Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Feb 1927

Vol. 8 No. 7

PUBLIC BUSINESS. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1926—MESSAGE FROM THE DAIL.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The Dáil has sent the following Message:—

"The Dáil has agreed to amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 made by the Seanad to the Local Government Bill, 1926, and it has disagreed to amendment No. 8."

Before the House takes up the consideration of the particular matter involved in this Bill, there are certain events that make it essential, in my opinion, that I should remind the House of what actually happened in connection with this particular Bill. I do so for two reasons: First, because I think it would be to the advantage of those members of the House who had not followed, very closely, the discussion, or those who may have been absent during the discussion of the actual procedure during the progress of this Bill in the Seanad. I do it, also, for another reason, and that is because I desire to call attention to what I consider to have been not only an unprecedented but an entirely unconstitutional attitude taken up by certain members of the Government in regard to the action of the Seanad in this matter.

The Bill came before this House on Committee Stage on the second of February. The first important discussion arose upon Senator Linehan's amendment to Clause 6. Senator Linehan moved to delete sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 6 of the Bill. There was a debate upon that motion of Senator Linehan, and in the result his amendment was carried. I will have to refer to that a little later on. Then arose a question on Section 11 of the Bill. Section 11 was stated by the Minister, and I think very properly, to be the vital section of the Bill. He explained that the object of the section was to amend Section 69 of the Act of 1925. Section 69 of the Act of 1925 gave a certain remission in rates on buildings which were erected or improved after the first of April, 1920, and completed before the 1st April, 1927. It gave, in respect of those houses, a relief as of one-third of the increased valuation for a period of seven years. There were two defects in that section of the Act of 1925, as developed by experience. In the first place, as it was confined to premises completed before the 1st of April, 1927, and as it did not pass until 1925, it only allowed two years for the section to operate. That was the first effect.

In the next place the allowance of the remission of rates of one-third of that new valuation might, I believe, and would, I believe, in some cases have resulted in loss of rates to the rating authority, and, to meet that, the Act of 1925 had practically decided that in the case of improvement as distinct from erection the Minister would reject any claims for relief unless the increase of valuation was at least 100 per cent. In operation, as the Minister himself said, that worked out unfairly and harshly in many cases and, accordingly, that was the second defect that Section 11 in the Minister's Bill as introduced into this House was intended to cover. It amended the first defect by extending the date from the 1st of April, 1927, to the 1st of April, 1930, that is to say, it allowed five years instead of two in which the Act could operate, but it left the other defect, that is, the defect which excluded practically all improved buildings save in case where the increase of the valuation was up to 100 per cent. without remedy.

Senator Brown applied his intelligence and experience to the matter with the result that he produced an alternative section to Section 11 in the Minister's Bill. First of all he proposed by that new section to extend the period from the 1st of April, 1930, to the 31st of October, 1930, the effect of which would be to include the summer of that year when, of course, building operations are brisker than in the winter. Then as regards the increase of valuation he applied that section to any increase of valuation, consequent upon erection or improvement, and he reduced the amount of the new valuation which was to be taken into account for the purpose of remission of rates to two-thirds of the total, and in that way, by an automatic rule, his proposal practically deprived the Minister of the power of leaving out certain cases because they did not come up to a certain percentage of the increased valuation. He substituted for the Minister's decision an automatic rule which would apply in all cases.

Now, this section of Senator Brown's was unanimously adopted by this House and the Minister himself expressed his approval of it, and, I may say, that in asking the consent of the Dáil to it he said it was undoubtedly a very substantial improvement to his Bill. I mention this for the purpose of showing the care and the trouble that the Seanad took in regard to this particular Bill.

But now I come to the material stage in this matter. Senator Farren in the debate on Senator Brown's amendment, having an amendment down of his own to Section 11, which Senator Brown was displacing—Senator Farren naturally asked what was to become of his own amendment under the terms of Senator Brown's new section. Senator Farren's amendment was intended to include in the benefits of this new section houses erected under facilities afforded by the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. He made a statement, not exhaustive, but a clear statement at the time, as to the grounds upon which he supported this proposal. He did so in very persuasive and very fair and moderate terms, and I think he undoubtedly impressed the House. He pointed out that Senator Brown's new section included the sub-section of the old Section 11, to which he (Senator Farren) objected, and which he sought to have amended, and after some discussion I made a suggestion to Senator Farren with which he at once loyally fell in. But first I would like to call the attention of the House to what that suggestion was. This is what I said:—

"In regard to the important point Senator Farren has raised with reference to the Housing of the Working Classes it might be desirable to let it stand over for the Report Stage so that the Minister might look into it, because it is not very easy to arrive at a decision on a matter of this kind off-hand. Perhaps the House would be satisfied if the Minister looked into it in the meantime."

Senator Farren at once said that he was quite prepared to accede to that, and I added this so that there might be no mistake about it:—

"It is understood that the Government will look into and consider before the Report Stage this question, and, of course, Senator Farren will be at liberty to put down any amendment he may consider proper for that stage."

Now, so much for the 2nd February. The House met on the following day to take up this Bill on Report. At the outset Senator Linehan moved to delete sub-section (4) in Section 6. This was the same section from which he had already persuaded the Committee to delete sub-sections (5) and (6) and on Report Stage he moved to delete sub-section (4). His amendment was fully debated and was defeated. I then called the attention of the House to the position they were in. They had already deleted sub-sections (5) and (6) of the same section.

They refused to delete sub-section (4) which was part and parcel of the same machinery, and which had no sense or meaning left in it once you had got rid of sub-sections (5) and (6). Thereupon I suggested to the House that if they were not prepared to delete, on Senator Linehan's suggestion, sub-section (4), they might think it desirable to go back on what they had already done in Committee Stage, when they deleted sub-sections (5) and (6), because I pointed out to them the inconsistency of deleting two of the material sub-sections and refusing to delete another sub-section that depended on the operation of the two sub-sections deleted. I then suggested that perhaps the Minister might be allowed to have an amendment moved for the restoration of the two sub-sections deleted. I may mention the Minister did not take advantage of the power he had of giving notice for that purpose, and therefore he was not in a position then to do it Why he had not taken advantage of his power to do so I do not know, but he was not in a position to do it without the leave of the House, and the House was manifestly against leave being given when I put it to them. The House was then left in the difficulty that it had deleted two sub-sections of one section and refused to delete another. And accordingly, on the motion of Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde, it was agreed that the Bill should be recommitted for the purposes of Section 6.

