Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Dec 1945

Vol. 98 No. 13

Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1945— Second Stage (Resumed).

Since the adjournment of the debate on this Bill I had an opportunity, on the Bill which has just received a Second Reading, of referring to some matters that I intended to refer to on this measure, so that I do not propose to repeat what I said then. I understood the Minister in his statement to be more or less inclined to restrict the scope of this debate, as he stated that the Bill referred only to houses to be built in rural areas and by public utility societies. The main reason for introducing this Bill was the provision of an extra room for the purpose of segregating tuberculosis patients from other members of a household. I want to refer to one or two matters connected with housing as it affects people in rural areas, principally on the question of valuation. Heretofore, people whose valuations were up to £25 were the only ones who received a grant of £40, but I think the Minister should follow the example of the Minister for Agriculture, who extended the figure after a little experience of the farm improvement scheme. The Minister acted very wisely in removing the restriction as far as valuations are concerned, by bringing in others whose valuations varied from £40 to £70. As a result there has been a considerable increase in the production of the land and by the extensive drainage that was carried out. That scheme also gave a large amount of employment, and improved land held by labourers. The Minister should follow the example of the Minister for Agriculture by making the grant under this Bill available to people whose valuations are above those mentioned in previous Acts.

On the question of providing an extra room where persons are suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, from the point of view of humanity alone, everybody agrees with anything and everything that can be done to help people who have the misfortune to be stricken with this disease, but I should like to be assured that it will be of real value. I may be old-fashioned and peculiar, one who sometimes thinks of things that it might not be popular to say in public, but I believe, if a person thinks of something that he feels he should say, he should do so. Sometimes I think that there is too much talk about consumption in this country; that we have it discussed at breakfast, dinner and tea.

Possibly that may do good, but it could also do harm, especially amongst people coming from other countries. While it may be all right to do what we can to alleviate the sufferings of people who are affected, we should not magnify things, but should take precautions, without telling the world all about our business. Sometimes it is dangerous to lavish too much praise on matters discussed in this House, just as it is dangerous to go to the other extreme, and to criticise them unduly. Accordingly, I propose to adopt the middle course when dealing with the proposal to provide an extra room. If the local medical authority is convinced that it is necessary to build an extra room, then that authority will, in the ordinary course, notify the owner of the house, that the tenant or a member of the family occupying it is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, and a room is built. Under the usual conditions there is a grant of £100 or a two-thirds contributions from the local authority, whichever is the lesser. When the room is built, and if after a few months the tenant, and his family, change to a new residence, what effect is that going to have on the letting value of the house? What effect is it going to have on other people who want a house? What effect will it have when there is knowledge of the fact that, attached to the house is a room in which a person suffering from tuberculosis has been dwelling for 12 months or 2 years? I do not see any safeguard in regard to that respect of the situation.

It is laid down in the Bill that this extra room must be built in accordance with the specification of the people appointed to look after these things. I take it they will be the engineers employed by the local authorities. There, again, I would ask the Minister and his Department to be extra careful as to the type of room built to fulfil this want which we all agree is necessary. We must be realists about this. We are not all saints and angels in this country, and we know the type of room that can be built in order to qualify for this grant. We know that there could be a certain type of annex built to a house that would be nothing more than a block-house, an ordinary ice-house built of concrete walls, the walls erected from an inferior quality of sand, possibly sea sand or sand containing a big content of what is known as loan. In the winter, a room of that kind would be weeping the whole time. There would possibly, be no fire in it, so that for the patient the cure would be worse than the disease. A person would be endangering his life by going to live in a room of that kind. Therefore, I put it to the Minister that special care should be taken as to the type of room built under the operation of this measure.

The Minister last night seemed to issue a challenge to Deputy Alfred Byrne to vote against this Bill. Candidly, it would not take a lot to persuade me to vote against it, and for various reasons, one or two of which I have given. If I believe I am right, no matter how other members of the House may feel about a matter, then I am going to give expression to my opinions. The opinion that I have in connection with this scheme is this—I may be wrong or I may be right—that it is more or less cutting across the comprehensive scheme propounded by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government. There is the question that possibly too many cooks may spoil the broth. We must remember that we cannot eradicate this dread disease overnight. It is going to take years and years to do that. It is essential that our plans should be well laid. To do things in a hurry is not going to be of any avail in arresting the spread of the disease. Its eradication is going to take a lot of money and a lot of time. While giving the Minister credit for the best intentions, I have at the back of my mind the feeling that this sum of £100,000 which it is proposed to spend on 1,000 houses—an average of £100 per room— could possibly be better utilised if it were incorporated in the big scheme propounded by his Parliamentary Secretary. That is only my opinion. I may be right or I may be wrong, and possibly time will tell.

