Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Just about two years ago I introduced in this House the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1932, initiating the Government's Housing programme. The progress made since then in the provision of houses has justified, even I am sure in the eyes of our most severe critics, the Government's claim that the Bill provided a solution to a social problem which had baffled previous Administrations. The unparalleled success of the Housing programme is shown in the work accomplished during the brief period since the Act of 1932 passed into law. Since then 11,692 houses have actually been pleted, 15,836 houses are in progress and 7,120 houses are about to be begun, tenders having been accepted or invited for them. This makes a total of 34,648 houses either completed, in progress or about to be begun and the magnitude of this work can be gauged when I remind the House that as against these 34,648 houses provided for during a period of two years only 26,000 houses were provided by the previous Administration during a period of ten years.

In addition to the 34,648 houses completed, in progress or about to be begun there are 5,555 houses in respect of which lands have been acquired and plans approved and 6,744 houses included in schemes at present being prepared. This makes the total of 46,947 houses under proposals initiated during the past two years. The figures I have quoted include the activities of local authorities and I have mentioned these simply to give a complete picture of the work which has been accomplished and is in prospect by the Government. The Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1934, which I propose for Second Reading to-day, deals mainly with the provision of houses by private persons and public utility societies and I do not propose, therefore, to go further into the question of the activities of local authorities for whom provision still exists under the parent Act.

It has become necessary to introduce the present Bill because the sum of £700,000 provided under the Act of 1932, for the payment of grants under Section 5 of the Act has been exhausted in the allocations made to private persons and public utility societies. Further, under the Act of 1932 houses provided by private persons and public utility societies must be completed before the 1st April, 1935, to qualify for grants. The proposals of the present Bill are to extend to the 1st April, 1937, the date for the completion of houses by private persons and public utility societies and to provide a further sum of £700,000 for the payment of grants in respect of the houses.

For the convenience of the House I will deal in detail with the activities of private persons and public utility societies up to date. Section 5 of the Act of 1932 enabled the payment of grants to private persons and public utility societies for the provision of houses in urban or rural areas and to small farmers and agricultural labourers for the reconstruction of their dwellings. To date grants have been allocated to private persons and public utility societies in respect of:— 4,361 new houses in urban areas, 5,853 new houses in rural areas, and 4,655 houses for reconstruction, making a total of 14,869 houses in all, of which 5,580 have actually been completed, the remainder being in progress. Of the total number of houses in respect of which grants have been allocated about 75 per cent. have been or are being provided by private persons and 25 per cent. have been or are being provided by public utility societies. In urban areas the bulk of the allocations are to private persons only about 17 per cent. being provided by public utility societies but in rural areas about 50 per cent. of the new houses are being provided by public utility societies. Of the new houses being provided in rural areas where it will be remembered special grants are available for houses for small farmers and agricultural labourers 46 per cent. are being provided by small farmers whose valuation does not exceed £15, 8 per cent. by small farmers whose valuation exceeds £15 but does not exceed £25, 15 per cent. by agricultural labourers and 31 per cent. by other persons of the rural community. Under the reconstruction provisions of the Act it is found that over 90 per cent. of the houses are being reconstructed by small farmers.

In the present Bill it is proposed so far as urban areas are concerned to continue the sliding scale of grants introduced under the parent Act and to this end the grant of £50 at present available will be continued in respect of houses completed up to the 1st April, 1936, but will be reduced to £45 in respect of houses completed on or after that date but before the 1st April, 1937. The object of this sliding scale is to encourage expedition in the provision of houses in urban areas where difficulties and delays experienced in the rural areas do not exist. In rural areas the grants available under the parent Act will remain unaltered but the time for the completion of houses will be extended to 1st April, 1937.