Then we came to Senator Farren's amendment, which he was moving in accordance with the authority he got on the previous day. He went very fully into it again. He quoted a variety of figures in support of his contention that those houses erected under all those housing schemes should stand on the same basis as regards remission of rates as houses erected under utility schemes and matters of that kind. On this debate there was a very remarkable discrepancy between the figures supplied by Senator Farren and those suggested by the Minister. I want to be very particular and precise in my statement about this, and therefore I will refer again to the amendment moved by Senator Farren. I give it in his own words:—

Sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Principal Act shall be amended by the deletion of the words "Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1919," and the sub-section as so amended shall apply as from the passing of this Act to any house erected under the aforesaid Acts."

The debate proceeded and, as I said, there was a very considerable difference of opinion between the Minister and the Senator, as to the exact figures in connection with the cost of erection of these various buildings erected under these various schemes.

In the result I again suggested to Senator Farren that as we were recommitting the Bill for the purposes of Section 6, it would be well in view of the controversy that had arisen to recommit it for the purposes of Section 11. Again Senator Farren at once complied. I emphasise this for the purpose of showing how willing the Senator was that every opportunity should be afforded to the House and to the Minister for considering and studying the effect and the nature of his amendment. Accordingly it was agreed that the particular sub-section he dealt with should be also re-committed. The re-committal stage came on the following Wednesday, that is, after an interval of six days, and on the re-committal stage, Senator Farren's amendment was again very elaborately and very fully debated, with the result that in the end it was adopted. It was adopted by this House.

I now pass to what happened afterwards and I confess I do so with very great regret, but, nevertheless, having regard to the reputation of members as well as the dignity of the House it is impossible for me to ignore what took place in the other House when this Bill went down before them. There is an unwritten, sometimes a written, rule of every Parliament in the world, that I have ever heard or ever read of, that as between the two Houses the utmost courtesy is to be observed by members of the one House towards members of the other House, and more particularly towards the House as a whole. I need not quote authorities on that point. Anyone who is interested in it will find them fully dealt with and exposed in May's "Parliamentary Practice" and Bourinot's "Works on the Procedure of the Parliaments in Canada." The House may take it from me that the result is that it is well settled Parliamentary usage and constitutional practice that no member of either House—and that includes Ministers as well as ordinary private members—is entitled or is at liberty to impute improper or discreditable motives to any member of either House, and, above all, he is not entitled to attribute discreditable motives or reflect on the actions of either House as a whole.

When that Bill came before the Dáil the Minister in charge of the Bill took an extraordinary course. He asked the Dáil to agree to Senator Farren's amendment, but stated that he asked them to agree to it on the express ground that the amendment was so faulty in its drafting that it would defeat the very object Senator Farren had and therefore it would be no harm to the Dáil to insert it. In other words, he asked the Dáil to pillory the Seanad by putting on the Statute Book an amendment passed through the Seanad, which, according to him, defeated its own purpose and object. I confess I do not understand the action of the Minister in that respect, more particularly as he was present on the 2nd February, on 3rd February and on the 9th February. Never once had he suggested on any one of those days throughout the entire course of the debate until this Bill left the Seanad, that there was the slightest defect in Senator Farren's amendment. When challenged about that by a Deputy in the other House he stated that he had only himself discovered the nature of the defect the night before.

Now, let us see what the position was. A Senator in this House, in moving an amendment, had to depend entirely upon himself. We have no Attorney-General; we have no draftsman; we have no counsel to advise members of the House; we have no expert department, but the Minister had all the resources of an expert staff. He had his own experience as Minister of Local Government; he had the Attorney-General to fall back upon if he wished. With all these resources at his disposal he never knew or noticed when the Bill was going through this House that there was any defect or deformity in Senator Farren's amendment. I am not suggesting for a moment that that is to the discredit of the Minister.

Even in the best-regulated Governments mistakes of this kind must inevitably occur, but when I come to read of the terms in which the action of this House was described by the President of the Executive Council in the Dáil, you will realise, I think, that he might have reflected on the imputation he was casting on his own colleague and on the various other Departments of the Government, because if a defect of this kind in an amendment drawn up by a private member in this House without assistance escaped the ingenuity and the intelligence of the Minister and his Department, it is hardly to be wondered at that Senator Farren had fallen into error. I do not say he did; that remains to be seen, but I am assuming for the moment that he did.

How did the President of the Executive Council deal with the action of the Seanad in passing this amendment? I am very glad the President is here, and I would have greatly preferred that he made this attack on the Seanad in the Seanad itself where we would be in a position to answer him. We are not represented in the Dáil and have no power of defending ourselves there, consequently I am glad he is here to-day. I shall now read what he said:—

"I think it will not require very much study on anyone's part to realise the close proximity of an election in this amendment... This is a fool amendment, and it reflects no credit on the Seanad to send down an amendment of that sort... As I have said, it is the close proximity of the election—the fervid haste with which members of the Seanad sought to buy votes, because it is little short of that—that has resulted in the amendment being put down in that form. A certain well-known man rubbed his hands and said: ‘That is 2,000 votes as soon as it is passed.' That is not the way to do public business, and I hope, at any rate, that we will agree on one thing, and that is that issues should be put straight and fair."

Later on he goes back to the charge again and he says:—

"This is a fool amendment. It is no credit to the Seanad to send it down. I for one object to our Statute Book having such a discreditable sub-section in an Act of Parliament."

I say, with all respect to the President, that each and every one of these observations were unparliamentary and unconstitutional, and a distinct breach of the privileges of this House. There is no ambiguity about the language. It comes to this, that this House, after a particular, member has moved an amendment which the House passed, is influenced by a desire to buy votes.

The PRESIDENT

That is not stated there.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Yes, I beg your pardon.

The PRESIDENT

Let there be no mistake about it.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I will read it again: The fervid haste is not confined to the Senator.

The PRESIDENT

Is it not?

CATHAOIRLEACH

As I said: Its close proximity to the General Election and the fervid haste by which members of the Seanad sought to buy votes.

The PRESIDENT

All the members of the Seanad are not mentioned.

CATHAOIRLEACH

"Sought to buy votes."

The PRESIDENT

I have the proof of it here.

CATHAOIRLEACH

That may develop. The only proof you gave before the Dáil was this, that some person, presumably in the Strangers' Gallery—it does not say that it was a member of the Seanad—was heard to say: "That means two thousand votes." That is the only particle of reference mentioned before the Dáil to that very strong indictment against the reputation and character of this House. I am not concerned with the vindication of Senator Farren in this matter. He is quite competent to look after himself. This much I will say, he has been a member of this House from the very first, as I have been. He is a man who has strong views on many subjects, and gives utterance to them, fearlessly and strongly but, during my personal experience, I can frankly say— and I believe I have the concurrence of the whole House—that he is incapable of doing anything indirect or mean, a suggestion such as is indicated here. This in itself is a reflection on the Seanad, and the matter seems to me to be one of great gravity. I again repeat that if there is any principle in our constitutional practice and usage which has been settled, as a result of centuries, it is, that no member of either House is entitled to impute discreditable motives to any member, either of his own House or of the other House.

