Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 7 Jul 1950

Vol. 122 No. 6

Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1950—Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Briscoe

There is an item of cost attaching to purchases of houses under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts to which I think the Minister ought to give some consideration with a view to approaching the Minister for Finance in order to find out if the can bring about some alleviation of a hardship that exists. I refer to the stamp duty. That duty is a heavy item of cost on the smaller houses. I wonder if some arrangement could be made whereby this duty could be either reduced or eliminated. The Minister should keep in mind that the stamp duty up to the present is not included as part of the cost of the house for the purpose of the loan. It has to be paid separately. I think the duty ought to be eliminated on the type of houses purchased under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. I am sure the Minister knows and appreciates that it is a hardship. Perhaps he will approach the Minister for Finance with a view to finding out whether it can be eliminated altogether. It is an unreasonably heavy tax on the particular type of house.

Yesterday Deputy Fitzpatrick and Deputy Cowan referred to the unsatisfactory state of housing in a manner which would suggest that no Dublin Corporation existed and that, if it does exist, the corporation as such has done nothing in the matter of housing. I think it will be agreed by every member of the corporation here, no matter on which side of the House he sits, that the corporation and their staff have given very grave and constant consideration to this problem. They have put in an enormous amount of time on it. They have co-operated as far as possible in Government policy in order to get the job done as quickly as possible. Some people do not seem to appreciate the enormous difficulties that exist. Yesterday Deputy Cowan talked about putting people on for 24 hours of the day putting down sewerage in the Howth area. I do not think the Deputy appreciates the enormous engineering problem involved. A certain amount of the land there is below sea level and, in putting in sewerage, one has to consider the cost, the technical difficulties and the pumping arrangements. The matter has been under consideration for a considerable time. It will ultimately be solved. It cannot be done in the way in which Deputy Cowan suggests —putting his army on it for 24 hours every day until the job is done.

I do not know whether the Minister appreciates that in the existing charge to the borrower of money from a local authority there is quite a considerable item of expense. I would like to draw his attention to a situation which has cropped up in the Dublin Corporation and which is causing difficulty and a certain amount of uncertainty. It is costing the borrower of the money something extra. In our recent loan, because of some situation which existed, we had to borrow money on a 15-year redemption basis. Portion of that money had been earmarked for houses purchased under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. Because of the redemption liability on the part of the corporation at the end of 15 years and because of the further uncertainty as to what the rate of interest may be at the end of the 15 years, we had to include an over-all extra amount of interest chargeable to the borrower of money. Because we loaned him the money at 35 years, the rate of interest had to be increased. I wonder if the Minister and the Government could give a special assurance to the Dublin Corporation that, no matter what the situation is at the end of the 15 years, money will be available to repay that loan in order to eliminate the necessity of imposing on the borrower an extra rate of interest charged because of some uncertain situation at the moment. It amounts to a good deal. The corporation got the money at 2½ per cent. It is now paying ¾ per cent. higher, and it has now to charge the borrower 4½ per cent. That adds considerably to the borrower's annual payments and, when computed over the 35-year period, it amounts to a considerable sum. We must not forget that costs have risen in every respect. A house which normally could be bought ten years ago for £1,400 is now costing £2,000. As I have said, there has been an increase in the rate of interest charged, there has been an increase in the cost of materials and a very heavy increase in building costs, due to increases in wages, so that in the output per £ spent, the cost to the purchase of a small house has risen very considerably. On top of all that, you have, as I have pointed out, the stamp duty. I would appeal to the Minister to consider all these things.

There is one suggestion which I want to make to the Minister in all seriousness, and I hope he will have it considered. In view of the fact that there is almost standardisation in this type of house, would it not be possible to arrange something on the lines of bulk purchase of materials for the construction of the houses? That system is in operation in the case of local authorities. We have the combined purchasing authority under the Minister's Department which is at the disposal of these local authorities to make bulk purchases for them. Could not that body be used to make bulk purchases of building materials for local authorities or, indeed, for smaller builders in the case of people who make contracts for the building of their houses? If large quantities of materials were purchased in that way, I imagine there could be a considerable saving.

The individual who goes to buy materials for a house has to buy in a retail sort of way. Every little item has to be bought, separately, and of course that is a serious matter for him because he is the type of person who has to get a loan for the building of his house. The cost of material to him is higher than it would be if he were able to buy at a wholesale rate which would be specifically applicable to this type of house. If that suggestion were adopted, it would, I think, mean a saving not only to the individual, but to the State. I would ask the Minister to give the matter consideration and see what can be done.

Reference has been made here to what are called site fines. I think everyone subscribes to the view that something should be done to prevent the exploitation of persons who have to take little sites for their houses. We know that, in many cases, these fines cost the purchaser of a house £150 or £200. I would draw the Minister's attention to another point in that connection, and that is that there is another way of putting a fine on the backs of those who require a bit of ground on which to build houses, and that is the ground rent. I am wondering whether the Minister could not now indicate if there is not to be a limit to the amount of ground rent which can be put on the backs of persons such as I speak of. I have heard of people who have taken a field suitable for building purposes. The field may be adjacent to an area which has been developed. Instead of putting a fine on each piece of building ground, they calculate a ground rent which gives them an unreasonably heavy return for the amount of money they have invested in the purchase of the land. In view of the fact that the State is encouraging persons to build houses for themselves and become the owners of them, I think the Minister should protect them and the public by exercising some control over the amount of ground rent that can be attached to a site for building purposes.

This Bill seeks to meet amendments with regard to valuations for the purpose of giving loans. Any solicitor who is a member of the House will know that when you value a property you must take into consideration the amount of ground rent which will be payable in respect of it. The higher the ground rent, the lower the valuation from the point of view of its capital value. I suggest to the Minister that he should have this matter examined, and see whether some form of protection cannot be provided so that ground rents of unduly heavy amounts will not be clapped on as a kind of escape from what one may call cash fines. In the long run these make the property dearer and less valuable to the purchaser, and in the end they make the position with regard to housing more difficult.

Reference has also been made as to the necessity of seeing that, as far as possible, ranges and grates will be installed in these houses which will be suitable for the burning of turf. That request has behind it unanimous support. In addition to that, I would suggest to the Minister that some effort should be made to get a new design of chimney or flue. In Dublin we have the experience that fires start very easily in the chimneys if one is a constant user of turf. I think the Minister should try to get some new design that would help to overcome that difficulty.

As I said at the beginning, this Bill is welcome because it will help to improve the already great advances made in regard to housings. I would like to say to the Minister that I think, notwithstanding all the improvements which it seeks to bring about, that when it comes to be operated a number of snags will come to light in it. I think it is generally accepted that what we are all anxious to do is to make it as easy as possible for people to be able to avail of loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, and to acquire their own houses. I referred yesterday to the method of calculation in regard to putting a value on these loans. Who is to do that? I pointed out that sometimes there can be too strict a basis in regard to assessing the repayment capacity of the borrower. When you get down to the point of fixing the figure at which a person with an income of not less than so much per week can get a loan, the question of shillings will arise, and so there should be some bit of elasticity in making the calculation. That should be taken into account as well as the character of the person who is getting the loan, the type of work on which he is engaged, and the fact that he has been able to improve his position in recent times. A young person in that position who wants to get a loan should not be refused it. He should not be forced, right at the beginning, into a rented, house, the rent of which would be higher than his total commitments would be for the repayment of a loan if granted one.

These are points which the Minister should have examined in detail. He should, I think, give a direction to the local authorities to be as elastic as possible when dealing with such applications. If the Minister gives a certain amount of protection to the potential purchasers of these houses, he will find, I think, that the use of this money under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act will be very much speeded up, and that a very great number of houses will be acquired in that way. If he can do something in regard to legal costs, stamp duties, fines or ground rents or maybe fines plus ground rents and the heavier cost of materials for the smaller type of builders on the lines which I have already indicated, then I think the all-over costs can be brought down considerably and there will be a great deal more satisfaction amongst the people concerned. There will be an understanding that the State is really seeking the welfare of the citizen who wants to help himself in this respect.

Mr. A. Byrne

With other Deputies, I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on bringing it in. I find one fault in it, however, namely, that the benefits will only be given effect to from "the passing of the Act", so that those who are having houses built and who have signed contracts within the last two or three months will not get the benefit of the Bill. I therefore ask the Minister to fix a date other than after "the passing of the Act" and thus give the benefits of the Bill to those who really inspired it, namely, the crusaders in the campaign by people to build their own houses. Young married couples went out and saw a house in the course of erection and negotiated with the builder and signed contracts within the last few months. I earnestly hope that those who were the crusaders in the campaign will get the benefit of the Bill. I would say that there would not be more than 100 persons who have entered into these contracts for non-grant houses. I sent the Minister one case recently where a young man signed a contract in March last and I do not think he will get the benefit of this Bill. The Bill should be made retrospective in order to take in such people who went ahead with the building of a house without the Government's support. They are worthy of our attention.

I want to avail of this opportunity to congratulate publicly the Taoiseach and the Government on behalf of the Dublin Corporation for the way they stepped into the breach last October, when the corporation was left without any money for building. They procured a loan of £5,000,000 in order to enable the corporation to carry on its building schemes. It was because of their intervention that the corporation got this £5,000,000 and were thus enabled to continue their housing programme and the employment of 4,000 men. The corporation will want another £5,000,000 within a very short time. The last £5,000,000 was secured at 3½ per cent. interest and is for a period of 15 years. That money, I think, will be exhausted by September and we will have to ask the Government's help again to raise another £5,000,000 in order to carry on our programme. The period for repayment, however, will have to be extended, as we advance money under the Small Dwellings Act for 35 years.

Different figures have been given by various Deputies as to the rate of progress of house building in Dublin. These figures do not coincide with the official information given by the housing department of the corporation. Deputy MacEntee, for instance, gave one set of figures. I am officially informed that the corporation has in progress at present 3,000 dwellings. Over 1,200 of these have been completed and I think-the remainder are expected to be completed before the end of the year. I hope the corporation will be able to get that output and that some of the people who are anxious to get houses will be taken out of the hovels they are living in at present.

Deputy Fitzpatrick made a complaint as to recommendations he made with regard to houses for certain persons and wondered why persons with five and six children cannot get houses. There are five members of the Dublin Corporation in the Dáil and they will tell you that we get the same sort of reply that he got. When we recommend cases, we are told that they will be given careful consideration with all the other applicants. There are 21,000 applicants for houses at present. I have not yet found a member of the corporation who could say that his recommendation carried any weight whatever with the officials who are allocating the houses. Personally, I can say that I was inclined to be aggrieved in regard to this matter when I put forward exceptionally good cases of people with large families or people with tuberculosis, or people living in condemned dwellings. The officials go into all the details and, so far as the members of the corporation are concerned, they do not interfere with the allocation of houses. We have no power in the matter. There is a special committee of officials who go out and do their best to see that the most deserving people get houses.

Mr. Briscoe

And that information is made available and we know how every house is allocated.

Mr. Byrne

The list is there and anyone can inspect it and see whether the cases are deserving or not. They can see who got the houses and if they can point to one case that was unworthy or less worthy than some other case, it will be investigated by the city manager and the director of housing, Mr. O'Mahony. Sometimes I feel aggrieved when I put forward what looks like the saddest case of the lot and, for some reason or other, it is passed over. The corporation are not dealing with 20 or 30 houses, but houses running into thousands.