Under paragraph (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1932, provision was made for the erection of houses by public utility societies in urban areas for letting at rents approved by the Minister. Public utility societies have been slow to avail of these grants and only a small number of houses has been provided under this special provision. It is understood, however, that certain public utility societies have proposals under consideration and it is proposed, therefore, under the Bill to continue the time for the completion of houses under this paragraph to the 1st April, 1937. Paragraph (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1932, enabled the payment of grants to local authorities and philanthropic societies for the renovation of tenements. Difficulties have been experienced by local authorities in securing suitable properties at reasonable cost and in an experimental case compulsory purchase has been resorted to by the local authority. It is hoped to secure good results from the initial experiment and the grants will be continued.

Much good work is being done by public utility societies in rural areas in facilitating small farmers and agricultural labourers in the provision of houses and it is intended to continue to give the increased grant to these bodies to encourage and facilitate their efforts. The reconstruction provisions of the Act of 1932 have been successful beyond expectations and it is interesting to note the extent to which the grants are being availed of by small farmers for the reconstruction of their houses. The benefits derived by the farming community from these grants are seen in the fact that up to date about 4,000 grants have been allocated to small farmers representing as I previously pointed out over 90 per cent. of the total allocations in respect of reconstruction work.

On the Second Reading of the Act of 1932 I stated that it was the intention of the Government that building work would be continuous until the total housing demands of the State are fully satisfied, and it is in pursuance of this intention that the present Bill is introduced to encourage private persons and public utility societies to continue as agencies of house supply. In 1932 it was not expected that these agencies would be as responsive as they have proven themselves, and it was then believed that local authorities would have to undertake a much larger share of the burden of the provision of the total need. It is gratifying, however, to find that private persons and public utility societies are able with the assistance of the grants to undertake the provision of a larger share of the need than it was thought they could be encouraged to undertake. The provision of houses by private persons and public utility societies costs to central and local funds considerably less than the provision of houses by local authorities, and the greater the activities of the former agencies of supply the more free will the local authorities be to deal with the housing of the very uneconomic classes and the clearance of slums and insanitary houses. These are some of the factors which have influenced the Government in their decision to continue the grant system to private persons and public utility societies under the present Bill. In addition to the continuance of the grants, other facilities such as the remission of rates and the issue of loans provided for under the original scheme will, of course, be continued.

Since the passing of the Act of 1932 considerable progress has been made in the development of building materials industries, and during the past two years the percentage of Saorstát materials used for the provision of the average house has been increased from about 30 per cent. to 45 per cent. Further increases are expected as the housing programme develops. Building costs do not appear to have undergone any substantial change during the past two years. An inquiry by the Prices Commission into the cost of building materials and appliances is in progress and the findings of the Commission are awaited. If it is found that undue profits are being made, suitable steps will be taken to deal with the matter. Furthermore, if it is necessary to extend the scope of the inquiry steps will also be taken to this end.

I am sure that all Parties in the House will support this Bill so that the good work which was initiated in 1932 and which has gone ahead with such gratifying pace may be enabled to continue to the goal which all national minded members of the community are anxious to reach as quickly as possible —when every citizen will have a decent and healthy home in which to live his life and bring up his family in a way that will ensure a race healthy in mind and body.

General Mulcahy

The Minister has again simply tried to show us the number of houses built, and the figures totalled in the great expeditious work of house building, and he asks the House to accept these as evidence of unparalleled success in the solution of the problem of providing houses for the poorer classes that has baffled previous generations. But there are very many aspects of this problem that, in his two years' experience of the Department of Local Government, he might have discussed in greater detail. The problem is a very big one, and the problem is one that has to be understood from quite a number of different points of view. Except we get from the Department in close contact with it what are the actual results in actual houses built and improved conditions rather than mere numerical tables, which do not show what problem has been attacked or solved, we have no means of properly judging what has been done. You have two important aspects of this great question. You have the rural aspect, and the urban aspect of the problem. Let us direct our attention to the rural aspect first, and see what the actual results there are. They do not show the special result the Minister has talked about. It may be that the full situation is not disclosed in the actual arithmetical table. But if that is not so we would like to hear in a broader and more detailed way from the Minister what the actual situation is.