I feel, however, that the erection of these rooms can be a potential source of infection. I have been led to believe, and so, I think, have most people in the country, especially those best qualified to judge, that so far as the wiping out of this disease is concerned, the first fundamental is complete isolation. There is a general feeling amongest our people that that is fundamental to a successful campaign against the spread of T.B. Will anybody in his sober senses tell me that, when you erect one of these rooms, a member of a family suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis is going to go into it, live there and not be visited by any other member of the family, and that there is going to be complete isolation? It cannot and will not be done. Possibly there will be other members of the family living in the same room. It is questionable whether even the patient himself will stay in that room. If you have 1,000 of these rooms spread all over the country, they can be a possible source of infection. I would ask the Minister to bear these points in mind. I can see his object in introducing this scheme—that he thinks it will be a great help to the general scheme already outlined by his Parliamentary Secretary.

Again, I urge on him that careful supervision will be needed both in regard to the erection and the materials used in these rooms, because if they are not built in the right way to suit the patients going into them, it would be better not to have them at all. One of the main reasons for the introduction of the Bill is that it prolongs the life of the section in the 1932 Act which makes provision for grants to houses erected in rural areas or by public utility societies. While I would not vote against the Bill because of that section, I am still strongly of the opinion that the Minister is possibly on the wrong track in giving this £100 for the erection of these rooms. I am of opinion that it would be better to leave this whole question to the Parliamentary Secretary and that section of his Department that is dealing exclusively with the arrest and cure of tuberculosis. Members of the House, irrespective of what Party they belong to, are prepared to give him hearty approval and all the co-operation that is essential in dealing with this disease. No matter how we may disagree on other matters, we are all ready to do what we possibly can to help the people who have the misfortune to be afflicted with one of the worst diseases that could be found in this or any other country.

Mr. P. Burke

I have great pleasure in complimenting the Minister for Local Government on the introduction of this Bill because, in my opinion, it is another intelligent step in the right direction. Isolation is the one thing that is definitely necessary for anybody suffering from tuberculosis. So far as the spread of the disease is concerned, it is true, as has been stated on numerous occasions here, that the disease is handed round and not handed down. The Minister, in this measure, is trying to go a step further than the Sanatoria Act by making provision so that a man, woman or child, suffering from the disease can be isolated until such time as he or she can be removed to a sanatorium, and on returning from it can be provided with a separate room until a final cure is effected. That is a definite advance in the right direction so far as the public health is concerned. It is a most desirable advance. I know families in my own constituency where a son or daughter, or a father or mother may be affected with tuberculosis. It may be that an affected member of the family is sleeping in the same room or in the same bed as another member of the household.

The Minister, in his wisdom, has foreseen these possibilities, and in this Bill is doing something that it is essential should be done. I have heard certain criticisms of it even by the last Deputy, but I think that, as a public representative, he should welcome the Bill. I would suggest that the Minister should go even further, if possible, to eradicate that disease. Surely Deputy Coburn does not think that £100 is too much to spend if it is to save a whole household from being wiped out by that disease.

That is the point—"if."

Mr. P. Burke

The only way the family can be saved is to isolate the patient. No matter how healthy the family may be if they are living in one or two rooms and if the man, woman or child who becomes infected is not isolated on the advice of the medical officer and if all the precautions are not taken against the spread of the disease, the family will eventually become infected. Any effort that the Minister makes will be welcomed by every intelligent man and woman in this country. There is a feeling in the country about this disease and there is a tendency to cloak it. I believe in discussing these things so that the people may take an intelligent view of them. T.B. is a natural disease which should be tackled and not hidden. We cannot advance in the treatment of T.B. unless there is an intelligent outlook in regard to it on the part of the people.

I am sure that in the building of these rooms adequate steps will be taken by the responsible officers to ensure that they are suitable for the purpose for which they are provided. I wish again to compliment the Minister on his intelligent Bill, which I regard as a further advance in connection with public health.

There is one thing about this Bill of which I am very much in favour, namely, that the administration of Section 3 is given to the local authority almost in its entirely. The provision of extra rooms to houses is curtailed in so far as the amount of money voted in respect of the Bill is limited to £100,000 and also by reason of the provision in Section 3 that the county council medical officer of health must certify that the room is necessary and that the local authority must be satisfied that the room is necessary. Listening to some Deputies, one would come to the conclusion that as a result of the passage of this Bill the country would become studded with houses having extra rooms built under this Bill.

This Bill, to my mind, is a complement to the Tuberculosis (Establishment of Sanatoria) Bill which was passed some months ago. I am sure the Minister for Local Government does not envisage a situation arising in which every person suffering from T.B. shall be accommodated with an extra room to his house. The Bill provides for the erection of extra rooms. The county medical officer of health will say to the local authority, "This room is absolutely necessary for the treatment of such-and-such a patient" and the local authority will be satisfied that the room can be attached to the house and that it is necessary to have it attached to the house. The individual patient is not prevented from having sanatorium treatment under this Bill. To my mind this Bill will release beds in sanatoria and will enable sanatoria to admit patients for whom sanatorium treatment is absolutely essential. Therefore, I am very much in favour of the Bill. Listening to the debate I was almost forced to the conclusion that certain Deputies would make the suggestion that the Minister might use this Bill to have rooms built for the supporters of his Party. In my opinion, the opposition to this Bill is not sincere. I think that the House and the country can rest assured that the money voted for this measure will be spent wisely and well. Therefore, I think the Bill deserves the full support of every section of opinion represented in the House.

