Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Mar 1935

Vol. 55 No. 4

Public Business. - Vote 41—Local Government and Public Health.

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

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch and 31adh Márta, 1935, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Rialtais Aitiúla agus Sláinte Puibli, maraon le Deontaisí agus Costaisí eile a bhaineann le Tógáil Tithe, Deontaisí d'Udaráis Aitiúla, Ildeontaisí Ilghnéitheacha agus Ildeontaisí i gCabhair, agus costaisí áirithe bhaineann le hOspidéil.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, sundry Miscellaneous Grants and Grants-in-Aid, and certain charges connected with Hospitals.

There are two items in the Supplementary Estimate—one relating to housing and the other to boards of health.

A sum of £700,000 was provided in the 1932 Act for grants to private persons and public utility societies. A further sum of £700,000 was provided in last year's Act and portion of this amount is required for allocation before the end of the present year. The expenditure on the supply of free turf by local authorities during the financial year ended 31st March, 1934, was not fully recouped within the year as the actual expenditure had not been ascertained. The scheme proved very successful. In some areas there is a difficulty in the distribution of supplies and there is always dissatisfaction when schemes of this nature apply in some areas and not in others. Having regard to all the circumstances and to the improvement in the cash position of the unemployed, under the Unemployment Assistance Act, it was decided not to continue the scheme during the present year.

General Mulcahy

The Minister is asking the House to provide additional sums for grants towards house building. I would like the Minister to tell the House when he proposes to give his real opinions of the housing schemes that are being carried out. The Minister has a very expensive housing board, and a very much increased housing staff attached to the Department, and when we took at the achievements under his present housing scheme we must be appalled at two things, first, the cost and, secondly, the lack of any reasonable expression of opinion, or any reasonable statement of what the Minister really thinks is happening. The total number of houses completed under the 1924-1931 Acts, taking the houses that were completed, say, by September, 1932, was 24,231 and they involved a cost to the State of £1,609,152. Deputies on the far side like to be somewhat meticulous as to detail and to convince themselves by working out things to the last penny, so I may as well inform them that the actual cost to the State was £1,609,152 13s. 4d. That was the cost of the 24,231 houses.

The Minister has provided figures, in reply to Parliamentary questions, which show that by the 31st December last there were 16,155 houses criochnuithe. By that I mean completely finished and done with, ready for people to live in. The cost to the State of the 16,155 houses was £2,616,515. As regards the 16,155 houses, some of them had grants of an explicit amount as fixed by the 1932 Act. Where houses were built by local authorities, I am taking the cost of each house as being £300. The Minister knows that there are very few parts of this country where houses are being built at £300, but I am taking £300 as the average price in order not to be extravagant in arriving at what the Minister's costs are. I think he will admit it is a modest sum.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Many houses are being built at less.

General Mulcahy

I would be glad if the Minister will say what percentage of the 16,155 houses finished by the 31st December last were finished at a cost per house less than £300. Can he indicate the percentage as between Dublin City, Carlow, Tuam and Enniscorthy? I am basing my case on an average all-in cost of £300 per house and I submit it is a reasonable one. There were 24,231 houses constructed for £1,609,152. Under the Minister's régime there were 16,155 houses at a cost of £2,616,515. We have this important fact connected therewith, that practically every halfpenny of the £1,609,152 that was a State grant in the case of houses built under the 1924 1931 Acts was paid out of revenue at a time when the taxation was very considerably lower than at present, while the Minister under his scheme leaves £1,800,000 out of the £2,616,515 which his 16,155 houses are costing the State as a debt to be paid over the next 30 odd years. When is the Minister going to explain the implications of that? He has an expensive housing board supposed to be closely reviewing every detail of the whole position and he has a very extended housing staff.

The Minister, in reply to a Parliamentary question put by Deputy Norton the other day, said that by the 1st February last 19,987 houses had been erected. In keeping track of the achievements in the matter of housing I have been asking the Minister to tell the House, by way of parliamentary questions from time to time, the number of houses criochnuithe. I ask the Minister now to tell us what is the difference between "criochnuithe," as he understands it, "completed" as he mentioned in reply to parliamentary questions and "erected" as was used in reply to Deputy Norton, because while the figures given to the House show that 16,155 houses were criochnuithe by the 31st December last, we can imply that a month later 19,987 houses had been either crected or completed. I would like to know whether, in fact, the 3,832 houses representing the difference were all completed or criochnuithe, or whatever word is to be applied to houses that are so finished that a person can live in them. I want to know whether the 3,832 houses were so completed during the month of January.

On the question of cost, the Minister indicated in a reply on February 14 that the plans that had been reviewed and passed up to the present time covered the erection, in time, of 49,142 houses. Again, the cost of the Minister's scheme arises here. If the present State subsidy is to be continued, then by the time the Minister's plans in regard to the 49,142 houses are completed, there will have been incurred a cost to the State of something over £6,500,000. The greater part of that will be met by the raising of money by taxation in future to pay off interest and sinking fund. Let us consider the matter from the point of view of the City of Dublin, where there are large numbers of people able to pay a reasonable rent, but who find it absolutely impossible to get houses at the present time. The question of whether, some time or another, money is going to be given to help those people to get the houses they are looking for is a very big one indeed, and while the Minister may not be in a position to go into this matter thoroughly now, I submit that the disclosures that his figures make with regard to cost are such that when he presents his annual estimate we ought to have a very complete statement from him as to the whole housing position. The size of the figures and the complete silence of either the housing board or the Minister are very remarkable things. Neither in the Minister's speeches from time to time—if he will pardon me suggesting it—nor in any of the broadcast statements we have had with regard to housing, can we get anything that a person reviewing the position in a kind of systematic way would be satisfied with. There seems to be nothing but drift, with large sums of money being committed to a scheme the merits of which seem to be very questionable.