Houses are built by private persons, public utility societies and local authorities. He told us that 26,000 houses only were built by the previous Administration in ten years; over 2,000 of these were put up in 1924, when there was a very serious amount of disturbance in the country and when those who were building, at that time, were faced with enormously high building costs. 2,110 houses were then built by the local authorities but the State provided two-thirds of the cost. So that when we come to deal with the work of the previous Administration we have to deal with the erection by private persons, public utility societies and local authorities of 24,000 houses over a period of eight years. When we compare the work done by private persons in that eight-year period against the work done by private persons in the two years' period that we are now discussing, we find that private persons erected up to March, 1932, 11,588 houses, and that the number built by private persons during the last two years is one-ninth of that figure or 1,267 houses. Public utility societies, in the eight-years' period, built 294 houses. Coming to the two-years' period public utility societies built two-and-a-half times that number or 759 houses; so that there is an increase to that extent in the number of houses built by public utility societies.

Local authorities built, in the eight-years' period, 532 houses as against 8,413 built in the two-years' period. The total of houses built in rural areas by private persons, public utility societies and local authorities is 12,414, in the eight-year period, and in the period ending 31st March, 1934, the number was 2,869. That is less than one-fourth of the numbers built in the eight-years' period. Now that is just an arithmetical statement. When we come to see where these houses were built, and the extent to which we are helping the parts of the country badly housed, and the people badly housed, then we come to the real problem and the real work. The census volume for 1926, dealing with the housing position in the country, provides a picture of the over-crowding in rural areas. The Minister will remember that in the map that accompanied the notice issued from the Department of Industry and Commerce in connection with that volume, the whole of the West of Ireland from the North of Donegal to the South of Kerry, including Leitrim, Sligo, Roscommon, Clare and Kerry, provided one black area. The area of the country in which the percentage of the rural population was living, more than two persons to a room, ran from 25 per cent. in Clare to 33 per cent. in Mayo and 43 per cent. in Donegal. The average was found to be 25 per cent. over the whole of that area. Now, when we look to see how the present house building, and the new houses, have improved the situation in these areas of bad housing conditions, we find that the number of houses built by private persons, public utility societies and local authorities in Donegal, during the two years ended on the 31st March, 1934, is less than one-seventh of the total number of houses built in the eight years previously. In Leitrim the number was less than one-ninth, in Sligo less than one-fifth, in Mayo less than one-fourth, and in Galway less than one-twelfth. In Galway, 979 houses were built in the eight-year period ended March, 1932, whereas only 78 houses have been built in Galway in the two years ended March, 1934. In Clare, the number of houses built was less than one-fifth of the number built in the eight-year period and, in Kerry, less than one-sixth. If we turn to the rural areas which are shown by these returns to be the best housed areas—Wexford, Carlow, Kilkenny and Waterford—we find that the building of houses, as compared with the eight-year period, has progressed very much more satisfactorily than it did in the badly-housed areas. We find that the total number of houses built in rural areas in Wexford during the two-year period is, approximately, twice the number built in the eight-year period. In the eight-year period 136 houses were built by private individuals, one by a public utility society and none by local authorities. In the two-year period, 27 houses were built by private persons, none by public utility societies and 224 by local authorities. In Carlow the number of houses built is 15 as against 33 in the eight-year period; in Kilkenny, 65 as against 133; in Waterford, 21 as against 78; in South Tipperary, 18 as against 111; in North Tipperary, 55 as against 195. The general position is disclosed that, whereas in the rural areas that were outstandingly good as regards the housing of the rural population—such as Wexford—the building of houses has quickened, in the bad areas the completion of houses has progressed at a much slower rate than that which obtained in the eight-year period ended 31st March, 1932.

