional grant that was available simply because they called themselves a group or a public utility society. The public utility society that is referred to here is the public utility society registered under the Friendly Societies Act, not the type of public utility society that was provided for in the 1924 Act. Persons in rural districts now will have the benefit of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act as well as of the grants provided, so that the question of capital does not arise in the way that it might have arisen in other days, when some of the rural public utility societies might have helped to some extent. The particular type of which Deputy Ward speaks will not exist in the new circumstances.

Dr. Ward

Does not the Minister realise that the type of builder to whom I refer in this amendment cannot avail of any of the loans and that the loans are no earthly use to the small farmers, the uneconomic farmers, who are up to their ears in debt, whose credit is completely exhausted, and who could be organised into a public utility society? The society could pledge its credit to the trader to supply the building material. These people are in occupation of insanitary houses unfit for human habitation. I have experience of one of those societies and we have certainly done good work. We have built 70 houses in the last 1½ years in the rural parts of the Co. Monaghan.

Professor Thrift

As I say, I really think the question requires more consideration, and I ask the Minister to suspend the matter until we have an opportunity of giving it a further examination in the interval. I would like to make further inquiries to see if I am not justified in saying that if this goes through it will after a short period completely bring to an end the operations of most of the public utility societies. I am sure the Minister would not like that. He wants them to build the houses for renting purposes. I quite agree with him, but if they apply all the money that they get to building such houses it will go a short distance. Then their work will stop because their capital will end. He should give us a further opportunity to make further enquiries to make our case and let him make his. If he puts this to a division now and if it is lost we cannot bring it up again.

General Mulcahy

It will be necessary to take the final stages tomorrow. I think there is an understanding on that and that the Bill is to be sent to the Seanad by Wednesday next in order that it may be law for Christmas. There is nothing to prevent a public utility society, as an agent for private persons, making use of the particular type of grant persons get here. We are not solving the housing problem except we do something to get public utility societies and builders to move down in the scale of the type of houses they are building, and in so far as public money for capital and public assistance in the matter of either grants or the equivalent of grants are concerned, the problem is such that we are intent on forcing their application to the building industry down to that particular plane.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 59.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Alton, Ernest Henry.
Blaney, Neal.
Boland, Gerald.
Bourke, Daniel.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Daniel.
Carney, Frank.
Carty, Frank.
Cassidy, Archie J.
Coburn, James.
Colbert, James.
Cooney, Eamon.
Corkery, Dan.
Corish, Richard.
Craig, Sir James.
Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Davin, William.
De Valera, Eamon.
Doyle, Edward.
Everett, James.
Fahy, Frank.
Fogarty, Andrew.
Good, John.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Goulding, John.
Hayes, Sean.
Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
Houlihan, Patrick.
Jordan, Stephen.
Kent, William R.
Killilea, Mark.
Kilroy, Michael.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick John.
MacEntee, Seán.
Moore, Séamus.
Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
Myles. James Sproule.
O'Connell, Thomas J.
O'Hanlon, John F.
O'Kelly, Seán T.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
Ryan, James.
Sexton, Martin.
Smith, Patrick.
Thrift. William Edward.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Francis C.

Níl

Beckett, James Walter.
Bennett, George Cecil.
Blythe, Ernest.
Bourke, Séamus A.
Brennan, Michael.
Brodrick, Seán.
Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
Conlan, Martin.
Connolly, Michael P.
Cosgrave, William T.
Crowley, James.
Davis, Michael.
Dolan, James N.
Doyle, Peadar Seán.
Dwyer, James.
Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
Finlay, Thomas A.
Fitzgerald, Desmond.
McGilligan, Patrick.
Mongan, Joseph W.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, James E.
Nally, Martin Michael.
Nolan, John Thomas.
O'Connell, Richard.
O'Connor, Bartholomew.
O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
O'Leary, Daniel.
O'Mahony, The.
Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
Gorey, Denis J.
Hassett, John J.
Heffernan, Michael R.
Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
Hennessy, Thomas.
Hennigan, John.
Henry, Mark.
Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
Jordan, Michael.
Kelly, Patrick Michael.
Keogh, Myles.
Leonard, Patrick.
Lynch, Finian.
Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
McDonogh, Martin.
MacEoin, Seán.
McFadden, Michael Og.
O'Reilly, John J.
O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
Reynolds, Patrick.
Roddy, Martin.
Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
Tierney, Michael.
White, John.
White, Vincent Joseph.
Wolfe, George.
Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers: Tá: Deputies Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies P. S. Doyle and Dolan.

Amendment declared lost.

The following amendment stood in the name of Deputy S.T. O'Kelly:—

29a. Before sub-section (2) to insert three new sub-sections as follows:—

"(2) Where, in the opinion of the Minister, a dwelling-house is wholly unsuitable for the proper and healthy accommodation of the occupier thereof and his family the Minister may, subject to the provisions of this Act and regulations made by the Minister thereunder, make to the occupier of such dwelling-house, or to a public utility society, a grant (in this Act referred to as a building grant) towards the erection on the site of such dwelling-house or on another site a new dwelling-house in substitution for such first mentioned dwelling-house.

(3) Where, in the opinion of the Minister, a dwelling-house is on account of its small size or its lack of sanitary accommodation, ventilation, light or other amenity or for any other reason unsuitable in its existing condition for the proper and healthy accommodation of the occupier thereof and his family and the Minister is satisfied that the condition of the dwelling-house is such that the expense of improvement can be economically incurred the Minister may subject to the provisions of this Act and regulations made by the Minister thereunder make to the occupier of such dwelling-house, or to a public utility society, a grant (in this Act referred to as an improving grant) towards the improvement or extension of such dwelling-house.

Any relation there is to unhealthy areas is simply providing an amendment to the Act of 1890, and is entirely confined to local authorities. The Housing Acts, in so far as private persons are concerned, have never concerned themselves with the question of substitution of insanitary dwellings, and it is on the insanitary question a complete and new extension of the application of the law with regard to houses in respect of private persons.

An Ceann Comhairle

It seems to me that these are arguments that could well be used against the amendment. This Bill is extremely wide. It is called a Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It amends various Housing Acts in a great variety of ways, and any attempt to carry that amendment further, as long as it can be connected in some way with what is in the Bill, is in order. With regard to the question of the money, Deputy O'Kelly has not spoken on that particular matter. It could be argued that the Minister's present officers would look after that particular aspect, but the Chair is not in a position to say whether they could or could not do so.

