Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Jul 1934

Vol. 53 No. 14

Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1934—Money Resolution. - Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1934—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Principal Act is hereby amended in the following respects, that is to say:—

(a) the reference to the 1st day of April, 1935, contained in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (b) shall be construed as a reference to the 1st day of April, 1936;

(b) after the said sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph (b) there shall be inserted a new sub-paragraph as follows, that is to say:—

(iv) £45, if the erection of such house shall have been commenced on or after the 12th day of May, 1932, and shall have been completed on or after the 1st day of April, 1936, but before the 1st day of April, 1937;

(c) the reference to the 1st day of April, 1935, contained in each of paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) shall be construed as a reference to the 1st day of April, 1937,

and the said sub-section shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 1:—

In paragraph (a), line 20, to delete the word "April" and substitute therefor "January."

Perhaps the discussion on this amendment may have to range a little over amendment No. 2, which is "To delete paragraph (b)." Both amendments refer to that part of the Principal Act which deals with grants to private persons and public utility societies building houses in urban districts. The House may remember that the Housing Acts, 1924 to 1930, provided grants from £100 to £50 for every house built by a private person or a public utility society in urban districts, according to the size of the house, and diminishing as the different Housing Acts came along, up to the 1930 Act. At the time of the 1930 Act, I think the grant paid to private persons and public utility societies was £45 a house. When the 1931 Act was presented to the House, the question of dropping the grants to private persons and public utility societies in urban districts was discussed, and it was thought that, while a case could be made for stopping them in view of the amount of money that was required for other developments in our housing policy, it was wrong to drop them entirely. The Housing Act, 1931, proposed that where a local authority gave to a private person or public utility society building houses in its urban district £20 for a house, the State would provide £20 also. The proposals in the 1932 Act, however, superseded the proposals in the 1931 Act, and the 1932 Act provided that houses built by private persons or public utility societies up to 1st June, 1933, would get a grant of £70; if completed by 1st April, 1934, a grant of £60; and if completed by 1st April, 1935, a grant of £50. Therefore, substantially increased grants were given for houses that were completed, say, after 1st January, 1933.

When the Minister was introducing this measure he painted a glowing picture of the achievements made for that reason, and when the Minister is now extending the period for the grant of £50 from 1st April, 1935, to 1st April, 1936, and adding an additional period for the reduced grant of £45 to 1st April, 1937, I think the House ought to get some explanation of some of the facts that have disclosed themselves in the meantime. Particularly with reference to amendment No. 1, I would recall the Minister's attention to the fact that in the Housing Act of 1932, a grant of only £45 was made in respect of houses completed before 31st December, 1932, and particularly in respect of amendment No. 1, I should like to ask him why, if he is continuing the £50 grant, he does not end the period on 1st January, 1936, instead of carrying it forward to the 1st April, 1936? Most of the houses that are being worked on now, and which are being given the additional grant, will be completed before the winter, and I do not see any reason why the grant of £50 should be continued in respect of houses that are completed in the first quarter of the following year.

The main point, however, is the general extension of these grants beyond the date fixed by the Act, and in asking the House so to extend the grant, I think the Minister ought to answer some questions with regard to the developments that have shown themselves in respect of the building of houses by private persons and public utility societies in urban districts. During the eight year period I spoke about on Second Reading, there were built by private persons in urban areas 3,928 houses, a yearly average of 491 houses, During the two year period the Minister is dealing with now, the total number of houses built by private persons in urban districts was 827, an average yearly number of houses of 414. The Minister, in moving the Second Reading of this measure, is able to say, as reported in column 1537 of the Official Debates:—

"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."

Later on, in column 1539, he told the House that for its convenience he would deal in detail with the activities of private persons and public utility societies up to date. Again, I would recall to the Minister the fact that the average number of houses completed by private persons in urban districts each year during the eight year period from 1925 to 1931 was 491 houses——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not like interrupting the Deputy in the line he is following but if this discussion is to widen out on Committee Stage, I take it that discussion will be curtailed on the Fifth Stage. The Deputy is going a little outside these amendments now and I suppose he realises that.