The Minister is also asking us to vote a Supplementary Estimate for turf. He tells us that the turf scheme has been dropped; but the fact remains that we have never got any kind of a reasonable explanation of what exactly happened in connection with the scheme for which we are now asked to vote a residue of money. I pointed out before in this House that of the £25,000 voted last year in a supplementary estimate for the provision of fuel to poor families in areas where native fuel was not readily obtainable, a sum of £13,000 was allocated to the Dublin Board of Public Assistance. When the Board came to examine the wants of the people they were to minister to they decided that they wanted about 400 tons per week. That decision was come to in December, 1933, but it was not until the last week in January or the 1st week in February following that they were able to get a supply of turf; and then they were only able to get it at a grotesque cost.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce explained in reply to a Parliamentary question in May last that turf was obtainable at the Turraun Peat Company's works in Dublin at 26/8 per ton. The Dublin Board of Assistance, however, although they appealed to the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce to assist them in the matter, had to pay 38/4 per ton for turf delivered in small quantities within the old City of Dublin and 40/- per ton in areas like Rathmines and Pembroke which were outside the old city boundary. It was pointed out that it was only reasonable that there should be some additional cost for delivering turf in small quantities very often to the top of tenement houses; but at the same time it was also pointed out that through the Lord Mayor's coal fund coal of good quality was being distributed in the same way in small quantities at 36/8 per ton. We are now asked to vote a sum of £4,000 to wind up a scheme administered in that particular way, and the Minister should have something to say as to why, when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was insisting that turf could be obtained, at any rate at the works in Dublin, for 26/8, the Dublin Board of Public Assistance, after appealing to the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, could not get turf at as low a price as coal could be obtained, and why the astounding price of 34/8 and 40/- per ton was charged to the Board of Assistance in Dublin for turf delivered in this way.

I should like to ask the Minister, now that the scheme has been dropped, whether the price of coal has been taken into consideration. The Minister will be aware that the Controller of Prices intervened last year when a complaint was made that bellmen were selling coal at the rate of 30/- per ton. This was considered to be so exorbitant that the bellmen were forced to reduce the price to 29/- per ton. I have been in touch with people during the last few days who complained of a rise of 6/- per ton in the price of coal. People in modest circumstances a month ago had to pay 17/- for a half ton of coal and a day or two ago they had to pay £1.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has made his point and might leave it at that. It is not germane to the Vote. The Minister for Local Government has no responsibility in the matter which the Deputy is discussing.

General Mulcahy

I only mentioned it in this way: The Minister has explained that this scheme has been dropped for this year as other arrangements have been made—that unemployment assistance is being paid. I would ask the Minister to consider that the introduction of the unemployment assistance scheme in the City of Dublin has, in fact, in quite a good number of cases reduced the amount of public money going by way of relief into a large number of necessitous households. Although it is rather late in the day to be discussing in the month of March the fuel position with regard to people in the City of Dublin, nevertheless there must be something that requires to be cleared up in connection with this matter. There are necessitous households at present in Dublin receiving less than they were before the Government introduced the Unemployment Assistance Act. The price of fuel has increased very considerably and I should like to know if anything is going to be done to assist the poor in the matter.

Mr. Norton

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister certain matters in connection with the administration of the Housing Acts of 1932 and 1934. As a result of the considerable impetus given to house building in the Saorstát under these Acts, a goodly number of houses have been erected in urban and rural areas. I refer particularly to the houses erected by local authorities in both areas. I have had occasion to complain to the housing section of the Minister's Department about the apparent unwillingness of local authorities to require contractors to complete houses in the time set out in the contract. Cases have come to my notice where contractors have been given 26 weeks in which to complete labourers' cottage schemes and I have had to call the attention of the Minister's Department to the fact that, whereas these cottages should be completed within 26 weeks, in some instances the cottages had not been started within 26 weeks after the date upon which the contract was sealed. If there is any value in putting in a definite date in a contract for the completion of houses and if there is any value in having that particular clause in a contract approved by the Local Government Department, there should be insistence by the Department that the contract so accepted would be completed within the time allowed; or otherwise that the contractor, on failing to give a reasonable excuse, will be required to comply with the penalty clause of the contract.

In many areas where cottages have been scheduled for erection applicants for these cottages are constantly inquiring when they are likely to be erected. The Department must be troubled a good deal answering inquiries on that matter from applicants and from Deputies. I think if the Minister were to insist that these contracts must be complied with to the letter, so far as the contractors are concerned, it would do a good deal to obviate a fruitful source of dissatisfaction to applicants and a fruitful source of complaint to Deputies.

In previous discussions on Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Local Government, reference has been made to the necessity for ensuring the general application of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act to house-building activities. The Minister has been urged on previous occasions to impress upon local authorities the necessity of putting into operation the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act and has been further urged to explain to such local authorities that there is no charge upon their rates by making that Act applicable in their respective areas. I should like to know from the Minister whether his Department is satisfied with the activities of local authorities in the matter of the administration of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. I think there must be some areas in the country where the Act has not been adopted or where, if it has been adopted, no apparent effort has been made to bring its provisions under the notice of potential small house builders. In other areas where the Act has been adopted, a very low maximum advance has been fixed. I know one county in which the maximum advance under the Act is limited to £50. If one endeavours to secure an advance of £50 under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act in that county, one will have the privilege of paying £7 for getting a loan of £50.

Something should be done by the Minister's Department to lift a low maximum of that kind and to ensure that an adequate sum is advanced and that, in addition, the rates of charges for negotiating a loan of that kind should be substantially reduced, because it is obviously unfair that the person should have to pay one-seventh of the sum advanced in order to obtain such a small sum as £50. I should like the Minister to look at that aspect of the matter and to try to bring local authorities, which are at present in a backward state in regard to the operation of the Act, into conformity with the best standards attained by the most progressive local authorities. Here in Dublin a considerable amount of agitation, if not indeed consternation, has been caused by the recent decision of the Dublin Corporation only to advance money under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act in the case of houses built on Corporation property.

