I was at particular pains to point out to the House at the beginning that this Bill was narrow in its ambit. I did that because I thought that perhaps some of the new Deputies in the House might not realise that and might not know the bases upon which it is usual to deal with these matters, but I did not anticipate indeed that Deputy Dockrell would not be aware of the situation. In 1932, the Government passed a comprehensive Housing Act, which was designed to deal with a great number of problems. It was not anticipated that the Act would be the last word in the matter of housing, but it was agreed that its provisions would continue to operate until such time as it was possible to have a general review of the housing situation.
Accordingly, the Minister for Finance of the day had to insist that, as he did not know what the future was going to bring, and did not know how much the Act was going to cost, in relation to the system of grants which were to be given under the Act, certain temporal limitations would have to be prescribed by legislation. It was hoped that the National Housing Board which was set up under the Act, would be in a position, in the interval between the passing of the measure and the date prescribed in it before which houses must be completed to qualify for grants, to make this comprehensive survey. When the Act was passed, however, and came into operation, it was found that there was such a large number of other problems to which the board had to give its attention that it was not possible to make the comprehensive survey that had been anticipated. Accordingly, it was decided that, rather than let the provisions of the Act providing for grants lapse by the effluxion of time, we should continue to extend these dates from time to time, as it became necessary, pending the inquiry which had been contemplated from the very beginning.
Ultimately, the position became such that it was clear that one inquiry could not deal with the problem as a whole, and, accordingly, it was decided to investigate one section of the problem, the one which seemed to be easiest to deal with, although it was at the same time, perhaps, the most urgent and the largest, that is, the problem of housing for the people as it exists in Dublin to-day. A committee was set up to investigate that problem. Unfortunately, it was set up only in the beginning of 1939, and it was not able to get really under way prior to the outbreak of the war. In consequence of that, and the conditions which were created here, and the special problems which had to be tackled, many of the members of the Housing Commission had to devote their attention to other pressing and urgent duties, and the commission has not been able to make the report which was intended.
What in this situation were we to do? We had either to let, as I say, the system of grants lapse, or we had to continue them from time to time by introducing amending legislation, dealing with that one point, because it was quite clear that no Minister for Finance would permit the principal provisions of this Act to be hacked about and amended in a piece-meal way. The 1932 Act was, as I have said, a comprehensive housing code, and could only be dealt with comprehensively. In order, however, to ease the situation, the Minister, at the instance of myself and my Department, has agreed to allow these dates to be extended, and to allow the present provisions of the Housing Act which relate to the building of houses in the rural areas by private individuals, and, in urban and rural areas, by public utility societies, to continue to operate.
That is the main purpose of the Bill. We have also secured his consent to making two minor amendments in the Act. One is to meet the wishes of the Public Accounts Committee, as I have explained, and the other is to give public utility societies who propose to erect dwellings for the rehousing of people who have been displaced from slum areas or from houses unfit for human occupation, the same facilities as are given to a municipal authority doing the same work.
It must be made quite clear that we cannot propose to deal with this big problem in a piecemeal way. The main lines upon which the Government is prepared to deal with this problem have been laid down in the Housing Act of 1932. The provision of assistance, by grants to those who are endeavouring to tackle this problem of providing decent homes for the people, is the most generous I know of. I do not think there is any other State, whether it be in the Antipodes or in Europe or across the Atlantic, which makes the same generous provision for the housing of the people as we have done in the Housing Act of 1932. I think that is a proof that we have not approached this problem in a niggling or penurious fashion, but are prepared to deal with it in a manner commensurate with the hardship and suffering which lack of housing inflicts on the unfortunate people. Therefore I have very little patience, indeed, with criticism such as that which came from Deputy Dockrell. The Deputy knows —better than any other Deputy in this House, perhaps—the difficulties under which we are labouring with regard to housing for the people of Dublin. He is familiar with the building trade, and knows all the difficulties that arise. Yet, instead of getting up here and generously appreciating what we have been doing and what the Corporation has been doing in this matter, he says that the Government has been doing nothing for housing since 1939. I would not have minded that sort of criticism from a Deputy not as well informed as Deputy Dockrell in regard to the realities of the situation, but I do not think it is helpful criticism when it comes from a Deputy who ought to know better.
Deputy O'Sullivan has mentioned the amount of the grants. I have already explained that, in the present circumstances, it is not possible for us to consider any alteration in the amount of the grants. This matter will arise for regular examination and consideration as soon as anything like normal conditions have been restored, but there is no point in asking the Legislature, with all the other pressing matters awaiting attention, to turn round now and tear up the Housing Act of 1932 and bring in a whole new system of State assistance for public authorities who are carrying out housing schemes, at a time when we do not know what the needs of the future will be. The question of what further assistance is to be given by the State to local authorities carrying out housing projects must necessarily await two things—first of all, the reception and consideration of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Housing Conditions in Dublin and, secondly, the restoration of conditions here to something like normal. We cannot propose to legislate for the future when there are so many uncertain factors in the situation. Accordingly, the local authorities will have to carry on as best they can, just as the Government has to carry on as best it can.
We would like to speed up all the good work that has been done since 1932 and 1933. We had hoped that, at any rate, when we came to leave office, one monument we would leave behind us would have been a solution of the housing problem. We have not been able to do that, but we are trying to carry on, with a full realisation of the difficulties. Although I am sympathetic to the outlook of Deputy Martin O'Sullivan and members of the Corporation and of public authorities in general, in matters of this kind, I cannot hold out at this stage any hope that there will be an increase in the scale of financial assistance at present being given to the local authorities. I am sorry that that is so, but I am afraid we have to put it out of our minds until the future becomes brighter.
I would like very much to be in a position to accede to the pleas of Deputy O'Sullivan and Deputy McCann on behalf of the Charlemont Public Utility Society. I may say I have been greatly struck by the work which this society has succeeded in doing. It was my appreciation of the value of that work, when my attention was drawn to it, that moved me to approach the Minister for Finance to permit us to encourage public utility societies to undertake works of this kind. I know that the Minister for Finance was very sympathetic in the matter, but he was up against what is really a fundamental principle—it was not possible for him to allow people to carry out works on one basis and then ask the State to give them public moneys which those who had undertaken the works did not envisage when they embarked upon them.
I would like very much if we could make this grant retrospective, but I have to appreciate the position of my colleague in the matter and I am sorry to say I do not think there would be any chance that this proposal, which would set up a precedent which might have undesirable consequences, would be accepted.
Deputy Bartley asked me whether one could get a reconstruction grant for a thatched house. There is no reason I know of why a thatched house would be debarred, and I can assure the Deputy that it would be quite eligible.