General Mulcahy

I find it difficult to follow your reasoning, Sir, for the reason that very substantially increased grants were made in the 1932 Act and the House has been told that this Act has solved a problem which baffled all previous Administrations.

An Ceann Comhairle

In a Second Reading speech.

General Mulcahy

Yes, and I have moved an amendment to delete in respect of grants to private persons and public utility societies this extension of time, and I am pointing out, as a reason for that, that the number of houses built by private persons and public utility societies annually, during the last two years, under this Act, has fallen very substantially below the number of houses built annually by private persons and public utility societies in each of the eight years that preceded them.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may proceed. He has made a point.

General Mulcahy

I have put down this amendment particularly to enable the House to get from the Minister some comment on the very extraordinary facts that have disclosed themselves. Therefore, I ask the Minister, if he objects to the deletion of this paragraph, to explain why, under the recent administration of the Housing Act, the number of houses built annually by private persons in urban districts has fallen from 491, which was the average for the eight years from 1925 to 1931, to 207 for the last two years; and why, in the case of houses built by public utility societies in urban districts, the average number built yearly has fallen from 153 in the eight-year period to an average of 105 for the last two years.

I would ask him, in addition, to explain why, while there is that drop in building generally throughout the country, there is such a remarkable discrepancy between the percentage of houses built in urban districts in the city and County Dublin during the previous eight years as compared with the rest of the country and the percentage of houses built in the urban districts in the city and county of Dublin as against the rest of the country for the other two years. Whereas, in the eight-years period, 55 per cent. of the houses built in urban districts in the whole country were built in Dublin and the urban districts in County Dublin, the percentage has risen for the last two years to 81.5. So that, of the reduced number of houses built by private persons, there has been a substantial increase in the percentage of those houses built in Dublin City and in the urban districts in County Dublin. In the case of public utility societies, the percentage has risen from 83 per cent. to 96 per cent. of the total number of houses.

When we consider the substantial grants given and the diminishing results, that we have had a very large increase in the Local Government Housing Department; that we have a Housing Board set up to review every aspect of the housing position and to watch and direct the steps of the Government in their administration of this Act, I submit that we want some explanation of what is happening in urban districts in respect to the building of houses by private persons and public utility societies. I think the facts disclosed by the Minister in reply to Parliamentary questions are very remarkable and entirely at variance with the statements he has made to the House.

Mr. Boland

I did not know what line the Deputy intended to take. He has put down nine amendments. I do not know whether he expects me to make a statement on the general housing position on one of these amendments or whether he is prepared to wait until the Committee Stage is disposed of and have the general statement afterwards. It is usual, I think, to deal with amendments as they arise. Then when the Committee Stage is passed we can have the general statement.

General Mulcahy

My whole difficulty in this matter is that we have these complaints that when the Minister addresses the House on the subject of housing, he adds all the figures that he can get in the Department together and slaps them out here as an achievement. It is only, I think, by the discussion of each separate item, in so far as the Minister is able to discuss them, on the Committee Stage, that this House can know whether the Minister has actually examined the situation and is able to give the House the benefit of any conclusion that he or his Department or the Housing Board has come to.

Mr. Boland

I shall deal with the amendments as they arise, and then make the statement on the general housing position, if I am permitted. I shall deal with the first two amendments. The first amendment is to substitute the word "January" for "April." The Deputy wishes to know why the £50 grant should be continued until 1st April rather than 1st January. The experience has been that a house started in the autumn very often cannot be completed in the winter. There may be frost and other conditions which make it impossible to do plastering and work of that kind. Very often there are idle months on that account. That is the reason why we cannot accept the 1st January. I think that ought to be a satisfactory reason. As to the deletion of paragraph (b), the best way to deal with that is to let the Deputy know what the actual position is under that section and then he can see what the effect would be of deleting the paragraph. There have been completed by public utility societies 435 houses.

General Mulcahy

Up to what date?