The Minister speaks of a very valuable work being done by way of reconstruction. If we look at the amount of money actually spent on reconstruction work in the poorly housed areas of the West, stretching from Donegal to Kerry, and compare it with the area of Louth, Monaghan and Cavan, we find the extraordinary fact that the Western area from Donegal to Kerry, with a rural population of 872,000, has been provided with £42,684 in reconstruction grants, whereas the Louth—Monaghan— Cavan area, with a rural population of 167,000, has received £47,176. It will be said that there are additional housing or improvement grants given under the Housing (Gaeltacht) Act in the West, but the figures provided by the Minister for Lands in respect of that type of work make no material difference to the facts which I want to put before the Minister. My contention is that the money which is being spent on reconstruction is not in any reasonable proportion assisting the part of the country that is badly housed and in which money is less easily obtainable either for building or improving of houses than it is in other parts.

The Minister tells us that private persons and public utility societies still continue to do a lot of valuable work which might otherwise fall on the local authorities. It is not clear that private persons are still continuing to build at the rate they were building in the past, although the financial inducements are considerably stronger under the last Act than they were previously. We find that the public utility societies which are doing anything are established in County Mayo, where they built 319 houses; in Kerry, where they built 102 houses; in Galway, where they built 36 houses; in Clare, where they built 64 houses, and in Limerick, where they built 24 houses. When we come to Wicklow, Carlow, Kilkenny, Waterford and Wexford, we find that there are no public utility societies working at all. In North Tipperary, there is no public utility society working either. A public utility society which built four houses in South Tipperary is the only kind of utility society that is working there. It could not be said that, under the provisions of the Minister's Act, public utility societies have developed regionally in the West as against any particular part of the East, but they have developed in particular counties. Having regard to the size of the grants given to public utility societies and, particularly, to societies building the lower valued houses for agricultural workers, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what general purpose the utility societies are serving other than getting increased grants for their members. I admit that, if public utility societies could be got to undertake the building of houses for agricultural labourers without any drain directly on the local authority for maintenance and, perhaps, for loss in rates which prove to be uncollectable, it would be a most valuable development, but we have no information which would lead us to believe that there was that institutional development. One would be inclined to think that these societies were simply a grouping-together of people around one particular builder or supplier for the purpose of getting increased grants for the building of houses.

When we turn to the building of houses for agricultural workers by the local authorities, I think that some additional information might be given us by the Minister. The Minister informed a Deputy in the House yesterday that he would not be able for a week or so to give him some information with regard to the rents of labourers' cottages in a certain number of counties, or to indicate the burden that was falling upon the rates in connection with the building of them. The amount of money that is falling on the local ratepayers in connection with these cottages, and the capacity of agricultural labourers to pay the rents, are matters on which, I think, at this stage, after two years' experience of the working of the Principal Act, after the building of a certain number of houses by some boards of health, and after, no doubt, careful examination of a number of additional schemes in the Minister's Department, something further ought to be heard from the Minister.

The Minister said the other day, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, that if we take the County Limerick, it was proposed to build 973 additional labourers' cottages there. It is well to point out that the arrears on the present labourers' cottages in that county amounted to £3,232 on 31st March, 1932, and that they had risen to £7,008 by 31st March, 1934. In the County Limerick 12 cottages were built during the last two years, and we now have it that 973 additional cottages are proposed to be built there. At the same time, we have the statement from the Minister that the arrears on labourers' cottages in the County Limerick have risen by the enormous figure I have quoted—by nearly £4,000 above what they were on 31st March, 1932. The Minister told us that they proposed to build 432 new labourers' cottages in County Galway. The arrears in that County have doubled during the last two years. They have increased from £830 to £1,900. In County Cork they propose to build 168 cottages. Over the whole of the County Cork the arrears have risen from £5,994 at 31st March, 1932, to £10,107 two years afterwards. There is hardly a county, with the honourable exception of the County Dublin and, perhaps, Roscommon, where the arrears on labourers' cottages have not risen substantially during the past two years. The arrears which stood at £34,000 on 31st March, 1932, now stand at the figure of £56,000.