Mr. O'Kelly

I am glad the Chair has ruled that this amendment is in order. I am rather at a loss to understand why there was such great anxiety on the part of the President and the Minister to have the amendment ruled out. It is certainly interesting to observe their attitude. Perhaps before the discussion is finished the President will let us know why he was so keen on not allowing discussion on this amendment. The amendment simply asks that certain powers should be provided and given to individuals. This relates, particularly, to rural areas where, as everyone knows, there is at present a very big proportion of insanitary houses. In many of these houses there are very large families. We are anxious that there would be continued the power that has been given under different Acts here in recent years in order to permit a grant to be given to people in insanitary houses.

Sub-section (2) of the amendment says:—"Where, in the opinion of the Minister, a dwelling-house is wholly unsuitable for the proper and healthy accommodation of the occupier thereof and his family..." There are many such houses, and it would help materially to improve housing conditions if grants such as were heretofore made could be made now to people living in houses of that character, particularly in rural areas. There should be something done to provide these people with decent housing accommodation.

I do not think anybody here can contend that there is not a tremendous demand for improved housing conditions in rural areas, especially houses for small farmers whose valuations are very low. Local authorities, rated as heavily as they are under present conditions, find it very difficult to get money to enable them to give grants to such people for building purposes. We would like to give grants to these people to enable them to build new houses or, as is suggested in sub-section (3), to improve their present dwellings in so far as they are insanitary. If they are insanitary, everybody here would rather, if we could afford it, give them grants to help them to demolish such houses and erect proper dwellings.

As our finances will not allow us to do that in every case, it would be well that the grants that were made in some years gone by for improving houses could be continued. There is a very pressing demand. There is frequently brought up in discussion on housing matters by our own and by other Parties, this strong and insistent demand for grants for improving rural housing. There are farmers of small valuations in the country, with small houses and large families, and they want to improve their houses. They want to make their houses sanitary, a condition in which they are not at the present time. The passing of this sub-section would make possible the reconstruction or improvement of their houses.

Mr. Law

Before the debate closes I want to say that Deputy O'Kelly and I have been thinking on similar lines in relation to similar amendments, but this is not one of them. There is one factor here to which Deputy O'Kelly has not referred. He is far too keen to overlook it and he is far too honest I am sure to mislead the House in the matter. If Deputies look at the Bill they will see that this amendment which has been put down proposes to insert before sub-section (2) of Section 59, three new sub-sections. It lays down that for the purposes of this section the aggregate amount of the grant made is £25,000.

Therefore £25,000 is the total amount available for grants under this Bill. Under the proposals in this Bill a grant of £20 is to be given by the State and £20 by the local authorities. Deputy O'Kelly, in this new sub-section, proposes that as far as the State is concerned the building grant should be £80 as against £20 in the Bill. I have often in this House before now stated that I am not a great mathematician, but even my powers of arithmetic are equal to dividing £25,000 by the figure 20 in one case and by 80 in the other. Having done that I arrive at the conclusion that whatever number of houses could be built under the scheme which is proposed in the Bill when you provide £25,000, it is fairly obvious that only one-fourth of that number can be built when the amount is divided by 80. Consequently the nett effect of Deputy O'Kelly's amendment, subject to the overriding condition that there is only £25,000 available, means that only one house can be built under his amendment where four could be built under the section as it stands.

Much as we would all like to see considerable grants given to people for building new houses, still if I had to choose between a relatively small grant given to a large number of people and four times that grant given to one-fourth the number of people, I would certainly prefer the smaller grant to the larger number of people. I presume Deputy O'Kelly will say that it was impossible for him or for any private Deputy here to propose to increase the £25,000. That is so. I think we have to take it that that sum of £25,000 represents the utmost amount which the Minister for Local Government and the President—I mention these two because they are present—can allocate for the purposes of housing.

General Mulcahy

As I pointed out, in endeavouring to persuade the Ceann Comhairle that this amendment was out of order, I want to say now again that it is entirely contrary to the whole spirit of the 1929 Act. In the earlier Housing Acts from 1924 to 1929, as far as reconstruction is concerned, the provision for reconstruction was made in urban areas. The intention was to provide grants for persons with large houses to divide these houses so as to provide housing accommodation for an additional number of families. There was a certain amount of direct reconstruction of ordinary houses proceeded with. The total number of such cases was only 600, and the reconstruction was entirely confined to urban districts. At a time when we are looking again at the amount of money which we have to spend, looking again at our urban housing problem, and, as a result of what is shown to us, then reducing the amount of assistance that we can give to people who are building houses other than houses for the working classes, as a matter of fact we are approaching the stage gradually at which no assistance from the public purse can be given directly except for the housing of the very poor and for the relief of insanitary areas—when we are approaching that stage Deputies ask us to embark on the provision of moneys for the reconstruction of houses in rural areas. At the same time Deputy O'Kelly would go further outside the scope of the 1929 Act which, as I pointed out, was for the provision of rural houses and would apply assistance to private persons with a scheme to get rid of insanitary houses in rural areas. Urban housing conditions have been pretty fully envisaged.

The problem is very big. We are able to approach that problem now with a definite policy of a new kind. I pointed out on the Second Reading that these grants and provisions here, in so far as they affected rural houses, got the same condemnation from the Deputy who represented Wexford as from the Deputy who represented Leitrim. I pointed out that, whereas 80 or 82 per cent. of the people in Wexford lived in houses of four rooms and upwards, for the area of Leitrim, Roscommon, Mayo, and Galway, comprising 100,000 inhabited houses, 70 per cent. of those, at least, lived in three-roomed houses and under. Gradually, as reports from the County Medical Officers of Health have been received—that is, in places where County Medical Officers of Health have been appointed—it is clear that there is a housing problem in rural areas that can be related to a condition of unfitness for human habitation, that can be regarded as a problem of being insanitary, that is the insanitary house problem in our urban districts. The problem is probably very big. A policy must be framed towards the solution of that problem analogous to the policy that is now being framed to deal with insanitary houses and the very poor in our urban districts. We have not yet had an opporunity in respect of insanitary rural housing and the housing of the poor in rural districts of looking at our financial possibilities and the extent of the problem. That the problem is a big one is quite clear when we realise that 70,000 people in four of these western counties are living in houses of three rooms and under. From the 1924 Act down assistance was given directly to private persons, not because it was thought the natural thing that private persons wishing to build houses should be assisted either by the ratepayers or the taxpayers, but because of the terrible shortage of houses and of very high building costs. That assistance for private persons was applied in rural areas as in urban areas, although it was in the urban areas that the pressure of the house shortage was greatest. The grants to private persons in rural areas have been gradually reduced in the same way in which grants to private persons have been reduced in urban areas.