Mr. Boland

Up to the 30th June. Houses in progress by public utility societies number 330. That makes a total of 765. The number of houses completed by private persons is 1,837; houses in progress, 1,585; making a total of 3,422. The grand total is 4,187. If this paragraph is deleted, as the Deputy wishes, a lot of that work will be arrested. As the houses in progress number 1,915, a lot of these undoubtedly will be unfinished, and the people will be deprived of their grants. I am satisfied that there will be a very large increase in the number of houses built in the coming two years. I think I shall be able to show that later on when making the general statement. We are quite satisfied that the rate of progress will be accelerated in the coming two years. At present it has reached the total given, and the effect of the Deputy's amendment will be, as I say, to prevent people who are prevented from going on with building, perhaps owing to climatic conditions, from getting the full grant. We cannot accept the amendment for that reason.

General Mulcahy

Nothing that the Minister has said can get away from the fact that, although there has been a substantial increase in the grants to private persons and public utility societies during the last two years, the number of houses built each year by private persons has been substantially less than one-half of the number built annually during the previous eight years. In the case of public utility societies it has been two-thirds of the number built in the previous years and there has been a very considerable transference of the weight of building to the City of Dublin and the urban districts in the City of Dublin. There are 86 urban districts, that is, towns with local governing powers, in the whole country. There were only four of these that in the eight years period I speak of had not houses built in them by private persons and public utility societies under the previous Acts. There are 51 of them that had not, scaffolding erected during the last two years except at the expense of some public authority or another, if at all.

It does disclose a certain state of things that requires some kind of systematic examination and some kind of more reasoned recommendation of proposals of this kind before the House ought to be asked to pass them. I do not desire at this particular stage to press these amendments, but I do desire to emphasise the fact that the conditions are such that, with a very enlarged staff dealing with housing and a very considerable amount of money being spent on it, and with very serious commitments towards the housing of the working classes both in rural and urban districts, there seems to be a very small case for keeping on these grants. At any rate there is a very big case why, with the assistance at the disposal of the Minister, we ought to have a more systematic examination of the matter than we have had.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy knows that when a new scheme is launched it does not take effect in the first year. He knows that when the original scheme was prepared there were only 18 houses built in the first year, while in the second year there were 448. It takes some time to get these schemes under way, and the rate of progress is not so fast in the first or the second year. We are satisfied, following a close examination of the position, that the rate of progress is increasing. That is the principal reason why this extension of time is being looked for. We are quite satisfied that this scheme has got support, and we expect to have a considerable increase in the rate of progress. I am not going to admit that there has not been great progress. I am quite satisfied that when I read out my statement even Deputy Mulcahy could admit that considerable progress has been made. If he does not admit that, I am quite satisfied still that anybody in the country who has kept his eyes open will agree that considerable progress has been made. The Deputy knows that at the beginning of a scheme progress is not as rapid as after a year or so.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, by leave, withdrawn.

General Mulcahy

Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have some connection with each other:

In paragraph (c), line 30, to delete the reference "(c)."

In paragraph (c) line 30, to delete the reference "(d)."

In paragraph (c), line 30, to delete the reference "(e)."

Various classes of the community in rural areas are given grants. No. 3 refers to these members of the community who derive their living from agricultural pursuits. No. 4 deals with grants for agricultural labourers and No. 5 deals with grants to private persons other than the two classes I have mentioned. Yesterday the Minister provided us with some information as to the cost of building labourers' cottages throughout the country and the cost falling on the State in connection with them. I quite admit that these being the facts with regard to the building of labourers' cottages and the amount of State and rate aid given, it is very hard to quarrel with the giving of grants of the size mentioned to the particular people who are referred to in these amendments.

We were told yesterday that in the case of labourers' cottages in County Meath the average building cost is £243 and the total all-in cost is £291. We were told public moneys, to the extent of £271 per cottage, are provided under the present Act as assistance towards the building of the labourer's cottage which will afterwards be rented at 1/8. In Leix £205 is provided from public moneys, £155 from the taxpayer and £50 from the ratepayer. In West Cork the amount is £249, being £163 from the taxpayer and £76 from the ratepayer. In Kerry the sum is £234, being £144 from the taxpayer and £90 from the ratepayer. In Wexford it is £207, representing £144 from the taxpayer and £63 from the ratepayer. In Sligo there is a sum of £133 from the taxpayer and nothing at all from the ratepayer. The occupants of the cottages are saddled with the following rents:—Meath, 1/8; Leix, 2/6; Cork, 2/6; Kerry, 1/6 and Sligo 3/6. When we consider the enormous amount of public assistance given towards the building of these cottages in these casually selected sample counties, it is very hard to question the Minister about giving £70 to a person who derives his living from an agricultural holding of not more than £15 valuation and £60 for a person who derives his living from an agricultural holding of not less than £25.