These arrears are disclosing themselves at a time when the wages of agricultural workers were never lower. The fact is disclosed in the Irish Trade Journal for September last, that as between the 11th July, 1931 and 5th July, 1933 the wages of agricultural workers on the average throughout the whole of Leinster fell by 2/3; in Munster they fell by 2/6; in Connacht they fell by 1/9 and in Ulster by 1/-, the average over the whole country being 2/3. If the Minister, as he told us, is proposing to sanction in the case of local authorities the building of a large number of labourers' cottages, it would be interesting to hear what the rents of them are going to be. I have found people in the country who say that the Minister is now sanctioning the erection of labourers' cottages at a rent of 1/6. They expect that the Government are bearing a much bigger part of the loan charges than the present Act allows them to bear. That, apparently, is not possible, and the Minister is not proposing to change that under this Bill. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the additional burden is going to fall on the local rates. Those responsible for the local rates do not know that. It seems to me that, in a certain number of cases where decisions have already been taken and rents fixed, the local authority does not yet know, although it ought to, what the amount of the capital cost falling on the local authority is, in fact, going to be.

The present cost of building these cottages, so far as we know, is such as to increase the rents very considerably to the occupier. Obviously when the wages of the occupier are reduced to-day as compared with two years ago, he will not be in a position to pay. In addition, we have the arrears of rents increasing by the enormous figure I have quoted. In these circumstances I think it is absolutely essential that we should hear from the Minister what his policy is in the case of boards of health building labourers' cottages, and what he expects from public utility societies in a way that will relieve boards of health possibly of the burdens, responsibilities and anxieties as regards the future that, otherwise, might fall on them.

I do not think that the position with regard to building in the urban districts is any more satisfactory. In the eight-year period ended 31st March, 1932, private persons had built 3,128 houses. In the two-year period ended 31st March, 1934 they had built less than one-fifth, or 694 houses. Public utility societies in the eight-year period had built 1,222 houses, and in the two-year period they had built one-seventh of that figure, 175 houses. In fact, public utility societies that are developing in some strange way in, say, Mayo and Kerry, are fading out of existence in the urban districts where you might expect them to develop. In the case of local authorities, they built 6,481 houses in the eight-year period as against 4,076 houses in the two-year period or, approximately, six-tenths of the number that had been built in the previous eight years. Therefore, the position is that there is less building by private persons and by public utility societies. They have built less than one-seventh as compared with the eight-year period. In fact, they have practically vanished. Beyond, I think, four houses built in Drogheda and four built in Cork the remainder of their 175 houses were built in the City of Dublin.

Apart from that development with regard to private and public utility societies there is a real mystery in the case of local authorities. The Minister has power under Section 6 (1) (a) (i) of the Act to pay 66? per cent. of the annual loan charges in the case of houses built by local authorities. The section says that the Minister can give a grant not "exceeding 66? per centum of such annual loan charges, where the Minister is satisfied that such houses have been provided for the acommodation of persons displaced by any operations of such local authority under the said Acts.""The accommodation of persons displaced!" The understanding was, I think, that this larger sum was to be given towards the building of houses by local authorities where houses were being demolished because they were unsatisfactory or where persons were being displaced from an overcrowded area which the local authority were taking control of from that particular point of view. As I say, out of the total of 4,076 houses actually completed by local authorities, 3,612 were given grants by the Minister of the higher amount. They got 66? per cent. of the total capital cost, whereas if the local authorities were building houses in the ordinary way they would only get one-half of that amount.

The Minister told us that in the case of the 3,612 houses for which this additional displacement grant is being given 2,592 houses have been ordered to be destroyed, but that in fact only 640 have been destroyed. The proportion between the 2,500 and the 3,600 is perhaps a reasonable proportion of demolitions, when the matter of providing houses for persons taken from overcrowded areas is taken into consideration. But over 2,500 of these houses were completed before the 31st December and, nevertheless, the Minister tells us that only 640 houses have actually been destroyed. When we look further into the matter the thing becomes even more difficult to understand. In Sligo, 179 houses were built and the Sligo Corporation were given the benefit of this section.

Mr. Dillon

And went into the occupation of them.