Deputy Ward said that he knew that many of these grants were given to persons that could have and would have built their houses without these grants. We are now reducing gradually the assistance given to private persons and approaching the point at which the ordinary private person, whether in a rural or urban district, who may be expected to stand the cost of building his own house, will be asked to do it, with, if you like, the assistance of capital provided under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act by the State. As far as direct assistance for the building of houses by persons other than the very poor is concerned, we are approaching the time when that assistance cannot be given. There is a type of person building in rural districts who has been getting this particular type of grant and who has expected it, and will be expecting it for a short period. We are not withdrawing the grant suddenly from these people, but taking it away gradually. We cannot, however, with due regard to all interests, the interests of the poor people in rural districts, the interests of people living in insanitary dwellings in rural districts, and the taxpayer and the ratepayer, embark in a haphazard way on a type of assistance to these until the extent of the problem that requires to be tackled in these rural districts has been very fully examined, and until there is a more general public appreciation of the extent of that problem and the amount of money likely to be involved. For that reason, I oppose the introduction of this amendment that, in a haphazard way, seeks to take out of the £25,000, provided for the type of persons expecting continued assistance in private building such as they have had up to the present, a sum for a purpose that our Housing Acts up to the present never provided for. In so far as it relates to insanitary houses, that is a responsibility of the local authorities, and has always been their responsibility, in respect of which they are given under this Bill additional powers under the Labourers Acts to deal with.

Dr. Ward

It is very hard to understand the Minister's opposition to this amendment. The title of the Bill is, "An Act to make better provision for the clearance of unhealthy areas and the repair and demolition of insanitary houses..." If the Minister only envisaged the problem in the towns and cities in the drafting of this Bill he should have set out in the title that it was not to have any application to the rural parts of the country. In so far as the Bill as it stands is concerned, unless this amendment is accepted by the Minister or carried by a majority of the House, it is not going to cause the disappearance or removal of any insanitary house in the rural districts. Insanitary houses in rural Ireland are not all occupied, indeed only a very small proportion of them are occupied, by the class of people who are described as belonging to the working classes. Where labourers' cottages do exist in rural areas for the housing of agricultural labourers, these houses are in a comparatively decent condition, and from the point of view of sanitation and habitability are reasonably good. There is, of course, a shortage of these houses, but they do not constitute the insanitary houses in rural Ireland. The insanitary houses in rural Ireland and the houses unfit for human habitation are occupied by small farmers. The Minister admits that the problem is a very large one. Having admitted so much, presumably he knew the problem was a very large one before he introduced the Bill, and it is difficult to understand why he made no provision to deal with this large problem. It is all very well to talk of the financial difficulties. Why should the rural section of the population be asked to contribute, and to continue to contribute, to finance the removal of insanitary dwellings in the urban districts and the cities while no provision is being made whereby the housing conditions under which they themselves live can be improved?

General Mulcahy

What about the Labourers Acts?

Dr. Ward

What use are the Labourers Acts to the small farmer? The only thing that can be done if that man's housing conditions are to be improved is to provide a grant large enough to buy the building materials for him and leave him a little margin over for the tradesmen. It is suggested that there is only £25,000 available under this section, and because of that fact this amendment, if passed, will for all practical purposes be inoperative. I do not think that is so. I think that if the Minister when the £25,000 has been expended comes to the House and asks for more money under this section, the House will not hesitate to give it. The President expresses dissent, but we find that the President has suddenly discovered £250,000, to the surprise of everybody for the relief of unemployment out of some mysterious fund that may materialise in the future. He has found that £250,000 on the eve of a general election, but he cannot find anything for the housing of the class of people this amendment is meant to serve. The Minister says that this amendment is contrary to the spirit of the 1929 and 1930 Acts. What difference does it make whether it is contrary to the spirit of these Acts or not? It certainly is not contrary to the spirit of the Bill before us. The problem about the 1929 and the 1930 and the other Acts that went before them as far as the small farmer or the occupier of an insanitary dwelling in a rural district is concerned is that he has not been able to avail of these grants to get rid of his insanitary house, because these grants have not been large enough to provide him with the building material.

I repeat what I said on the Second Reading, that to a very large extent the class of people who are able to avail of the provisions of the Housing Acts in rural districts were not the class of people who were living in houses unfit for human habitation. So far as the Minister's policy has gone, and in so far as the results of the 2½ million pounds paid in State subsidies for the building of houses are concerned, for all practical purposes we have as many houses in rural Ireland unfit for human habitation as we had before any of these Acts were passed.

The Minister said it is a very big problem, that he would like public appreciation of it, and that medical officers of health should report and all that sort of thing, until we got a full and adequate idea of the size of it. If the problem is as great as it is, even on the Minister's own admission, why not make a beginning towards its solution? If it is such a big problem, we are all agreed that it would take a very long time to solve it. I cannot see why this House, considering the majority of Deputies are from rural areas, should allow this Bill to pass in its present form without some such amendment as the amendment in Deputy O'Kelly's name. Such amendment would enable the small farmers in the country occupying one room and kitchen, with as many as ten people living in them—father, mother, and children of all sexes and all ages—to be rescued from such conditions. I repeat I cannot understand how this House could stand for that sort of thing when a Bill like this is before it. There are many houses in the rural parts of Ireland that could be reconstructed in such a way as to render them fit for human habitation, if they had decent roofs and floors, if the windows were of a decent size and constructed in a way that would enable them to open and let in fresh air to the houses. If these things were done by means of grants towards reconstruction, a very considerable improvement would be made in the conditions under which these people live. These things could be done if the Minister would accept this amendment. I urge him strongly to sympathetically consider this aspect of the question. He admits it is a big question, and I think if he is held up for finance in the carrying out of it he will have the sympathy of all Deputies in the House if he comes here to look for more money.

