Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jul 1948

Vol. 112 No. 9

Local Government (Remission of Rates) Bill, 1948—Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This is a Bill which does not enshrine any new principle. It simply seeks to preserve the position with regard to partial remission of rates on certain types of houses and the purpose of the Bill is that the period be extended for 12 months, in other words up to 31st March, 1949, to the end of the financial year.

I do not know if it is necessary for me to say anything more about the Bill at this stage, as its provisions are well within the knowledge of the members of the House. It seeks to provide something in the way of an inducement to house building to persons who are not provided for under the terms of the Housing Acts and gives to such people a partial remission of rates. The Bill provides that that will be continued for another year.

It is rather regrettable that the Minister for Local Government should not have taken the trouble to inform the many new Deputies in the House as to the exact scope of this measure and, in particular, as to the class of buildings in respect of which the remission of rates will be granted. I think that they might have been rather disquieted if he had told them that the purpose of this Bill was to grant a remission of rates to what might be described as "luxury" dwellings, dwellings other than those built with Government subsidy or for local authorities. I do not object to a remission of rates being granted in respect of any type of new building which is erected as a dwelling-house, whether it belongs to the category which was so severly criticised by members of the Government Party before they came into this House as luxury dwellings and dwellings for new industrial millionaires and others. I think that we ought to encourage all our people who can afford to do it out of their own resources to erect new dwellings for themselves if they require them. Therefore, with that in view, we are quite prepared to assent to the Second Reading of this Bill and to facilitate the Minister in passing it.

I do think, however, that it is a rather cynical performance to introduce a Bill with this object when the Minister, by his own policy, has decreed that building licences will not be given and material will not be available to those who wish to build other than subsidy houses or houses for local authorities. What is the use of telling a man that, if he builds a house for himself, he will get a remission of rates for a very limited period—I think the period is five years—while at the same time you tell him that you are not going to issue a building licence to him or allow him to resort to the common pool of building materials which may be available, and should be available, to all classes of citizens within reason? That is the position in which we find ourselves at present. As I have said, having regard to the restrictions which the Minister and those associated with him in the Government are imposing upon the house-building industry, I think it is a cynical performance to introduce this Bill in this House and to ask us to pass it. No person will be in a position now to commence the erection of a house and to have it completed by 31st March, 1949. If a man is lucky enough to secure a building licence and a supply of materials and commences the erection of a house, I do not know what his position will be if he has not the house completed and occupied by 31st March, 1949. My recollection is that it was necessary in other years to provide that this remission of rates would be granted retrospectively in respect of houses which were not completed within the statutory date.

Mr. A. Byrne

The Deputy who has just sat down accused the Minister of being cynical and went on to inform the House as to what the Bill contains. He said that the Government did not intend to give building licences. That is not a fact. I congratulate the Minister on bringing in the Bill because, as Deputy Fitzpatrick knows, a number of new building societies have been started within the last couple of months in Dublin by people who want to build their own houses. Young workmen, clerks, black-coated workers and various skilled men are going to build their own houses.

This Bill does not apply to these houses.

Mr. A. Byrne

You just wait and see. The Minister for Local Government has informed us that he will allow no red tape or severe regulations, such as applied in the past, to stop the giving of a remission of rates to young people to build their own houses under the Small Dwellings Act. If what Deputy MacEntee says is correct, a number of us will be terribly disappointed, because we have encouraged a large number of Dublin citizens, newly-weds, to embark on building their own houses and we have informed them that they will get a two-thirds remission of rates for seven years as an inducement to build their own homes and to get together a deposit by saving or getting it from their relations. I earnestly hope that the Minister intends to pursue that line and that it is his intention to give all these young people who are going to build under the Small Dwellings Act, through building societies or by direct labour, a remission of rates and, if it is necessary, withdraw the licences from the £6,000 houses which Deputy MacEntee referred to. The Deputy wanted to put it over that it is only the £6,000 houses will get the remission of rates and that the others will not.

Under this Bill.

Mr. A. Byrne

I hold that the direct opposite to what Deputy MacEntee says will happen. If that is not so, we intend to propose that that will be so and that all these young people will get a remission of rates. There are thousands of them at present in Dublin seeking sites to build their own homes, and one of the principal inducements held out to them to go ahead was a remission of rates for a certain number of years. The remission was given under the old Acts to those building through building societies or insurance companies.

I also wish to put another point to the Minister and to the Government, and that is that they should consider giving a remission of rates to people in the City of Dublin whose business houses have gone into decay, and who have refused to rebuild them or alter or repair them because, even if they put a new window into their premises their valuation is doubled and their rates go up accordingly. Instead of getting any remission for the expenditure which they have incurred, there is an increase of 25 or 33 per cent. put on the smallest of these houses. I ask the Minister to consider the advisability of holding out an inducement to those people whose property is going into decay and who refuse to repair or renovate or rebuild because of the fear that the Commissioners of Valuation will come down on them and double their rates instead of giving them something to cover the capital expenditure which they put into the premises in order to make them a lasting job.