General Mulcahy

The Minister only ordered 36 houses to be destroyed. So that here you have a balance of 143 houses built in Sligo for which the State is paying two-thirds of the capital cost. In Wexford, 56 houses were built; 25 houses were ordered to be destroyed; and only two houses have been destroyed. On the other hand, in Athy 93 houses have been built and the Minister has ordered the destruction of 227. That may anticipate some further building there. In Tullamore, 52 houses have been built and given the benefit of that section, but the Minister is not asking any houses to be destroyed. When you look at the local authorities who have been given simply the 33? per cent. towards their loan charges, and when you look at places like Sligo which are given the 66? per cent.; when you see the discrepancy in these cases, and then see the discrepancy between the number of houses ordered for destruction and the number of houses actually destroyed, a statement from the Minister as to the whole control of the operation of that Section 6 (1) (a) (i) seems to be necessary. There is a very considerable amount of money involved and I take it the extra grant in the case of these houses was meant to a large extent to compensate the authority for the destruction of these houses, for the work of removing the debris, making the area from which the houses were removed a sanitary area, and making it ready for another building scheme. It seems to shroud the whole of the financing of the housing schemes of urban authorities with a very considerable amount of mystery which ought to be removed.

The Minister, I think, will admit that if public utility societies in some areas are relieving the local authorities of the burden that would otherwise fall upon them, the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, in respect of another section of the people who are at such a point that they are very badly catered for in the matter of housing, is also relieving the local authorities of a very considerable amount of anxiety and expense, and also relieving the Minister of the problem of legislating for a particular type of person. I do not think that any investment which the Dublin Corporation have made of their money has been more secure than the money which they have invested under the Small Dwellings Act. I do not think it can be said that the Dublin Corporation have lost very many pounds in advancing money to persons under that Act. At present, however, a very large number of persons, who have applications in with the Dublin Corporation for grants to enable them to purchase new houses which are actually being built or have been built, are being told by the Corporation that no money is available for them. That, if it continues, will certainly hold up a certain amount of very valuable house building in Dublin; will hold up house building for a class of people who particularly need to be catered for because they fall between the building speculator, who wishes to build an £800 house and the local authority which builds for the ordinary worker. If the Minister can assist the Dublin Corporation to get over whatever difficulty they may have in meeting this particular class of person, he will do a considerable amount of good, both for the building trade and for a large number of people who are prepared to shoulder the responsibility of owning their own homes.

If that is the position with regard to the Small Dwellings Act in Dublin, it would be interesting to hear from the Minister to what extent the extension of the Act to rural districts is helping local authorities to rid themselves of some of the burden and responsibility for housing. I should also like to know whether he is in a position to say how many houses built by private individuals or public utility societies in rural areas are being financed by local authorities under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. Again I say that the Minister has simply given us the big lump figures of his achievement and the bigger lump figures of his expectations. Something that would put a little more flesh and skin on the whole story of the position with regard to housing is wanted.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Even taking the number of houses built in the last few years, as compared with the number built in any two-year period mentioned by the Deputy, let us say from 1924 to 1926, the comparative figures for any of those years will bear out and be in relation to the totals that I gave. For the years 1922-1926, 5,312 houses were completed by all agencies as against 11,692 in the last few years. It is quite true that in certain areas there has not been the same amount of building by private persons and public utility societies as during a certain number of the years in the reign of the last Government; but as against that there has been a vastly increased rate of building by local authorities and the provision of houses for the poorer classes of persons. These are the people in particular that we set out to cater for under this Bill. It is admitted that houses are necessary for the better classes and the better paid artisan, but our chief object was to tackle the slum problem. I think we have been doing that successfully, not everywhere, but in most places, during the past two years.

There are some local authorities both in urban and rural areas that have not been induced to do their duty. I hope that a new spirit will animate them in the future. We hope it will not be necessary to put in certain clauses that are in the 1932 Act, taking the provision of houses out of their hands. I would be loath to do that. I would rather see the local authorities doing the work themselves. The Deputy pointed out districts where work in the way of house supply had not gone on during the past couple of years at a rate that ought to have been pursued, but in every case, in both urban and rural areas, no opportunity has been lost to endeavour to get the local authorities, whether boards of health, town councils or any other bodies, to interest themselves. We have pressed them by sending them letters, and by sending officials of the Department to interview them. We have sent members of the Housing Board to interview them and point out the advantages offered to them and to point out their duty. We have tried and in some cases we have failed. I do not know why. I have an idea that in some places it was probably due to politics, but it was not that cause everywhere. We intend to continue to try to get every local authority to do its duty in the matter of housing.