When I read Section 3 of this Bill I regarded it as something of a revolutionary character but I must admit that my reaction to it was wholly favourable. There is, however, one point which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister and, while he may not be able to give me a satisfactory answer now, I hope he will in any event, use his good offices to bring the point of view to the persons who will be immediately concerned with it. Where the head of a household in which there is an infected person has an objection or in any event fails to apply for the facilities which this Bill provides, I should like to ensure that such a household will not be discriminated against if there is an application made for institutional treatment.

We all know that most families, particularly families of ordinary means, prefer to get their sick ones, those infected with tuberculosis, removed to a sanatorium. I know at least one county medical officer of health who is very enthusiastic about a scheme of this kind. I have often heard him express the opinion that something of this nature was overdue and, in fact, he thought it should have come even before the Tuberculosis (Establishment of Sanatoria) Bill which was recently passed. In the case of a county medical officer of health with these views, there is a danger that, in his enthusiasm, he might lean against a person who would not apply to have these facilities provided in his own home. I am sure the danger is not very great but at the same time it is not clear from the terms of the Bill that such an applicant cannot be discriminated against by a medical officer of health who is enthusiastic about it, such as the officer I have in mind. I should like to endorse what the last speaker said about the provisions of this Bill being complementary to, rather than in conflict with, the Sanatorium Bill. I have in mind poor families—and most of the families in the district I represent must, I am sorry to say, be classified as such. The treatment of tuberculosis is oftentimes very prolonged. If you visit a sanatorium, you will find that patients have been there 12 months or longer. A certain amount of nostalgia is bound to affect those people when they are so long from home and they often make application to be allowed home for festive seasons, such as Christmas and Easter. The county medical officer of health must be influenced, in these circumstances, by his knowledge of the home conditions of the particular patient—the housing accomodation available as well as the competence of the household to provide the necessary nourishment while the patient is at home.

In that way, I think that the facilities provided in this Bill should work in very nicely in providing a holiday at home for patients at a time of year when milk and eggs are fairly plentiful. In the Connemara area, eggs and milk, particularly, are very scarce in the winter but they would be available to most families for the few months of summer. I think that the extra room in a house would enable the tuberculosis authorities to arrange for a period of a month or two at home for patients at a time when milk and eggs could be found for them. For that reason, I think that the scheme makes the sanatorium scheme more complete than it otherwise would be. In some cases, there may be a psychological objection because of the family being associated in local knowledge with tubercular affection, but I think that the fear that neighbours would become aware that the disease has affected a family is dying out and that people are only too glad to report to the authorities and clamour for institutional treatment. If the Minister would assure me that there will not be any discrimination against parties who, for one reason or another, will not avail themselves of the facilities afforded by the Bill, I should not have to qualify my welcome to this Bill in the slightest way.

On the first occasion upon which it was my duty to present Estimates for the Department of Local Government and Public Health to this House, we heard a great deal about the problem of tuberculosis. Recalling that discussion and the apparent enthusiasm—perhaps "impatience" would be the better word—of members of the Opposition to have something effective done in order to lessen the incidence of that disease in our midst, I should have thought that a Bill of this sort would have received a universal welcome.

How many years is it since the incident of which the Minister speaks?

Three years — a shorter time than that of the Deputy's, occupation of the office of Minister for Local Government and Public Health, during which he did nothing. Instead, however, of its receiving a favourable reception, instead of its being criticised in a rational way, instead of an attempt being made to improve the Bill by constructive suggestions, I have seldom listened in this House to more eloquent nonsense in opposition to a Bill than it was my unlucky fate to have heard for the greater part of yesterday afternoon. Members on the Opposition Benches got up and spoke at length against—there is no other word than that which would adequately describe their attitude—Sections 3 and 4 of this Bill. It was clear from their speeches that they had not even read the Bill, and that they had not, in connection with it, adverted to the provisions of the Public Health Bill which my colleague in the Department of Local Government and Public Health had hoped to introduce to the House to-day, and that they had forgotten, even though I had reminded them at the beginning of my speech, that, at the instance of the Government, the Oireachtas had decided that three large sanatoria should be erected in suitable centres in order to make good, almost to the full extent, the existing deficiency of sanatorium accommodation here.