Mr. Belton

That is not true.

Mr. Norton

I would like to know if the Deputy has official authority from the Dublin Corporation to say that.

Mr. Belton

I am a member of the Corporation and I am also a member of the committee dealing with that matter.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy does not administer the Act and I am in a position to tell the Deputy that applicants for advances under the Act have been told two things: (1) that advances in future would be limited to houses costing £600 and under, and (2) that these houses, at all events until there is an amendment of their intentions, must be built on Corporation property. I should like the Deputy to inquire from the City Manager whether that is not a fact.

Mr. Belton

I shall explain how the Deputy's information is mixed after he has finished.

Mr. Norton

Explain it to the applicants.

Mr. Belton

I shall explain to the House how you have misled it.

Mr. Norton

So far from misleading the House, I have as much, if not more, information on the matter than the Deputy because I have been a member of public utility societies who are interested in the erection of these houses.

Mr. Belton

I have 20 houses sold for which there is no money available.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy is interested as a speculative builder.

Mr. Belton

And if you did some building and talked less your effort might be better appreciated.

Mr. Norton

If I talked as much nonsense as the Deputy I would never open my mouth.

Mr. Belton

You might do some work then.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy talks the most arrant nonsense on any matter on which he pretends to know something. At any rate, the advances are not being made available and unless there is some change of policy, they will not be made available for persons who do not build houses on Corporation property in the City of Dublin. I think the Minister's Department must be aware of that fact and, in any case, I should like to hear from the Minister rather than from Deputy Belton what the position is in that respect. I think the Minister's Department should have no hesitation in confirming the statement I have made. I have discussed the matter with the Minister's Department already and I think they are familiar with the position in Dublin. An authority like the Dublin Corporation with its enormous borrowing powers, and placed, as it is, in an extremely solvent position, should have no difficulty whatever in raising money for the purposes of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. I hope the Minister's Department will be able to persuade the Corporation that further sums should be borrowed for advances under this Act not merely to people who desire to build on Corporation property but to other persons who desire to build in any portion of the city area.

I could agree to a considerable extent with the suggestion that the money ought not to be advanced for the purpose of the expensive kind of house but where small houses or reasonably-sized houses are erected, I think the Corporation should be asked to endeavour to provide money for such house-building activities or, failing that, the Minister's Department might consider whether it is possible to advance money out of the Local Loans Fund for house-building activities under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act.

There is another matter which affects many areas throughout the country and that is the question of the erection of houses by local authorities in brick or stone. Experience has shown that the Department of Local Government does not look kindly on a proposal to build houses of brick or stone if it results in increased costs for the house. The Department's attitude appears to be that it is necessary to build houses at the lowest possible price. With that object in view, they are rather predisposed to the erection of houses of concrete or part brick and part concrete. There is a good deal, I agree, to be said for building houses at the lowest possible price, consistent with good workmanship and fair conditions of labour, but I think the Department might give more sympathetic consideration to proposals from local authorities to build houses in brick or stone. After all, in many areas stone is available and, if exploited, would not only help to provide local employment but would help to keep alive a craft that is fast dying out because of the introduction of the newer method of building construction. In other areas there are brick factories either in existence or likely to come into existence and nothing should be done by the Department, by showing any partiality for concrete, to hinder the normal development of these brick factories, or to prevent their selling their products for the purpose of the erection of small dwellings. In any case I think it will be admitted that the brick house or stone house looks a very much better house when completed.

While the Minister is bound to have regard to the ultimate cost of the erection of houses by local authorities under these Acts, I think that the Minister's Department should look more favourably in the future on proposals for the use of brick or stone for house-building purposes.

In reply to a question of mine to the Minister recently, I was furnished with a certain tabular statement showing the number of labourers' cottages erected in the various counties. I should like the Minister to give special attention to the return then supplied. I think you will see that although the Housing Act was passed in August, 1932, many of these local authorities make a very poor show in the matter of providing labourers' cottages under the Act. In some cases, excellent progress has been made, and if such progress can be made in one place, there is no reason why the same progress could not be recorded in other places if there were the same zeal and enthusiasm for house-building. I am sure that the Minister and his Department are aware of the necessity for speeding up house-building in every possible way, and I would suggest to him that the special attention of local authorities should be called to the fact that there is still ample scope for the erection of labourers' cottages; that there is still a clamant demand from persons living in slums and rain-soaked cabins for decent accommodation. I hope he will give special attention to those local authorities which, so far, have a very poor showing to their credit in the erection of cottages under the 1932 Act.

Similarly, under local authorities, and mainly under the administration of boards of health, in small towns, there is a disposition to confine their activities to the erection of labourers' cottages in rural areas and on the fringes of small towns. I should like to draw the Minister's special attention to the advisability of erecting artisans' dwellings in these towns. So far, they seem to be content to erect cottages on the fringes of towns, but a great deal could be done in such towns with regard to the erection of reasonably-sized houses at reasonable rents. If local authorities, and especially boards of health were to take that matter in hand, a good deal could be done to get rid of many unhealthy sites and rows of insanitary dwellings which exist in far too great abundance in some of the smaller towns at the present time.

In discussing this Estimate, I should like to pay a special tribute to the housing section of the Minister's Department in the matter of house-building activities. I think that the record of their activities under the 1932 Act is an excellent record and far out-paces anything previously done in the matter of house-building. It is an excellent record, and the Minister is not only entitled to praise in the matter of house-building, but he and his Department are also entitled to praise for the excellent work which the housing section of his Department is doing at present to satisfy the housing needs of the people. I have had occasion to visit the Department from time to time on house-building schemes of one kind or another, and I can only say that the officials of his Department are not only courteous but exceedingly helpful in every way, and I have found them only too anxious to assist in every possible way in the elucidation of any difficulties that may be presented to them or in any scheme designed to satisfy the housing needs of our people.