The President

How much of that will he be able to cash? The Deputy says the Minister can come here and get the money. Of course he can. No House will ever refuse money, but let me remind the Deputy that he and his Party in the last month or six weeks voted against the imposition of taxation to enable us to discharge the ordinary commitments of the present year. The Deputy said if the Minister wanted more money he could come here and he would get it. The strange thing about the two Deputies opposite is that neither of them seems to have studied this problem. There is a general election coming; they have spoken with their eye to that. How will they make this thing difficult for the Government? I am prepared to meet any of them on this question of housing, and on this particular question, at any time and in any part of the country, either rural or urban, and to put before the people their record in the past month when money was wanted and when they would not vote it. No one will deny that money provided under a Housing Act to be spent by building houses must be got from somewhere. What is the problem we have to deal with in connection with housing? The main source from which to get such money is taxation. None of the Deputies opposite, though they concern themselves very largely with what are called statistics, ever bother their heads about that. When we are considering the question of housing as a problem, what is the first thing to be done? If they read back through the gospels of the year, they will find that going against any nation a general will first of all sit down, take up pencil and paper and make out whether or not he will be able to meet his opponents with so many or whether, if they are stronger, he will have to add more. They have that lesson, but they do not bother about that. They do not at all concern themselves about the number of houses that will have to be provided in this country. What figure in the next twenty years is that likely to amount to? They never bother their heads about an estimate——

I was dealing with the construction of the Bill and how the Minister proposes the machinery would operate with respect to inter sanitary areas through the sanitary authorities and the medical officers of health. In the amendment it is proposed that the Minister should be practically in that position. I need not point out to anyone interested in local government the ridiculousness of that position. If the amendment were passed Deputy Corish could perhaps ask the Minister about every insanitary house in Wexford County. Deputy O'Kelly could ask the Minister if he had inspected every insanitary house in Dublin. Apart from that, the definition of "insanitary dwelling" is to my mind not exactly in accord with what is usually laid down in other Acts. Reference is made to unhealthy dwelling houses in Sections 3, 5, 19 and 21, and there is reference to rooms in Section 22. There are further references in Section 27 and 30, and insanitary areas are mentioned in Section 42. In certain cases provision is made for appeal to the Circuit Court in respect of some of these declarations. There is no such provision in the amendment.

As I said before, this alters the whole method of dealing with local authorities. If this amendment were meant to be operative—which I do not believe it was—the cost in respect of the running of it by the Department of Local Government would be approximately £1,000 a county. Is it contended that we are going to solve the housing question by increasing the number of our officials? Take that section which deals with the reconstruction of houses. Two decisions have got to be made in that case. In the first place, it must be described as an insanitary dwelling. In the second place, some official must be in a position to give a certificate that the work has been satisfactorily done. More cost. The expenses in respect of the administration of this amendment would be colossal, and housing is not a service on which one can afford to expend money unless one sees houses going up. There has been a reduction in the cost of building over recent years. In 1922, the average price per square foot was approximately 14/6. In 1931, it is 10/6. The original sum made available for house-building was reduced during those years practically in accord with the drop in the percentage of cost. The cost of providing one house is going to fall approximately upon seven persons. Let us see what the financial situation is. There is a sum of £25,000 made available in this measure for private persons. That is a relatively small sum. It is fixed in the light of the difficult financial situation we have—a most unusual situation. A most unusual occurrence took place this year. It was found that the level of taxation did not produce the money required. Extra imposts had to be provided by law in order to produce the money which was estimated as being likely to be required in April last. This is a time when we have got to consider the economy of every single Act that passes through this House, and to limit as far as possible the cost to the taxpayer of every service that comes before us. If we were dealing with the financial situation that obtained twelve months ago this Bill could have been and would have been more generous than it is. But we have got to realise that a reduction in the yield of taxation is a serious indication of the condition of affairs as regards finance. Whether we should ignore that fact and go on with expense is a matter upon which the Oireachtas must make up its mind.

The Government in putting before the Oireachtas this method of dealing with the housing problem, had in mind what it was likely to be able to impose upon the taxpayers during the next five years. The basis upon which the costs of this Act are being laid upon the shoulders of the taxpayer and ratepayer is that each will contribute his quota in the ratio of fifty-fifty towards the solution of this problem. There is no such policy enshrined in this amendment. Before concluding, I want to say that in the year 1922 the yield of taxation was approximately £25,000,000. The sum of money made available for local authorities in that year was approximately £1,000,000. This year taxation is estimated to yield £21,700,000 and the sum made available for local authorities this year is £3,700,000. With these facts before the House, is this amendment designed in the interest of the taxpayer, the ratepayer and the person who requires a house? I do not believe it is. I do not believe it is a sensible or constructive suggestion as regards dealing with this matter. It disturbs the basis of the operations of the Bill which deal with insanitary areas and houses, by placing upon the Minister the responsibility of declaring them insanitary and adding costs to the State in respect of the administration of that portion of the Bill. Secondly, it imposes upon the taxpayer a contribution which, if it is intended to persevere, is beyond his capacity to bear at the present moment. Thirdly, if that be the contribution which the Deputies who have put down this amendment believe to be within the capacity of the country in respect of insanitary dwellings in the country, then I say in respect of slum areas in cities, towns and villages the Minister's figures—if this figure is correct— are entirely and utterly insufficient and should be increased. Then we are faced with the problem of assembling the seven heads of families and telling them that we are imposing upon them a burden for the building of a house for one of the seven which is greater than they ought normally be called upon to bear—a burden that no citizen, looking at the problem and having in mind the condition of affairs in the country, could honestly and with due regard to all the circumstances put upon them in connection with the problem of housing.