It is impossible to read the statement that the President made in this connection without coming to the conclusion that he was indicting the action, not of particular Senators, but the Seanad as a whole. What was his objection to the amendment that formed the subject matter of this grave indictment against the House? First of all, that there was a clerical inaccuracy in it; that the dates of the Acts instead of being 1883 to 1919 should be 1890 to 1919. All I can say is this, that on repeated occasions in this House, at the very final stage of a Bill that has gone through all stages in the other House and here, Ministers come in to change a mistake in the date or in a quotation or reference to a statute. That constantly occurs. The next point was that the amendment would defeat itself and, as drafted, would exclude all houses from the benefit of the omission. The Minister may be right or wrong in that. I pronounce no opinion. The House will have to deal with that later. Assuming that that was correct, what justification rested in that for an attack on this House?

In this House attention has been called over and over again by members to inconsistency and discrepancy in drafting which makes a section in a Bill passed through the other House illogical and inconsequential. They have been frequently admitted by the Minister in charge, and he has changed them as a result of amendments moved in this House. May I give one remarkable illustration of that which occurred in this very Bill? Sub-clause (6) of Section 6 which was one of the clauses deleted on the motion of Senator Linehan, is absolutely unintelligible. Sub-clause (5) says that the agricultural grant is to be divided in the county over various charges, but sub-clause (6) says if there is any deficiency in certain respects the agricultural grant is to make it good. Senator Bennett called attention to the apparent inconsistency, and pointed out that the agricultural grant was exhausted in sub-section (5), but was fallen back upon for other purposes in sub-section (6). He said the thing was ridiculous. The Minister was apparently unable to offer an explanation, and said he had none when appealed to. He said it was the drafting. Mark you, that is a section which had gone through the other House, passed members, draftsmen, the Executive Council, the Minister and his staff. Its inconsequential nature was never noticed until it reached this House. Let no one misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that this is to the discredit of the Minister or of the Dáil. These things inevitably will happen in the way we have to do our business in the present stress of legislation. The wonder to me is that these things happen so seldom. I think it is a great credit to the various Departments, and particularly to the draftsman, that matters of this kind so seldom occur. It is remarkable that this House is pilloried in this way because one member moved an amendment which the President thought defective in drafting, and that it should be made the subject-matter of founding a general charge of stupidity, impropriety, and false motives on the part of the Seanad as a whole.

The PRESIDENT

That was not stated.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I am glad to hear the Minister say now, and I accept the assurance, that it was never intended that his remarks could apply to the Seanad as a whole. I can only say that many of the members of the Seanad have spoken to me in terms of strong indignation on the subject. Speaking for myself, I thought it my bounden duty to call attention to it here, as I do not think Ministers have any cause of complaint that they have been treated unjustly in this House, and least of all the President or the Minister for Local Government. I may also say in addition that I have invariably found the President both courteous and considerate when he attends in this House. I never heard him utter one word calculated to discredit it and, for that reason, I was all the more surprised to find that in the other House he had taken the opportunity of saying what he did—I will not say now of the entire House, but of certain members. It is quite obvious that what attacks the reputation and honesty of certain members is a reflection on the House itself.

I pass from that. It is with regret I said what I have said, but I thought it my duty, in the interests of the reputation and dignity of this House and of its members, to do so. I only express the hope that if the House is satisfied with what I have said in its vindication, subject to what Senator Farren has to say, as he is entitled, in his vindication, it will leave the matter where it is, and not embitter it with further controversy. Certainly, I could not leave the matter where it stood without recording my strong and emphatic protest. I want the House to consider and to know what their powers are in relation to the position that at present exists. The Dáil has disagreed with your amendment which has now come back. I make no suggestion as to how the House is to deal with that position. That is a matter for Senators. It does not concern me, and it would be outside my province to make any suggestion. I state my own views. I want to explain to the Seanad what its powers are. It can either agree with the disagreement; either accept what has been done, or adhere to the amendment, or, as a third course, if the Senator is satisfied that his amendment is defective and does not carry out what he proposes, it is open to him to move a fresh amendment. If the House adopts that view it can be sent back to the Dáil. No new amendment can be introduced that is not relevant to this particular amendment.

Dr. GOGARTY

Before indulging in the ennobling sentiment of indignation, I would like to know what harm there is in vote catching?

CATHAOIRLEACH

That is not the point. To say that you are introducing an amendment for the sole purpose of buying votes is a direct impeachment of corruption; to say that this House has made a fool of itself is to attribute discredit to the House; to say that it put a discreditable amendment on the Statute Book is a distinct reproach to the House, and a suggestion of impropriety or misconduct. There is not one of the observations I have read that does not, in my opinion, come within the very precise and drastic provisions of practice that prevail in all parliaments, which prohibits the suggestion of indirect motives or attempts to discredit any member of either House.

Dr. GOGARTY

As part of the House I could not feel guilty of this discreditable implication, and I want to know exactly why we all should feel connected with this corrupt practice? Certainly I was present during the full debate, and Senator Farren upset the Minister's figures as regards the price of labourers' cottages. Naturally, as a Labour representative in this House— although none of us are interested in buying votes—it must be a certain amount of satisfaction to him to have shown his vigilance in the interest of the labouring people who live in those houses. I think buying votes might be a figure of speech. Anyone could say the amendment was incorrectly dated.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The Senator can see nothing disparaging in the observations I have quoted; that is a matter for him. I cannot persuade him.

Mr. O'FARRELL

The Senator has given some justification, by his remarks, for the statement that this is a "fool" House.

The PRESIDENT

I do not intend to defend any statement I made in the other House in this House, and I have nothing to withdraw from what I said.

Dr. GOGARTY

I want to explain that when my references to labourers activities were made I did not intend to say that the House was foolish thereby.

CATHAOIRLEACH

The matter before the House is what course the Seanad will take with regard to the Message received from the Dáil stating that they disagree with the amendment inserted in this House.