We have heard no explanation from the Minister as to what the general effect of the building of these cottages is in the country. I have pointed out that the incidence of much of this building is in the districts that are not really bad housing areas. We have the position that a private person in a rural area is given a grant of £45 whereas a grant of £50 is being continued for the next two years to a person building a house in a town. The Minister told us that of the houses that have been built under the sections referred to here, 230 have been built for persons who derive their living from agriculture and who are under £15, and 52 houses have been built for persons who derive their living from agricultural holdings under £25 and there are 117 houses of another kind. These figures are very much below the rate of progress that was pursued in the eight years from 1925 to 1931.

The total number of houses built during the eight years' period by private persons in rural districts was 11,588, or an average yearly building of 1,148. In spite of the very increased grants to rural areas the average yearly number of houses built was only 633 in the last two years, so that the average building in rural districts has fallen from 1,448 to 633. The facts provided by the Minister showing the position up to the 1st April last are entirely contrary to the impression that his speech on the Second Reading would convey to the House. In respect to this particular class of building I would like to ask the Minister whether that is a rate of progress that is going to continue or if there is any explanation as to why the building of houses in rural districts by private persons has fallen off to that very remarkable extent.

Mr. G. Boland

Taking those amendments, Nos. 3, 4 and 5 now, I think the best thing I could do would be to let the Deputy see what progress has been made up to date. Amendment No. 3 proposes to delete the reference (c). That deals, first of all, with farmers not exceeding £15 valuation. The number of houses completed to date by people in that category is 251, and the number of houses in progress is 392, making a total of 643. In the category of people of a valuation of over £15 and not exceeding £25, the number of houses completed is 62 and the number of houses in progress is 60, making a total of 122. The total for small farmers is: completed houses, 313; houses in progress, 452; making a total of 765.

The Deputy will notice that a considerable number of houses are still in progress, and we are satisfied that the same thing applies in this case as in the other case: that there is a greater rate of progress being made and that that will continue. If we were to agree to the Deputy's amendment, we would simply close down this Housing Act on the 1st April and catch a lot of people out and prevent the increased building which we expect. The Deputy is not pressing the amendments and, apparently, is putting them down in order to get information as to what the actual position is under those heads. If that is so, I am giving him the information, but he cannot seriously mean that he proposes to stop the operation of the Housing Acts, because that is what it would amount to if we carried those amendments.

Amendment No. 4 deals with the erection by an agricultural labourer of a house for his own occupation in a rural area. Up to date, 139 houses have been completed and 180 houses are in progress. The Deputy did not press that point, because, as he realises, the cost on a public authority of building houses is very large, and if agricultural labourers can be induced to build their houses at a cost to the State of £70, it is justified. I think it is very satisfactory to see so many of these houses built; the total in that case being 319, and, again, I am quite satisfied that there will be continued progress.

Amendment No. 5 deals with grants to persons other than small farmers— the grant being £45. In that category, 940 houses have been completed and 510 are in progress up to date, the date being the 30th June. That makes a total of 1,450 houses.

General Mulcahy

Again, the figures that the Minister has given us simply show that, during the quarter ended 30th June, in the case of persons deriving their living from holdings of a valuation of £15 and under, 21 additional houses have been completed in the whole country; that in the case of persons of from £15 to £25 valuation, ten additional houses have been completed; and that in the case of agricultural labourers, 22 additional houses have been completed in the whole country. The only material point in these figures is that they show that, whereas 670 houses were completed by ordinary private persons, getting the £45 grant, in the two years ended 1st April last, 270 additional houses have been completed from April to June. I do not know whether the Minister has any particulars to show that that is an important development which is likely to continue. Nevertheless, as I say, the figures, as they go, show that there has been a very considerable falling off in the building of houses in rural districts by private persons, in spite of the very greatly increased grants. Taking the latest figures that the Minister has with regard to persons building houses with the £45 grant, they show an even more remarkable development, and that is that the people who are building houses and looking for grants as private persons in rural areas are particularly people whose holdings are of a valuation of more than £25.