I want to find fault with something that happened in my area recently which, I am afraid, will interfere with corporation activities in connection with reconditioning schemes. The members of the corporation, the news papers, and architects and others interested in housing have complimented the city manager on the reconditioning of the old Georgian houses. We took people out of these houses who were paying 4/-, 5/- and 6/- for a room. Having reconditioned them, we put a rent on these rooms based upon the valuation of the corporation valuer. The rent was increased because the tenants were given hot and cold water in their rooms and had a toilet provided for them. Because of that, the commissioners of valuation came along——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has no function in that matter.

Mr. Byrne

I want to show how, if something is not done, the activities of the corporation will be interfered with because of the increased rents.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has no function in the matter.

Mr. Byrne

I want to make a passing reference to the fact that our reconditioned tenements are being revalued over our heads and the rents of our tenants increased accordingly. I ask the Minister to do something to see that once a rent is fixed on a corporation dwelling no outside body will have the right to come in and cause notice to be served on the tenants increasing the rent. I have heard complaints about houses that have been revalued by the valuation commissioners, but that is another matter. When they come in, however, and revalue our reconditioned tenements and get the corporation to increase the rent, I say that is wrong and it is time that we should put a stop to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Cogan was prevented from referring to the question of revaluation, and the Deputy is not entitled to any further licence in regard to that question.

Mr. Byrne

He was not dealing with reconditioned houses.

An Ceann Comhairle

He was dealing with revaluation.

Mr. Byrne

I would respectfully request the support of the House in drawing attention to the position in regard to our reconditioned tenement houses. The rents have been increased as a result of the action of the Commissioners of Valuation in increasing the valuation. That is the point I want to make.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must be content with what he has already said in regard to the matter.

Mr. Byrne

I am quite content in asking that something should be done to remedy it. I appeal again to the Minister to make grants under this Bill retrospective and not to adhere to the date set out in Section 6, Part II of the financial provisions. That section reads:—

"The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, and subject to regulations made under this section, make, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, to a person purchasing a house on or after the passing of this Act——"

That is a provision with which I find fault because, as I say, a number of crusaders borrowed moneys to purchase their houses and then found that the regulations in regard to market value prevented their getting a sufficient loan to complete the purchase. In one or two cases they actually lost the houses. They could not proceed with the purchase because of the fact that the market value, instead of the building costs, was regarded as the price of the house. I should also like the Minister to make some inquiries in regard to the method by which the 5 per cent. tax is operated in regard to the transfer of houses. Quite recently I came across a case in which the owner of a house, the father of a family, died. On his death the eldest daughter, on behalf of the rest of the family, took over the house. Somebody then made it appear that the house would have to be transferred to her name and, would you believe it, the 5 per cent. tax was charged to that working-class family, who originally purchased the house under a corporation purchase scheme. As a result of something that arose between the members of the family, the estate had to be divided on the father's death. A valuation was put on the house which, as I say, was transferred to the eldest daughter, and the 5 per cent. tax was charged to that family, although they already owned the house. I think that that 5 per cent. duty is causing so much hardship that the Minister ought to make some representations to have it removed.

So far as corporation schemes now in progress are concerned, I think I was incorrect in stating a few moments ago that there were 3,000 houses now in course of erection. The figure given to me is 3,356 and 4,000 men are employed. We shall want an additional £5,000,000 before the end of the year and it is feared that trouble will arise regarding sites. Our next trouble is going to be sites within the city area. We had hoped that the Clontarf estate and other sites between the city and Howth would be available but the Howth main drainage scheme will take a couple of years to complete. The engineers are working at full speed on it. As I say a sum of £5,000,000 will be needed for housing. About £1,500,000 will be spent on the Howth drainage scheme and we should then be able to provide a number of additional sites for housing which will benefit under the Minister's proposal.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is the question of ground rents in the city. The corporation some time ago allotted a number of sites to utility societies and to young people to build their own houses. I thought we had agreed in the early days that the maximum ground rent to be charged for one of these sites was £7 10s. but I find that because of certain costs that were incurred the ground rent for some of these small houses went as high as £12 10s. There is no use in our posing as democrats and talking about ground rents payable to private persons, if the municipal authority charges rents of £12 10s. because of some extra cost incurred in connection with the scheme. I do not think it fair to charge a ground rent of £12 10s. for these small houses acquired under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. I hope that the corporation will come back to a standard ground rent of £7 10s. for a terrace house and probably £10 for a corner house. Sometimes one sees ground rents as high as £20 or £15 charged to people who can only deposit £100 or £200 on the purchase price of the house. Some people are doing well out of them but the purchasers have to pay them.

I have met hundreds of young people who are prepared to put down £100 as a deposit on a house. I think that is evidence of their good faith. Any young man who is prepared to deposit £100 as security for the house should, I hold, apart from whatever extra costs may arise in the way of solicitors' or architects' fees, be given a house on condition that he is prepared to meet the weekly payments which, in most cases, work out at about £2. If such young men cannot give sufficient security themselves I think a guarantee from the parents or their friends, that they are suitable tenants and that they will be able to pay the rent should be accepted. The rent of these houses will not be more than the rent they are already paying in many cases for a two-room flat. I have in mind the case of one young man and his wife who, it was alleged, could not pay £2 a week for a house. When I mentioned that to this young man he said to me:—

"I am paying £2 5s. 0d. a week already for two rotten rooms. Surely you will give me a chance and trust me to pay £2 a week rent for this house."

I earnestly hope that the difficulties confronting such people will be removed and that the Minister will watch closely what is happening in regard to ground rents.

In conclusion I want to ask the Minister to accept the congratulations of the corporation on this Bill and convey to the Taoiseach and the Government our thanks for the £5,000,000 which they procured for it last year. I hope that they will be able to provide a similar sum in the next few months. I also hope that they will make some efforts to utilise derelict sites within the old city. There are quite a number of these derelict sites at present but our officials are like other officials. They say: "We are waiting for a comprehensive scheme." These derelict sites can be seen in quite a number of areas in the city. You can go around Dublin and see where three or four tenement houses have fallen down.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would that not be a matter for the corporation?

Mr. Byrne

I want the Minister to include the flat system. If Dublin City is to be saved, if the schools, churches and shops in the centre of the city are to be preserved, Dublin City will have to begin on the large-scale building of blocks of flats everywhere tenement houses have fallen down leaving débris which should be removed.

Mrs. Crowley

While I welcome the many advantages in this Bill I hope that the Minister will be more generous with regard to reconstruction grants for the occupants of county council cottages who have purchased their cottages. On the 1st June I asked the Minister:—

"To enable cottiers who have pur chased their cottages to obtain (a) a reconstruction grant irrespective of the number of people occupying the house, and (b) a reconstruction grant for the erection of a bathroom." (Column 1134.)

The Minister replied:—

"In view of the statutory obligation which rests on the local authority to put each cottage in good repair before vesting and in view of the very extensive claims on State and local funds in respect of housing generally, I think it is reasonable to confine reconstruction grants for vested cottages to cases where it is proposed to increase the living space in order to relieve serious overcrowding."

The people I have in mind are single people or elderly couples who, if they could obtain a reconstruction grant to build on a room or two, would be able, perhaps, to house young married relatives with a family and this would help to overcome the shortage of houses in that particular district.

Another thing is that local authorities are being pressed all the time to have more extensive water supplies so as to bring these blessings to people in country districts in the same way as people in the towns have them. I know various people living in cottages they purchased, where there is a water supply outside their doors, and if they could have a reconstruction grant to add on a bathroom they would willingly do it.

I hope that on the Committee Stage the Minister will remember those two points: a reconstruction grant for cottages irrespective of the number of people in the house and a reconstruction grant for the erection of a bathroom.

Mr. Butler

The great fault in this Bill is that it is quite impossible of implementation. I think it is a very cruel thing if people who are suffering as the people in Dublin are suffering in slums and overcrowded dwellings are given to understand that this is a Bill by virtue of which we will have tens of thousands of houses springing up in the cities, towns and countryside. Certainly so far as Dublin is concerned, that is just not the case. Without further legislation the Bill cannot be implemented in the City of Dublin to any great extent.

There is something misleading about the figures. The Minister, two days ago, gave us very heartening figures with regard to housing, but we are up against realities here in the City of Dublin. Deputies Byrne, O'Higgins, Briscoe and myself, who are members of the House and are also members of Dublin Corporation, know for a fact that at no time have we found it more difficult to get houses for the people who urgently need them than we do at the present time. That is perfectly true. As a matter of fact, when I first went on the corporation many years ago, bad and all as the situation was, we were able to house tuberculous families in any case much more easily and readily than we are able to do to-day. That is the practical side of it. We can only judge of the housing situation as we find it. We still have at the moment families of four, five, six and seven, and in some cases eight, in one room in Dublin, and we can do nothing about it. That is why, when we know that the Bill cannot be given effect to without further legislation, I think it is a cruel thing if, by any sort of propaganda, we lead the people to believe that the situation is going to be immediately improved in Dublin and throughout the country. We know that it cannot be so.

I would be the last in the world to suggest that the Minister intended to be misleading in this Bill or that there is the slightest trace of dishonesty on his part in presenting it. That is the furthest thing from my mind, but I do know from experience of the propaganda that goes on at every crossroads, particularly before an election, either a local or a Dáil election, that the people will be told that houses are going to spring up like mushrooms because of this Bill. We know perfectly well that that is not so and cannot be so.

Mr. Hickey

Surely the people are not so gullible as that.

Mr. Butler

Deputy Timoney blamed Deputy MacEntee last night for referring to this as "a puny Bill". It is not a puny Bill, but probably Deputy MacEntee meant that its results will be puny. I say they will, and I know they will, unless there is further legislation enabling it to be implemented as——

Mr. Timoney

Deputy Timoney meant nothing of the kind.

Mr. Butler

——otherwise it is quite unreal. How are we, especially in the City of Dublin, going to finance the housing that would naturally arise out of the Bill and that the Bill makes possible?

Mr. Hickey

That is the kernel of the whole question.

Mr. Butler

Of course, it is. I was on a deputation with members of the corporation which waited on the Taoiseach, the Minister for Local Government, the Tánaiste and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. They received us courteously and gave us very heartening assurances. I was personally very grateful to them for the manner in which they received us and for the assurances they gave us. We may get the money, and we will be very pleased to get it, even on very hard terms, but we just cannot meet the terrible drain on the resources of this city in the repayment of these loans, so long as the interest which is being charged continues to be charged. We can do it only by bogging the people down in deeper and deeper rates.

The Minister, the former Minister, Deputy Murphy, God be good to him, and Deputy O'Sullivan held that we should get money for housing purposes at 1¼ per cent. and they put down an amendment here to that effect. I wonder does the Minister still think it right and proper that we should get money at 1¼ per cent.? There is no hope of widespread building of houses, particularly in the city, until money is got much cheaper than we are getting it at present. We are building up trouble for ourselves in the near future, and particularly in the more distant future, because remember that the very houses we are putting up, whether they are the ordinary corporation type of house or houses built under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, are short-lived houses. None of these houses will have a long life and we will be up against rehousing possibly in the very areas in which these houses are within our own life-time. How are we going to do it and how are we going to continue the interest payments on these loans?