Mr. FARREN

At the outset I must apologise to the House for innocently being the cause of the trouble which the Cathaoirleach has referred to to-day. The Cathaoirleach referred to the statement made by the President and the Minister, and I think he has done it much more ably than I could have done it. With regard to the statement made that the close proximity of the election was responsible for the amendment I moved, and that it was an endeavour to buy votes, I want to give that a flat contradiction. I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that on the 20th February, 1925, when the principle of rate remission was first introduced, on the Report Stage of the Local Government Bill, I then made the claim I made in the amendment which I moved to the present Local Government Bill. If Senators will look up the records of the House they will find, on the 20th February, 1925, when the Local Government Bill was going through, that I made the same claim for a remission of rates for the tenants and occupiers of houses built by the local authority which I made in the amendment put forward during recent weeks. Senator Brown will remember that I called attention to it and made the same claim. I think that disposes of the allegation that this amendment was put forward for the purpose of buying votes.

With regard to the mistake made in the amendment, I accept full responsibility for it. On many occasions, as you have said, Senators have called attention to inaccuracies in dates and other particulars in Bills that come forward from the other House. I think from all sections of this House, when we did call attention to inaccuracies in Bills, at least we did it in a gentlemanly way. We did not describe as fools the people who made the mistake. I think anybody who never made a mistake never made anything. I accept full responsibility for the error. How it occurred was quite simple. Senator Brown, on the 2nd February, moved an amendment to the Local Government Bill. That gave me the cue that I could move an amendment on the lines I previously spoke of on the 1925 Bill when the principle of remission of rates was first introduced. From Wednesday evening to the following morning I had not time to prepare the amendment. I had to wade through three or four different Acts of Parliament. I explained, at the time, that the question was full of complications. I was only an ordinary Senator and was endeavouring to put forward my case. I found it difficult to frame an amendment. If you have the Local Government Act of 1925 you will see that in dealing with this particular case, of the remission of rates in Senator Brown's amendment, which has become a section of the Bill, it is stated: "The preceding sub-section shall not have effect in the case of any house erected under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1921, and the Labourers Acts, 1883 to 1919." Instead of putting in the dates applicable to the Housing of the Working Classes Acts the dates applicable to the Labourers Acts have been put in and were responsible for all the controversy.

There was a further error in the amendment. It was that instead of the words "sub-section" it should have been "the said section." I made an error there, I admit. I also stated, definitely before the matter reached the Dáil, that I had arranged with Deputy Johnson to call attention to the error in the date with a view to having it altered. Deputy Johnson did not get an opportunity to do that owing to the storm created by this "fool" amendment. The Cathaoirleach has pointed out that on many occasions attention was called to errors in Bills that came here. As long as people are human they make mistakes. I apologise to the House for the mistake made in the drafting of the amendment.

With regard to the question of buying votes I am obliged to the Cathaoirleach for what he has stated in the matter. I want to say I had no idea in my mind with regard to the General Election. I can prove that by the statement on the records in 1925 when the principle was first introduced that I made the same claim. The Minister in charge of the Bill also dealt with this question when it reached the Dáil. The Minister was sarcastic and above all people in the world the Minister should be the last that should be sarcastic at others. He suggested that it meant nothing and that the Dáil should pass it. Some people ought never to forget, at any time, that those who live in glass houses should never throw stones. I leave it at that.

Now, with regard to the merits of the case, I dealt with the matter very exhaustively on two occasions. The Minister had ample opportunity and resources to prepare his case. When the matter was before this House the Minister had an ample opportunity. He had a fortnight. He had the Commissioners and the staff of the Corporation and the officials of the Local Government Department to prepare his Bill for him. After his brief was prepared I produced figures, as a result of which the House unanimously decided to accept my amendment. From the date on which the amendment was accepted here some people were extraordinarily busy with a view to upsetting the amendment when it went to the other House. Two days afterwards Commissioner Dr. Dwyer issued a public statement in the Press in which he referred to certain statements I had made and, in his statement, he said I had not asked him for any information. I do not know whether he meant to suggest that the figures I gave are not correct or not, but he said I had not asked him for any figures. It is quite true that I had not. In case there might be any doubt in the minds of anyone and in case suspicion should fall on any official for supplying me with figures, I may state that I asked for no information that was not public property. The only information I asked for was the contractor's price for the erection of the houses in Marino under the different schemes. These figures had been published in the newspapers in Dublin. I had collected them and had gone over them, and in preparing the statement, in favour of my amendment, I had those figures prepared. At the last moment, in order to make sure there would be no mistake about the matter, I rang up the Housing Department of the Corporation and asked to be supplied with the contractor's prices for the erection of the different houses in Marino. I was told I could have them, and I went around to get them. The only information I received was information published in the newspapers. I want it to be clearly understood that I neither sought nor obtained any information from any official in the Corporation other than what was published in the newspapers.

The Commission also endeavoured to controvert the figures I put forward here. I am prepared to stand by the figures, and am prepared to give further information to the Seanad which will convince them that they ought to stand by the amendment adopted in the House, and also agree that the error in drafting should be altered. The Minister in charge of the Bill stated definitely here that the occupiers of these houses at Marino had received £280 of a subsidy towards the purchase price of their houses. Now, I am prepared to put forward figures to-day to prove that that statement is not correct. The Minister stated that I was making a claim that the occupiers of houses built by local authorities were, at least, entitled to the same facilities as had been given to people who occupied houses built by private speculative builders or public utility societies. I have gone to great pains to ascertain the proper figures for the erection of those houses at Marino. The manner in which I have arrived at the figures is quite simple. I have taken the price the Corporation have given and the contractor's price for the total number of houses erected in Marino. I have divided that by the number of houses and find that the cost of erection of the houses in Marino was £568 per house on the average.

The PRESIDENT

How many houses were there?

Mr. FARREN

Between 1,200 and 1,300 houses—1,283. The average building cost of the houses in Marino, according to the contractor's estimate, is £568. In addition to that, the Minister has added the cost of development. In passing may I say the cost of development has not been charged against the public utility society. Allowing for the cost of development the average cost in Marino worked out at £530 per house.

In addition to that there is the wiring of the houses which, on an average, works out at £13 10s. per house.

The professional fees, the fees paid to the architects and the quantity surveyors, work out at £10 per house. The professional fees in connection with these houses work out at approximately £13,000. In addition to that there was added, as I pointed out, the cost of the acquisition of the site. That was a most extraordinary procedure. The cost of the acquisition of the sites worked out at £13 per house. Allowing for the cost of the acquisition of the site and for the cost of development, the total cost of each house was £657 10s. I am speaking now of the average cost for the houses at Marino.

The PRESIDENT

Does that include the Croydon Park houses?