Amendments 3, 4 and 5, by leave, withdrawn.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 6:—

In paragraph (c), line 30, to delete the reference "(f)."

Again, Sir, it is very hard to quarrel with the size of the grants given to public utility societies building houses in rural districts for people who derive their livelihoods from agriculture when the Minister stands for the extraordinary expenditure that I mentioned already with regard to labourers' cottages, such as that case, to take one example in County Meath, where the building cost is £243 and the all-in cost of building it is £291, and £271 is provided for the building of that cottage. A considerable number of cottages are being built and, by the figures, a very considerable number of cottages are proposed to be built. Nevertheless, some explanation of the position in the country as regards the development of public utility societies is called for.

Deputy Everett, in a Parliamentary Question yesterday, suggested, and was subsequently emphatic in saying, that there are public utility societies established throughout the country that are making considerable profits for themselves as private persons, and he asked for some particulars about it. The development of public utility societies in rural areas certainly has been remarkable from the geographical point of view. Not a single house has been built in Wexford, Wicklow, County Dublin, Carlow, Kilkenny, Waterford, North Tipperary or Longford, by a public utility society. In other cases where public utility societies are, apparently, recognised, in two areas in County Leitrim, public utility societies have built two houses. I do not know what kind of a public utility society it is that expends itself on the building of two houses. In Donegal six houses were built. But when we turn to County Mayo and County Kerry we find that in County Mayo, 319 out of a total of 373, built during the two years period, have been provided by public utility societies, and in County Kerry, 102 houses out of 150 were built by public utility societies.

In view of the fact that a public utility society, building a house for any class of person in a rural area, can get a grant which is £10 more than a person would get if he were getting the grant direct; and in view of the Minister's suggestion that public utility societies in the country could serve a very useful purpose in shouldering responsibilities that are falling on local authorities, it is very desirable, I suggest, that we should be told something of the type of public utility societies that we are developing under the fostering influence of these increased grants, and particularly what type of public utility society development there has been in County Mayo and County Kerry.

Mr. Boland

I have given the Deputy some figures as to the effect of the operation of the provision for public utility societies. There has been considerable use made of these public utility societies in the country; they have been found most helpful. First of all, they have been useful in getting the extra grant of £10 and in the next place, in getting credit for farmers who would not be able to get this credit for themselves. They also get over the trouble in filling up the forms in the way laid down by the rules of the Department. In a word, in carrying out all the conditions these utility societies have been useful to the people. The provision for farmers with a valuation not exceeding £15 per annum works out in this way that the number of houses completed is 713; in progress, 1,618, making a total of 2,331. In the case of the farmer with a valuation between £15 and £25 the number of houses completed is 138; the number of houses in progress, 261; total, 399. The total in both classes of cases completed is 851 and in progress, 1,879. These figures are in addition to the figures I gave in connection with amendment No. 3. They are the same class of farmers who are taking advantage of it. The progress is four times greater with than without the aid of the public utility societies. The Deputy will therefore see that the farmers are taking advantage of the public utility societies. From these figures, he can see that the public utility society is serving a useful purpose. It has been largely availed of in rural areas. I take it the Deputy is not going to press that amendment either.

General Mulcahy

The Minister does not tell us how many houses were completed up to date for agricultural labourers by the public utility societies. I do press this that further information is wanted.

Mr. Boland

I was only dealing with amendment No. 6. In the case of agricultural labourers the number of houses now completed is 204, and in process of completion the number is 460. This is under amendment No. 7. That is in addition to those provided by the labourers on their own.

General Mulcahy

I do not propose to press amendment No. 6, but I want to press this. According to the Minister's figures the public utility societies in Mayo have completed 319 houses at grants ranging from £80 to £70. These houses were built for small farmers on holdings of less than £25 valuation; or for agricultural labourers. Now in Wexford, 224 houses were built by the Board of Health for agricultural labourers. But in Wexford the State had to provide for each one of these houses twice the amount that is provided for the public utility society in Mayo. In Wexford the State had to provide £144 per house, and the local authority £63 so that for every one of the 224 houses in Wexford money to the extent of £207 had to be provided. In Mayo 319 houses were provided for much the same class of people at not more than £70 a house.

