Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Nov 1943

Vol. 92 No. 3

Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1943—Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. Perhaps I should begin by pointing out the very narrow content of this Bill. It is not a general Housing Act. It applies only to a section of our housing activities. It deals solely with housing grants which are payable to private persons in rural areas and to public utility societies in both urban and rural areas in respect of houses built or reconstructed under the Housing Acts. Its primary purpose is to extend the time within which grants may be given. Section 2 of the Bill is the operative section in that regard. It defers for another two years, that is until the first day of April, 1945, certain of the dates prescribed as the qualifying dates for the system of grants established under Section 5 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932. The dates in question are, firstly, the date before which new houses erected in rural areas by private persons or public utility societies must have been completed in order to qualify for one or other of the grants enumerated in Section 5 of the Principal Act under paragraphs (c), (d), (e) (f) and (g); secondly, it proposes to extend the corresponding date as applied under paragraph (h) of the same section to grants for the reconstruction of existing houses by small farmers and agricultural labourers; thirdly, it proposes to extend the date allowed for the completion of houses built by public utility societies in urban areas for letting; and, fourthly, it proposes to extend the date before which houses that are intended to be sold or leased to a philanthropic society, so that such society may put them in a proper condition to be let to the working classes, must have been acquired by the local authority concerned. All this is dealt with by sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Bill.

Sub-section (2) of the section merely repeals the corresponding sub-section in the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1943. Sub-section (3) provides that the power to make grants under the provisions I have mentioned will be preserved a continuous from 1st April last. The power to make grants under the Act of 1942 lapsed in April last, and the sole urgency behind this Bill is to ensure that there will be no hold-up-in payment of grants. Deputy Dillon, a Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, will know how concerned the Comptroller and Auditor General is to ensure that the legislative provisions which regulate public expenditure are meticulously complied with by the Departments.

We are anxious to make certain payments; we are desirous not to hold up any housing or reconstruction which might be carried out under this measure; and accordingly we are anxious to get the measure law by the earliest possible date. In fact, if it had not been for the general election and the subsequent dislocation of the ordinary routine of the parliamentary year, this Bill would have been introduced into the Legislature immediately after the passage of the Budget and would have been law some weeks ago.

I have already stated that the primary purpose of the measure is to extend the time within which certain houses may qualify for grants. We have taken the opportunity offered by the introduction of this Bill to make two minor amendments in the Principal Acts. One of these has been introduced at the instance of the Committee of Public Accounts. That committee in its report for the year 1939-40, which was presented on 20th May, 1941, expressed the view that the term "reconstruction", as used in the Housing Acts, 1932 to 1940, should be statutorily defined. Section 3 of this measure is introduced in deference to that view. This section defines the term "reconstruction" as meaning the carrying out of any structural alterations to a house, including the extension or enlargement thereof, or the carrying out of any other works in relation to a house which, in the opinion of the Minister, are reasonably necessary for rendering the house more suitable for human habitation.

I hope that will not result in a man getting three grants in respect of the one house, as happened on a classic occasion.

I do not know how we shall be able to deal with that, in view of the terms of the definition. No doubt it will be dealt with administratively.

Did the Minister ever hear of the case of the man who built two houses side by side, one of them without a kitchen and who then knocked a hole between the two houses? Under Section 3, he will get three grants for doing that—for the erection of two houses and for reconstruction.

If our purpose is to improve the housing of the people, and particularly in this case, the small farmer and labourer, we cannot define the term "reconstruction" too narrowly, and if instances such as the Deputy has mentioned have occurred—I do not know whether they have occurred; they have not occurred during my term of office—I am sure it must have been as a result of inadvertence or because there was some very good reason for permitting them to occur. One thing is certain: they have not been of general occurrence. The Deputy, who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, knows that these grants are subject to very searching scrutiny, and, accordingly, I think it may be taken that, if this definition were, in the view of the Comptroller and Auditor General, being abused, we should certainly hear of it. The House would have an opportunity of hearing it in the Auditor's report on the Appropriation Accounts and the Committee of Public Accounts would have an opportunity of examining the whole transaction and reporting to the House in regard to it. However, I should like to say, with some relevance to Deputy Dillon's interruption, that, in general, grants for reconstruction are given for re-roofing, the building of an additional room, the enlarging of existing windows, and other necessary alterations. As I said, in view of the general desire to improve the homes of the people, if we are to make this measure beneficial, I do not think we can define "reconstruction" in very narrow or rigid terms. If we do, the whole purpose of the Act will be defeated.