Mr. Briscoe

The best two arguments for the amendment in the name of Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly were made by the President and the Minister. If they had not spoken, one might have felt that a lot of things had been left unsaid by the supporters of the amendment. The President's remarks at the beginning of the speech were not very germane to the amendment. They were as far removed from the subject of insanitary housing accommodation in rural areas and as close to personalities as they could be. The President said that roughly 80,000 houses were required in the 26 counties. Nobody has suggested, as the President tried to make out, that these 80,000 houses should be built in one financial year and that the contribution by taxpayers towards the cost of those houses should be levied in one financial year. The President knows that very well. If we were to proceed to liquidate the liability to the people of this country in respect of housing accommodation and if, starting now, we were to do it over a period of 20 years—that is, in respect both of rural and urban housing—we would be doing something. The President visualised the Minister himself or his messenger going down under this amendment and examining a particular house and then going back later and saying that it had complied with the requirements. The President knows very well that he has imposed upon many counties, and has the right to impose on every county, a medical officer of health costing a thousand a year. Surely the medical officer of health is the Minister's official. He gets a salary of £1,000 a year and should be competent to describe to the Minister whether a particular house is insanitary or not, and where it has been repaired that it has complied with the requirements in his opinion. It is all nonsense for the President to say that extra officials would be required—an extra £1,000 per county to administer this. Even if the President's statement were correct that it would require that to liquidate the responsibility of the State towards solving the housing problem and meeting the requirements so far as the 80,000 houses spoken of are concerned, that would not be such a terrible thing. The Minister has his medical officers of health, and I hold they should be competent to do this with their other work.

Reference was made to the £250,000 suddenly conjured out of thin air for the immediate relief of distress. I recommend the President to write another letter. If he does possibly he will get £250,000 towards the solution of the housing problem. If he embodies in his letter the speech that he has just made here he may get some reply to it. The President's contribution in the debate on this amendment was a complete admission of failure to deal with the problem. Because the problem is too big for him or his Government he refuses to face up to it. He is prepared to allow continue the position that we have, particularly in the rural areas. The housing shortage there, keen as it is, must remain, according to him. There is no promise from the Minister for Local Government that he intends by another Bill to deal with that subject in a short space of time. When a Bill was introduced, and we asked to have a proper title put to it, that it was a Bill particularly for towns and cities, we were pooh-poohed and told that it was a Bill for the whole of the 26 counties.

The Minister admits—probably he has had reports from his medical officers of health—that there are insanitary dwellings in rural areas. He has probably got a real shock from the number of complaints he has received, and realises that it is going to be a big problem to tackle. There is a lot of talk about the £25,000. Does the Minister contend that on his estimate that sum of money is going to touch the fringe of the problem so far as it relates to insanitary dwellings in the urban areas—towns and cities? Deputy Law divided that sum of £25,000 by the Minister's contribution of £20 as set down in the Bill, so the result is that the amount available will only deal with 1,250 houses. This Bill proposes not only to give no attention to the rural areas, but to limit the Government's responsibility with regard to insanitary dwellings in urban areas— cities and towns—to the extent of 1,250 houses. If that is to be the Government's contribution towards the urban areas, then I say, bad and all as it is to do nothing for the rural areas, the Government are only making an apology in the matter of doing something in the other areas. The Minister's confession of failure is "I realise the sore is there, and I am not going to deal with it."

Deputy Ward points out that something must be done. He is familiar with the conditions in the rural areas and he has described them for the House. There are many other members of the House who also represent rural areas. If what the Deputy has described is correct, then it is a disgrace for the Minister to adopt the attitude that he has adopted. What are we taunted with? The President turns around and asks, "How many houses have you built?" I will put the some question to the Minister. Can he say that he has even built one house? How many houses has the President built? When we propose to deal with this problem we are taunted with these questions. Deputy Ward has been asked how many houses he has built. Out of his small resources and influence, from the point of view of building, the Deputy can say that he has built 70 houses. When one compares his resources with those of the Government, I think the Deputy has certainly made a bigger contribution to the problem than they have. That kind of discussion had, I think, better be left alone by the President. I wonder how many houses the members of the President's own Party have built. Deputy Ward has built 70 houses not out of his own pocket. The Minister takes credit for the number of houses that the State has built, but we can turn around and say that the money that went to the building of them was not his but the taxpayers.

I hope the President and the Minister will cease that kind of talk and get down to fundamentals. By means of Parliamentary questions we dragged from the Government the information that the number of families living in single room tenements in Dublin is 18,000. We feel sad about that as everybody does. The President says that 80,000 houses are required and because our requirements are so great let us drop the whole thing. Our answer is, tackle the problem now and make some contribution towards the alleviation of the distress that such a state of affairs must cause. We say to the Government, contribute something towards the upliftment and the health of the people whether in urban or in rural areas; do not pretend that by allowing £25,000 to be used for certain purposes and affecting only 1,250 houses in the cities and the towns that that is going to mean anything. If that sum of money were allocated to the city of Dublin alone it would not touch the fringe of the problem that is to be dealt with here.

The President talked of the damage that might be caused if questions were to be asked by Deputies week after week with regard to particular houses in a particular area. The Minister for Local Government took steps to prevent that kind of activity developing as regards old age pensions. When Deputies sought to take steps to see that justice was done as between old age pension claimants and the pension officers, the Minister put a stop to that. Now the President comes along and grumbles at the thought that questions might be asked in the House in regard to a particular dwelling in the country. Does the Minister deny my positive statement that his medical officers of health throughout the country are fully competent to deal with this matter, and that there would be no need to spend one single penny extra in the shape of official salaries if they were to be required to do what is asked here. They are competent to certify whether a particular dwelling in a rural area is insanitary or not. They are also competent to certify and to satisfy the Minister in cases where improvements have been carried out whether the work has been done in a proper manner. Does the Minister deny that, or does he stand by what the President said, that these men are incompetent to render that particular service? I hope Deputies will have the good sense to support the amendment.

After all, as Deputy Ward points out, every penny that the State spends as a contribution towards housing, whether by way of grant for a new house or a grant for altering an insanitary house, comes from all classes of taxpayers and not exclusively from taxpayers of urban areas. Unless the Minister can say definitely that he intends to bring in a Bill specifically designed to deal with houses in rural areas, he has no case for opposing the amendment. Certainly from his own contribution to the debate and from the President's contribution they have shown absolute justification for the amendment. If the Minister does not like the proposal that he shall be the final authority, he can very easily accept the amendment and leave it to the local authority to deal with it. That is an easy matter to get over. If he is going to take the attitude of saying "because I happen to be mentioned in the Bill, the thing shall not be done," I think he is not going to face up, as the President has admitted he is not going to face up, to the problem. The Minister himself must admit that he does not want to tackle the housing problem in the rural areas at all and he is only attempting to tackle it in the urban areas to a very small degree.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