Mr. Boland

The difficulty is that the houses are the property of the individual in Mayo.

General Mulcahy

Then there is a movement in the matter of labourers' cottages built at enormous public expense to hand them over and to have them become the private property of the people who live in them. The Minister's Party lauded themselves to the skies for conceiving such a magnificent and Christian idea. I think it is of the greatest possible public interest to know how the group of people in Mayo managed to build these houses with the help of these small societies, and that in Wexford it has taken enormous sums of public money to build them. There is this additional point, too, that Mayo is one of the worst-housed areas in the country according to the housing census figures, and that Wexford, where we are spending this enormous amount of money to provide houses, is one of the best-housed areas. The houses are the same class in both areas. I am sure the Minister is satisfied that the Mayo houses are as good to live in as the Wexford houses. Officially, he does not appear to have directed any examination with a view to showing what the position is and whether the machinery that did so well in Mayo might not be developed in Wexford, or whether in fact the Mayo machinery is not anything more than the same machinery operating in counties where private persons get grants direct, except that by the same organisation the Minister thinks they are able to get additional grants.

Mr. Boland

The Deputy knows that these are voluntary societies. It is not the fault of the Government if Wexford labourers have not formed utility societies and taken advantage of them. We would welcome any help we can get in inducing the Wexford labourers to form utility societies. The public utility societies in Mayo were helpful to the people who needed houses but who were not sufficiently instructed to go about getting the grants. They got £10 additional by means of the society. The Mayo people own the houses themselves. It is a voluntary movement. The Government cannot make Wexford develop these societies in the same way as Mayo has done. If the Deputy would insist on this amendment there would be no hope of developing Wexford at all. I would like Wexford to take up this movement the same way as Mayo has taken it up, but we have no compulsory powers in the matter.

General Mulcahy

The Minister seems to wash his hands very lightly of what is a serious responsibility on us. The Minister published in reply to questions, as reported on 26th April in column 2350, a large list of counties where it was proposed to build labourers' cottages under the board of health machinery. Already, on the Second Reading, I pointed out that during the last three years there has been an enormous increase in the amount of the arrears of rents of labourers' cottages in quite a number of counties in which it is proposed to build additional labourers' cottages. For instance, in the case of Limerick, where the Minister says it is proposed to build 973 cottages, the arrears of rents on labourers' cottages have risen from £3,232 on 31st March, 1932, to £4,782 on 31st March, 1933, and to £7,008 on 31st March, 1934. That is the arrears of rents of labourers' cottages in the County Limerick have increased since 1932 by more than 100 per cent., that is from £3,000 roughly, to £7,000 and that in the course of two years.

The wages of agricultural workers in County Limerick, in the same two years, have been reduced, as they had been in other counties. Labourers' cottages were built with substantial sums of public money, as high as £271, £245, and £234 per cottage paid out of public moneys, forced from the ratepayers under the Minister's policy. In these circumstances a very grave responsibility devolves upon him to examine whether it is necessary at all to have that particular class of expense, if it is possible to get, in the County Mayo, the kind of organisation there providing a reasonable number of houses at a fraction of that cost. I doubt that the organising capacity, or intelligence, or will to assist themselves, is less amongst the Limerick or Wexford people than amongst the Mayo people. I think it a criminal policy on the part of the Administration to go on, calmly, facing an expenditure of such a gross amount of public money when they have the machinery at their disposal to examine what is the Kerry position and the Mayo position. I think the amount of money involved, in the subject of housing in rural areas, is of such importance that the matter requires examination and report to the House arising out of the spending of such enormous sums of money.