Mr. Belton

A Chinn Comhairle, so far as any experience that I have had with the housing section of the Minister's Department is concerned, I can substantiate everything that Deputy Norton has just stated. I interrupted the Deputy when he was making a positive statement about the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act with regard to the citizens of Dublin. Apparently, the Deputy has got a skeleton of information which has got a grain of truth in it, but which does not represent the true position in the way that the Deputy stated it. As the Minister, I am sure, is aware, the application of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act by the Corporation of Dublin started about three years ago. I think it started about the autumn of 1932—say, two and a half years ago. That Act, I think, functioned in the City before then, but I had no experience of it. However, in 1932 the Corporation asked the Minister for £2,500,000 for the operation of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. They asked for £2,500,000 at 3 per cent. I think that is the correct percentage. The Minister replied that he would not give £2,500,000 but that he would give £50,000 at 5½ per cent. The Corporation had then agreed to float a loan of £500,000. The offer of the Minister was rejected by the Corporation on two grounds. The first ground was that it was not sufficient, and the second ground was that the money was too dear. Now, when Deputy Norton starts flinging bouquets at the Government—and I am not going to fling thorns at them—let him bear those facts in mind.

Mr. Norton

Tell us the 1935 position.

Mr. Belton

I am coming to the 1935 position. Deputy Norton did not clarify any position, as far as I can recollect.

Mr. Norton

I will give the Deputy arguments, but I cannot give him intelligence.

Mr. Belton

I am giving the Deputy information, but it is impossible to give him intelligence.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputies might continue their arguments in this connection outside the House.

Mr. Belton

Quite right, Sir. We had £150,000 then at the disposal of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. Since then, we have administered under that Act—I would not be absolutely sure of the exact amount—either £800,000 or £900,000. It has been stated by the last speaker that there is no money now available except for houses built on sites leased by the Corporation or on houses of £600 or under.

Mr. Norton

Quite the contrary.

Mr. Belton

To what?

Mr. Norton

Sir, might I correct the Deputy on the question of housing particulars, even if I cannot correct him on his attempt at the monopoly of intelligence?

Mr. Belton

The Deputy might know something about the housing problem, but he knows nothing about the question of intelligence.

Mr. Norton

What I said, Sir, and what I repeat, in the hope that it may now strike the Deputy, is that money will not be made available by the Corporation for houses costing more than £600, and that the Corporation have decided that for the future, unless their policy changes, they will not advance money under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, for the erection of houses not erected on Corporation land.

Mr. Belton

I leave it to the House to try to interpret that. The present position was created some months ago. There is a small committee in the Corporation to look after loans, and the provision of money for the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act is the primary concern of that committee. I think it is known as the Special Finance Committee. In recent loans we had to earmark money for specific objects, one being for the purposes of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. The City Manager, who is a man of some experience, was definitely against any more money being used for that Act. When opening on this matter Deputy Norton said, in effect, that it does not affect the credit of local authorities to lend money under the Small Dwellings Act, because there is no charge on the rates. It is strange that a man of such responsibility, experience, and admitted ability as the City Manager of Dublin, takes a different view. He takes a view that I do not share fully—I share it some of the way. When the public are asked to invest in stock offered by the Corporation, they naturally look at the debt. I think the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act is responsible for over £2,000,000 of the present debt of £6,000,000 of the Dublin Corporation. The investor looks at that debt to see how much of it is reproductive. I do not want to develop the matter beyond that point. The reason given by the City Manager for curtailing the operations of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act was that it was eating into our credit position. At the time some of those on the committee opposed that policy.

Up to then the Corporation had not availed of the full provisions of the Act to advance 90 per cent. of the commercial price of houses. They had only advanced 80 per cent. of the value of houses, as valued by an outside valuer. It was then put up to the City Manager to grant on, houses valued for £600 and under, 90 per cent. of the purchase price, and to make some money available under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. He opposed both proposals, but finally we got him to compromise and to agree to provide another £200,000, provided that it would be the last. We would not agree to that. Agreement was then got, but there was an atmosphere there against any more advances. We compromised with him for 85 per cent. of the purchase price of houses valued at £600 and under. Perhaps what influenced the City Manager and the Corporation in favour of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act at that time was this: that a considerable amount of land, in the form of sites, had been leased by the Corporation at good prices to speculative builders, and the City Manager and the council felt under a certain amount of moral obligation to help to finance houses being built on these sites. An allocation was finally agreed to by the City Manager and the council. It is probable this allocation was not fully understood by those who gave Deputy Norton the information, and that that has mixed the matter up. An additional sum of £200,000 was to be given, on the basis that £100,000 was for houses being built on sites leased by the Corporation; £25,000 for houses being built on other sites at any price specified by the Act; and £75,000 for houses valued for £600 and under, built on any sites. When it came to apply that in practice, we found that for houses costing over £600, being built on sites other than Corporation sites, the £25,000 had been over-applied for, to the extent of £38,000. A further meeting decided to cover that amount, and to extend authority for another £50,000, leaving the £250,000 which the Minister sanctioned. That amount was not available in cash.

We had no money borrowed; what was done was this: We took money out of other allocations that were not ready to avail of it and used it for the purposes of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. All that money has now been used. In the loan that will be on the market within the next two or three days there is included £250,000 for the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, but in actual practice, the money has been already used. It was borrowed from other allocations, and when the money under this new loan is available, it will have to be paid back. There is nothing available at present for any houses being built under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act.

Mr. Norton

That proves my case.