I hope the Minister will clear up the point which Deputy MacEntee raised— that he is not going to give licences to people to build their own homes. I shall be glad to hear that it is his intention to give a licence to all those who are going to avail of the Small Dwellings Act in order to borrow money from the Corporation to build their own homes.

I can appreciate the reason for the introduction of this Bill. The Minister has personal experience of the Acts of which this is an extension. While it would be no great difficulty for Deputies, including myself, to refer to the Acts that are mentioned here and see what they provide for, undoubtedly it would be helpful to new Deputies if the Minister were to issue an explanation of what these Acts exactly mean. In saying that I do not want the Minister to think I am criticising him. I am not criticising him. I can understand that when we see Bills like this coming year after year before the House we take them as a matter of course. I consider that it is necessary to have this extension. Houses are being built and houses will be built and completed before the 31st March next. I cannot say if the matters raised by Deputy MacEntee or by Deputy A. Byrne are entirely relevant, but I would agree—if it is the intention of the Minister—that until houses are provided for the working classes and for the classes of people mentioned by Deputy A. Byrne no licences whatsoever should be granted for luxury building. Subject to those few remarks I wish to say that I support the Bill.

There has been a certain amount of confusion in my mind in regard to this matter and I am afraid the contribution of Deputy A. Byrne did not help to remove it. I understand from the remarks of Deputy A. Byrne that the provisions of this Bill are to apply to houses valued up to £7,000. Is it the intention to have the provisions of this Bill applied to houses that are outside the scope of existing legislation——

Mr. Murphy

It never proposed to apply to any other type of houses.

——houses with a floor area in excess of 1,250 square feet? I think a further explanation of that, for the information of members of the House, will be necessary.

Mr. Murphy

I am rather surprised to find that this very uninteresting measure has evoked a further flight from Deputy MacEntee. It is truly amazing to listen to the number of small and relevantly unimportant matters that seem to excite his indignation. It certainly does not lead to any reasoned discussion on matters of this kind, though it may add somewhat to the gaiety of an occasion of this kind. The history of this method of partially remitting the rates in respect of certain types of houses is no new one. It goes back to 1927. The measure that is now being extended was enacted as far back as 1940. Deputy Kissane knows as well as I do that there are quite a number of deserving applications, in the economic sense, by persons under the ordinary Housing Act who, for one reason or another, are not regarded as being qualified or eligible. I think that he, representing a rural constituency, would agree that it would be a hardship to deprive these people, in addition to the grant, of a small remission of rates because of failure to fulfil the qualifications. The intention of the Bill is to enable persons who have already begun house-building to qualify if the house is finished in another 12 months. I can quite well imagine how indignant members of the Opposition would be if this were a measure to withdraw this concession. I can quite well imagine how righteously indignant members of the House would become at the withdrawal of a concession which, in fact, proposes to give some inducement to people to construct their own houses. I do not want to elaborate on the provisions of the Act, except to express my regret in regard to the point raised by Deputy Cowan. It was entirely inadvertently that I did not refer to the history of the Bill and the history of the principle underlying it.

I accept that.

Mr. Murphy

I feel, however, that that was a defect. I should like the members of the House who may be uninformed, from the point of view of considering legislation, to understand that it was quite unintentional. There was no question of affording subsidies to persons for luxury building. I would regard it as a breach of faith with people who had got licences in the past year and who accepted those licences in the knowledge that at least there was a certain remission of rates attached to benefit them in the erection of their houses. I should regard it as a breach of faith to deny them that concession by not proceeding with this Bill or by not renewing the provisions underlying it.

Who suggested to the Minister that he should not proceed with it?

Mr. Murphy

I can only depend on my ears in this matter. Deputy MacEntee described it as a cynical performance. To what extent is it a cynical performance? It is fulfilling an obligation that has been honoured over a number of years to a certain type of person in this country. I do not see anything cynical, dishonest or unfaithful in that proposal. I realise that I should not get excited about the type of exaggerated statement against which Deputy MacEntee fulminates in regard to matters that are really small and unimportant in themselves but which are designed to safeguard a principle that has been accepted over a number of years and that in my opinion deserves to be continued.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining stages now.
Bill passed through Committee, reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

On that I should like to remind the House of what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill. I said first that the Minister, in introducing it, should have had some regard for the position of the Deputies who are new to this House and who are not in the same position as he is to deal with a Bill which is merely a piece of legislalation by reference. There is no definition. There is no statement as to the ambit of any of the provisions contained in it. If Deputies want to find out what it is about they must undertake a certain amount of prolonged and laborious research in the Library. It is the duty of a Minister, in my opinion, to give in his introductory statement as much assistance as he possibly can to other members of the House and to have particular regard for the position of those who, being new to the House, are inexperienced in regard to its procedure and who are, perhaps, uninformed in relation to many matters which older members of the House take as a matter of course. I think that criticism was expressed by Deputy Cowan.