Mr. Boland

In Wexford the public authority have built labourers' cottages. In Mayo they have not. There are many causes in Mayo which, as has been said, is one of the worst housed areas in the country, why labourers cannot take advantage of the public utility building society, and the Mayo County Council will be pressed to provide for those people who cannot build for themselves. The Government have maintained that there is a duty to see that people are properly housed, and to try and induce labourers who are not in a position to take advantage of the public utility societies, as they are in Wexford, to persuade the councils in Mayo and such places to build houses so that both schemes will be going on together. As far as arrears are concerned, it was stated by the Minister that there is a general all round improvement in the collection of arrears.

General Mulcahy

I again emphasise, to the Minister, if with machinery in Mayo for houses of this particular kind, and with a grant as high as £70, he feels he must drive the local authority to build labourers' cottages in Mayo which would obviously mean a greatly increased expenditure of public money, that is all the more reason why we ought to have some information as to what this particular class of machinery is, and the particular people it caters for and the people left uncatered for.

Mr. Boland

Does the Deputy mean the particular class of people which this Bill is catering for?

General Mulcahy

The particular class of people the public utility society in Mayo is for. After the 1st April last he built 161 houses for people living in holdings of not more than £15 valuation; 16 houses for persons living in holdings of from £15 to £25 valuation, and 42 houses for agricultural labourers. If the public utility society is able to build 42 houses for agricultural labourers and more than 200 houses on holdings of less than £15 valuation then the Dáil ought to get more information about the public utility societies before it is asked to sympathise with the Minister in driving the Mayo Board of Health to take on the work of building houses at very considerable cost to Mayo ratepayers and taxpayers as well.

Mr. Boland

I think it is perfectly clear that these public utility societies have provided for small farmers advances of money, and for labourers in the same position. The Minister for Local Government insists that every cottage let by the local authorities must be let to the most deserving people, who would not be in a position to take advantage of the public utility societies. The position presents one side, and in one direction, in Wexford, and another in Mayo. It is the hope of the Department to balance the two, to see that those who cannot take advantage of the public utility society in Mayo will be provided, under the Labourers' Cottages Acts, and if more money is necessary we will come to the House and ask for it, because we believe it is our duty to see that people are properly housed. Those who are able to provide for themselves in that way, we will see they do and those who are not able to be provided for in that way, we will try and see them housed.

General Mulcahy

It is absurd for the Minister to tell the House that he will come and look for more money when the House is given no indication that the Department or the Housing Board is making an examination of the position. I think the whole question involved in this amendment ought to be the subject of careful examination and report. It is astounding to realise that so much money is paid in some counties for labourers' cottages, particularly when it would appear that there is machinery in some counties that could be worked a lot cheaper.

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, by leave, withdrawn.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 8:—

In paragraph (c) line 30, to delete the reference "(h)."

I referred during the Second Reading debate to the remarkable position that disclosed itself in the allocation of these reconstruction grants. The Minister, in referring to the reconstruction grants in his Second Reading speech, column 1541 of the Official Reports, July 5th, said:—

"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."

The only information that the House has is that they got the grants. I would like to hear from the Minister what is the general nature of the reconstruction that has taken place as well as his comments on the points that I have already raised. The report from the Department of statistics on housing, since 1926, was accompanied by a map that showed that the district —Donegal-Roscommon-Mayo-Galway - Clare - Kerry — is very badly housed. It was the worst housed area in the country from the point of view of the rural population. When we come to examine the development that has taken place all over the country as the result of this reconstruction grant we find, if you take the whole of that area and compare it with the small area Louth-Monaghan-Cavan, the area of Donegal stretching down to Kerry, is very badly housed. That area has a population of 872,000. Compare that with the Louth-Monaghan-Cavan area, with a population of 167,000, the total number of houses in the bigger area being 195,000 and the total number of houses in the other area being 43,000. The large western area got grants to the extent of £42,000 for reconstruction and the smaller, Louth-Monaghan-Cavan area, got grants to the extent of £47,000. Grants for reconstruction are also available under the Gaeltacht Act but the figures quoted by the Minister for Lands recently with regard to work carried out under the Gaeltacht Act do not materially affect the position. I should like to know from the Minister what type of reconstruction, generally, has been carried out, particularly in view of the fact that, when adding together the number of houses completed during the last two years, the Minister in his statement on Second Reading took in reconstructed houses as completed houses. I should like to know, also, why there is such a discrepancy in the incidence of this assistance between the two areas mentioned.