I propose, in due course, to traverse the points which Deputies who are opposed to this Bill made in the course of their speeches. But, before doing so, I should single out one Deputy who made a speech which offered a reasonable criticism, not of the proposals themselves, but of the fact that the provisions of Section 3 had been included in the measure. I refer to the speech of Deputy Roddy, who opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition. I regard that speech as a reasonable one. It raised certain aspects of this matter which, undoubtedly; from the point of view of the House, required to be dealt with, and it advanced them in a reasonable and moderate way which showed that the Deputy was concerned to discharge his proper responsibilities here and to render public service in a manner which is in very pleasant contrast to that of those members of his Party who followed him. Deputy Roddy criticised the inclusion of Sections 3 and 4 in the measure, on the ground that he did not think that the provisions of those sections were proper to a Housing Bill at all.

He adopted that attitude on the ground that these sections go further than any previous Act by bringing in the local authorities as well as the State. He said that under the section the local authorities will be bound for the first time to make a grant towards the provision of this additional housing accommodation.

I am sure the Deputy made that point in good faith but he made it in error because if he had referred, when considering Section 2 of the Bill, to the Principal Act he would have seen that, under Section 5, sub-section (1), paragraph (i), provision is made for local authorities to make grants to public utility societies and if he had carried his researches further and consulted the Housing and Labourers Acts of 1937, he would have seen that once again local authorities are empowered to make grants to private individuals towards the repair of houses of which they are owners. I think that these two sections demolish the point which Deputy Roddy has made, that we were going further with this Bill than we had ever gone before in requiring or empowering local authorities to make grants to private individuals for the purpose of providing additional housing accommodation.

But even if we were going further than had been done previously, I do not think that that in itself would be a valid argument against the provisions of the section. After all, we are a progressive State. We are a progressive people and, whatever about the Opposition, we here in the Government are a progressive Party. If it seems to us that a grave and serious problem of this sort, touching the welfare of the community as a whole, requires that we should go further than ever has been done before, in an attempt to provide suitable housing accommodation for our people, I think we should at least have the courage to make that progress which the circumstances warrant.

The next point which Deputy Roddy made against the Bill was that the provisions of the new sections of the Bill should be included in a Public Health Act. This Bill is concerned with housing, and what Section 3 proposes to do is to provide additional housing accommodation for people who require housing accommodation albeit of a special kind. But whether the housing accommodation must be of a special kind or not, it constitutes a shelter and a habitation. I think in those circumstances that the proper place for a provision of that sort is in a Housing Bill. We have heard here frequently when measures are being introduced here in this House, the Leader of the Opposition criticising on the grounds that we are doing nothing to codify or consolidate existing enactments. In the case of the Local Government Bill of this year, which the House recently debated on Second Reading, the whole foundation of the attack launched on that Bill by the Leader of the Opposition was that we were doing nothing to consolidate local government law. I ask the House to consider the terms in which Deputy Mulcahy would have criticised the measure if these sections, designed, remember, to provide additional housing accommodation, had been included in a public health measure. We would have been told then—and I am certain that Deputy Roddy would have agreed with him—that these sections, properly housing sections, should have been included in a Housing Bill.

The next ground on which Deputy Roddy criticised the Bill was that grants should be paid by the State and not by the local authorities. I have often commented in debates here upon the foolish attitude which Deputies purporting to speak for local authorities, adopt in this House when measures come before it which impose additional responsibilities upon them. I think that local authorities have a very important part to play in this community. I regard them as a very valuable training ground for our people. The things which they do intimately concern our people. If I were a member of a local authority, instead of trying to shirk the burden of the public weal I should endeavour to enlarge the scope of my activities and endeavour to make my local body play a more and more important part in the public life of this State.

In doing that, I would realise that if I accepted responsibility I should have to accept it in every aspect, that if I were going to provide new services I should also have to provide the finances to maintain them. That would be my attitude, and I think those Deputies who continually say: "We must have the services; we must get all the credit for the operation of the services," while at the same time the State and the Central Exchequer bear all the burden, are rapidly reducing us to a position in which we shall have to consider whether, in fact, in the minds of these Deputies there is any real place for the local authorities in our system of administration and government. It would be a sorry day if the country were driven to that, but quite obviously we cannot continue to administer the local public services if every member of the Opposition Party who is a member of a local authority gets up here and strikes the attitude of a gold-digger out for the night with a wealthy client and has nothing to say in this House on any measure to advance the public good except: "Give me. Give me. Give me." Those who want these things done, those who believe they ought to be done, must also take the responsibility of telling their people that, to the extent of the local resources, they must contribute to the cost of them as well.

In relation to this particular aspect of the matter, the local authorities are charged with definite public health functions, and rightly charged with them, because there are no persons so much concerned to ensure that the public health will be maintained and preserved in a district as those who live within that district. There are no persons, therefore, who can be more equitably called upon to bear their fair share of the cost of maintaining the public health, and the individual health of themselves and their neighbours, that those who will benefit by public health measures in the first degree. In the case of tuberculosis, and in particular in relation to that degree of it with which this section is intended to deal, I think that the local communities are the people who are first concerned, because those who live in the neighbourhood of persons who may be infected persons, or who may tend to become infectious persons, should be concerned to ensure that everything they can do, out of their own resources, if necessary, to prevent the spread of the disease shall be done.