Apart from the financial side there is a shortage of skilled labour, of tradesmen, and that, too, will militate against any quick implementation of this measure. I urge the Minister to put the greatest pressure in his power on the Minister for Finance and on his confreres to shift the burden of the repayment of loans for building purposes from the rates on to some central fund, something on the lines suggested by the Minister and his colleagues in the amendment to which I have referred, because, until that is done, there is no hope of doing much under this Bill. I do not want to play politics either inside or outside this House, but, unless we want to mislead our people, we will not tell them that under this Bill there will be tens of thousands of houses springing up all over the country. It would be dishonest to do that and, if you get votes by that means, you will be getting them dishonestly.

I hope that something will be done to shift the weight of these repayments from the rates on to the Central Fund, or to some new type of fund which we may establish, by which the burden of the payments will be spread over the country and will not fall on the already overburdened cities and towns. I ask the Minister also, in order to give what effect is possible to this Bill, to deal with the land sharks and the legal sharks and also to consider—I do not want to describe the Minister for Finance as a shark of any kind—this stamp duty business, because the best will not be got out of this measure until these land sharks and legal sharks are dealt with and their activities curtailed.

Mr. Hickey

What about the financial gentlemen?

Mr. Butler

As Deputy O'Sullivan also stressed, there should be some clarification of the expression "reasonable cost". We got examples last night of most unreasonable costs and expenses and I could quote not dozens but literally hundreds of the same sort and something should be done about them. I hope that, when dealing with this Bill inside and outside the House, we will be honest with the people and will let them know that it is impossible of implementation without further legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

On the allocation of time, the Opposition is entitled to two-thirds of the time available. I want to make the position quite clear. Yesterday, the Opposition had five hours and 56 minutes, while the other side had five hours and 15 minutes, so I shall be compelled to call at least two on the Opposition side, and perhaps three or four at times, to one on the Government side, but Deputies will understand that, in their own interests, the speeches should be brief.

Mr. Dunne

Anybody who does not see the tremendous value this Bill is going to have for the people in need of houses, particularly in and around Dublin City and county, must either be out of touch with the housing situation; or must not have examined the Bill closer. Those of us who are connected with local authorities in the Dublin area are very familiar with the housing position. We are aware that the approximate need of houses in the City of Dublin is 20,000, and we who represent Dublin county, which suffers from the overflow of the city population, know that in the county housing needs are equally great.

Those requiring houses can be broadly divided into two classes—the type who can take advantage of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and those who must rely upon the local authority entirely for their housing requirements. This Bill meets two very great needs. I have found that the persons who, in recent years, have been endeavouring to take advantage of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts have met in many cases with insuperable difficulties which spring mainly from the fact that, as we all know, the cost of houses nowadays is at least two and a half times what it was in pre-war days. That there has been racketeering in housing is beyond question and this Bill will, so far as it is possible, put a check, to some degree at any rate, upon racketeering.

I think the alteration in respect of the deposit required of persons desiring to build their own houses, the provision whereby people who want to build their own houses can do so, provided they can deposit 5 per cent. of the cost, is, so far as the white collar workers, the tradesmen, or those in that particular grouping of workers, are concerned, the most progressive step taken so far. Under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, as they operate at present, every public representative in Dublin City and County knows that the difficulty, in the first instance, for the person desiring to build his house has been to get a deposit of sufficient size. A person who desires to acquire an average house of that size, costing £1,800, on the fringe of Dublin, and who wants to get a loan from the local authority and to avail of the grant, would need to have at least £180, £200 or £250, and in many cases £300. That is an impossible position for working-class people, even the better paid working-class people.

We have many cases of young persons about to get married, who are anxious to avail of the opportunity to build a house for themselves, but who are denied that opportunity because of the very high deposit at present, in the case of a £1,800 house. Under this Bill, they can secure such a house by depositing £90. Anyone who says that that does not represent a tremendous advance on the previous position is not examining the facts as they should. I consider that it is one of the best steps that have been taken. We are lucky in Dublin City and County in that so many people are anxious to avail of the loans and grants to build for themselves. That represents a very substantial contribution in itself towards the housing problem and a lightening of the burden on the local authorities. It is a progressive step, not only by making it easier for the person to build for himself, but it also means that the expense upon the National Exchequer will be all the less because, if these people did not build for themselves, the time would come when the local authority would have to build for them and subsidised houses would have to be provided. In that sense, it is a progressive and very good measure. While I know Deputy Bernard Butler was stating what he believes to be true, he must have overlooked that particular aspect of the question.

So far as the financial side of housing administration is concerned, we are all agreed that efforts should be made to provide cheaper money. Undoubtedly, the interest rate represents a great disability. At the same time, Dublin County Council, being responsible for the area outside the city, are happy because over the past 18 months we have raised £1,250,000 for the building of houses for the people of the county —more than was ever raised or thought of before.

I want to refer to Section 21 of this Bill, which is a very essential section. It adverts to the definition of "agricultural worker". This particular matter has given rise to very considerable trouble in County Dublin. In the housing drive over the past one and a half years Dublin County Council has discovered some very bad cases, where people were living under most appalling conditions, in cowsheds. There was one case of a family living at the back of a ditch with no shelter save tar barrels around them, in the depth of winter. There were cases of people suffering from tuberculosis living seven and eight in one room which would hardly be sufficient to shelter one person. Some of these cases have been recommended for rehousing by the local authority or by the county medical officer of health, who is the responsible officer. We have come up against the snag that, because of the fact that the Labourers Acts make it clear that only agricultural workers or those who can be brought within the existing definition of "agricultural worker" can be rehoused under those Acts, the people to whom I refer have been precluded from getting a house. This Bill, as I understand it, extends that definition and makes it possible for such people to be housed, but I would like the Minister to make this point clear when he is summing up.

Take the case of a widow working as a domestic servant, who has been recommended by the medical officer of health for County Dublin for rehousing, as qualifying in every respect. Under existing legislation, this family cannot be rehoused because the widow, who is the head of the household, does not come within the extended definition of "agricultural worker". I would like that point to be clear. Under this Bill, will this matter be adjusted?

I would like also to know whether pensionable officers of local authorities will be brought within the scope of this Housing Bill. We have had experience in County Dublin of a mental hospital attendant being rehoused in the Swords area and later being served with notice to quit because it was discovered that he did not qualify within the Act because, the house having been built under the Labourers Act, this particular worker, being a pensionable officer, did not qualify within the extended definition of "agricultural worker". I think the purpose of this Bill, in part at any rate, is to remedy that very awkward situation. I would like the Minister, in his summing up, to make that clear.

I am trying to be as brief as possible. I do not want to intrude upon the time of any other member. I would like, however, to make this point, and would ask the Minister to refer to it in his summing up. There are cases in County Dublin of young couples who got married, who were living in County Dublin, just outside the fringe of the city, in an area like Finglas, who were born and reared and lived all their lives in the Finglas area. When they got married, because of the pressure of the housing shortage, they were forced into the the city to live in slum dwellings. In the ordinary course of events, where such people qualified, where their housing circumstances were so bad as to warrant rehousing, where they had a family, the Dublin County Council in the past has been willing to bring them back, after their short time in the city, into the county administrative area and to rehouse them in their native district. Objection has been raised to that because, at the time of the allocation, they were not actually residing in the county health district. I think that is a flaw which needs to be remedied. I would ask the Minister to give the matter consideration, and to see what can be done about it. In a number of cases it represents very great hardship.

I would like to compliment the Minister on this very fine measure. We have been waiting for it for a very long time. No matter what may be said to the contrary, no matter what temporary difficulties Dublin Corporation may find in the matter of financial accommodation, I believe they can be overcome. This is the enabling measure which was essential in order that the thousands of people who are living in most appalling circumstances in the City and County of Dublin may get houses more speedily. Every Deputy should welcome it on that score.

Mr. Beegan

I have risen to speak on this debate because I feel that, with the great spate of oratory emphasising the needs of Dublin City and depicting the problem there and the problems within the problem, the country might be forgotten. While undoubtedly this Bill goes a certain distance and is a step forward, it is by no means a final solution of the housing problem even in the country. I am sure the Minister does not contend that it is so, because in the country we also have a slum problem—as I am sure the Minister very well knows—though, of course, not to the same extent as in the case of the City of Dublin. In the country, however, even with the very generous grants that are being given, there are people who, even if the grant were to be doubled, would still be unable to erect a house. I would stress that these people do not comprise an insignificant percentage of the rural population. I know some of them. Their houses are in a bad way. It has been possible for a number of years past to obtain grants, but these people were unable to avail of them because they had not sufficient money of their own to supplement these grants. I realise quite well that somebody may ask: "Are there not loans to be had under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts?" Surely it should not be necessary for me to have to point out that loans under these Acts bear interest? In our county the rate is 3¾ per cent.: I think it is 3¼ per cent. and that an extra ½ per cent. is added for administrative purposes. Take, for instance, even a medium-sized house at present: it will not be in any way pretentious— in fact, it will hardly be as good as an ordinary labourer's cottage. Such a house will cost anything in the neighbourhood of £900 or £1,000. Taking into consideration the £225 of a grant, such persons as I have mentioned have to find the remainder of the cost. It is possible that they might have £100, but then they have to find the remainder by way of loan. That means that they must go to the county council for a loan of over £600. The repayment of that loan over a period of 30 years would mean that they would have to pay something more than £20 a year. I have not calculated the exact figure. We are all aware that there was a great clamour in the country when rents were high and that there is a great clamour going on at present in connection with the increase in rates. When people of that type would have to pay these sums of money per year, they would be bound to remember what their fathers and their forefathers had to say in regard to rack rents. The fact of the matter is that they are not able to avail of the grants—and that is a problem which I should like to hear discussed in this House. It is a pity that legislation of this type should be introduced at the end of the session. The housing problem as it affects the cities and the rural areas deserves very great consideration from many aspects. Time could not be more advantageously devoted to any measure or business which has come before this House as to a full discussion of the housing problem. That, unfortunately, is not possible now because the time factor is against us.

I wish to make a suggestion—it may, perhaps, be impracticable and, indeed, impossible—that possibly a valuation of, say, £15 in the country might be fixed on the certificate of the county medical officer of health: the site would be free in the case of the people I have mentioned. The local authority would build a house that would be much the same as a labourer's cottage: at any rate, it would be a big improvement on what they have. They would repay the charges in respect of that house in the same way as the labourer repays for his cottage or some such similar arrangement.

I am glad to see that the valuation limit in respect of the reconstruction of houses has been increased. In fact, I should like to see it removed altogether just as in the case of the erection of new houses. There is a section of the community whose valuations are from £40 to £80. While they may appear, because of their valuations, to be well-to-do people, the fact is that they are finding it as difficult in many instances to make ends meet as any other section of the community. Furthermore, there is very little sympathy for them because of their supposedly comfortable circumstances. They get a remission of rates on the first £20 of valuation but then there are difficulties if they are not able to have the labour content. Then again, they do not get the same sympathy in respect of health services and so forth as people with lower valuations. I think that that statement will be generally accepted as being a true statement.