Mr. FARREN

Yes, it includes the Croydon Park and Marino houses. It is all the one scheme practically. The total cost of the houses was, as I have stated, £657 10s., and that includes the cost of the acquisition of the site and development. That cost has not been charged against other schemes. The purchase price of the houses at Croydon Park was £450. The information I have is to the effect that quite a large number of the houses have been sold at £460, while for others the purchase price was £440. I have made the average cost £450, which, I think, is a fair thing to do. With the total cost, including acquisition and development, at £657 10s., and the purchase price at £450 there is left a difference of £207 10s. That would be the full amount of the subsidy granted to the occupiers of the houses built in Croyden Park and Marino. The Minister told us on the last occasion that houses built by a public utility society or by speculative builders got a subsidy of £200, and in addition the remission of rates. On the basis of this year's rates that would be equivalent to a sum of £67 10s., so that the occupiers of these houses got a subsidy of £267 10s. Including the cost of development and the cost of the acquisition of the site, not charged against other houses, the occupiers of houses built by the local authority only got what was equivalent to £207 10s. The Minister said that they got £280. I want details of that. I have given mine, and I think it is only fair that the Minister should give his. The Minister also said that if my amendment was passed it would mean giving to the occupiers of houses built by the local authority the equivalent of £67 10s. I want to prove that the Minister is absolutely wrong in all his figures. If this amendment is carried and becomes part of the Bill the tenants of these houses would get a remission of two-thirds of the rates. That would be for a period, at the very outset, of six years.

CATHAOIRLEACH

Five years is the maximum.

Mr. FARREN

That is all the better for my case. The average valuation on these houses is £11. Taking the rate struck this year, the rate would amount to £8 16s. on each of these houses. If you give a remission of two-thirds of the rates you arrive at the figure of £5 17s. 4d., so that if you calculate it for five years the total remission on each house for that period would be £29 6s. 8d. The Minister said solemnly in this House that if my amendment were carried it would mean a remission of £67 10s. for these people. I have given the figures and they are there to contradict the Minister's statement. It is the same with regard to some other figures that have been put before us in arguing against my amendment. There has been wonderful elasticity in them. I have shown that the case I am making is based on justice, and that is the only claim which I make. I have convinced the House before of the justice of the claim that I am making, and I hope I will convince it to-day that the case I am now making is worthy of their assistance and support. The Minister, in the Dáil, when dealing with this question, said that the cost of development in connection with these schemes would not be taken into consideration if the Corporation were receiving ground rent. He said that would be sufficient to cover the expenses incurred in the development of the site. I ask the House to consider this position. The average cost per house for the acquisition of site works out at £13 10s., but the municipality is charging in ground rent £3 or £2 10s. per house per annum for a lease of 99 years, so that for what they paid £13 10s. they receive almost £300 by the payment of £3 per annum by these poor tenants. He also said that if they got a sufficient ground rent they would not take into account the cost of development. That is another glaring instance of the manner in which figures were jumbled and put forward by the Minister.

With reference to the question of development the Minister did not tell us that a good deal of the development work on this particular site was done out of relief grants given for unemployment. I went on a deputation to the Executive Council in connection with this matter. The President was there, and our object in going before the Executive Council was to endeavour to get the Government to do something to relieve the dreadful amount of unemployment that existed in the city. When we were asked to suggest a scheme we put forward the clearing of the land at Marino, and said that work of that kind would make it ready for house building. I make the statement now that a fair proportion of the development work on that site was done out of relief grants. Surely we are not going to expect the poor tenants in these houses to pay the grants that were given at the time to relieve the unemployment that prevailed.

In connection with this scheme, I think I referred on a previous occasion to the wonderful roadway that is to be made from the Malahide Road to Drumcondra. When that roadway is made it will, of course, be a fine addition to the city. The question of making it was in contemplation years ago. I was a member of the Housing Committee of the Corporation, and we always felt that the making of this roadway would lead to the development of the Marino area. Members of the House will realise that I am in possession of a good deal of information with regard to this particular area. That is largely due to the fact that I was one of the members of the Housing Committee of the Corporation, a Committee which first considered the development of this particular area. Surely the occupiers of these houses are not going to be saddled with the cost of the development of that site. The cost in regard to development has not been charged against tenants in connection with some of the other schemes, but here it is. The Minister said that the cost of development in connection with this scheme would not be charged to the tenants if the Corporation were receiving the ground rents, but I have proved that they are getting the ground rents.

The Minister also said that if this amendment were passed and embodied in the Bill it would mean something like 3d. in the £ on the valuation of the city. I have calculated that 3d. in the £ on the valuation of the city of Dublin would produce an annual sum of £15,000. If my amendment were passed and that relief was given in the form of the remission of rates to the people I am pleading for, the sum involved would be about half what the Minister said. I want to refer now to a statement that was issued by Dr. Dwyer, one of the City Commissioners. He was extremely busy in preparing figures and in doing propaganda work against the amendment I have put forward. Two days after my amendment had been passed by the Seanad he published a statement giving certain figures in the "Independent," and on the day that the Dáil was considering the amendment a further statement was issued. Apparently they must have been working overtime to produce these statements. I recollect, however, that when a section in a Bill dealing with the remission of rates was under discussion on a former occasion Commissioner Dr. Dwyer was not quite so busy. He never said a word on that occasion, although the section in the 1925 Act dealing with the remission of rates did affect the rates of the city. But when a question is raised to give to a poor working-class man the benefit of a reduction in his rates the Commissioner gets extremely busy, but I would not expect anything else from him. Every act of his since he became a Commissioner has been to take a little away from the unfortunate poor working man. In the beginning of this year he succeeded in taking 3/- a week off the poor labourers whose wages were down so low as £3 a week. A few weeks after he had accomplished that he divided the spoil among his fellow-Commissioners and himself by increasing their own salaries by £200 per year.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I hope Senator you will not pursue this topic. I do not think it is fair to make a statement in the absence of a public official who is not here and able to protect himself. I think you can make your case quite well enough without introducing that topic, and I ask you not to pursue it any further.

Mr. FARREN

With respect to you, sir, I shall not do so; but I would not have referred to the matter at all were it not for the propaganda that was carried on against the efforts I was making to get justice done to the people I was pleading for. I do not think there is any necessity for me to deal any further with this particular matter. All I have to say is this, that notwithstanding all the abuse I have got about it and all the figures that have been prepared by all the experts, I have proved my case. The fundamental fact remains that I have proved up to the hilt that the occupiers of the houses built by the local authorities are not getting the same benefit as other people. No doubt the President will refer to other schemes when he is speaking, such as the Fairbrothers Fields scheme. He will use that as an argument against me and say that I forgot about it. I could never forget about that scheme. But the President will refer to it, and say that the cost of development worked out at £128 per house. He will jumble the figures in order to prove that the occupiers of the houses at Marino, for whom I am pleading, are not entitled to the remission of rates which other people are getting.