Mr. Belton

The Deputy repeated that the policy of the Corporation in future was to have no money available under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, except for houses being built on Corporation sites. No such decision was come to by the Dublin Corporation. As a matter of fact, the feeling of the majority—and I regret it very much—is against working the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act any more. I hope that atmosphere will change. I had intended, before Deputy Norton mentioned the matter, to put the position before the Minister in this debate. No money is being borrowed at present that will be available for such work. The Minister for Finance knows that no money will be available from the loan for the purposes of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. Perhaps, later on, when times are more propitious for discussing this matter, the reasons can be more definitely stated.

Deputy Norton can take it that there is no money available now, even before this loan comes in. Neither will there be any money available after this loan comes in. I would be glad to hear from the Minister, or from anybody else, ways and means for borrowing money. There is no use in getting up and, with a wave of the hand, saying that a big corporation like the City of Dublin can borrow money cheaply and lend it out under this Act. It is all right to say that a distance away from the problem, but when you are up against those who control money and those to whom you must turn to borrow from, you will find that the problem is not so easy as it looks.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy I think used to be regarded as a financial wizard, and in view of that has he nothing to suggest?

Mr. Belton

It is because I know so much that I speak with caution, and that I am not making wild statements such as the Deputy made.

Mr. MacEntee

We have no control over the finances of the Corporation.

Mr. Belton

The Minister was consulted before the terms of the present loan were agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

The terms of that loan are not relevant to this Estimate, which seeks to provide grants for public utility societies.

Mr. Belton

Perhaps the term that I used was not strictly correct. I suppose I should have said the size of the loan as distinct from the terms of the loan.

An Ceann Comhairle

This Estimate has nothing whatever to do with any loan. The Deputy must admit that he has been given ample scope to reply to a statement made by Deputy Norton. He must now come to the Estimate.

Mr. MacEntee

This Estimate has got nothing to do with any public authority.

Mr. Belton

The case was made, perhaps obliquely, by Deputy Norton that the Dublin Corporation was not doing its duty under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act.

An Ceann Comhairle

And the Deputy was allowed to reply.

Mr. Norton

And the Deputy simply proved the statement to be correct after a painful process of extraction.

Mr. Belton

The Deputy is now claiming that he proved his charge. He made an appeal to the Minister, I think, to intervene in the matter. The Deputy supported the general statement he made by saying that the Dublin Corporation had good credit and could borrow money. To a reference that I made, the Minister for Finance chipped in and said that the Government had nothing to do with the borrowing of the Dublin Corporation. In this particular instance it is not true to say that, and the Minister knows it.

Mr. MacEntee

It is not true to say that.

Mr. Belton

Did the Minister not tell us at the time that the National Loan had to be floated soon?

Mr. MacEntee

I submit that this is all out of order.

Mr. Belton

I do not want to get into an argument with the Minister. There are things that perhaps had better be left unsaid.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy is bad on loans this evening.

Mr. Belton

As the Corporation have got under this loan all the money that they could get—and it is not their fault if more money was not borrowed —I would just like to say this: if Deputy Norton wants reasons in connection with this matter I would prefer to give them in private to him rather than in public. He will find at any rate that every member of the Corporation is anxious to put the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act into operation, and no member more so than myself. Perhaps I may take the major share of the credit for putting £250,000 through by way of loans of this kind. It is all a question of getting the money. I would appeal to the Minister to use his influence to see that the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act is developed more in the future than it has been in the past with regard to cottage dwellings built and disposed of under a house purchase system. The Minister knows the sad story of the cottage scheme of the Dublin Corporation. He knows the terrible initial loss that the City of Dublin had to bear, in the first instance, by selling these house at a price below their cost to the Corporation, and then the losses sustained in the matter of the instalment payments running into so many tens of thousands of pounds. Under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, houses were provided for much the same class of people as those provided for under the cottage dwellings scheme of the Corporation, and no loss was sustained.

Would the Minister say why money for the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act cannot be provided by the Central Government much more cheaply than at present? They charged 5½ per cent. for money up to the 1st October, and now they are charging 4¾ per cent. That adds considerably to the cost of local authorities in their efforts to house. The Government have been able to borrow money at between 3½ and 3¾ per cent. For some of that money, local authorities were charged 5 and 5½ per cent. so that the Government made a profit of nearly two per cent. on it. Of course, I admit it was not all profit. I think the Minister should attempt to devise a scheme whereby an effort might be made to develop house building in urban and municipal areas. The Minister for Finance should be able to borrow money on more reasonable terms than a municipality. Last year the Government beat the Corporation in their loan by two points. They were able to float a 3½ per cent. stock at 98. The Corporation had to float their stock at 96, and a similar stock is to be floated by the Corporation this year at 93. It would be a distinct advantage to local, as well as national, government if money could be got on better terms so that the community as a whole would have the advantage of those better terms instead of the people who purchase the stock.

The Minister admits that housing is a national scheme. Surely the finance to help housing should be on a national basis too. Could the Minister not devise a scheme whereby he could give local authorities money at 4 per cent? I am quite sure that if he can make available £500,000 at 4½ per cent. to the Dublin Corporation for the purpose of the Small Dwellings Act, it will be accepted with thanks. House-building, which is now dropping considerably in and around the city, will then pick up and resume the position in which it was five or six months ago.

Deputy Norton spoke about the materials for the building of houses. He suggested to the Minister that brick or stone should be used in the erection of labourers' cottages. I doubt whether it is advisable to use stone at all. At best, a stone house is cold and damp. Deputy Norton referred to the extra amount of labour which would be given in quarrying the stone and he also mentioned that native brick could be used. I submit to the Minister that the best way to spread out labour in building is by using concrete blocks, because the concrete block will have to be made on the spot and local labour will have to be employed. There is as much labour, generally speaking, in raising the gravel and making the blocks as there is in making the brick. All that can be done locally and provide employment locally. It will be a much drier house than a stone house.

Mr. Norton

Authorities differ from the Deputy in that.

Mr. Belton

I shall readily put my experience against that of the Deputy.

Mr. Norton

I said that authorities differ from the Deputy.

Mr. Belton

In what respect?