Reconstruction grants have been availed of—I think the Deputy is quite right—in some of the counties in the eastern part of the country to a much greater extent than in the west. Of course, that is a matter in which we have no choice but to offer the people the facilities. We have put them before the people through the medium of publicity. I have used the Press and the officials of the Department. I have got officials to speak over the radio in order to tell the people, anyone who would care to listen, about the grants and the facilities for house-building that are available and also the grants for the reconstruction of houses. I would be very happy to see reconstruction grants made more use of in all parts of the country. The public utility societies, where they are active —and they are not active in as many places as I would like to see them—have been of considerable advantage. Many people, particularly in rural areas, are not so used to dealing with the various forms necessary to be filled and the machinery that has to be put into operation. Where they can get a utility society with an intelligent and active secretary it helps them very materially in pushing ahead their claims both for grants for new houses and reconstruction grants. I would gladly avail of the criticism of the Deputy regarding the inactivity of these societies in many areas in order to urge them to take greater heed of what is offered to them and to use the facilities afforded. It is quite true, as the Deputy says, that arrears of rent on labourers' cottages have gone up in the last two years. We have had to take serious notice of that matter. I cannot give the exact reason, but I am inclined to think that in some areas it was due to laxity on the part of collectors. Believing that to be so, in some areas we have had to instruct local authorities to take very strict and drastic action against collectors. In some cases, where action of that kind has been threatened, there has been in the last few months a considerable improvement in the payment of rents on labourers' cottages.

The work of destruction of condemned and insanitary dwellings is going ahead. Admittedly, it is slow, but no grant will be paid to any local authority for the building of a new house where the condemned house, the house declared to be insanitary by the local authority, has not been destroyed. There is, admittedly, a considerable difference between the number of houses that have been approved for grants and those where the houses have not been demolished. I will give the assurance to the House that we are watching that matter very closely and the grant will not be paid where an insanitary house that ought to have been demolished has not been demolished. We had some difficulty, particularly in Sligo and one or two other places, in getting the law carried into effect in that matter. We intend to insist that the law will be carried out and that these houses will be destroyed.

General Mulcahy

Can the Minister say whether he has attempted to fix the responsibility as regards the official who will be responsible, whether it is the county medical officer of health, the local medical officer or the engineering officer of the council?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The official we would regard as responsible would be the town clerk. The medical officer would declare the place insanitary and the engineer would have to look after the actual demolition; but the official we would hold responsible, if the local authority failed in its duty, would be the town clerk in the areas concerned. With regard to the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, I have here a statement of the actual position so far as it refers to the Dublin Corporation:—

Since the resumption by the Dublin Corporation of operations under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts in 1932, the borrowing of the following sums has been sanctioned:—

£150,000	sanctioned	29th August, 1932.
£250,000	,,	14th August, 1933.
£250,000	,,	6th June, 1934.
£650,000

In addition, an application has now been received for sanction to the raising of a further sum of £200,000 for the purposes of the Acts.

The allocation of the additional sum of £200,000 has been decided upon by the Corporation as follows:—

£
100,000	For new houses of any market value up to £1,000 built on Dublin Corporation building sites which are already leased.
75,000	For new houses of market value up to £600 erected on sites other than Corporation sites already leased.
25,000	For new houses of market value from £600 to £1,000 erected on sites other than Corporation sites already leased.
200,000

No advances out of this sum of £200,000 will be made on any except newly-erected houses being sold for the first time, the borrower in each case being the first resident. Eighty-five per cent. of the market value of houses up to £600 market value will in future be advanced out of this extra sum.