The history of Fairbrothers Fields is a long one, and I think the less said about it the better. The President knows more about it than I do. It is a scheme that has been going on since the year 1910. The site was acquired about 1911 or 1912. Plans were prepared on four different occasions for that site. The development work on it was carried out practically as relief work—most of it at all events. In consequence of certain conditions that prevailed here, a number of men were provided with employment on it. I do not want to say any more in connection with that. Building operations, I think, began in the year 1920 or 1921. I think, however, that it is unfair to try and fit in the figures in connection with that scheme against the claim that I am making on behalf of the people in the Marino area. All the incidents that occurred to make the Fairbrothers Fields scheme such a costly one are well known. I accordingly move: "That the House insist on its amendment, and that the dates be altered as I have read them out."

CATHAOIRLEACH

I must ask the Senator to put his amendment in writing. This is an important matter and, as I understand from him, it will require amendment in two respects.

The PRESIDENT

I think I understand the meaning of the amendment, and I assume that it will be correctly drawn. That amendment means to take into this particular remission of rates all the houses which have been built by the local authorities in the Saorstát since 1920. The Senator can correct me if I am wrong in that. The amendment proposes to make available for the remission of rates all the houses built by the local authorities since 1920. That is the substance of it. Before I go on to deal with this point, I should like to say that Senator Farren has repudiated the charge that he is in any way influenced by vote-catching or buying votes in connection with this particular amendment. It happens that I know Senator Farren longer than most members of the Seanad do, with the exception, perhaps, of members of his own Party. When he makes that statement I accept it. I do not accept it from all the members of his Party, because, as I said on the last day, or some time since, one member rubbed his hands and said that this was worth 2,000 votes——

CATHAOIRLEACH

Was that a member of the Seanad?

The PRESIDENT

No, I do not say it was. And the paper published by the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union which is circulated this week, makes it pretty clear that there is a question of votes in this matter. It expects to be able to give, next week, a list of those who voted against the occupiers; and those who did not vote will be given in next week's "Voice," and it goes on to say that voters will do well to keep that paper handy for the general election. So that settles that. I am finished with that side of the transaction now. This proposal of Senator Farren's will affect, in all, 1,752 houses in the City of Dublin. I am afraid that I cannot exclude, even at the Senator's request, the Fairbrothers Fields area. I find it impossible to do it, because these houses are to benefit if this amendment passes. Now, however unfortunate it may be, it is nevertheless true that in Fairbrothers Fields the all-in cost per house was £950 4s. If lands were excluded it would be £910 4s.; if lands and development were excluded, it would be £761 10s. In Donnelly's Orchard the all-in cost was £735 5s.; if land were excluded it would be £712 16s.; if land and development were excluded it would be £686 16s.

In the Marino, site 431 houses were constructed, at an all-in cost of £787 2s.; if the land were excluded it would be £775 8s.; if we exclude the land and the cost of development, it would be £698 18s. That includes £34 10s. for the installation of a bath and hot water service. I have a certificate here in connection with Fairbrothers Fields, the Marino, Donnelly's Orchard, and Boyne Street from the auditor with regard to the figures. I now go on to Croydon Park, where there are 880 houses. That is an estimate to date. I presume the whole of the accounts are not finished. In these houses the all-in cost is £664 3s. 9d. Excluding land, it is £643 10s.; excluding land and development it is £573 16s.

The total cost is £1,324,707 10s. The cost, excluding land, is £1,285,294; excluding both land and development the cost is £1,135,716 12s. Now, the average for the whole of the 1,752 houses which was paid by somebody in respect of the erection, construction, cost of land and development is £756 per house. Deducting the price of land, the average per house would be £733. Deducting the price of land and development, the average is £648.

I now come to the question of the sale price. In Donnelly's Orchard there were 70 houses sold at £411 each; 14 at £480, making a total of £35,490. In Fairbrothers Fields there were 357 houses. Of these 11 were sold at £327; 10 at £361; 198 at £378; 4 at £429; and 134 at £394, making a total of £136,563.

In the Marino 242 houses were sold at £400 each; 136 at £420; 53 at £440. In 386 houses there were baths and there was an extra price of £35 per house there. In Croydon Park I have not got the exact details, but the average is not very hard to find. There is an average of £440, say, for 880 houses. This gives a total of £750,003. The average sale price is £428. The ground rents vary from £2 15s. to £5. The average is £2 16s. Now we have the all-in costs at £756. This is not a question in dispute. It is a question of fact. If there is anything wrong about it the proper place to settle it is when the Housing Facilities Bill is introduced and dealt with. That is in a pocket by itself. This amendment dealing with houses which have been constructed, or in respect of which grants have been made for a certain period of years are in a separate pocket by themselves in the Local Government Act of 1926 and in the previous Act of 1925. But housing is a proposition which should be considered in a compartment entirely by itself. If these figures are wrong, and if people do not get from the Corporation or the local authority the conditions they should get under the Act, I am perfectly prepared to see that that state of affairs is remedied. I want to see that they get the benefit we have down in the Act. We have now the total all-in cost of £756 per house on the average. We have the average selling price of £428. We have 18-year purchase of £2 16s. 0d. which is approximately £50. That makes £478 and the difference between that £478 and £756 is £278. That is the case. If that case is wrong——

Mr. FARREN

It includes development?

The PRESIDENT

Yes, and in connection with development I should say that £35,000 was spent on the Marino on development. That can be deducted, but even with that deduction there is still the fact that £263 is the maximum advantage which a Public Utility Society could get in respect of a full remission of rates, and the subsidy from both the Government and the Corporation.

Mr. FARREN

Have the occupiers of the houses in the Marino got the equivalent of £263?

The PRESIDENT

That is not the point I am making. We can take any particular house and say "there is a house in respect of which the amount has not been granted, and there is another house in respect of which a far greater amount has been granted."

Mr. FARREN

What I wanted to know was——

CATHAOIRLEACH

Please do not interrupt the President. You will have a right to speak again if you wish.

The PRESIDENT

I say that some houses have got greater advantages than others, far greater, but I say that the whole policy is in respect of the average price and on that account, and that is the account that we are bound to consider here, because it is an all-round benefit that it is proposed to be given—the benefit is not proposed to be given in respect only of the Marino, but also in respect of Fairbrothers Fields.