Mr. Boland

In this case we have no basis for comparison, because there were no grants for reconstruction of this kind available previously. The reconstruction, generally, takes the form of new roofs and larger windows. It took some time to get people to avail of these grants. That, again, is a reason why they should be continued. They are being availed of very largely now. The position to date is that, in the case of small farmers, reconstruction is complete in respect of 666 houses and is in progress in respect of 4,208 houses. That is a total of 4,874. In the case of agricultural labourers, reconstruction is complete in 94 cases, and in progress in 465 cases. That is a total of 559. The totals for completed reconstruction and for reconstruction in progress are respectively 760 and 4,673, making a grand total of 5,433. I think that that is fairly satisfactory. I am sure that everyone will admit that even where people cannot undertake the expense of building new houses, it is very desirable that they should, by the aid of these grants, put on new roofs or enlarge the windows of their houses. They may be able to do that by their own labour and the materials can be got on credit on the understanding that they are going to get this money. As regards the incidence of this reconstruction, I do not think it is fair that the Deputy should place the responsibility upon the Government. The initiative must be taken by the people themselves. Every inducement the Government can give to get the people to avail of the facilities of the Housing Acts will be given. If some areas did not take as much advantage of this provision as other areas did, that cannot be helped. I do not think that it is fair to put the blame for that on the Government. Generally speaking, the reconstruction part of the Housing Act has been very successful and will, I think, be more successful in the remaining couple of years.

General Mulcahy

I think that the Government, which takes cognisance of the bad housing conditions of the people in certain areas or in regard to certain sections of the population, cannot escape a certain amount of responsibility. If, after the publication of full information showing the discrepancy between the housing conditions of the people, say, in County Mayo and the housing conditions of the people in County Cavan or County Monaghan, the Government ask this House for money to assist in reconstruction, they have a responsibility for leaving nothing undone to divert that money to the area in which it is most wanted. The statistics show that in no part of the country is that money more badly wanted than in the western counties I mentioned. I think that the Minister will admit that there are few parts of the country in which windows require to be enlarged and roofs replaced as badly as in some of the western counties. As regards smallness of windows, Mayo and Galway and some of the western counties could very easily beat Louth, Monaghan or Cavan.

Mr. Boland

I do not disclaim responsibility, but what can the Government do but offer inducements? It has done that and certain counties have availed of the facilities more rapidly than others. That is to their credit. By continuing these inducements, we hope that other counties will avail of the facilities. We are quite satisfied that they are availing of them at the moment. By the time this Bill will have expired—April, 1937 —I am quite satisfied that Deputy Mulcahy will have to admit that there has been marvellous progress.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 9:—

In paragraph (c), line 30, to delete the reference "(i)"—

This amendment deals with Section 5 (1) (i) of the Act of 1932, which provides that any public utility society erecting a house in an urban district may, under certain conditions, receive a grant of two-ninths of the cost up to £100, one of the conditions being that the house is built for letting to a person of the working class at a rent not exceeding that approved by the Minister. The provision also gives power to an urban authority to make a grant to public utility societies working in that way. I should like to know in what areas societies of this kind are working, how many houses they have built and what proposals the Minister has from societies for the building of houses of this kind. In the second place, I should like to know what rents the Minister has approved in the areas in which houses have been actually built or whether he has approved rents in respect of houses which it is proposed to build. In addition, I should like to know whether any local authorities have given assistance to public utility societies of this particular kind.

Mr. Boland

Not much progress has been made under this paragraph. Only 20 houses have been completed in Dublin and 20 in Cork. The Cork Society which built these 20 houses is now proposing to build a very large number. For that reason, we want this paragraph retained. The rent at which they propose to let the houses is 12/- per week.

General Mulcahy

Has any assistance been given by the local authorities in Dublin or Cork to these societies?

Mr. Boland

The local authorities have given assistance in both cases.

General Mulcahy

Will the Minister say if there is only one society working in Dublin and one in Cork, and if there is a prospect of others developing?

Mr. Boland

There is only one so far.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed: That the Final Stages be taken now.