Section 16 of this Act is, I presume, a very desirable section within limits, but it is capable, in my opinion, of being abused and of inflicting hardships. It enables local authorities to purchase sites for persons other than the working classes. I quite agree that a number of business people and tradesmen find it very difficult to get sites or to build houses. However, the way the section is framed at present makes it capable of a very wide interpretation. I do not think abuse would be likely to happen in the City of Dublin or in the neighbourhood of Dublin, but this applies to urban areas such as Ballinasloe, and to town commission areas such as Tuam and Loughrea. Undoubtedly, nothing is more popular than the acquisition of sites for housing. When a site is acquired, you may be sure that it is a good site. It might be a field of two, three or five acres belonging to a man who derived his chief means of livelihood from it. He may have had two or three cows in it; he may have been using it for the purpose of producing vegetables, or something like that. They go in and take that field; after all, he is only an individual. He has command only of his own vote and of the votes of whatever number of people may comprise his household. However, there would be room on that field for anything from 12 to 20 houses. The field would be taken over, therefore, and the price fixed by arbitration. The fact that it was his main source of livelihood and that he had a certain income from it might not always be taken fully into consideration. The members of the local authority are human beings, just like the rest of us, and they would have that site taken over and bought. Their idea, in my opinion, would be to sell it to the persons who would give them the highest prices for the sites. In that case you would have perhaps, in the town, a business man who resided in his business premises, and who would have, perhaps, a £3,000 or £4,000 turnover a year, and he would come along to the local authority and would be capable of giving a good price for a site and, of course, he would get it. That man would be in a far better financial position than the unfortunate man for whom that site was acquired.

There should be some restrictive subsection so far as that particular section of the Bill is concerned. If not, then, in my opinion, it is capable of being abused, and I am sure the Minister does not desire any such abuses and that he has brought in this measure with the best intentions. I could give instances, even in the case of the acquisition of land for the working classes, where hardship was imposed on persons who could not be described as other than working people. Their annual income was no more than the annual wage of the people for whom the houses were being provided, and they were deprived of that source of income and the compensation that was offered to them would not by any means compensate them for the deprivation that was caused.

Mr. Traynor

In so far as this Bill constitutes an attack on the evil of the housing problem which confronts this nation, I welcome it. If, as a result of the operation of this Bill, a thousand houses are provided, I shall be glad; if five thousand houses are erected I shall be better pleased and, if the record figure of houses constructed under the Fianna Fáil regime is exceeded, I shall rejoice. But I want to warn the Minister that the mere passing of this Bill through the Oireachtas and the securing of the signature of the President will not end all this legislation. Unless the Minister applies his energies to the problem, this Bill will be like many other measuses that have passed through this House and it will provide little or no remedy for the situation it is proposed to relieve.

I regret this Bill has been brought before the House in the circumstances in which it has been brought. I regret that there is a certain restriction of debate on the measure. I am afraid, because of that curtailment, that the Bill will possibly have many shortcomings. However, this Bill need not be the end of Bills endeavouring to provide a solution for the housing problem, and I am not going to be as pessimistic about its results as some of my colleagues.

I hope that as a result of the passing of this Bill the people of this nation will find some relief. Like Deputy Beegan, I have heard serious fears expressed in respect of Section 16. If the section is properly and justly interpreted, I do not think the fears which have been expressed will be realised. On the other hand, it occurs to me that under Section 16 it will be possible to deal with the cases which were mentioned by Deputy McCann last evening. If, for instance, some individuals endeavour to batten on the desires of people to secure housing accommodation, it is possible, through the medium of Section 16, that the land they are demanding exorbitant figures for can be acquired under the compulsory powers contained in the section.

The rushing of this Bill through the House in the manner in which it is being rushed prevents the possibility of similar types of cases being brought to the attention of the Minister. We heard Deputy Martin O'Sullivan last evening giving instances in respect of the exorbitant legal charges that are being imposed on unfortunate victims who are prepared to face almost any conditions in order to secure a house. Surely, it would be possible to standardise the fee in respect of legal charges connected with the buying of a house? I do not see why a standard fee cannot be struck. Deputy Martin O'Sullivan gave us instances where the charges ranged from a very high figure to a figure that might be described as modest and reasonable. If a modest and reasonable charge satisfies one member of the legal fraternity, surely it should satisfy others who are charging the exorbitant figures which Deputy Martin O'Sullivan mentioned?

Captain Cowan

That happens only in Clare.

Mr. Traynor

I do not know. I am merely discussing the figures which the Deputy gave us. I am not myself concerned. I have been given no particular case of one kind or another, but I do believe that the fees are exorbitant.

Mr. Hickey

Of course they are.

Mr. Traynor

They should be reduced. I merely mention that matter now in order that the Minister may possibly be induced to take it up with the Government in an effort to find some way of standardising the charge so that an individual who is seeking to acquire one of these houses under the terms of this Bill will know exactly what he has to face.

Mr. Hickey

Should that not be done through the solicitor of the public authority?

Mr. Traynor

However it is done, I shall be glad if it is done.

Captain Cowan

It can be done without any difficulty.

Mr. Hickey

Nonsense!

Mr. Traynor

Under Section 12 land which has been devoted extensively towards providing recreation grounds and sports fields can be acquired. I hope that as far as the City of Dublin is concerned these sports fields will not be acquired. I am as anxious, and perhaps more anxious than most Deputies, to see some kind of relief brought to the citizens of Dublin with relation to providing them with housing accommodation. But I would be very sorry to think some of these recreation grounds and sports fields, which constitute an open lung in housing centres, will be taken away and built on. I am aware that a number of these open sites are operated by large commercial firms, which apparently believe in the policy of providing proper outdoor recreational facilities for their employees. I think that is something that should be encouraged. If an employer has a healthy staff, he will have efficient workers. I think those employers who have provided these facilities are to be commended, and no obstacles should be put in the way of their developing that particular idea. As far as Dublin is concerned, I know of at least two sites which are in danger of being acquired in spite of the fact that right around the particular recreation grounds there is virgin land which could be utilised for building just as easily as the grounds themselves. A large sum of money has been expended in providing these facilities.

I am glad that the definition in respect of labourers' cottages will not be applied as rigidly in the future as it has been in the past. Any individual who occupies one of these cottages is a labourer of one kind or another; it does not matter whether he is a Garda, a lowly paid primary teacher or a motor driver, he still remains a worker and he should be entitled to apply and to receive consideration if he seeks to secure one of these hygienic, habitable cottages. For that reason I congratulate the Minister on widening the scope of the definition, thereby making it easier for these workers to secure that particular type of accommodation.

I would like to remind the Minister that if he wishes to secure results in excess of those achieved by the former Government he will have to put his shoulder to the wheel since he will have to erect at least 14,000 or 15,000 of these cottages throughout the country to exceed the number built under the former régime.

I will conclude by repeating something that I said on a former occasion with reference to this housing problem. This problem, which we inherited from a foreign administration, deserves to be treated as an emergency measure. Every speech I have heard on the matter confirms me in that opinion. While I know it will not be treated in that particular manner, I do hope that it will be given the attention, energy and drive it deserves and that the Minister will not rely merely upon the activity of his officials, but will give those officials a lead by his own efforts to bring about an even partial solution of this desperate problem.

Mr. Rooney

This Bill is a courageous attempt to solve the burning problem of housing, especially in the City of Dublin. Its advantages will apply all over the country. The Bill is impatiently awaited by those engaged in the building trade, apart from the homeless families which will eventually take up residence in the houses built under the provisions of this Bill. I hope it will pass into law in the shortest possible time. Applicants for houses are eagerly awaiting its passage. It is a tremendous step forward in comparison with previous housing legislation, particularly with reference to that section of the community which desires to avail of the facilities afforded by the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. It is particularly welcome to families needing habitable houses since it eliminates the discrimination which operated unfairly against such persons as Civic Guards, soldiers and employees of local authorities. Many people have sought proper housing accommodation under the provisions of these Acts because they could not afford the cost of building their own houses and were not qualified for houses under the definition of agricultural labourers. For that reason the extended scope of the definition is to be welcomed. I know of cases where applicants earning £5 a week and less are obliged to shelter in hovels, shacks and over-crowded houses although relatives of theirs and their families, with incomes ranging from £3 to £30 per week, could secure a house because they were eligible under the provisions of the Agricultural Labourers Act. This Bill will certainly eliminate the difficulties created in the past in that respect since it recognises the desirability of enabling wage earners, irrespective of their occupation, to secure habitable homes for themselves and their families. In my opinion, the existing legislation was too narrow in its scope, and it had the effect of creating a housing problem rather than of offering an effective solution to it, so far as the application of the Agricultural Labourers Act applied. That is particularly true of County Dublin because preference was not given to men working on the land, and that created confusion in the minds of persons otherwise employed. That difficulty will be eliminated by this new Bill.

I think it will be welcomed by the building contractors who have met with considerable difficulty so far as the application of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act is concerned. The question of final valuations certainly creates a good deal of embarrassment and hardship for people who innocently enough, I suppose, decided to avail of its advantages; but when the final valuation was made, they found that they had to put their hands in their pockets again or seek some financial accommodation to enable them to make the necessary deposit. The provisions of this Bill will clarify that position because people will know what their financial commitments are going to be. For that reason, I hope the Minister will have the Bill passed into law within the shortest possible time so that all those concerned can take advantage of it.

Mr. P.J. Burke

This Bill is definitely a step forward. It does not go as far as I would like to see it going. I am of the same opinion as other Deputies, that the housing problem which is facing us to-day is so serious that it should be made a national problem. I say that as a result of all the snags which I have come up against. There is the problem for local authorities of borrowing money at a high rate of interest, and one for people who have to pay high rents for houses. There is a problem, too, for people going into houses built by private enterprise. For many of them their commitments are a shocking millstone around their necks. A number of our people are finding it very hard to exist because of the high rents they have to pay in new houses and others because of the purchase price they have to pay for houses.

During the last few years we have succeeded in building a number of houses in County Dublin. I want to make a passing reference to one matter so that it may go down on the records here. I do so in the interests of historical truth.

Captain Cowan

For posterity.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Well, a few people may have been misled. In the County Dublin we have definitely a problem, so far as housing is concerned, due to the bad administration that we had there at one period.

Mr. Davin

For 16 years.

Mr. Little

Has the Deputy not got over that yet?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I will deal with this honourable man. I heard one of my colleagues last night make a reference to the housing problem in my constituency. He completely misrepresented the facts. I do not know why because, at any time I speak here, I never say anything except what is the truth. I want to correct his misguided statement. I will be charitable to him because perhaps he may have been under that impression at the time. But the housing position in the County Dublin was bad because we had a county council there for a number of years which did nothing except try and create an agitation by inducing people not to pay their rates.

Mr. Davin

The commissioners?

Mr. P.J. Burke

The result was that in 1942 the Minister for Local Government had to abolish the Dublin County Council. There was owing to it over £200,000 in rates.