Sections 4 and 5 relate to the position of public utility societies who desire to undertake building operations for the purpose of re-housing people who have been cleared from slum clearance areas. Under the existing law, the maximum assistance which a public utility society, erecting houses or flats for letting, may obtain is £100 per house from the State, plus a grant of £50 from the local authority. This grant is payable, irrespective of whether the dwellings have been erected for normal housing or slum clearance purposes. Sections 4 and 6 are designed to encourage such societies to undertake housing schemes specifically for the re-housing of persons displaced from slum clearance areas. The provisions of these sections are designed to equate the position of the public utility society which undertakes schemes for the re-housing of persons displaced from clearance areas or unfit houses to that of a public authority which carries through such schemes at first hand. Under the new provisions, public utility societies will be given assistance commensurate with that which a local authority would receive from the State for doing similar work. This assistance will be given under Section 4 by the local authority, in the first instance, but, under Section 5, the local authority concerned will be recouped by the Minister, that is, by the State, for the assistance given.

The amount of the recoupment will be governed by the rules set out in the Schedule to the Bill. These rules provide that the maximum recoupment to be made in respect of any rehousing scheme shall not exceed the value of the assistance that could be given under the Principal Act to a local authority, if that authority had carried out the scheme directly. The assistance may be in one or more of several forms. It may be afforded by loan or by a contribution to the annual loan charges, or it may be given by capital grant, or a grant or lease of land, or by the execution of building or development works.

Section 6 is consequential upon Sections 4 and 5, and is merely designed to ensure that houses or flats provided by public utility societies, with assistance under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bill, will not be entitled to a remission of rates under the Local Government (Remission of Rates) Act, 1940, as amended; that is to say, that the section is merely put in to ensure that public utility societies will not be entitled to demand assistance under two separate Acts in respect of the one undertaking. Sections 7, 8 and 9 are the usual clauses dealing with regulations, expenses, and the Short Title.

I think the Minister described this Bill as being drawn in rather narrow terms. If I read the Bill correctly, I think that is almost too generous a description. I think the Minister would agree that this really only applies to the Gaeltacht and people making alterations to houses in rural areas. I think I am right in saying that the provisions of this Bill do not apply to Dublin City or County. I assume by the Minister's silence that that is correct, and I am wondering if this is the Government's contribution to the post-war housing problem.

As I pointed out on another Bill to-day, in discussing an amending Bill, debate is limited strictly to the Bill; and to any Housing Act only in so far as affected by this Bill. Post-war planning and general housing of the people do not arise.

My reference to post-war planning was finished in that sentence.

The Chair could not have known that.

No, I quite agree with you, Sir, but I think I am correct, subject to your ruling, in raising the question of housing. I should like to reproach the Minister with not having tackled the housing problem or done anything for the City or County of Dublin.

The Bill does not purport to tackle that problem. If it were a major Bill, the Deputy might be in order. This measure merely amends certain minor points.

I do not know if I can ask the Minister if there are to be further amending Bills and if this Bill is the Government's last word. I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister that I do not think we have had any discussion on housing here in the past 12 months. It is one of our major problems and it is getting worse.

I regret for the Deputy's sake that we cannot have it on this Bill.

Very well. I had intended to make some comments on the Government's contributions to the housing problem. I will not pursue that line any further except to say that the Minister is leaving a major problem untouched.

On a couple of occasions since I came into this House I drew the Minister's attention to the inadequacy of the grants under the 1932 Act so far as the Dublin Corporation is concerned. I am disappointed, to say the least of it, that when he had a glorious opportunity of putting things right, he did not avail of it on this occasion. Perhaps, Sir, I am sailing close to the wind.

The Chair said nothing. I do not mind the Deputy drawing the attention of the Minister to the matter in a sentence, provided he does not develop it into discussion on a Housing Bill.