Mr. Norton

As to the dryness of concrete compared with stone.

Mr. Belton

I am not speaking of mass concrete. I would advise the Minister to set his back stiffly against the erection of mass concrete houses for labourers. I urge that for structural reasons and also because of the amount of muck that can be used without being seen in the case of mass concrete. When blocks are being made, there is an equal amount of pressure on all of them and bad material cannot be so easily worked in as in the case of mass concrete. Where a house is built of concrete. with a cushion of lime or sand around each block, that house will be much drier than a mass concrete house and much drier even than a stone house. It will approach very nearly in natural dryness to a brick house and it will be much cheaper than a brick house. I should like to hear what facilities the Minister would be prepared to give a local authority to face up to the housing problem in a semi-urbanised area —for instance, the administrative county of Dublin. The Minister is aware that the housing problem in the County of Dublin is causing great difficulty to the County Dublin Board of Health. Under the Labourers Acts we are limited in the board of health area to a certain contribution from the rates. Our powers in this respect are practically exhausted in the belt constituted of the north and south rural districts of the County Dublin. Our powers to build more labourers' cottages under the Labourers Acts are virtually exhausted because of the fact that practically all the money that can be charged to the rates to subsidise these houses is used up. In remoter parts of the county we are not so much hemmed in, but in those areas where we can go on with building there is not such a demand for working class houses. The board of health have asked the Minister's Department what help they would give the board in carrying through a scheme or schemes of workmen's dwellings in that portion of the county nearest the city. The board of health could rent them or sell them on a house-purchase basis on economic terms. In other words, there would be no charge on the rates.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will observe that the Vote before the House is No. 41 and contains two items—one dealing with the turf supply of last year and the other mainly with grants to public utility societies. Strictly, the debate should be confined to these two items. On a Supplementary Estimate, the whole field of local government housing schemes should not be covered.

The matters raised by the Deputy would be germane to the main Estimate but they are not relevant to this Vote. There are special housing problems in the city and county of Dublin but I presume that there are many similar problems throughout the country which might be raised on this Vote with equal relevancy or rather irrelevancy. The debate would thus extend over the whole question of housing.

Mr. Belton

I shall close my remarks about housing by inquiring from the Minister whether he does not think that a policy of helping house-purchase would be better than providing free grants—whether a scheme of house-purchase might not be more helpful in the development of house-construction than free grants. As regards grants for the supply of native fuel for necessitous householders, I wonder how the price of native fuel and the policy of providing native fuel-in other words, providing turf instead of coal—have been affected by the coal-cattle pact.

An Ceann Comhairle

That item makes provision for winding up a scheme which was in operation last year and which has been discontinued.

Mr. Belton

I think I have given the Minister enough material to answer. I appreciate your indulgence, a Chinn Comhairle, and will not trespass any further.

Mr. McMenamin

There are just three little matters that I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister on this Vote. The first is I would like some information as to the activities of the Housing Board, so far as rural Ireland is concerned. I would like to know what it is doing. Does it pass plans of houses submitted to it, and does it insist that there shall be compliance with some plan that will relate to the future? What I want to know is does this Board insist upon a regular plan or is it some hamstrung kind of programme without any actual object in view? The second thing I want to know is as regards the materials used in the building of houses in the country by the local authorities. Does the Minister insist that concrete shall be used, and if so, is the material examined and tested by an engineer so that it will be of enduring quality, or is anything done except to build a house and put on a roof?

The third matter I want to ask about is one of some substance. I have considerable difficulty with regard to applications from people who apply for grants. After the grants have been sanctioned and plots bought under the Land Commission these people cannot get the lands sub-divided. I put this matter to the Minister so that he might be good enough to approach the Minister for Lands in the matter. Everyone knows it is the traditional policy of the Land Commission not to sub-divide land. They seek to prevent the breaking up of land so as to prevent holdings from becoming too small and uneconomic. I rather fancy the Land Commission is still imbued with that tradition. For that reason I think their attitude is rather "to sit tight" with regard to applications for sub-division.

That being so, the rate of building in rural Ireland is being held up, and the only person, I think, that can give an urge in this matter is the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. In cases where land has been purchased for building under the Housing Acts, I think the Minister should urge the Land Commission to speed up on the question of sub-division. A number of cases have come under my notice. I have seen another glaring case in the papers, where the Urban Council of Athlone built houses on land that had not been sub-divided. They have compulsory powers, of course, to acquire land, and the sub-dividing can come afterwards. The land can be bought by the local authority and taken over until it is sub-divided, but the loan cannot be paid until the actual sub-division takes place. I would appeal to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to see the Minister for Lands and to urge on him that in all applications where it is obvious to the Land Commission that sub-division has taken place for the purpose of building houses the matter should be dealt with expeditiously.

I am not at all suggesting that the Minister should ask the Land Commission to depart, in any way, from its hostility to the dividing of land into small farms so as to make them uneconomic. I am only dealing with the matter of land surrounding small towns in rural Ireland where people have to go out to get a plot of land to build upon. It is somewhat on the same principle as if a man was asked to divide his farm amongst his two sons. I think expedition in this matter would be of great benefit in many cases where grants are sanctioned, and where it now takes nearly a year before the land is sub-divided. I hope this will be attended to. The fact that it has not been attended to has held up a lot of people in connection with the building of houses.

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

The last return I have from the Housing Department of the number of houses erected or completed, shows that the number of houses erected by local authorities from 1st April, 1932, to 31st January this year, was, in urban areas, 7,030 and in rural areas, 3,312, totalling 10,342. The number of houses erected by private persons and utility societies in urban areas was 3,688, and in rural areas, new and reconstructed houses, 5,957, making a total of 9,645 and a grand total of 19,987.