Mr. GUINNESS

This Bill deals with housing in the Saorstát. The amendment brought forward by Senator Farren also deals with housing in the Saorstát. So far the discussion is entirely centred on housing in the neighbourhood of Dublin. What is applicable to Dublin may not be applicable to other places in the Saorstát. I would like to know whether it is correct that if this amendment of Senator Farren's is passed that the sum of money mentioned by the Minister in charge of the Bill which, as well as I remember is £127,000, would be an additional burden on the taxpayer?

The PRESIDENT

I am not quite sure of the figure.

Mr. GUINNESS

The Minister for Local Government on the last occasion read out a very technical and involved statement. I think I am correct in saying that he mentioned that if this amendment was passed it would cast an additional burden upon the tax-payers equal to the remission of rates of something like £127,000.

The PRESIDENT

I think that figure is wrong. The actual advantage that would be given, it seems to me, would be this, Assuming that there is an £11 valuation all round—and I do not think that it is that much—if you assume a rate of 16/- in the £ on that assumption there would be a remission of £5 17s. 0d. on 1,752 houses for 6 years, because this amendment if passed brings these houses within last year's Act, that is a year gone by. The amendment deals with houses as from the 1st April, 1920, and this amendment to Section 11 brings them into last year's Act. In other words it would mean a sum of £61,320 in 6 years. The total sum for the whole of the six years for Dublin is estimated at £61,320.

Mr. BROWN

Is not that only the maximum on a five years' exemption?

The PRESIDENT

For 6 years because this amendment is in relation to last year's provision.

Mr. GUINNESS

That is only a question of a year or so. But does this £60,000 refer to Dublin? If this is so, and if this expenditure was extended to the whole Saorstát the sum would be very much greater. Is that £127,000 applicable to the whole of the Saorstát or merely to Dublin? If so it is a very heavy burden on the tax-payers.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It is nothing like accurate.

The PRESIDENT

There are 1,752 houses. If they were valued at £11 each and if it was confined to these, it would mean that there would be an annual loss which would have to be made good by other ratepayers for whom no accommodation has been provided by the State of £10,200 and that would run for 6 years. There is another point: 2,090 houses were provided under the first Grant by the local authorities generally all over the country. Approximately 940 were built in Dublin. That left 1,150 for 73 other local authorities throughout the country. There was to be provided approximately two-thirds of the cost of the houses with a maximum of £500. All these houses in respect of which the State has put up £2 out of every £3 will benefit by this amendment. In other words, in addition to giving two-thirds of the cost of those houses they are now liable only for one-third of the rates for another five years. Out of the 2,090 houses built 940 were built in Dublin and all over the rest of the counties 1,150 houses were built in respect of which two-thirds of the cost have already been paid by the State under these Acts. I would like to make that perfectly clear. It does not mean that if a house cost £750 in Killarney and if the State gave £500 that a person got it for £250. What happened was this: The Local Government Department recommended the sale of the house when built. Some local authorities would not accept that but when a house cost £750 the State paid the £500 subsidy and handed it over to the local authority. The local authority then sold it in a large number of cases in the best market they could and got anything ranging from £300 to £500 for the house and built more houses for what they got. But in no case that I have heard of did anyone who acquired one of those houses pay as much as the house cost. Therefore, those who acquired such houses have got an advantage of some sort.

This question of housing is a very serious question. It must be dealt with on the lines of a very serious problem. Take the City of Dublin alone, and see what it means there. They owe at the present moment something like £840,000 in respect of housing schemes in Dublin. Now the houses constructed in the last four years have been constructed at a cost approximately of little over one-and-a-quarter millions of money. I think there can be very little doubt in anybody's mind that ten times that amount will be required, and allowing for a very marvellous reduction in the cost, we see it means a liability of seven or eight million pounds upon the municipality. We could not confine our entire efforts to the City of Dublin. Cities like Cork and Limerick, and other cities and towns throughout the country, require housing schemes relatively as badly as Dublin does. I want to score no unfair advantage on this point. There are certain people who have got these houses, and they certainly have got an advantage that others have not got. The Corporation, in dealing with this matter of houses for the last four years have sought to pool their entire resources, and in trying to get an accurate estimate of the actual cost I give the average cost and price of the houses in Dublin. Then I found out what the sale price of the houses had been and the difference between these two sets of figures for the 1,752 houses is as nearly as I could get the figure—£278 per house. I got those figures from the Dublin Corporation. I find that at Fairbrothers' Field 357 houses were erected; Croydon Park, 880; Marino, 431; Donnelly's Orchard, 84. There is another place I have not mentioned, Boyne Street, which I should say, although I am not certain, would strengthen my case, because the houses there have been let at various rents from 8s. 6d. to 15s. per week—I am not exactly sure—but I should think the average rent is 9s. 3d. in that case, and that includes rates. I will admit readily that 17s. 3d. a week is a very heavy rent to ask a man to pay. But in respect of that 17s. 3d. that a man is called upon to pay, it must be remembered that the house is his after 40 years. Some objection is taken to the cost of collection, but it is a member of a union, which is part of the Trade Union Congress who is paid for that work. It works out on the average at 3.2 per cent. It is relatively fair. When I was a member of the Dublin Corporation I must say that as far as the Accounts Section was concerned, there was no extravagance at all, and it cannot be alleged against them that there was any unnecessary cost added on. There are various differences in connection with the charges made. If a man pays yearly he gets some reduction because the cost of collection in his case is less than if he pays half-yearly. There is a lesser reduction if he pays half-yearly, and if he pays quarterly there is a less reduction still, and if he pays weekly the cost is much heavier by reason of the fact that the man has to call and collect the rent every week. These are the facts and the figures that I have got from the Corporation. Apart from this there are the 1,152 houses constructed out of the million grant and all sold at a considerably reduced price from their cost. There is one advantage the people occupying these houses have at the moment over those who have not such houses to get. It is no contribution towards the solution of the housing problem to lessen the cost to those who have all the advantage and heap the cost on to those who have not any advantage. We still have something like 17 or 18 thousand families to provide for in the city.

It may be that the Corporation or any local authority are now dealing with the cream of the community, and that later on very much bigger subsidies and support might be necessary. But we must always keep in mind that whether we pay rates or taxes it is always out of one purse it comes and that that purse is being called upon for a fairly large contribution of money towards many services. I think this is one of the most important services we have got, but I submit that there has been a fair contribution towards the problem in the subsidies already given.

Mr. O'FARRELL

On this subject the House was bewildered with highly conflicting figures on former occasions and the bewilderment has, I think, increased every time a representative of the Government spoke. The Minister gave us a statement of what he believed would be the effect of the amendment if carried on the last occasion and the President to-day admits that that was wrong.