That should be their general attitude in relation to measures to combat tuberculosis, for under the existing Tuberculosis Acts the local authorities are bound to take certain measures to prevent the spread of the disease. They are bound to provide curative measures for it, and to take those measures on the understanding that if the State pays half the cost they will pay the other half. In this Bill, we are treating the local authorities much more favourably in this matter than they have ever been treated before. I do not want to dwell on it at length because I hope to get all the stages of this Bill this evening, but I say that under Section 3 of this Bill we are proposing to deal more generously with them as a housing authority than we have ever done before, and if I had time to analyse the whole situation I think I could convince the House of that fact. For that reason, therefore, I think there is no substance in the argument advanced by Deputy Roddy that the State should bear the whole cost of providing this accommodation and that the local authorities should not contribute anything at all.

There are other aspects of this matter; those I have dealt with represent the basic or first principles. There is another very striking consideration which we ought to bear in mind. It is true, under one of the sections of the Bill, that where additional accommodation is provided the value of that accommodation as a habitation will not be taken into account for a definite period of years, but, after that period has elapsed, and when, as we hope, conditions in the afflicted household have returned to normal, this additional accommodation will be a source of revenue—and a continuing source of revenue—to the local authorities. It will increase the value of the property, and the local authority will be entitled to levy rates upon it in the ordinary way. I think in fact the position is that very shortly they would recover in the form of rates the cost to them of providing this additional revenue-producing asset.

So much for the three points of criticism which Deputy Roddy advanced against the provisions of Section 3 of the Bill. He had something to say in regard to Section 2, and in particular to the operation of the general administration of the Housing Acts. First of all, let me refer to the fact that Deputy Roddy suggested that the administration of the housing section of my Department is not all it should be. He stated that schemes submitted by the local authorities have been held up for months for no sound administrative reason. I do not want the housing programme of the Government to be impeded in any way by reason of any defect in my administration. I am concerned to ensure that houses will be built by the local authorities and by private individuals under the Act of 1932 as expeditiously as possible, and I want to convey to Deputy Roddy that I should be very grateful indeed if he would give me the cases which he had in mind when he made that statement, so that I might have them investigated.

Now I come to Deputy Martin O'Sullivan. Deputy O'Sullivan stated that he was disappointed by my statement on tuberculosis. I do not see why Deputy O'Sullivan should have experienced that disappointment. As I have said before, this is a Housing Bill; it is not a Public Health Bill. In explaining the provisions of Section 3, and in justifying the need for those provisions, I did not intend to make a comprehensive survey of the tuberculosis problem in this State. That would not now be my function. The exercise of all my powers as Minister for Public Health have been delegated to my Parliamentary Secretary, Dr. Ward, who, I am certain, could explain or could expound much more effectively than I could what the policy of the Government and the programme of the Government in regard to tuberculosis is and is going to be.

I referred to the reasons why we felt it would be advantageous to provide the separate accommodation which can be provided under Section 3 of the Bill. In doing so, Sir, I happened to mention the fact that a considerable number of people in this country were suffering from tuberculosis, in its earlier stages, who did not require, for their cure, actual accommodation in a sanatorium, who, perhaps, would be very unwilling to go to a sanatorium, and in whose cases, perhaps, the family disruption, as Deputy Dillon described it, would be so great as practically to present an insurmountable obstacle to their going to a sanatorium as he suggested. Accordingly, I do not see what justification Deputy Martin O'Sullivan, who professes to speak with a certain amount of objectiveness in these debates, has for the remarks he made. I do not see why he should have been so concerned about this or why he should have professed so much disappointment—except for this reason: that this measure of ours, to assist in the campaign against tuberculosis, was very unwelcome to a member of a political party which has been endeavouring to cash in politically on the ravages which this scourge has wrought, not alone on our people but on people everywhere during the last three or four years. In that connection, Sir, I shall have something further to say to other Deputies.

Will the Minister define "cash in"?

Deputy Martin O'Sullivan also went on to say that the House had been given to understand that provision would be made for a scale of allowances to dependents of tuberculosis patients, and that this has not been done. He complained that it had not been done under this measure. Well, the important and fortunate thing about Government administration is that if it is to be effective it has to be conducted in an orderly way, and one of the faculties which those who are members of an Administration have to have is that of being able to plan in a rational way. Apparently, however, Deputy Martin O'Sullivan's mind does not work in that sort of fashion: he wants everything jumbled together, higgledy-piggledy, like packets in a bran-barrel, but I should have thought that even in his mental confusion the Deputy might have adverted to the public health measure, which we ought to have been discussing to-day, and to the White Paper or Explanatory Memorandum which accompained it.