The principal fault which the Minister found with the amendment is that it is against the spirit of present housing legislation. I think that has a great deal to recommend it because the present housing legislation, as I see it in operation, has no spirit It is a soulless thing endeavouring to move and getting nowhere. The Minister has in this measure made building operations in the non-urbanised towns almost impossible. He has made it almost impossible for local authorities to undertake any extensive building operations in non-urbanised towns. When we come to deal with the truly rural places we find that he refuses to accept an amendment of legislation that is long overdue. For some time past, when we were discussing housing legislation here, appeals had been made and claims put forward from I think almost every side of the House that improvement grants should be given towards the reconstruction of houses in rural districts. Anybody who knows country districts thoroughly knows that houses in rural areas lend themselves very considerably towards improvement, and that a good many of the drawbacks and the drabness of country life are attributable to bad housing conditions. Roofs are low, windows are small, floors are bad and the ventilation necessarily bad and inadequate. The space is inadequate. The raising of roofs, the raising of walls, the improvement of roofs, the enlargement of windows and the improvement of floors would very considerably improve the great majority of houses in rural districts. A grant towards doing all that would probably do more towards relieving this shortage of eighty thousand houses about which we hear the President talk, than anything that might be done. That is very necessary.

Appeals have been made, not alone from these benches and the Fianna Fail benches, but statements have been made from the Minister's own benches that some such measure is needed, and that some such consideration should be given. We do know that in rural Ireland a state of affairs exists where there are probably two divisions in a house and where probably, for decency sake, two divisions are made in one room, with inadequate cubic space, wretched flooring conditions and ventilation. These things could be easily remedied by raising the wall or, possibly, as Deputy Bennett said a while ago, by providing a loft-room which would help to give accommodation in the house. That is a thing to which the Minister should give consideration. He told us that he knows of its existence, but that he cannot deal with it. He told us that he has only £25,000 to play with. Surely that shows the bankruptcy of the Minister's housing policy. It shows his failure to face up to the situation as it exists. He has £25,000, and he knows that that will not touch the fringe of it. The President, dealing with the matter a little while ago, purposely confused the issues, because if there is a question about which the President knows anything, we must admit without equivocation that it is housing. I admit that freely, but he certainly got up not to deal with the housing situation in Ireland, but to confuse the issue and to create an atmosphere in the House against the amendment. That is the way he dealt with it.

If he wants money there has been a suggestion put forward from these benches before that there is a method of dealing with the housing problem on a national scale by the raising of a national loan to meet the contingency, and to meet it in a way which would eradicate the sore that is eating like a canker into the social fabric. We heard a lot of talk about the impracticability of it. Possibly the amendment is badly drafted. Possibly it is not related sufficiently to the local authority. I am speaking without any information as to what Deputy O'Kelly had in his mind when he said "Where in the opinion of the Minister a dwelling-house is wholly unsuitable." I should rather say "Where in the opinion of the local sanitary authority a dwelling-house is unsuitable." You could very easily correlate that with the local housing authority. You can very easily make your assistant surveyors the people to examine the houses and make their certificate the certificate under which the improvement or the rebuilding grant would be given. Clearly the thing could be worked and clearly the attitude of the President and of the Minister should be to accept the principle of the amendment and to redraft it in such a way that it would be possible for the grant to be given to the local authorities who declare a house insanitary and for the local assistant surveyor's certificate to be the certificate upon which payment would be made. The building of houses in rural areas is a necessity. The improvement of houses in rural areas is a greater necessity. While I support heartily the amendment as far as it goes for the giving of grants for the construction of houses, I support more heartily the suggestion in the amendment for the improvement of houses because houses in the rural areas lend themselves much more readily to reconstruction than any other type of houses we have in the country at the moment.

Mr. Clery

This amendment, no matter what the President may pretend about it, would be the only thing in this Bill if it were accepted, which would give an opportunity to small farmers either to improve or build houses under the measure when it is passed into law. No matter what statements the President is pleased to make about this amendment in order to confuse the issue, that is the fact. When previous Housing Bills were introduced here, we on this side on one occasion had an amendment down which was somewhat similar to the present amendment, that a grant would be given to small farmers throughout the country for the improvement of their houses. Anybody who understands the position of housing in rural Ireland will have to admit that the greatest necessity of the moment is the improvement of dwelling-houses in the country and not the building of new houses. Take as an illustration of that the number of houses that have been built. Mind you, the Minister for Local Government and the President have tried to make all the Party capital they can out of the number of new houses built over a number of years. Even if we take that number in its largest way, and allow the President to exaggerate the value and the number of houses in the most elaborate way, we still have to admit that the building of that large number of new houses has not touched the fringe of the housing problem in insanitary areas, because of this fact, people in most instances, throughout the country, built houses and availed of this plan, who could afford to have built them without a grant, and would have built them anyhow. That is the position in the West of Ireland, and let nobody pretend that it is not. A very small percentage of the people in the West of Ireland who built houses under the old housing grants built them because of the grant. The big majority who built them probably might have delayed a year or two, but anyway they hurried on to avail of the grant. If the amendment we proposed a couple of years ago on another Housing Bill were accepted to give £40 or thereabouts to the people who would improve their dwelling-houses, you would have a far greater percentage of insanitary housing conditions removed than you had under the Bills as they were. That is the one big mistake in all the Housing Bills which have been passed here.

Deputy Hogan has emphasised that fact as to Clare. He knows the conditions there. We know them too, Unless you accept this amendment the insanitary conditions in the West of Ireland will not be touched at all by this measure. It is no use for the President to pretend that he is not aware of the insanitary conditions. The medical officers of health in every county have been reporting to the Minister for Local Government the insanitary conditions of housing and the number of insanitary houses. Can the Minister state here now that a large percentage of those houses that were insanitary have been made sanitary because of any Bill passed into law, since he came into office? Can he state that the number of houses reported as insanitary to his Department are not now in that insanitary condition, because of any Bill that has been passed? He cannot say that. A number of houses remain insanitary, but new houses have been built. That is because they refused in the past to regulate the measure that was being passed in such a way that people in insanitary houses could avail of a small grant to improve their houses. The Minister must surely know that the number of insanitary houses in County Mayo is very large despite the fact that he may boast of the number of houses that have been built in County Mayo.