Captain Cowan

De mortius nil nisi bonum.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Tempora mutantur; nos et mutamur in illis.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The official languages of this House are Irish and English.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Minister for Local Government in 1942 found himself in the position of having to put in a commissioner because the neglect in regard to housing in County Dublin was something shocking. His first duty was to ask the commissioner to have a survey made of housing needs in the County Dublin. I am not making any excuse to Deputy Davin because the war was on in 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945; but, notwithstanding that over 1,000 sites were procured, and just at the time that we were leaving office, a number of houses were under construction there. I have here a reply which the Minister himself gave me on the 28th March last.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would be much better if the Deputy would deal with the Bill.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am dealing with the housing position in the County Dublin which was referred to by another Deputy. We succeeded in procuring 1,035 sites; but the new Dublin County Council, about which we hear so much talk—what have they done? They have succeeded in procuring only 137 sites since they took office in 1948, and on these sites they have succeeded in building only 20 houses. I want to state again, as a positive fact, that the position of housing in the County Dublin is due to the previous Administration. I do not want to say anything against the present Minister. Since he became Minister, he has done his best. What I have stated are historical facts, and I want them to go on the records of this House. I hope we will not hear any more misrepresentation on this matter in the future.

I was delighted to hear Deputy Martin O'Sullivan and Deputy McCann raise the question of ground rents and fines. That is becoming a racket in this country. We have fines of £200 for a site, and after that ground rents of £10 and £15. There is a problem there which the present Minister or some future Minister will have to take in hands.

Mr. Davin

Deputy MacEntee knows all about that.

Mr. P.J. Burke

It is a really serious problem for the unfortunate man who wants to get a house to-day or who wants to build a house for himself, because, before he can do anything, he has to deal with those sharks. I am sorry to have to take advantage of the House by referring to any citizen in that way.

Last night, Deputy M. O'Sullivan, Deputy McCann and others referred to the question of legal costs. It is about time that something should be done for the unfortunate people with regard to these legal costs, if they are not to be bled white. I know families with an income of £6 a week living in four-roomed houses in the Ballymun area who have to pay £2 5s. 0d. and £2 10s. 0d. a week rent. That cannot be allowed to go on. Another point I want to refer to is the high cost of money to the borrower. That is a very serious problem.

Mr. Hickey

That is the kernel of it.

Mr. P.J. Burke

If our people are to be enabled to live in decent comfort and if the cost of living is to be reduced, we will have to face that issue in a national way and legislation will have to be brought in to deal with these matters. There is a housing association in my constituency building 500 houses. The people have to pay £2 5s. 0d. a week, plus 5/- a week rates for these houses. This company has refused to avail of the grant under the 1948 Act, and the result is that the unfortunate tenants are bled white. I should like to see a provision put into this Bill to deal with people of that kind who are finding it very hard to carry on. They were forced into the position of having to take these houses and, with a family of three or four children now, they find it very hard to make ends meet.

Mr. Hickey

They are denying themselves proper nourishment in order to pay that rent.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I want to strike a note of warning with regard to the question of valuations and market value. I welcomed the section dealing with that in the 1948 Act when it was introduced. I thought it was a wonderful section and so did every other Deputy at the time. But not even the most far-seeing Minister could see the implications of that term "market value". Deputy Martin O'Sullivan last night suggested one way of dealing with that matter of valuations, namely, that the building surveyors who are employees of the local authority should value the houses. In County Dublin the valuers are not carrying out the spirit of that Act as it was intended by the draftsman and the then Minister for Local Government. There was a big margin between the valuation put on the houses and the actual cost of them. The result was that a number of people walked into a trap. It was never intended by the former Minister that that Act should be interpreted in that way. This Bill should be made retrospective in order to come to the help of people who found themselves debarred, as a result of the valuation placed on their houses, from getting the money they were legally entitled to. So far as I am concerned I have nothing but contempt for these valuers and their idea of "market value".

I am delighted that the restrictions with regard to the letting of council cottages in County Dublin and elsewhere are being done away with so that soldiers, Gardaí, local authorities' employees and lower-paid civil servants will now be eligible for them. I am glad that the valuation limit for the reconstruction grant has been increased from £35 to £50. In County Dublin very small holdings of land have a valuation of £50.

Mr. Davin

Not at all.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I know a farm of land of nine or ten acres which is valued at over £50.

Mr. Davin

It would be a gold mine.

Mr. P.J. Burke

That might be the case down the country where a big holding might be valued at only £50, but in County Dublin it is a different matter. I know a man who got a holding of ten or 12 acres in County Dublin from the Land Commission and his valuation is £48. Land in County Dublin is valued very highly. I would ask the Minister to increase the valuation limit further. I am not going to specify the figure. I have given my personal experience of valuations in County Dublin and Deputy Dunne knows that holdings are very highly valued in that area.

Deputy Traynor referred to the question of providing sports fields. I should like to see provision made for them in this Bill. I regret that no provision has been made for sports fields in some of our recent housing schemes. Sports fields and playgrounds should be provided for the children on these housing sites no matter what the cost is. I would impress on the Minister the necessity for dealing with the question of high rents for local authority houses. I want to say to the Minister that in County Dublin the differential rents scheme is causing an immense amount of trouble. The tenants are claiming that the houses should be let at a lower rent. The rents charged for houses other than local authorities' houses are also a problem. These high rents, of course, tend to increase the cost of living.

Mr. McGrath

I think that this Bill represents a good attempt to improve the facilities whereby houses will be provided for people who need them and that it will be of special benefit to people who intend to purchase houses under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. The fact that they can now go round and select a house in itself will be an encouragement. It will, in addition, be an encouragement to small builders and private contractors—some people call them speculative builders—and also to utility societies to proceed with the building of houses without having to wait for prospective purchasers. I know of several cases in which such builders were held up in the building of semi-detached houses because they did not know whether they would have any applicants for such houses. Prior to this Bill, the applicant had to make his application before the building of the house commenced. I think, as a result, we shall see more of that type of house erected. The prospective tenant will be able to go around as if he had already the £275 grant in his pocket. He will be able to make a good bargain; he will not be so restricted and he will not be under the necessity —at least I hope he will not—of incurring debts with builders' providers and of raising money in the banks while he is waiting for the grant. I take it that this Bill means that if a man decides to purchase a house that is already built and which comes within the regulations, he will be in a position to purchase that house with the amount of loans secured from the local authority and this £275 grant. I think that is an advance and that it will soften the way for a lot of people and young couples who intend to start off as owners of their own houses, as most of them who are in any kind of employment at all would prefer.

The question of market value and of valuation has been raised. It is extraordinary that down in Cork we have had very little trouble as regards the market value and the valuation put on these houses by the local officers. A person who is having a house built under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, with the assistance of the corporation or the county council, is generally able to receive financial assistance, which is very close to the sum required for the building of the house. There has never been much of a gap in that way and, whoever the engineers were, they were able to put a decent valuation on the building. I am sorry to hear that the same state of affairs does not prevail in Dublin, where it would appear, according to some speakers, that people have to deposit anything from £250 to £400 of their own money before they can avail of the facilities provided by the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. I think that such a deposit is beyond the reach of any ordinary worker. I do not know how far this Bill will go to settle this question of valuation, but I think that some provision should be inserted in the Bill to make it retrospective, so that people who are now burdened with what somebody referred to as a second millstone around their necks will get some easement. It is a difficulty that appears to be confined to the City of Dublin.

I should like if the Minister would define what he means by "persons not of working classes" in Section 16. Does "working classes" embrace Army officers, Garda officers and bank clerks? I presume they are all regarded as working classes. I know that, under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, the Cork Corporation have already purchased sites and leased them to Army officers and I think quite rightly so. I think they are entitled to the benefits of these Acts, but I do not know what particular classes the Minister intends to cover by that definition.

Captain Cowan

Is it not inclusive, whether they belong to the working classes or not?

Mr. McGrath

Does it mean that a manager of the Bank of Ireland, for instance, will come under this and that he will get this grant of £275 for his house? Yesterday, when I was making a plea for grants for houses in Cork, the Minister made the statement: "This scheme was intended for certain classes who can pay high rents." I should like to point out to the Minister that I know several bus conductors, labourers and a couple of bookmakers' clerks who are tenants of these houses. Are people such as a manager of the Bank of Ireland or a manager of Guinness, going to get grants for their houses, while the people who are tenants of these houses in Cork will be deprived of the benefits of grants? That is a matter on which I should like to get some explanation. We are told that the corporation are not expected to make a profit out of the houses, but in a statement given to the corporation by the city manager in Cork, he told us that in one scheme the economic rent was £84 10s. 0d. and he was going to charge £52, while in another scheme the economic rent was £102 and he was charging £52. That is a question that we may be able to develop at another time, but it seems strange to me that people with unlimited means can get grants for their houses, while the bus conductor and the labourer in Cork occupying corporation houses will not get any grant for their houses. I cannot see the justice of that at all. I shall not stress that matter further, but I hope that the Minister will rise to the occasion.

As regards the qualifications of people other than agricultural labourers, there is part of Cork Borough electoral constituency which goes outside the county borough boundary and I should like to get some definition from the Minister in regard to the qualifications of people there. Deputy Burke said that in future Gardaí and soldiers will be entitled to houses built by the local authority. I should like to be clear on that, because I had experience of a very sad case about six months ago of a Garda living in a village a few miles from Cork, whose wife had tuberculosis and who had several children. The local authority, the South Cork Board of Health, were anxious to provide him with a house, but I understand that people in permanent and pensionable employment are debarred from getting such houses.

I would like the Minister, in his reply, to tell us that those Gardaí and soldiers who are living in rural areas would be entitled through this Bill to get houses that are built for letting by local authorities apart from agricultural labourers' cottages—what are described as "non-municipal houses"

Mr. Hickey

In other words, an employee of the local authority is not entitled to get them.

Mr. McGrath

That is what I understand. Does this Bill entitle them to get houses? I gave the very sad case of a Garda. I do think that this Bill is a step in the right direction even if it does not go far enough.

Captain Cowan

I just propose to make a few observations on the Bill itself. This Bill has been described in various ways as "a puny Bill" and "a great Bill"; quite a number of adjectives have been applied to it, but if we look at the Housing Bills that have been passed since this State was established we find a continuation, improvement and development right along. Deputy MacEntee last night made quite a number of observations about the Act passed by the Fianna Fáil Government in 1932. If we look at housing in an objective way we find that probably the most vital Act in the whole housing code is the Act of 1931 passed just before Fianna Fáil came into office. That is a very important Act. In 1932 Fianna Fáil improved it; there was a further improvement in 1948 and this Bill goes ahead and continues the improvement. If we look at the question from the point of view of a code we must welcome this Bill as a very important development in housing legislation.

I would support the plea to make this Bill retrospective, certainly in the City of Dublin, where through very harsh interpretation of "value" applicants for houses who are now living in them were deprived of from £100 to £150 that they would have got under the Bill. That has been a tremendous hardship to them, and if the Minister could agree to have an examination of these cases for the purpose of increasing under this Bill the amount payable under the Small Dwellings Act in respect of those houses, he certainly would do a good day's work for a number of people who are now put to the pin of their collars to exist.

I would like the floor space in the Bill to be increased and I think that the Minister is the only person who can move such an amendment. A private Deputy might have some difficulty, as such an amendment might be held to involve finance. If the Minister did it, it would get us out of that difficulty.