I should have thought that if he was really concerned about this matter, and not concerned just to try to pick holes in the Bill, he would have seen from Section 34 of the Public Health Bill, that power is being taken there to deal with the very problem to which he referred, and that even if he had found the task of reading this Bill too heavy for his sloth, he could have contented himself with reading the Explanatory Memorandum. I say, that if he had contented himself by reading that memorandum—if, in fact, he had done his ordinary duty as a Deputy, who is sent in here to discuss public matters—he would not have made the sort of speech which he did make.

Deputy Cogan, again, Sir, I must say, made a very reasonable and sensible speech on the Bill. He did advance a suggestion which at this stage I am not prepared to accept: That we should increase the over-riding limit of valuation which governs the making of grants for reconstruction. I do not want to discuss this at length—we may, perhaps, have another opportunity of dealing with it—but my general attitude towards the whole problem of housing is that the matter is under review in the Department and that these issues must be dealt with comprehensively and not piece-meal. Therefore, until the situation has clarified itself and we are able to say with certainty what we propose to do and can do, I do not propose to vary any of the fundamental provisions of the Housing Act of 1932. The Deputy also, in relation to Sections 3 and 4, asked would these apply to labourers' cottages: that is to say, I presume, to cottages which are the property of local authorities. They will. If the Deputy will refer to Section 3 of the Bill, he will see that the grant will be made to either the owner or occupier, and, of course, where the local authority happens to be the owner, it will be in the same position as a private owner would be, so far as the Government grant is concerned.

I come now, Sir, to what I regard as one of the most disgraceful performances on this Bill—the speech of Deputy Dillon. I defy any member of this House to read Deputy Dillon's speech and to show to me or to prove to or satisfy himself—because he certainly will not satisfy me—having read, the speech, that there was one thread of consistent argument in it from beginning to end. Like Deputy Martin O'Sullivan, Deputy Dillon had not taken the trouble even to read the measure, and I know, Sir, that he was not in the House when I was introducing it. He started off by adopting the attitude that the provisions of Section 3 were retrogressive because they implied that we were going to adopt as a policy the subterfuge—perhaps that is the best word—of confining, I think he actually said, people suffering from tuberculosis in single rooms in their own houses and that we were doing that because we were not prepared to face up to the problem of providing at the earliest possible moment sanatorium accommodation for those who require it.

I was very careful to make it quite clear that, as I think Deputy Hilliard said—and I wish other people who have spoken against this measure had only the clarity of mind that he had— the provisions of these sections were complementary to the provisions of the Sanatoria Act. I mentioned the fact that in January last the House had given us authority to proceed with the erection of these sanatoria. I told the House that very satisfactory progress had been made in planning them. When I told Deputy Dillon that I had said that, the Deputy shifted his ground. He said then that one of the principal grounds for his objection was that we were confining the operation of the Bill to pulmonary cases of tuberculosis and that we were doing nothing for the non-pulmonary cases. He said, in fact, that there was no accommodation, or practically no accommodation, for sufferers from non-pulmonary tuberculosis and that we were doing nothing to provide it. I do not know whether the matter will arise on the discussion of the Public Health Bill, but I can assure Deputy Dillon—and I think if he reads a letter over the name of a very near relative of his which appears in this month's Medical Journal he will be satisfied that what I am saying is true—that we are providing accommodation for non-pulmonary cases in those types of institutions where, I am informed, these difficult cases can be most adequately dealt with.

Then, having been driven off that field, the Deputy made what I consider to have been one of the most disgraceful attacks I ever listened to in this House upon public servants. He condemned the Bill as imprudent. On what grounds? That the county medical officers of health, upon whose certificate this accommodation is to be provided, were not to be trusted; that they were incompetent. He asked me—árgumentum ad hominem—if I had any friend of mine suffering from tuberculosis would I entrust him to the tender mercies of these county medical officers of health who, he alleged, had no special qualifications for dealing with this disease. What a compliment that was to Deputy Dr. O'Higgins and his colleagues in the medical profession. I can say that, in regard to tuberculosis, we have in the service of our local authorities as competent medical officers as are to be found anywhere in the world. It has been the policy of the Department where men and women are being recruited to that service—generally in the position of assistant county medical officers of health—to ensure that they have had special experience in the treatment of this disease. I am perfectly certain that no medical officer of health would permit a person to remain as a patient in his own home if his own well being and the well being of his family and of his neighbours required that he should be treated in a sanatorium. It would be, in fact, unthinkable that these men, who belong to an honourable profession, who have made the care of their people their first concern, could be guilty of that dereliction of duty to which Deputy Dillon has alleged they would be prone.