Deputy Mulcahy spoke some time ago on the question of cost of housing under the 1932 Act, extended by last year's Act, and compared the cost of houses erected under the Housing Acts, 1924 to 1932. He said that in the first period 1924-32, 24,231 had been built, and gave us the cost. As against the 24,000, built in these eight years, just 20,000 have been built in practically two years. Undoubtedly the cost to the State may be greater, but looking at the number of houses built in the two periods, and taking the average of any one year, it will be seen that there was a much greater rate of building; and also even without those figures it is demonstrated that the rate of building from 1924-1932 was not such as would at any period of time overtake the necessity for housing. It would not overtake, at any period of time in the future, the necessity for building to deal with the slum problem or the problem of overcrowding. I hope, with the present rate of building, that within a measurable time we can overcome these two great problems—the slum problem and overcrowding in our cities and towns, and the problem of providing houses for people who ought to have been provided for, some way or other, during the last 40 or 50 years. The Deputy who, with his colleagues, was responsible for some of the period, must realise that, at the end of his term, he had not tackled the problem. He may have faced it— I am sure he did—considered it and got all he could in the way of grants from his Government to assist public authorities and to encourage private persons and public utility societies to build houses, but he must realise by now that his Government did not do anything but scratch the surface of the problem. I am not satisfied with the present rate of building and, therefore, I am not satisfied with the cost to the State. I wish there were, in some areas at any rate, double the number of houses being built and that double the demand was being made on the State for the provision of grants to enable them to build these houses.

The Deputy complains that I have not talked on housing and given facts. I think I am talking on it nearly every week of the year, in some place or another. I have not had much opportunity in the House of talking on it, but any time I have spoken on the subject I have never hesitated to express my opinion, to answer any question and to state very definitely and clearly what the aim and policy of the Government were. We shall have, I expect, a full-dress debate on the subject when the general Estimates come up, probably next month. All the activities of the Housing Department and the other Departments of Local Government will, I presume, be gone into in great detail. Deputy Mulcahy pointed out that it would take £6,500,000 to complete our housing programme.

General Mulcahy

The present plans.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That may be so and even when we have expended that sum of £6,500,000 we shall not have finished with the housing problem. We shall be coming back here for at least another £6,500,000 and I expect we shall get it because the demand will be there. The demand is there at the moment, rapidly as houses are being built in some areas, and, in other areas, not so rapidly, but still a considerable number of houses are being built in town and country, in city and in rural areas. In some districts, however, even where a considerable number of houses have been built in the last two and a half years, it would appear that the demand is as great as ever. Take a town like Drogheda, which has done remarkably well in my opinion. So far as my information goes, there seems to be just as great a demand as ever there was three years ago when we tackled the problem first. What I say of Drogheda is true of many of the urban areas. In Dublin a considerable amount of good work has been done and I know that the City Manager, assisted by the members of the Corporation and his officials, is working hard, but, judging by the numbers of letters I get to my Department every day of the year, there seems to be scarcely any slacking off in the demand for housing accommodation.

Mr. Belton

That is quite right.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

So that after we have finished the present plan, that £6,500,000 more will not, in my opinion, complete the task that remains to be done and it is just as well to have that known and to let the House and the country realise what it will have to face. I think from what I know of the feeling in this House with regard to housing and from what I know of the feeling outside, so far as it is vocal in local authorities, and of private opinion generally, the country is quite satisfied to pay the price to get the housing problem adequately and properly dealt with.

I do believe that grants at at least the present rate will be necessary until this terrible problem has been brought within measurable distance of completion. Deputy Norton spoke at considerable length on the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act and made reference to the fact that it had not been put into operation by a number of local authorities.

I have circularised all local authorities which would be empowered under the Act to put it into operation. My officials—inspectors of the Department—who go around the country, have been informed of the views of the Minister and of his anxiety to get this Act adopted, and as a result of the encouragement we have given, it has been adopted by many local authorities in the last two or three years, but, as Deputy Norton knows, the Minister for Local Government is not a dictator. I do not know whether the Deputy would be inclined to act the dictator if he were in my shoes, but he might change his notions on these matters if he happened to be Minister for Local Government for a while. Local authorities have their own views and many of them will not allow themselves to be pushed, even in a right direction, by the Minister for Local Government.

What I say of local authorities in general applies with equal force to the Dublin Corporation. This much I can say of the Dublin Corporation, that, since the Act was originally passed by the British Parliament, it has done well in the way in which it has generously extended loans to private persons and public utility societies under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. It is true, however, that in the last year, the City Manager has had qualms of conscience on the question of extending further facilities to private persons and public utility societies under that Act. I have had talks with him on the subject and I have a considerable amount of sympathy with his point of view, because I want, and the House wants primarily, I think, the question of the housing of the poorest classes of the population dealt with first. We want the people who are in the cellar dwellings taken out of them; we want the people who are in the slums that we know in Dublin taken out of those slums; and we want the people who are in rooms in houses that are over-crowded taken out of these over-crowded rooms.

It is my view, and the view, I think, of the majority of the people who have given consideration to the matter, that these aspects of the housing problem must be tackled first. In the secondary place, comes the almost equally urgent problem of providing houses for people who are at present living in housing accommodation which is unsuited to them, but who are there only because they cannot get proper houses. There are decent artisans and there are many of what are known in some places as "white collar workers" who are living in single rooms or sharing rooms in small houses and who are able to pay an economic rent, but who, up to the present, cannot get housing accommodation. I would like, and I know that the City Manager would like, to be able to help these people, but he has put it to me over and over again that his first problem is the housing of those who are in the worst condition, and, as I say, I have considerable sympathy with his point of view. I have, however, urged upon him the desirability of not ceasing the operation of the Small Dwellings Act, so far as the Dublin Corporation is concerned, and I know that that matter is getting his consideration.