In so far as it has relation to the 1932 Act, which it is proposed to amend, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the anomalous position that arises in connection with these grants. Having regard to the cost of building in 1932 and the cost of it to-day, the Dublin Corporation is under a very serious disability in connection with the maximum grant, so far as the contribution to capital debt charge is concerned, namely, the maximum grant of £500 for flats and £450 for cottages. I draw the Minister's attention to that particular point, which affects other borough areas as well, and I hope he will take the opportunity of rectifying a matter which calls for rectification. It may be that, so far as the Minister and his Department are concerned, they have not the last word in the matter. Perhaps if their own private views on the subject were known, they would like to fall into line with the desires of public bodies, such as the Dublin Corporation. But they have another body to contend with, namely, the Department of Finance. In that respect, perhaps, all I can do at this stage is to try to induce the Minister to use his persuasive powers with that Department to bring about a position that we very much desire.

So far as the main point of this Bill is concerned, namely, the question of public utility societies, I welcome the section which gives the Minister certain powers, provided, of course, that the operations of the public utility societies fulfil the conditions laid down in that Section 4. I have in mind one particular utility society in Dublin which fulfils the requirements of that section in every way and I think the Minister is aware of its activities. I refer to the Charlemont Public Utility Society which, in 1940, set out to build a number of flats in an area which, in the ordinary course, would have to be attended to by the Dublin Corporation. That society actually succeeded in getting 13 flats up. These flats, I understand, cost £8,400, and the only contributions towards that, so far as the Government and public bodies are concerned, were £100 from the State and £50 from the Dublin Corporation. The society was forced to go to public-spirited citizens for a sum of about £6,000 and, in addition, had to get a loan of about £3,000 from the Local Loans Fund. At present the society has plans for about 37 flats in hand, and it is proposed to go on with the extension of that scheme as early as possible, on the understanding that it will benefit under this particular section. I earnestly appeal to the Minister, having regard to the character of that society, which is purely philanthropic and making no profits whatever, and which is prepared to vest the flats in the Dublin Corporation, subject only to supervision so far as the tenants are concerned, to give that society the consideration to which it is entitled as from the time it started operations and by making 1940 the operative date of that particular section. The operative date is not specified in the section. Having regard to the character of the society and the good work it is doing, I ask the Minister to include the period from 1940 within the scope of the section.

The only other question which arises, so far as I am concerned, is the question of reconstruction. I am glad the Minister has included a section dealing with that, as I presume it will cover the operations of the Dublin Corporation so far as our reconditioning and reconstruction schemes in Gardiner Street and Blessington Street are concerned. I should like to have it made clear by the Minister that these schemes, as from the start of their operations, will come under this particular Bill.

I rise merely to support Deputy Martin O'Sullivan's appeal to the Minister for Local Government in relation to Section 4, particularly in connection with the Charlemont Public Utility Society. Deputy O'Sullivan has explained the good work that has been done by this particular society. None of the officials are paid. They are all honorary officials and they have done work that the Dublin Corporation should have themselves done. I would appeal to the Minister to make this section retrospective. I think we should at all times encourage the spirit which has been displayed by the Charlemont Public Utility Society. If those who are at present criticising the Housing Bill and minimising the work that has been done by the Dublin Corporation in relation to slum clearance, were to band themselves into public utility societies and do as good work as this particular society has done, they would be very usefully employed. That would be much more useful than their destructive criticism. I ask the Minister to make this section retrospective so that the Charlemont Public Utility Society can go ahead with the rest of the work that they have planned.

Ba mhaith liom freagra fháil ar cheist amháin: an féidir deontas fháil as ucht ceann tuighe a chur suas? Chuir mé an cheist sin uair amháin maidir le cás ar scríobh mé faoi chuig an Roinn. Ní bhfuair mé aon fhreagra ón Roinn. Tá sé i bhfad níos tábhachtaighe anois mar gheall ar shlinn agus ábhair eile le haghaidh ceann tithe bheith gann. B'fhéidir go mbreathnóchadh an tAire isteach sa cheist agus go dtabharfadh sé freagra dom. Níl mé ag iarraidh freagra uaidh anois, ach uair éigin eile, más féidir leis a thabhairt dom, bhéinn sásta leis.

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.

Would it be possible to amend this Act so as to give some little increase in the reconstruction grant? This work could be carried on notwithstanding the shortage of building materials, as the type of materials required would still be available, if the grant were increased somewhat to make it possible to use them.

I have tried to explain the position to the House in that regard. The position is that the existing system of grants will have to stand as it is. It is hard to refuse a simple proposal, but the answer that I get is: "Once we open the sluice gates, where are we going to stop?" I think the system has to stand as it is already provided for in the Act of 1932.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.
Top
Share