In the Small Dwellings Act there is a small defect which I think can be put right in this Bill. Under the Small Dwellings Act, to get a loan you must be the sole owner of a house, and where a man and his wife owned a house jointly they have been refused loans. I think that everyone will agree that it is a good precaution and sensible management on the part of a man and his wife to own a house jointly and where they do that they should not be debarred from facilities under that Act. I would ask that to be put right or, if the Minister thinks it can be granted and local authorities think it cannot, that the position be clarified.

Reference has been made to stamp duties and I hope that stamp duties in respect of this will apply only to the value of the site and not to the value of the house. That can easily be clarified in the section. I think we will get over the difficulty which has been very properly mentioned by Deputies regarding the costs charged to purchasers of houses in Ennis. That could be done by a very simple amendment saying that the legal costs payable in respect of houses built under the Bill should be assessed on the value of the site. If that is done it will be found that the costs will be very small. They probably will not exceed £10 10s. 0d. and I think that will be reasonable. If a house is being built on a site there is no reason in the world why legal costs should be involved on anything except the site value. There is no reason why they should be charged on the £1,600 or £1,800 it costs to build a house. The situation is much different later where the house has changed hands a number of times and where there must be an investigation of title. In that case a statutory fee is chargeable by legislation and that part of it is all right. In the City of Dublin where houses are being built in this way my experience has been that solicitors ask only the minimum charge on the site value and very often something less than the scale of fees, so I was absolutely shocked at the revelation which was made here last night by Deputies O'Sullivan and O'Grady and others. There is no conscience behind a charge of that particular type and in my view it is not right. The people concerned should avail of their legal remedies to have those costs taxed. They have that right and they should do so. I would suggest to the Minister that he should personally—or his officials could do it as we have not time to get down to a correct examination of the Bill—provide an amendment that stamp duty and costs will be in respect of the site value and not of the value of the house.

I would like to see more houses built by local authorities for sale under the Small Dwellings Act to tenants. In Marino, Donnycarney and elsewhere we have magnificent estates built by the corporation and sold or leased to tenants under the Small Dwellings Act 20 years ago and now most of those houses have been completely bought out by the tenants. Those areas are some of the wealthiest, most respectable and finest areas in the city, and I would ask that that should be encouraged by the building of houses by local authorities for sale to tenants under the Small Dwellings Act. It will probably be found in that instance that the deposit to be paid would probably be much less than even the 5 per cent. deposit mentioned in the Bill.

I think this opportunity should be availed of to provide protection for the tenants of corporation houses against unjust eviction. I am aware of one case where a tenant's child had a row with the caretaker on the 6th April last. The caretaker, before the court proceedings, wrote a letter to the corporation requesting that that family be evicted because of that assault. The court proceedings for assault were dismissed, but on the 14th, eight days afterwards, Dublin Corporation served a notice to quit on that family. They brought proceedings and the proceedings came before the district justice this morning and the district justice had no power except to grant a decree. I say that the executive machinery of the Dublin Corporation was not properly invoked in that case. That notice to quit was served by a minor official and not by the city manager. We know how the city runs and we know that, in view of the dates, 6th April and 14th April, in the way the Dublin Corporation is run, the matter should not have been dealt with in the way it was dealt with.

That family is now, under the justice's order this morning, to be evicted in seven days from that house. That is a scandalous thing. It is something the Minister would not stand over and which the city manager, if he were aware of the facts, would not stand over. No decent person could stand over it. I hope that, under this Bill, we will get a little protection and that, except in certain circumstances, like non-payment of rent, the local authority, corporation or county council will have to establish to the satisfaction of the justice its case for eviction. I will try to get an amendment to that effect into the Bill, and it will be law before this eviction takes place, because an appeal will be lodged for the purpose of holding it up.

I suggest that the Minister ought to consider the position of housing in Dublin. Unless there is a reorganisation of the machinery for the acquisition of sites and the building of houses, the number of houses we require in Dublin will not be built. I think there ought to be a housing board under the chairmanship of the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary to take over this huge job. We have to build about 20,000 houses, and, when they are built, they can be handed over to the Dublin Corporation to be administered by them; but the job is too big for the Corporation to deal with, and it is because it is too big that we are not progressing in the way we ought to progress.

Deputy Hickey has asked me to mention one point. Apparently a man employed by a local authority, such as an employee of the fire brigade, is not eligible for a grant for the reconstruction of a bungalow under the Bill. I ask the Minister to look into that, because I am sure that, if that is so, the Minister will put the Bill right in that regard. Deputy Hickey has already spoken, and cannot speak again, and I am mentioning the matter for him. I welcome the Bill and I hope that, even in the short time at our disposal, we will be able to do something to make it a better Bill before it leaves the House.

Mr. Gilbride

I will not start by congratulating the Minister but by wishing him luck and success in the work to which he has set his hand. I believe the Minister is sincere and I hope that anything I say will be a help in removing some of the obstacles which I know he has to face. I was struck last night by the appeal Deputy McCann made in connection with ground rents. Other Deputies, and especially Deputies from Dublin, made the same appeal about ground rents which are imposed by the landlords. I do not think we can complain in this respect. I am not taking the landlord's part but we cannot complain when our own local authorities are imposing the same ground rents. I was present at the opening of a number of houses in Sligo town a few days ago and I was amazed to find that there was a ground rent of £10 on these houses imposed by the corporation. Example is better than precept and, before we attack the landlords, we should set a good example. It is a shame that a corporation should impose a ground rent of £10 and I should like the Minister to look into that matter.

The statement has been made that the shortage of skilled labour is holding up our housing schemes. I would not have intervened in the debate at all were it not for the fact that this morning I was shown a letter by a Deputy who has spoken already in the debate, a letter from a tradesman who came to this city looking for work after reading about all the work that was available and all the tradesmen required. He went to different contractors and was told that he could not get work until he was two years in the union. I can have that letter given to the Minister, if he wishes. I am not saying that I believe that what is stated in that letter is a fact, but, if it is, it is a shame. I see in my own town—I am not blaming Labour because Labour are not responsible for it—the formation of a certain ring in order to cut out certain small contractors and steps being taken to see that no man is allowed into the Labour union in order to keep men from earning a decent livelihood. I am speaking as one who is concerned with Labour. I believe that Labour is entitled to proper organisation and that a properly organised Labour element is for the benefit of the people. That is why I make this statement and why I ask Labour leaders to look into this matter and to see to it that no men will be allowed to form a ring to keep out other men who are anxious to give a decent day's labour. If any Labour representative wants particulars of these cases, I am prepared to give them to him.

Mr. Davin

Give them to the Minister.

Mr. Gilbride

I will give them to the Minister, if he wishes. I will have this letter placed in his hands, together with the facts of the cases in Sligo. I am deeply concerned about these matters because they are doing more to hold up building and to give a bad name to the employers than anything else. I said recently in Sligo that I was concerned with the cost of houses to the labouring man, that, on the basis of the pay at present earned by the labouring man, he is not able to pay the rent which has to be charged for the houses we are able to build. That is a matter which will have to be tackled because you cannot expect a man earning from £3 to £4 a week to pay £1 a week rent. It is too high. I am not ashamed to say that it is something which should be tackled by the Government and that houses should be built which can be given to men of that class at a reasonable rent.

Most of this debate has been concerned with Dublin and most of the Deputies spoke about the need for houses in Dublin, so much so that I was nervous about intervening in the debate at all. The cure of any ill is the removal of the cause. There is a scarcity of houses in Dublin, but there is a scarcity of houses in the country, too, and the people in the country who are in need of houses see all this talk about the provision of houses in Dublin and they feel that nothing is being done—and, to a certain extent, they are right—to provide houses in the country. If you give a man a decent house, he will not leave it, and, if the Minister would concentrate more on providing houses in the country, there would not be the same demand for houses in the towns and cities. That, in my opinion, is the proper way to tackle the problem. When you concentrate on the provision of the tens of thousands of houses in Dublin about which we have heard, the people in the country say to themselves: "Why should we stay here? There are thousands of houses available in Dublin, so we will go there." Tackle the problem in the country. A lot of lip service is paid to the problem of the flight from the land but you are going the wrong way about dealing with it. Build the houses in the country and that will solve the problem. Then you will not have people flying into the towns and cities in order to get houses.

Mr. Hickey

That is a real breath of fresh air.

Mr. Gilbride

I wish the Minister luck in the work he is undertaking and I trust that he will go the right way about tackling it.

Mr. J. Flynn

I want at the outset to congratulate the Minister on this measure. I notice that vast improvement in various directions is proposed under the Bill. I have only one or two criticisms to make in regard to it.

In regard to the floor space, which is now 1,250 sq. ft., and which it is proposed to increase to 1,400 sq. ft., I suggest that that could be further increased. That matter has been a bone of contention in regard to housing grants in the past. Therefore I make the suggestion that the floor space should be further increased.

Some months ago I raised the question of grants being paid for the same house twice. I gave cases where people wanted to reconstruct houses for which reconstruction grants had been given 20 to 25 years ago. Under existing legislation, these people could not get a second reconstruction grant. I notice that under this Bill there is power to make a second reconstruction grant provided that at least 15 years have clapsed since the date of completion of the erection of the house or of the reconstruction in respect of which a grant was made. If I would be in order, I would put down an amendment that it would be at least 20 years.

Mr. Coburn

The Deputy misunderstands the section. I think the section is in his favour and meets his point better.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

An rud a scríobhann an buachaill léigheann sé féin é.

Mr. J. Flynn

There is another difficulty. Engineers recently rejected claims for reconstruction grants on the ground that the house was not fit for reconstruction. The workers who applied for the grant applied for the erection of an additional room. Simply because the house was not in good condition, the engineer reported that a reconstruction grant should not be given. I will refer to that matter again in the hope that there will be some way out of that difficulty. These people were advised by the Department to build a new house. They cannot afford to build a new house. Therefore, they have to remain as they were. If they were allowed to build a room on to the house to accommodate their families it would get them out of the difficulty, but great hardship would be imposed upon them by refusing a grant for that purpose on the ground that the house was not fit or not in conformity with the new instruction. I would like to get that point examined.

There is great difficulty in regard to the Small Dwellings Act and the question of loans. The question of cost and title has held up the Kerry County Council over a long period. There was a case the other day in the Killarney district where a man applied for a grant. His solicitor submitted details in regard to title. It appears that the man was a tenant on the Earl of Kenmare estate. They went so far as to ask for the Earl of Kenmare's title. That case was quoted by a member of the county council as one which required attention. It was uncalled for, in his opinion.

The question of legal costs is one of the major causes impeding the housing drive in this country in so far as small farmers are concerned. I notice that, for the purposes of a reconstruction grant, the maximum rateable valuation is increased to £50. I wonder could the Minister see his way to make that retrospective. Many applicants, in the past couple of years particularly, were deprived of the grant simply because the valuation of their house was 10/- or 20/- over the £35 valuation. Certainly it was a hardship on them to be deprived of the grant. I would be very grateful if something could be done in that regard.