In this connection, it may be noted that the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts are operated by local authorities at their own option and the Minister has no power to compel local authorities to operate the Acts or to act himself in the event of their failure to do so.

General Mulcahy

Can the Minister say if that statement comes as a relief to persons who, on the 28th June, were told that no money was available for them under these Acts and their application fee of two guineas would be returned? There are large numbers of such persons.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I cannot fix the date. I cannot say on what date the applicants might have been told. There was, recently, I know, a date where applicants were told that all the money had been allotted. The question of raising further sums for grants under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act is at present receiving the earnest consideration of the City Manager, and he has, I believe, been in consultation with some of the officials of my Department on that matter. I am inclined to think that it would not cover any of the cases of people who would apply in or about the 28th of June.

Mr. T. Kelly

That £200,000 was voted the other day. It is to be borrowed later on. Leave was given to borrow a further £200,000 for the operation of this Act. They are not satisfied with that and are going to ask for another £250,000. That will mean £800,000. You have got to consider that our work is for the poor in Dublin especially. I have no great interest in the people who can pay £1,000 or £800 for a house. I think, having regard to the very large sum which it would take for slum clearance, the Minister ought to say that this further £200,000 is quite sufficient for the present and for a considerable time to come.

General Mulcahy

I should like to ask Deputy Tom Kelly if he will say if there is .001 per cent. of the money lent by the Dublin Corporation to persons under that Act that is outstanding?

Mr. T. Kelly

We cannot say that yet, because the Act has only begun to operate again in the last two years. The experience of that Act should extend over ten years before we would know.

General Mulcahy

But the Corporation has already had experience of it.

Mr. T. Kelly

The Act has been lying dormant for years, and I think the people who cannot pay a "bob" for a house ought to be considered.

General Mulcahy

Surely there are not divergent interests in this matter.

The Minister rose.

Mr. Dockrell

May I interrupt the Minister for a moment? I only wish to say a word with his consent. Alderman Tom Kelly has mentioned a point on which I would be anxious to have the Minister comment. He has mentioned that under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act every pound that the Corporation have provided for this is coming out of the pocket from which money would be provided for slum clearance, but where there is such congestion as there is in Dublin, surely the people who move into a new house will vacate some other house and provide more room.

Mr. T. Kelly

Yes, but at a higher rent.

Mr. Dockrell

Well, it will be at a lower rent if it has to be, and I think it is just as well that the Minister should take the point into consideration, that in providing money for these houses he is helping to solve the problem.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I agree with Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Dockrell that the question of refusing sanction for further loans under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act is one that must be very carefully considered indeed, because, while there are several good reasons, one is that we are providing housing accommodation for people who have to be housed anyway, and, secondly, we are providing employment. Quite a big number of tradesmen are occupied at present on houses that are being built which would not be built were it not for the loans granted under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, and it would have a very serious effect on the housing conditions and on the question of employment if we were suddenly to shut down in the matter of grants under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act.

There is another point to be borne in mind. While the sums advanced add to the total debt of the municipality of Dublin, it is a remunerative debt. The people to whom these grants are made are paying interest on them. It adds to the sum total of the debt of the city in that way, if you like, but that money is being paid, and I think that Deputy Mulcahy is right in saying that if any money has been lost it is a very small sum. With regard to the question of the operation of the Act in rural areas, I am afraid that difficulties have arisen that I am finding great obstacles in overcoming. Legal difficulties have arisen in the last six months or so which have practically put the Act out of operation. Points have been raised by legal advisers of different county councils with regard to the operation of the Act in some counties and, during the course of its operation, some bright legal mind discovered some flaws in the title of land rented by the Land Commission and rented in other ways that made it very difficult for the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act to operate. We have been trying for the last six months, with the help of all the legal advice it is possible to get both inside and outside the Department, to get over these difficulties, but we have not found a way out yet. For the time being the operation of the Act has had to slow up in several counties where these points have been raised, but I hope that we will be able to find a way to get over the difficulties and put the Act in operation again as soon as possible.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 5 Jul 1934

Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1934—Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Jul 1934