I know that Deputy Alfred Byrne in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, indicated, showed and exhibited in a very wide degree the need which existed for such an introductory statement as I asked for because he showed that he was completely ignorant as to the type of house to which the present measure applies. He talked about houses for newly-weds; he talked about houses which were being built by building societies; he talked about houses which were being built by tradesmen and others for their own occupation. To none of these houses does this Bill apply.

And, therefore, they are irrelevant.

What I am trying to do is to indicate by exclusion what is in the Bill. This Bill, in fact, applies only to those houses which are built without the aid of a State subsidy and which are built by people entirely out of their own resources. Of course, the people may be newly-weds, or they may have lived long in the enjoyment of the bonds of matrimony, or they may even be widows; but the houses which they build are houses built out of their own resources and it is only to that type of house that this Bill applies. I hope that Deputy Byrne when a Bill of this sort comes before the House, as it probably will in due course next year, will remember what I have told him to-day and what the Minister ought to have told him, but which was left to a Deputy on the Opposition Benches to convey to Deputy Byrne.

As regards the next point which I raised, I said that having regard to the policy which the Minister has adopted the introduction of this Bill is a rather cynical performance. I do not think it is cynical to introduce a Bill merely for the purpose of honouring commitments entered into by his predecessor. It is quite true that the Oireachtas last year passed a measure, the terms of which were similar to this. By reason of that a number of people entered into contracts with others to build houses for them under the impression that they would secure a remission of rates. Those houses are probably in course of construction. When they are completed the people for whom they are being built are looking forward to enjoying the remission of rates which was provided for them under the Bill of last year. If this Bill, it is quite true, were not enacted the local authority would not be in a position to grant to these people the remission of rates which it was indicated they would enjoy if they erected houses, whether for their own occupation or the occupation of other persons. To that extent the Bill, in so far as it is honouring the commitments entered into by the previous Government is not cynical. But this Bill will probably be featured in to-morrow morning's newspapers as a further example of the encouragement which the present Government is giving to people who desire to build houses for themselves.

You can guess what the Irish Press will say about it.

The Deputy knows that he can speak about what is in the Bill and only about what is in the Bill at this stage. What is in to-morrow morning's newspapers is not relevant to the Bill.

What appears in to-morrow morning's newspapers will be an indication as to how it will be accepted by the people outside this House.

Surely not on the Fifth Stage.

We shall leave the newspapers out of it, but I ask the Deputies to read the Bill and see what is in it. Section 1, sub-section (1) provides:—

"Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Local Government (Remission of Rates) Act, 1940 (No. 8 of 1940) is hereby amended by the deletion in the definition of the expression ‘the prescribed period' of the date ‘31st day of March, 1948', inserted therein by the Local Government (Remission of Rates) Act, 1946 (No. 20 of 1946), and the substitution therefor of the date ‘the 31st day of March, 1949'."

That is in the Bill and anybody reading what is in the Bill would assume, if they were unaware of something else, that the Minister desired to encourage the erection of other subsidised houses other than the local authority houses in this year. That is what people might assume from a cursory reading of the Bill. Though the Statute does provide for this remission of rates, the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce are between them taking very good care at this moment that no person between now and the 31st March, 1949, will be allowed to erect a house which would benefit under the terms of this Bill, because the Minister has indicated that he proposes henceforward to restrict all house building from this day forward in this country to houses which are built by local authorities or houses which are built under the terms of the 1948 Housing Act.

Is there a restrictive clause to that effect in this measure?

How then is it relevant to the measure?

Because the enactment of this measure by this House is merely endorsing the cynical——

The Deputy knows that he is irrelevant.

——the cynical view of the Minister. I am trying to be as relevant as I possibly can.

That may be, but the Deputy is not succeeding.

You are the arbiter in this matter. If you consider that it is not relevant to say that the Minister is cynical when he urges people forward with this Bill and, at the same time, by his administrative policy deters them from building houses, I have nothing more to say. But that is all I wanted to bring out.

I think new Deputies should be grateful to Deputy MacEntee for his lecture on Parliamentary procedure. He certainly knows a lot more than I do. I was not aware, for instance, that anybody could get up at this stage and intervene in the debate. I do not know how far I can go.

The Deputy will discover that very quickly.

I am anxious to draw the attention of the Minister to two rather important items. The Minister is giving a remission of rates to people who are building their own houses. I am glad he is doing that. There are a number of people in this city who are sometimes compelled by the corporation to repair houses so that the tenants may continue to live in them. Sometimes they repair the houses without any compulsion. Would the Minister consider the advisability of directing that there should be no increase in the rates in such an eventuality? I do not suggest that there should be a remission but, at least, there should be no increase where property owners repair property. My attention has also been drawn to-day to a number of artisan dwellings which are lying idle at the moment.

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but clearly he is wandering rather far from the terms of the Bill.

There are a number of empty houses in the city and I would suggest that the Minister should take control of these houses and put people into them.

Mr. Murphy

I merely want to say, in reply to Deputy Fitzpatrick, that the provisions of this Bill apply both to the improvement and the enlargement of houses. I do not think any other point has been made.

Not to the repair?

Mr. Murphy

The improvement and enlargement, I said.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share