If this amendment is not passed the same number of insanitary houses will remain. Is it not better for the State that the greater percentage of people living in insanitary houses should be facilitated so as to avail of the grant? Get a smaller amount of money, spread it over a larger number and relieve people to a greater extent than they would be relieved by the giving of a grant for one house only. That is the part of the Bill I am interested in. I have discussed it with people who in the past were in the Department of Local Government and were interested in housing. They told me that from their experience in the past of schemes under the Congested Districts Board a greater number of insanitary houses were made sanitary and improved with a lesser amount of money than has been spent by the present Government on housing, because there was that clause in the Act which enabled people to avail of a grant for the improvement of housing.

I think the Minister should at least say that this amendment would be considered by him. He should know its value and that it will touch the insanitary conditions if it is accepted. He should, in turning the amendment down, not force the members of his Party to vote against it. It is not put down as the President tries to suggest in his usual petty fashion for electioneering purposes. We leave that to the President. He has discovered £250,000 in the last few days in a place where no one knew it existed and that money is to be used for election purposes. He cannot say that this has been for electioneering purposes because it is over three years ago since a similar amendment was put down by this Party in this House. At that time they found some other argument against it. The only argument they can find against it now is that it is done for electioneering purposes, because the President thinks the financial appeal of the Unionists will give him sufficient funds for the election within a short period. Why cannot they find some reasonable argument against this amendment? We had the President's talk about the possibility or impossibility of finding of money. We had a statement from the President that this Bill would not be as bad as it is—even from the President we got an admission that it is a bad Bill—only for the financial crash. We had quite recently this unfortunate admission from the President of the State, who is so proud of this State and its stable conditions. We had it from him that the Bill would not be as bad as it is only for the trouble we are in financially. As well as being an unfortunate admission, it is also an eye-opener for us, because the Minister for Finance, in introducing his supplementary Budget, assured us that economy would be rigidly enforced by the Government.

Now we know in what way economy is to be rigidly enforced. It is to be rigidly enforced in attacking the estimates that are to come for social services and the estimates that are to deal with the poorest of the poor, in attacking the estimates for the money that is to be given for housing in the slums in the towns and in the country, the money that was to go to house the poor, to wipe out insanitary conditions, and thereby wipe out disease and slums. The money is now to be reduced. We are to economise there. We have got the assurance of the President that it is one of the big ways in which they are to economise. The President after making that statement began to criticise members on this side of the House because we voted a few weeks ago against extra taxation here. He found fault with it. The greatest justification for the vote which we gave a few weeks ago against half a million pounds of increased taxation was the statement of the President here that economy was to be practised in the social services.

That, anyhow, justified us in voting against increased taxation, because we voted against that increase in taxation for no other reason than that taxation was being increased before the President or the Minister for Finance made any definite statement as to how they were going to economise, even though they told us that they were going to economise to the tune of half a million pounds. Instead of the President having to reduce the amount that was to be given to the housing of the poor and the wiping out of insanitary conditions in the country, he could easily increase it if instead of coming down first and foremost on the services that have to deal with the poor he would economise in other directions. When he talks of their having to economise in this way, I think we should remind him that he should find other ways, and that instead of subsidising other countries to the tune of £5,000,000 per year he should deal with the conditions here. Even the President himself felt that his arguments were weak.

It is a matter of principle and not a matter of wording.

Amendment put; the Committee divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 66.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.Allen, Denis.Blaney, Neal.Boland, Gerald.Bourke, Daniel.Briscoe, Robert.Broderick, Henry.Buckley, Daniel.Carty, Frank.Cassidy, Archie J.Clery, Michael.Colbert, James.Cooney, Eamon.Corkery, Dan.Corish, Richard.Crowley, Fred. Hugh.Crowley, Tadhg.Davin, William.De Valera, Eamon.Doyle, Edward.Everett, James.Fahy, Frank.Fogarty, Andrew.

Gorry, Patrick J.Goulding, John.Hayes, Seán.Hogan, Patrick (Clare).Houlihan, Patrick.Jordan, Stephen.Kent, William R.Killilea, Mark.Kilroy, Michael.Lemass, Seán F.Little, Patrick John.MacEntee, Seán.Moore, Séamus.Morrissey, Daniel.O'Connell, Thomas J.O'Kelly, Seán T.O'Reilly, Matthew.Powell, Thomas P.Sexton, Martin.Smith, Patrick.Walsh, Richard.Ward, Francis C.

Níl

Alton, Ernest Henry.Beckett, James Walter.Bennett, George Cecil.Blythe, Ernest.Bourke, Séamus A.Brennan, Michael.Brodrick, Seán.Coburn, James.Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.Conlon, Martin.Connolly, Michael P.Cosgrave, William T.Craig, Sir James.Crowley, James.Davis, Michael.Dolan, James N.Doyle, Peadar Seán.Esmonde. Osmond Thos. Grattan.Finlay, Thomas A.Fitzgerald, Desmond.Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.Good, John.Gorey, Denis J.Hassett, John J.Heffernan, Michael R.Hennessy, Michael Joseph.Hennessy, Thomas.Hennigan, John.Henry, Mark.Hogan, Patrick (Galway).Holohan, Richard.Kelly, Patrick Michael.Keogh, Myles.

Law, Hugh Alexander.Leonard, Patrick.Lynch, Finian.Mathews, Arthur Patrick.McDonogh, Martin.MacEoin, Seán.McFadden, Michael Og.McGilligan, Patrick.Mongan, Joseph W.Mulcahy, Richard.Murphy, James E.Myles, James Sproule.Nally, Martin Michael.Nolan, John Thomas.O'Connell, Richard.O'Connor, Bartholomew.O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.O'Hanlon, John F.O'Leary, Daniel.O'Mahony. The.O'Reilly, John J.O'Sullivan, Gearóid.O'Sullivan, John Marcus.Reynolds, Patrick.Rice, Vincent.Roddy, Martin.Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).Thrift, William Edward.Tierney, Michael.White, John.White, Vincent Joseph.Wolfe, George.Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Dolan.

£25,000 is the limit which the President says the State can afford to give in grants under this part of the Bill. If that is so, I think it is desirable that we should try and ensure that that money will go to those who need houses most and go to them in a manner which will enable them to avail of it to improve their housing accommodation. That is the purpose of the amendment and that is why we are proposing it. It raises a different issue altogether from that raised on the last amendment and one which should be very seriously considered before being rejected.

Mr. Corish

In the absence of information from the Government as to what their commitments are in so far as this £25,000 is concerned, it is very hard to have any kind of an intelligent discussion on the matter. I take it that the £25,000 mentioned by the Minister and the President is in connection with houses started within the last five or six months and as to which a promise has been made by the Minister that a certain grant will be paid. Am I correct in that?