There was some truth in what Deputy Norton said about the restrictions that were suggested to be put upon the utilisation of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. But I do not think that the suggestions mentioned by Deputy Norton were ever put into operation. Deputy Norton also referred to the question of delay. There has been considerable delay in some housing schemes, and complaints have from time to time reached my Department on the matter. Whenever we got complaints we sent officials of the Department to the particular scheme and got into touch with the local authorities' officials and contractors. We are always ready to hear complaints of that kind and anxious to help in expediting schemes. Any influence that the Department of Local Government and Public Health and its officials can use in helping to get over difficulties and to speed up house-building will be exerted towards that end. The speeding-up of house-building is badly needed in town and country.

The question of building the houses in brick and stone versus concrete was referred to. For my own part I would very much prefer that houses should be built of brick or stone rather than in concrete, whether blocks or mass concrete. Of course, mass concrete is the least desirable of any of these four kinds of material. But there are not many places in the country where bricks are available. Where bricks are available for the ordinary labourer's cottage or house or small dwelling for the artisan built in town or city it adds a not inconsiderable sum to the cost. I regard it as my job within certain strict limitations to get as much value as possible out of every pound of public money that is spent on housing or indeed on any other purpose under the Local Government Department. I, myself, and anybody who bears responsibility must examine very closely every scheme put up to us; look into the cost and see what amount of housing is going to be provided for every thousand pounds.

But we have to look at it also from the aspect of the tenant. Every £10 additional cost on one of those labourers' cottages costing round about £300, some of them considerably less, means an additional sixpence a week to the tenant in the way of rent. That is a very heavy burden. These things have to be taken into consideration. But there is no objection in the Department—provided the additional cost is not too great—to having these houses built by the local authorities in brick or stone. There are places in the country where this has been done. If I remember aright, I think it was in Macroom that one of our housing schemes was built of stone with practically no additional cost. There was, of course, some additional cost but it was not very much. There are other places too where stone is available and there the houses were built of stone. Provided that the additional cost is not too much per house there is no predisposition in the Department against building them of stone. My own view is that where bricks can be used, I would prefer to have them used, but with the limitations that I have just mentioned.

I think it was Deputy Norton who also referred to the question of building small houses in towns. We have already approved several schemes for small houses in the small towns and villages in different parts of the country. If I am not mistaken some of these schemes have already been put into operation in Wexford.

Deputy Belton talked about the necessity for cheaper money. I would be very happy indeed if we could get cheaper money provided at much less cost for all the local authorities in the country. This question of borrowing money adds considerably to the difficulty of the Government and of the local authorities. In my capacity as Minister for Local Government I have not got to deal with the raising of the loans, but I know that this matter of the cost of the loans receives the very earnest consideration of the Ministry. I do not know if Deputy Belton has any practical suggestions to offer as to how money could be got. However, going into that question would probably get us into suggestions and discussions of the kind that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would not permit on this Vote. However, other opportunities will arise, and if the Deputy has any suggestions to offer as to how to get cheaper money I, for one, will be very happy to hear him.

We come now to the money provided for free fuel. There was a sum of £25,000 voted. Of that sum £12,723 11s. 8d. was spent. Deputy Mulcahy mentioned that £13,000 was the amount allocated to Dublin. The figure was £13,238. There was spent of that a sum of £5,670 1s. 5d.

General Mulcahy

Because they could not get the turf.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

A sum of £5,670 was spent because they did get the turf.

General Mulcahy

Yes, two months after the time they wanted it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

They wanted the turf when they got it.

General Mulcahy

The Minister accepts the position that they wanted the turf in Dublin and though they had the money they could not get the turf until the middle of February.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, but what about it?

General Mulcahly

There was £7,568 out of £13,000 not spent because, with the assistance of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, they could not get the turf.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, but if Deputy Mulcahy were Minister they would have got none. At any rate they got £5,670 worth of it. There was allocated to Cork £2,519, but Cork got £2,710 1s. 5d; Limerick, £1,266 3s. 6d.; Dunleary, £81 10s.; Waterford, £908 5s.; Galway, £100 12s.; Dundalk, £202 5s. 10d.; Drogheda, £386 19s. 3d.; Wexford, £378 3s. 2d.; Sligo, Nil; Tralee, £290 9s. 5d.; Clonmel, £93 13s. 3d.; Bray, £277; Athlone, £51 7s.; Carlow, £93 10s. 4d.; Cobh, £213 10s. 1d.

Out of the total voted, a little over half, £12,723 11s. 8d., was spent. This was largely because in some areas they did not see fit to use it and in other areas they could not get the supply of turf that was demanded. In Dublin, during some of the time, they were asked to pay too much for it. At any rate, that shows there was a tremendous demand for the turf supply that time.

General Mulcahy

Ask the turf people.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I know plenty of people who tried to get turf in Dublin and could not get it at any price. I know many of them. If the Deputy talks about the price and if he wishes it, I will give him some particulars of prices quoted for it in different parts of the country where the turf was supplied.

General Mulcahy

I will be glad to hear it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Carlow got a quotation for £1 6s. 8d. per ton; Clonmel, £1 10s., delivered; Cobh, £1 4s.; Dundalk, £1 8s.; Galway, £1 2s. 6d. to £1 5s. In other places it was sold per cwt., and these were the prices: Dún Laoghaire, 1/6; Drogheda, 1/5; Dundalk, 1/5; Limerick, 1/3, in yard; Waterford, 1/4, delivered in the yard, and sometimes 1/6; Wexford, 1/2 to 1/3, delivered. There were difficulties in getting supplies in some of the towns and there was also a difficulty between different towns, sometimes towns pretty close to each other, about the question of price; but taking into consideration that the scheme was a new one, that the turf scheme under the patronage of the Department of Industry and Commerce had only been got working, we are satisfied that the granting of that free turf brought a considerable amount of relief to people who were badly in need of it, and we think, with the additional relief that has been brought to so many people by the Unemployment Assistance Act, that the continuance of the scheme is not necessary.

Vote agreed to.