The Kerry County Council put up a proposal to the Minister's Department some time ago for grants for labourers to build their own houses. I wonder if that can be done under this measure. The definition of "agricultural labourer" is referred to in this Bill, but I would like to point out that some time ago we received a circular from the Department in regard to the definition of "agricultural labourer" and it is somewhat restrictive. According to that circular, a man could not qualify for tenancy of a labourer's cottage unless he is actually working for a farmer or working on the land. At least, that is the interpretation put on the circular by the Kerry County Council. That is rather rigid and would exclude creamery workers, postmen and several other types of workers from being considered as eligible for tenancy of these houses. I would like to have that position clarified and, if necessary, to have the circular amended so that there would be no doubt so far as local authorities are concerned in regard to the interpretation of it. That circular was quoted recently at a meeting of the county council.

I would like to get permission from the Minister, if it is required, to hand in an amendment or two not later than Tuesday next. The Minister may see his way to accept an amendment to one or two of the provisions in this measure.

I realise that the Minister has tackled this Bill in the right way. In this one important measure he has tried to clarify and adjust the snags and legal difficulties that were left over under all previous Housing Acts with a view to simplifying legislation and enabling the people to avail of the grants of which they were deprived through some technicality or otherwise in the past. I congratulate him again on his efforts in this matter.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

It is a pity we have so little time to deal with this important measure. While I am not prepared to speak in the superlative, as the previous speaker did, at the same time I recognise and am glad to see that this measure contains some important extensions of the existing code of housing legislation. My approach to this matter is the same as that of Deputy Gilbride—the housing requirements in rural areas, and especially in so far as the problem affects villages and towns in the overwhelmingly rural constituency of West Limerick which I represent. I am glad to see the extensions that are provided for in this Bill—for instance, the increase in the valuation limit for reconstruction grants from £35 to £50. I hope that that is only the prelude to the removal of valuation limits and the extension of such reconstruction grants, particularly in rural areas, to other sections who have not been able to qualify for them up to the present. I should also like to see these reconstruction grants made available for people in small, urbanised towns. I know several small traders and shopkeepers in small urbanised towns who cannot afford to undergo the expense of reconstruction their houses—of adding, perhaps, a room, of raising the roof or of doing some other reconstruction work of that nature. The grant of £80 for reconstruction work will be a godsend, but I consider that the advantages of this scheme should be made available to these people also.

Another extension is the increase in the floor space limit from 1,250 square feet to 1,400 square feet. Why is it, particularly where houses in rural areas are concerned, that we are continuing to have this floor space limit at all? The amount of the grant made available for the erection of a new house is laid down specifically in the Act. Building materials are now much more plentiful than they were three or four years ago or six or eight years ago and, with the flow of supplies becoming normal again, why should any person, particularly in rural areas, who wishes to build a new house be limited to any particular floor space at all? The grant available is specified in the Act and the amount of the floor space of the house does not really matter except to the person who is building the house. I do not know why the matter of the removal of that limitation in regard to the floor area should not be seriously considered and the grant made available for anybody who wishes to build a new house, leaving the question of maximum floor space to the discretion of the individual concerned.

Another provision in this Bill which is certainly very desirable is that provision whereby a certificate of approval for a reconstruction grant can be issued after the work has started or even after it has been completed. That is a welcome and desirable extension. The matters to which I wish to refer are not really the provisions which are in the Bill but rather provisions which I should have liked to have seen included in it. I am not in a position to put down amendments to have these provisions inserted in the Bill because the Ceann Comhairle would rule me out of order. The only thing I can hope for is that the Minister will listen favourably to my suggestions and deal with them on the Committee Stage. In Section 16 of the Housing Act, 1948, and in the Second Schedule to that same Act, there is a provision whereby a special grant is made available for private persons erecting houses for their own occupation to enable them to install sewerage and running water facilities.

When that Act was before this House I made an unsuccessful plea to the then Minister, Deputy MacEntee, to extend that provision to all rural dwellers. I wanted it to cover all people whether they are building new houses or whether they are occupants of old houses. I wanted that grant in respect of the installation of sewerage and running water facilities made available to all people whether they live in old houses or not, just as it is available for those who are erecting new houses. Since then, a scheme has been announced by the Minister for Agriculture for the provision of running water in houses. I think the whole matter should be co-ordinated and I think that the Department of Local Government is the proper Department to deal with it, because it should be available, not only for farm houses but for every type of house in rural areas. The Minister should consider that matter seriously between now and the Report Stage and consider the insertion of an amendment in this Bill to that effect. As I say, I am particularly interested in rural areas and, anyhow, this matter does not arise very much in relation to urban areas, though it might arise in small towns and in certain urbanised towns. However, in most towns of any size provision is made for sewerage and running water facilities. The next matter I should like to see provided for in this measure also concerns rural dwellers. Again, I am in thorough agreement with Deputy Gilbride when he says that we must start this at the foundation and that if we make conditions right in the rural areas we shall not have the same problem in the towns and in the cities. The work of the provision of houses for agricultural workers, under the definition already provided in the Act, and the provision of houses in small towns and villages all over the country will be completed by the local authorities, as far as rural areas are concerned, within the next couple of years. However, there is another class of people in rural areas for whom I suggest the local authorities should make provision in the future: I have in mind small farmers living in congested conditions on what are practically uneconomic holdings in my constituency in West Limerick. Limerick is supposed to be the Golden Vale but there are places in parts of County Limerick, particularly on the western fringe, which are as congested as some of the most congested parts of the country.

The Minister is familiar with the conditions down there and he must, therefore, realise that the people on those little holdings are not in a position to tackle the problem of building new houses for themselves. This measure would be far more valuable if there were a provision in it whereby the local authorities would be enabled to tackle such building on the lines of the labourers' cottages scheme.

The position may be different with regard to rents and matters of that kind. I have come across recently certain rather pitiable cases of that nature where these smallholders are living under bad conditions. They cannot do anything for themselves, even with the generous provisions that are available to them now in the way of grants or loans. It is only right that the local authority and the State should come to the rescue in these cases.

These are the only matters to which I wish to refer. I am sorry we have had to wait so long for this measure and that we shall have to rush the discussion on it in the end. Anything relating to housing is of the utmost importance to rural Deputies.

I listened to a lot of talk about the position in Dublin. It is admitted that the Dublin Deputies have a very serious problem to face in the solution of their housing difficulties. In this connection the opinion of somebody who is outside that problem altogether and whose interests are completely rural, might be of some value. The opinion I have, and it is the opinion of many others, is that the continued growth of Dublin is becoming a national menace. In the development of housing in the future the question of the desirability of further extensions, pushing the city out further and further into the country, will have to be very carefully considered.

Consideration might be given to some development of the central portion of the city from the point of view of the erection of flats. Work in that direction has already been undertaken, and I must say that a very fine type of work has already been done. I do not know the names of the streets or the areas of the city, but I have seen blocks of flats erected within the past 15 years in various parts of central Dublin, and I suggest that that is a type of development that should be continued more and more. The extension of the city should be stopped in so far as it is possible to stop it, because it is really becoming menacing from the point of view of the interests of the country as a whole. At the moment it is lop-sided, overloaded, over-populated. That is the type of city that is developing at the expense of the country population.

For what it is worth I make that suggestion. In making it I am not at all anxious to interfere with Deputies who have a more direct interest in the city. It is said that fools step in where angels fear to tread. I am merely speaking as a country Deputy and I say that in the interests of the country as a whole this question of the further extension of the City of Dublin will have to be very carefully examined.

The Minister is more lucky than his immediate predecessor. He found when he came into office that the machine was ready and geared up for this important work that he is now continuing. We did not find that when we started in 1932. The machine had to be created at that time, it had to be built up and there is no excuse now for any slackness or any delay in pushing ahead with this important work.

I am sure we all wish the Minister God speed, and any help he may be anxious for from these benches in the solution of this highly-important problem in which we displayed so much interest when our Party was in office, will be given; whatever assistance and co-operation the Minister wants from us it will be willingly forthcoming.

Mr. Keyes

I must say I am thankful for the generous reception that has been accorded to this measure by Deputies on all sides of the House. They seem generally to appreciate the measure for what it is. It is really nothing more or less than a genuine attempt to remedy certain deficiencies or flaws which showed themselves in the course of the operation of earlier legislation. The Act of 1948 was by no means an ungenerous Act, and I think it will be agreed that that measure has contributed considerably to the solution of the problem both from the point of view of houses built privately or houses erected by public authorities.

Like most other things in this world, it is not perhaps the perfect machine, and I do not suppose that this measure, when it is completed, will be regarded as the perfect machine; but it is at least a genuine effort on our part to make good the chinks and the flaws that have existed in earlier Acts and to bring certain facilities from the point of view of housing within the reach of the people. The scope has been widened in certain respects and we have endeavoured to cater for classes who were not covered by previous measures.

Deputy MacEntee started the debate on behalf of the Opposition. Unfortunately, he made a point of harking back to a lot of petty little matters that I was hoping we had departed from. I do not want any glorification for what has been or what is being done by this administration, nor am I anxious to hear any recriminations in relation to what was done by the last administration. I have expressed the wish, and I was very glad to hear Deputy Traynor repeating it, that this matter ought really to be treated as a national matter requiring unified effort. These small petty things to which Deputy MacEntee referred, this harking back to what we did and what somebody else did, who did this and who did that and who shot Cock Robin —all that type of thing is not in the interests of a housing drive.

The Deputy specifically reiterated statements claiming that the results achieved with the local authority housing campaign are the fruits of the preparatory work that was done by the Fianna Fáil Government. He pointed out that if it had not been for what was done in his Government's time there would not be very much progress made either in Dublin or in other parts of the country. The Deputy specifically mentioned Dublin City. I will give some figures which no doubt will be of some interest in this connection. So far as Dublin City is concerned the sites in possession of the corporation in November, 1947, num bered 8,155; the houses built since November, 1947, numbered 2,838; there are 3,631 houses now being built and 5,734 new sites have been acquired. That makes a total of 12,203. It might be well to note that more than 4,000 sites have been acquired by the Dublin Corporation since November, 1947.

As regards the whole country, including Dublin, the sites in possession of local authorities in November, 1947, totalled 17,620; the houses built since then numbered 8,571; there are now being built 10,586 houses, and the new sites now acquired total 15,136. Thus nearly 17,000 sites have been acquired in all areas since 1947; that is, sites for one quarter of the total local authority housing programmes. I want to deprecate the continuous harking back by Deputies such as Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Butler. Deputy Butler was merely re-echoing his master's voice. Both Deputies repeatedly told us that if it had not been for the preparatory work carried out by their Government we might not have made a start at all. The fact is that everyone is doing his bit in connection with this housing drive and those Deputies should abandon their childish by-play.

Deputy MacEntee described this Bill as a puny measure. I resent that description. It is a very unfair description of what is really a genuine effort to improve the housing code as we found it. This is not by any means a puny measure; it cannot be so regarded. It is a measure that will vitally affect all sections of the community. In this matter we are taking a big outlook and I must stress that it is not a puny measure. It is taking down many of the barriers, many of the demesne walls in the country. It cannot be considered a puny measure that will make available to our local authorities opportunities to build houses for many types of people who were excluded from the operations of the housing code up to now. There is nothing puny in altering the rent restrictions as we are altering them to the advantage of people who will try to avail of our housing legislation. Neither is it puny if it makes it possible for people to get their houses more easily now, by going round if they wish with the grant in their pockets and buying from a builder without having to go through the old form of contract.