The President

I should have said £30,000. That is the position.

Mr. Corish

I agree with Deputy Lemass and I think that special consideration ought to be given to the small farmers whose houses are practically falling down and who, in many cases, would require to build new houses. I also agree with Deputy Lemass that certain speculators have been provided with money to build houses, and I suggest to the Minister and the President that they themselves even never intended that these people should be helped through the medium of an Act specially introduced for the housing of the working classes. I know of cases where private speculators have built houses and got grants of £60 and in some cases £80. They also got a rebate of rates. They took full advantage of that when assessing the rents and as a result are drawing 15 per cent. profit on their money. I would be sorry to think that that was the intention of the President in introducing these Acts which were called Acts for the housing of the working classes. I suggest that it is small farmers and people of that type that we ought to consider in a Bill of this kind before we consider giving anything at all to people who are well able to build houses for themselves without receiving any grant. From that angle I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision in connection with the amendment of Deputy Allen.

Mr. Clery

This amendment proposes that a grant of £45 should be given to people with a valuation of £15 or under, and has been attacked by the President on entirely different grounds from those on which he attacked the other amendment. He attacked this amendment by saying that it was not specified that only people with insanitary houses could get a grant, while he attacked the other amendment because it was confined to people living in insanitary houses. He cannot have it both ways. The last amendment was defeated because the President said it was confined to people living in insanitary houses. He wants this amendment defeated because it is not confined to people living in insanitary houses. That is a ridiculous attitude to take up and he cannot be serious in it. If that is his argument against the amendment, we would be willing to confine the amendment to people living in insanitary houses. Would the President accept it then? Of course he would not. He would not even think it worth while to consider it even then. Surely he cannot be serious. Surely an amendment of this kind is not a frivolous one. He should realise that when we laid down the valuation of persons who should get this grant and confine it to people who derived their livelihood from the land, we had in mind people living in insanitary houses. The President, if he knew anything of the insanitary conditions under which farmers have to live, should know that it is people with valuations of £15 and under who are living in the insanitary houses. Surely the President should give us credit for these intentions, but I suppose he will not. When he cannot attack this amendment from one point of view he goes back on his previous argument on another amendment and attacks it from another point of view. That is not a lead that should be given by the President. The President should discuss this matter on a higher plane.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá: 45; Níl: 64.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Blaney, Neal.
Boland, Gerald.
Bourke, Daniel.
Briscoe, Robert.
Broderick, Henry.
Buckley, Daniel.
Carty, Frank.
Cassidy, Archie J.
Clery, Michael.
Colbert, James.
Cooney, Eamon.
Corkery, Dan.
Corish, Richard.
Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Davin, William.
De Valera, Eamon.
Doyle, Edward.
Everett, James.
Fahy, Frank.
Fogarty, Andrew.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Goulding, John.
Hayes, Seán.
Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
Houlihan, Patrick.
Jordan, Stephen.
Kent, William R.
Killilea, Mark.
Kilroy, Michael.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick John.
MacEntee, Seán.
Moore, Séamus.
O'Connell, Thomas J.
O'Kelly, Seán T.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
Powell, Thomas P.
Sexton, Martin.
Smith, Patrick.
Tubridy, John.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Francis C.

Níl

Alton, Ernest Henry.
Beckett, James Walter.
Bennett, George Cecil.
Blythe, Ernest.
Bourke, Séamus A.
Brodrick, Seán.
Coburn, James.
Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
Conlon, Martin.
Connolly, Michael P.
Cosgrave, William T.
Crowley, James.
Davis, Michael.
Dolan, James N.
Doyle, Peadar Seán.
Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
Finlay, Thomas A.
Fitzgerald, Desmond.
Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
Good, John.
Gorey, Denis, J.
Hassett, John J.
Heffernan, Michael R.
Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
Hennessy, Thomas.
Hennigan, John.
Henry, Mark.
Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
Holohan. Richard.
Jordan, Michael.
Kelly, Patrick Michael.
Keogh, Myles.
Law, Hugh Alexander.
Leonard, Patrick.
Lynch, Finian.
Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
McDonogh, Martin.
MacEoin, Seán.
McFadden, Michael Og.
McGilligan, Patrick.
Mongan, Joseph W.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, James E.
Myles, James Sproule.
Nally, Martin Michael.
Nolan, John Thomas.
O'Connell, Richard.
O'Connor, Bartholomew.
O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
O'Hanlon, John F.
O'Leary, Daniel.
O'Mahony, The.
O'Reilly, John J.
O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
Reynolds, Patrick.
Rice, Vincent.
Roddy, Martin.
Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
Thrift, William Edward.
Tierney, Michael.
White, Vincent Joseph.
Wolfe, George.
Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Yes.

Amendment put and agreed to.

General Mulcahy

I move Amendment 32:

In sub-section (3) (d), line 29, to delete the word "March" and substitute the word "January."

If this amendment were not inserted it might mean that the building of a house which might be started in January, might be held over until March. This will enable building to be begun earlier under the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

General Mulcahy

I move Amendment 33:

"To delete sub-sections (4) and (5)."

They claim it is not in their own hands.

Mr. Corish

You can take it from me that the Minister does not unduly interfere in cases like that.

SECTION 60.

Mr. Corish

An Ceann Comhairle

Of course, in the light of this arrangement now, I could hardly.

Sections 60 and 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Third Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

The following amendments in the name of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health were agreed to:—

42. In the second column to delete amendment 1 and substitute the following:—

"1. In sub-section (7) of Section 8 for the words ‘they think fit' there shall be substituted the words ‘the Minister thinks fit' and for the words from ‘any person' to and including ‘compulsorily' the words ‘any owner of any lands included in a clearance order or compulsory purchase order made under this Part of this Act' and for the word ‘scheme' at the end of the said sub-section the word ‘order.'"

43. In the second column to insert after amendment 5 the following:—

"6. In sub-section (3) of Section 47 the words from ‘or the time' to the end of the sub-section shall be omitted."

44. In the second column, page 33, after amendment 8 and before line 8 to add the following:—

"9. In article 6 of the Second Schedule for the word ‘three' there shall be substituted the word ‘two.'"

Fourth Schedule, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage ordered to be taken to-morrow, 27th November.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 26 Nov 1931