Deputy Everett asked that we should provide, if a grant has been given, that the rent will not be increased. We have already covered that particular matter because, if the Deputy will look at Section 11 (3) of the Rent Restrictions Bill, which passed this House yesterday, he will see that: "For the purposes of sub-section (2) of this section, the amount of any grant under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts 1932 to 1944, as amended or extended by any subsequent enactment"—and in particular by this enactment—"shall not be reckoned as part of any amount expended on any improvement, structural alteration or repairs to which that sub-section applies." Accordingly, the increase in the value of the property which will arise by the provision of this accommodation cannot be availed of to raise the rent in the case of those dwellings, which are covered by the Rent Restrictions Act.

The Rent Restrictions Act does not apply to labourers' cottages.

Well, the Deputy and his colleagues have that matter in their own hands. The Deputy knows that the Wicklow County Council is not going to become a rack-renter as long as he is an influential member.

The other county councils must be considered.

The other county councils are just as concerned about the welfare of the poor.

Is it a managerial or a council prerogative? Has the council any control over it?

Of course they have.

And not the manager?

The council has control over it. The council has control over all financial matters of the local authority.

And can prevent a manager raising the rent?

Of course they can, if they are willing to increase the rates for the purpose of preventing an increase in the rent. They cannot, however, have it both ways: they cannot prevent an increase in the rent and at the same time refuse to provide money to meet whatever deficiencies may arise.

Deputy O'Connor asked that the position of a landlord with power under a lease to impose a penal rent where a building has been erected, where he might allege these buildings were erected in breach of the covenant, should be considered and that we should have power to prevent that. I will look into that matter and, while I do not promise to bring an amendment in here, I may, if I feel the need for it, introduce an amendement in the Seanad; or, perhaps, we might see whether the need for such an amendment arises in practice. The Deputy also expressed some fear that the operation of the Bill might be held up by the town planning authorities. I think that is inconceivable, since the local authority and the town planning authority are the one and the same body. I cannot see that the local authority with its right hand would be trying to implement this measure, and with its left hand trying to prevent that being done.

I said something about the speech of Deputy Dillon. I do not know what I could say that you would permit in this House in relation to the speech of Deputy Alfred Byrne. Deputy Byrne said that, under this measure, the Minister is giving tuberculosis sufferers an empty room, but is not providing them with treatment. I do not know whether the Deputy can read or not. I suppose he can, as I have heard him read a number of self-advertising letters in this House from time to time, but if he can, he might, later in the evening, perhaps by his own fireside, read sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Bill. He will see there that the county medical officer of health must certify that the infected member of the household not only is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis but is undergoing treatment for it. The Deputy knows, of course, that if he is undergoing treatment for it, the treatment is being provided for him under the existing tuberculosis code. The Deputy then went on to say—and I hope that having said it he will have the courage to call a division and in the Division Lobby place himself on record as against this Bill, because his speech was a speech against the Bill——

For something better.

He said that this £100 per room could be better spent by giving it to the hospitals. If I had brought in a Bill to give to the hospitals the grant of £100,000 which the implementation of this Bill will cost, Deputy Byrne would have wanted me to do something else with it. He then went on to say: "This £100 per room is going to condemn a patient to stay in that room without nursing facilities". Now, the Bill provides that the person concerned must be undergoing treatment and part of the treatment will include, of course, such attention as may be required by a nurse. Without medical attention, how can the medical officer of health certify the person as undergoing treatment?

I am not permitted to reply.

I am not addressing myself to Deputy Byrne, but to the Chair.

The Minister looked very harshly at me.

The Deputy also said the patient was being left without food. The Deputy is a member of the Dublin Corporation. He knows that, under a scheme introduced in this House about 18 months ago, the corporation have been enabled to make to people suffering from tuberculosis grants to buy the protective foods which they require. The Deputy said they were going to be compelled to stay in those empty rooms without beds or bedding. He knows well that that is not true. I do not know how one can stigmatise a person who says something which he knows is not true. You cannot call a man a liar if he says something which may not be accurate but, nevertheless, which he believed to be true. I do not know how in this House I can fitly and properly describe, with due respect to the Chair, a Deputy who says something which he knows to be untrue; and I do not intend to try to do so.

A dictionary.

Deputy Byrne knows that the statement he made in regard to the circumstances of the occupants of the rooms which are to be provided is not true, but is false and incorrect from beginning to end.

Where is the doctor or the night nurse?

The Deputy must let the Minister speak.

The Deputy complained bitterly of a shortage of beds. He wept here in public: he is an adept at shedding public tears. Yet he boasted that for nine years he was Lord Mayor of this city, supported by a majority of the corporation. During that period, as long as he was supported by that majority, he had all the resources of this city at his disposal. He was Lord Mayor in time of peace; supplies were plentiful; taxation was not anything like as heavy as it is now, neither was the cost of living as high. The margin available to him to carry through public health measures was very much larger than the margin available to his successors. If he had wanted to provide these sanatorium beds, about which he complains so bitterly now, then for every 6d. he would spend on them, for every 1/- of the ratepayers' money that he would spend on them, the Government would have given him generous assistance, a generous subvention, and yet in the whole course of the nine years what did this Deputy, who is so hostile to this Government that he opposes everything they try to do for the benefit of the people, do?