These things cannot be regarded as puny and remarks of that type coming from an ex-Minister like Deputy MacEntee do not tend to constitute a good advertisement for this Bill—but I believe it will advertise itself anyhow. I think the Deputy would have been better advised if he had done the big and the decent thing and avoided coming in with that puny note of his in relation to a Bill that is not puny at all.

There were several very interesting points raised by other Deputies and these will receive serious consideration between now and the Committee Stage. For instance, Deputy McCann and other Deputies raised some interesting points in relation to finance. I will say that if the financial provisions are not secure, then this Bill and the Bill we are working on will have no force, because if finance is not available, there is no use in talking about housing.

So far as the Dublin Corporation are concerned, Deputy McCann must be aware of the discussions that the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, other members of the Cabinet and myself have had with the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Chairman of the Dublin Housing Board and members of the Finance Committee of the Dublin Corporation. Quite recently it was referred to by Deputy Byrne and others. There was a perfectly satisfactory financial arrangement agreed to and the Lord Mayor and others felt quite satisfied that no barrier would be allowed to stand in the way financially of the Dublin Corporation or the country. The money was provided on the best terms possible.

I was asked by Deputy McCann to give some assurance as to the cost of repayment 15 years hence. I could not make any prophecy, financial or political, in that way. No one could tell the rate of interest 15 years hence. The Dublin Corporation were asking to have the money guaranteed for five years in advance. The money of the State is not guaranteed for five years, as we work only from year to year; but an assurance was given in the most unequivocal terms by the Taoiseach that the solvency of the country would be behind the corporation in their housing drive. It has not hampered or hindered the corporation in their work. They have planned their sites and schemes in the knowledge that they will not be held up for want of money.

On retrospection, this is a wide question in which I could not offer an open door. There is a certain amount of retrospection in the Bill, but complete retrospection would be administratively impossible, apart from the financial aspects of it. There are certain retrospective elements where we go back to 1947, but I could not go a further distance and give complete retrospection under all circumstances. There must be limits to the scope of every measure.

Deputy McCann said that Dublin would want more finances when the Bill becomes law. It may not be a question of more finance but of speedier finance. Apart from the general guarantee of money being made available under the security of the Government, we will be introducing a new Housing Bill, making an alteration in the terms of the financing of housing, inside 12 months. That is not saying whether I am going to give more money or not. It is a merging of the T.D.F. and the subsidy. This new form of financing housing will be introduced inside 12 months.

Deputy McCann and others spoke on the landowners' racket—the best word to describe it, from the evidence adduced in this House. Local authorities will have the right of compulsory acquisition and of having matters dealt with by arbitration. That in itself will be one break upon it. The other serious aspect of the question is the very heavy legal costs which have been cited in this House and which we are all aware of in the country. We have already arranged to meet the Incorporated Law Society in the near future to deal with that matter. Having regard to what has been said in this House and to the steps we are taking, we hope to put an end to the grave abuse and the hardship on the people who want to buy or build houses.

Deputy McGrath spoke of urban authorities providing houses for the working classes. He was worried as to the distinction between urban and rural. The urban authorities provide houses for the working classes, the meaning of which has not been defined. The rural authorities provide them for the agricultural labourers, the meaning of which has been defined and has been frequently extended but is still limited. The position under the Bill will be that the urban authorities can provide for the working classes and such others as they see fit, while rural authorities can provide in the same way as urbans. The existing priorities for subsidy and T.D.F. will remain and will not apply to Section 16 houses, which will get nothing but an amount equal to the private grant.

That means widening the scope and extent of operation of local authorities, and will leave it open to the local authorities to make further provision for agricultural labourers and others. We are making provision now for Guards, soldiers and local officials. These were barred before because of their pensionable employment. That is all wiped out.

Deputy Flynn spoke of the limitations on letting under the 1948 Act. The Bill is intended to meet the points the Deputy raised. Apart from that, we have issued a second circular, arising from the Wexford worker incident. There has been some confusion about the priorities. The term agricultural labourer is a very wide definition, but the first priority for agricultural worker is accorded to the man who works on the land, if he happens to have the same set of circumstances in family numbers and bad housing accommodation. He would get priority over the man similarly situated who was a road worker. That has been put in a special circular issued as a result of the decision given at Wexford.

On the question of the reasonable cost of building and how it is to be de termined, my own suggestion is that a quantity surveyor employed by the local authority would be perfectly competent to say, even in advance from the plans, what should be the reasonable cost of the houses. We must leave it to the local authorities who will get the moneys under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. They must have the right to say. The appointment by local authorities of quantity surveyors will enable them to ascertain the cost of the houses. They can then relate their loan to the cost, apart from the market value—which caused such a wide divergence in the past. We tried to bridge the gap which existed before. We have reduced the deposit to £50. In doing that, I believe I am going to tap a new source of people and get them to build their own houses. That will ease the burden on local authority housing. Many people who have a fixed income and living up to it under a heavy rent would find difficulty in putting down £100, but the new £50 mark means that they will be giving a sufficient guarantee of good faith, as good as that of others who would put down £100. We will thus widen the scope of those who are determined to own their houses. The more we can bring in in that way, such as clerical employees and others, putting down the £50 and getting houses built for themselves, the more we will cheapen houses for local authority housing and do benefit to the nation as a whole.

Deputy O'Sullivan spoke on the legal costs. We are dealing with that in the best way we can. It does call for attention and we hope to remedy the difficulty.

Deputy Briscoe spoke of ground rents. Departments or local authorities cannot exercise any direct control on that, but we hope that the exercise by the local authorities of the powers given to them by Section 16 to acquire sites for private persons will be utilised to the maximum and to such an extent as to prevent exploitation.

On the matter of utilising the combined purchasing system, it would be desirable to do that if it were possible. A certain amount can be done by having people grouped in utility societies. We will look into the point and if advantage can be taken of bulk purchasing it will not be overlooked.

On the Howth drainage question, Deputy Briscoe has accurately described the position as we know it.

Mr. Briscoe

I hope Deputy Cowan heard that.

Mr. Keyes

Deputy Briscoe said that stamp duty is a heavy item in the cost of house purchase. Under Section 27 it can be included in the loan.

Mr. Briscoe

I want to have it remitted altogether.

Mr. Keyes

Deputy Mrs. Crowley spoke of the reconstruction grants for vested cottages. I still think that Section 8 is the best form of that. Under Section 8 provision is made for the second grant. Sub-section (2) says:—

"A grant in accordance with this section may be made only in respect of the construction of a new roof or the provision of additional accommodation which involves an increase in the total floor area of the house and which, in the opinion of the Minister, will relieve overcrowding in the house."

I think that is far enough to go in this matter.

Deputy Dunne expressed some concern about Section 21. He need not have had any anxiety about the classes he mentioned. We are giving the county councils a whole new code and all classes of persons mentioned will be included.

Mr. McGrath

Gardaí and soldiers?

Mr. Keyes

Yes.

Mr. Davin

Are teachers included?

Mr. Keyes

Yes. Deputy Beegan spoke on the country slum question. The existing system of grants is being proportionately availed of in the congested districts. The matter can be further considered by the 31st March, 1952, but so far there has been a heartening response from the congested districts for those grants. He feared the same injustice might take place under Section 16. The persons from whom land is to be acquired will have rights of appeal to the Minister against an order of the local authority. The position is sufficiently protected at present. In the case of a person who may have a couple of cows providing milk in a particular district, that must be taken into account. The matter can be decided in equity and the citizen has every protection that could be provided.

Mr. McGrath

They were overlooked in some instances.

Mr. Keyes

Deputy Traynor spoke on the same thing. I can assure him there will be no arbitrary use of those powers. In the case where the acquiring of a site would cause grave hardship on the owner and perhaps loss to people locally, as in the case of milk, the local authority may have to go out further to look for sites. Deputy Traynor also was afraid there would be an invasion of sportsfields. He is pushing an open door there, as we believe in the provision of ample playgrounds and we have specified lungs for the city in that respect and we would be slow to allow any unnecessary infringement upon any sports grounds.

Deputy Burke says housing should be treated as a national problem. It is news to me that it is not being so treated. We have it operating nationally, through the representatives in the Dáil and the local representatives in county councils. I do not think it could be a more national drive than it is. The Deputy also wants the £50 valuation increased. When Deputy MacEntee was putting his measure through, raising it from £25 to £35, I asked him to make it £45. He said that if he did someone else would want him to make it £50. I have made it £50 and now someone wants it increased.

Mr. Boland

The £ is only worth 10/-.

Mr. Keyes

This will include 90 per cent. of the farmers in the country.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

It would be just as well to include the other 10 per cent.

Mr. Keyes

This measure has been the result of very careful study and a genuine attempt to improve the housing situation and give wider scope to the people to obtain their own houses. It does not mean 100 per cent. perfection—nothing could be that—but it will mark a big improvement and the extended scope will I hope result in helping the Government in time to speed up the housing drive so as to bring it nearer to solution.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister did not refer to my point about making it retrospective.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister did.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Will the Minister consider extension of the grant for sewerage and water to houses in rural areas?

Mr. Keyes

This is not the appropriate Bill for that, as it would deal with sanitary services.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

It would mean an extension of Section 16 of the 1948 Act. Perhaps the Minister would look into it between now and the Report Stage.

Mr. Keyes

I have not specified any definite date. There is a retrospective clause in regard to houses started after 1947 and completed before 1952 which have not been occupied. But there could be a different interpretation about dates that would leave it wide open.

Mr. Byrne

I mentioned one man who has signed a contract in the last three months to purchase a house that had been started, and he will be knocked out.

Mr. Keyes

The section states the only date. I am not quoting any date other than what is in the Bill at the moment.

Mr. Byrne

There are good officials beside you who might be able to clear the matter up.

An Ceann Comhairle

There are no officials in this House.

Mr. Byrne

About 200 people purchased houses at the beginning of the year, which are not yet completed. They signed contracts without any knowledge of this grant. Will the Minister now make the payment of the grant retrospective?

Question put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

Mr. Derrig

I suppose a certain latitude will be given in relation to amendments.

Mr. Boland

There was provision made in the arrangements that it might be on Tuesday week.

Mr. Sweetman

Yes, but it can be ordered for Thursday. In case it is not reached then, we will say Tuesday.

An Ceann Comhairle

Provisionally then for Thursday.

Captain Cowan

Will amendments be accepted up to Wednesday night, because the amendments I wish to put in are intricate and difficult?

An Ceann Comhairle

Mid-day on Wednesday at the latest, because the Department will have to see them, too.

Captain Cowan

It would be better to take the Committee Stage on Thursday, in case the Minister might have to bring in some amendments on the Report Stage.

Mr. Boland

That depends on our time-table.

Mr. Little

It can be done in the Seanad.

Mr. Boland

You will find the time taken by the other side is working out greater than ours.

An Ceann Comhairle

They will have no time left.

Mr. Boland

There is no reason why we could not meet on the Wednesday also of the following week, if necessary.

Mr. Sweetman

It can be ordered provisionally for Thursday and then we can see how we stand.

An Ceann Comhairle

Ordered provisionally for Thursday until we see how things are going.

Agreed to take Committee Stage on Thursday, 13th July, 1950.