He comes here harping and carping, naggling and niggling, weeping and wailing and moaning. What did he do during the whole of that period for those poor people about whom he talked so glibly last night? Nothing. That is the true position. This Deputy, whose heart is breaking, who suffers intensely from internal haemorrhages when he thinks of the mothers and daughters who come to him weeping, during the whole of that period did nothing, and I think he ought to have the virtue, if not to keep silent, at least not to do anything he can, not to do everything he can, to hamper us and misrepresent us in all the steps we are taking to try to improve the lot of these people.

If, during the last five years, we had been able to get to the root of this matter and build the houses for the people; if, during the last six years we had been able to provide sanatorium accommodation, it would have been done. The Dublin Corporation is not a local authority the majority of the members of which are supporters of this Government. On the contrary, there are sitting as members of the Dublin Corporation some of the most obstinate and some of the bitterest political opponents we have. They control the Dublin Corporation and they have controlled that body since it was reconstituted under the Dublin City Management Act. Deputy Byrne was for nine years Lord Mayor.

And you could not put me out.

A leading member of the Opposition has been Lord Mayor twice since.

You tried to do it, but you could not put me out.

No, I will admit that.

You used your whole machinery to do it.

The only people who could unseat the Deputy from the position of Chief Magistrate of this city were his own friends, and that they did.

I resigned voluntarily.

His own friends turned against him; even his own friends could not tolerate his hypocrisy.

I resigned voluntarily.

I say that during the whole of this period since the Dublin Corporation was reconstituted very little has been done.

You tried to put me out but you could not.

Very little was done to meet the situation by providing hospital or sanatorium accommodation, or the housing accommodation which was so urgently needed. In fact, the position became so bad that we had to take that responsibility out of the hands of this hostile body and come in here less than 12 months ago to get the powers which it was necessary for us to have if a really sincere and earnest attempt was to be made to tackle the problem of tuberculosis in our midst. We had to do that for one reason, and the reason was this, that Deputies like the Deputy whose speech I am referring to found in this problem and in this scourge and in this evil a source, shall I say, of political affluence. They could, by telling the sufferers that the Government would do nothing, when they were making certain that so far as they could ensure it the Government could do nothing—they could, while telling them the Government would do nothing, profess the sympathy for these unfortunate people which, though professing it, they did not feel strongly enough to make them act.

With regard to what Deputy Coburn said, again I think the Deputy has not read the Bill. It is unfortunate that this Bill has been discussed by so many Deputies on the Opposition Benches who have not even read it. I have a great respect for Deputy Coburn's opinion in these matters. He often talks a great deal of common sense and he has, I would say, a great deal of moral courage. If he had looked at paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 3 (1) he would have seen that it is provided that the grant cannot be made unless and until it is certified that the house is suitable for being provided with an extra room and, secondly, that the grant cannot be paid unless and until this certificate has been furnished that the extra room has been provided in a proper and workmanlike manner.

With regard to what Deputy Bartley said, if any county medical officer of health were to discriminate in the way he fears against any particular individual, I am certain that very serious notice would be taken of it, and that it would not occur on more than one occasion.

Will the Minister, after "smathering" at tuberculosis for over an hour, tell us something about the question I put to him? This is a Bill to continue the giving of grants to public utility societies and persons building houses in rural areas. Will he tell us what was done last year and during the year before? Is there any housing in progress? What are the costs of the houses? What is the trend at the present time that would indicate that there is any house-building to proceed in rural Ireland during the next 12 months? Might I ask the Minister has he any information to give on these points that are really concerned with housing questions, when we are dealing with a Housing (Amendment) Bill?

Surely a Minister has the right in this House to conclude his speech?

I am putting the question: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Question put and declared carried.

When will the Committee Stage be taken?

I do not know what Deputy Mulcahy would say about that.

What does the Minister expect him to say—what are you looking for?

I was hoping to get all stages, but the Deputy wishes to put down an amendment.

Not only that, but I endeavoured to be reasonable and I put certain questions to the Minister on Second Reading and he will not give me any information. If the Minister has not sufficient sense of his responsibility to answer the questions put to him in the Dáil on the Second stage, we may be able to give him an opportunity to answer them on the Committee Stage.

Let me put this to the Deputy. I am a stickler, unfortunately, for rules of order. So far as this Bill is concerned, the scope of it is very narrow and, if the Deputy wishes these questions answered, let him put down a question and I am prepared to give him such information as I have in my possession.

The time for the Minister to give the information was when he was introducing the Bill.

To-morrow, then, if the Deputy will allow it.

Next Wednesday.

I said no, because I understand that the House is adjourning to-night until next Wednesday.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 12th December.
Top
Share