Mr. BURKE

The amendment has been changed in the interval.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I do not understand the point. There is no guarantee if the question came up again that we should not have another set of figures. I think we might arrive in our own minds at an estimate of the fairness or otherwise of the amendment by the simple illustration. Take the President's figures as correct. The Minister said that his figure for the total amount of the subsidy to each house is £278. Assuming he is correct—Senator Farren does not agree—all Senator Farren asked for was an increase of £27.

The PRESIDENT

Oh, more than that.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Well, say £32. That would increase the subsidy to £310 altogether. Assuming that that is correct, the President says that these people would have a higher subsidy than the occupants of any houses built by a public utility society or private builder. That is not correct. For example, in my own district—Cliftonville Road—the valuation of the houses is £22 per annum. The rates are £17 10s. 0d. per annum. The remission of rates under the Housing Acts amounts in the aggergate in ten years to a sum amounting to £175 in addition to £200 subsidy—£100 from the State and £100 from the local authority, so that the total subsidy would be £375. Even though houses built recently get a lower subsidy of £150 they would still get, I believe, £328, which is still something ahead of what Senator Farren asks, because he asks as a maximum £310.

Mr. BROWN

What is the cost of one of these houses?

Mr. O'FARRELL

It does not matter in the least. These houses cost £800 or £850, but they have been subsidised to the extent of £200 from the State and the local authority and to the extent of £175 in the remission of rates. They are occupied by exceedingly well-to-do people who could afford to pay, yet we are assisting them to the extent of £325 at the lowest.

In order to get a house built by the Corporation a man must have a minimum of six in family, but as a matter of fact when they came to distribute the houses they found they could not give houses to anyone who had less than eight or nine in family, as the applicants were so numerous. These are people with large expensive families and a proportionately smaller income. That is the one class the President seeks to use for the purpose of maintaining the financial stability of the State. We never heard anything during this debate about this: that when the principle of rate remission was introduced in the 1925 Bill it was retrospective and remitted rates already paid.

The PRESIDENT

It did not.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Oh, yes. People who were paying rates on these buildings in the year in which the Bill was passed had only to pay one-third of the rates in the following year.

The PRESIDENT

Quite true; that does not make it retrospective.

Mr. O'FARRELL

It did, inasmuch as it reduced the rate revenue of the Dublin Corporation by £19,000, which other ratepayers had to make up. The Government was divided on that proposal. There was a very close division in the other House and the President voted in favour of that provision while many of his colleagues voted against it. The country was in a poorer position then than it is now, but it referred in the main to wealthy people—people who have money to burn—people like "Players" and the "Irish Independent." We did not hear the President launch out then on a great campaign of economy. He comes out now because we are proposing to give a remission of £30 to these poor people, which will still leave them £60 or £70 worse off than the well-to-do people who have houses in Sandymount and in Cliftonville Road—people who could afford to pay £1,100 and £1,200 for a house.

I am asked the price of the house. The higher the price of the house the less grounds there is for the subsidy, because it shows that people are able to afford to pay for these dear houses.

The President says it is wrong to give a subsidy of £310 to a poor working man with eight or nine in family, but he does not object to give a subsidy of £375 to residents in Cliftonville Road. There are houses on these roads where the valuation is £25 and the rates would be £20. The total subsidy therefore would be £400, and this is given to people who can well afford to pay. The President speaks of restoring financial stability, and yet he gives this large subsidy to people in that position. I wish him joy in his victory. If that is the sort of victory he is going to get out of it he is quite right to make all the propaganda he can out of it.

The PRESIDENT

I would like to correct a wrong impression which the Senator may have left on the House. I took this subsidy on an average of 1,700 houses. I may say a much greater sum has been given in the case of some of the houses than that mentioned by the Senator in connection with those houses he referred to. He has not given a list of all the houses erected by the Corporation. If I took the whole list the sum would be far greater. I might say, further, that the Corporation is at present reconsidering the conditions on which they have given subsidies, and they are more likely to act in the future on what the Senator has said.

Mr. O'FARRELL

I might say that there are houses costing £1,400 or £1,500 being built under a public subsidy of £200 or £150 each. In addition, they will get a ten years remission of rates, so the subsidy in these cases will be well over £400. The President cannot deny that. My average would probably be £379, if I took in all these houses.

The PRESIDENT

The Corporation will correct that anomaly in future.

Mr. KENNY

May I ask the President whether there is a condition with regard to the purchase of a house under these utility schemes, that a certain deposit shall be made by the purchaser? I take it that under the schemes of the local authorities or the Corporation there is no deposit made, that the tenant starts paying an instalment or rent of so much per week. I and some other Senators who are not here now, want to understand the position thoroughly, as between the public body schemes and the utility schemes. Are we to understand that in one instance a deposit has to be made on the purchase money, and that that is an essential part of the agreement? If it is, in the comparison between the two schemes you must take into account the interest on the deposit money.

The PRESIDENT

A deposit is not compulsory in the case of the Corporation scheme. I do not know about the utility schemes. It is scarcely a matter worth considering, because if a man pays an instalment he gets the benefit of that. He gets 5 per cent. on it, and there would be that much less to pay in respect of the annual contribution towards the purchase. In the case of the Corporation they give a preference to the larger purchasers. It so happens that people with small incomes are often prepared to pay a bigger price than people with large incomes. I saw one case in the Fairbrothers Fields area in which a family had an income of £18, and they bid £1 in order to be allowed in. I saw the case of another man with £4 per week and he offered to put down £50.

Mr. JAMESON

I think Senator O'Farrell described the mind of the House very well when he said that it is bewildered by the different views the Government put before us when this matter was debated before. I think most of us are in a very doubtful frame of mind as to where the rights of the case lie. We have had something cleared up since the President spoke. We know now the average of the concessions given to the tenants of these houses. As far as I can see, Senator Farren has not disputed the accuracy of the figures put forward by the President.

Mr. FARREN

I am disputing them.

Mr. JAMESON

The President said the subsidy in these cases amounted to £278. At any rate it may be taken that the extent of the concessions in both cases is a great deal over £200. Of course Senator O'Farrell says that much better terms or quite as good terms have been given to people who are much better off in other classes of houses. Even amongst the class of the community who are inhabiting the dwellings we are discussing now, there is no doubt whatever that some people have got off on much better terms than others. How that has arisen is a thing that troubles one's mind. It is quite evident that some people have got much more out of the public purse than others, but there are two new points the President brought before us.

We have been discussing this question from the point of view that it affects the Dublin area alone. It has been impressed upon us that our City Commissioners will have to mulct the rest of the community and that they are the only people who are being dealt with in that way. If we were to vote against Senator Farren's amendment it might be said that we were trying to save our own purses, but we are now told that this amendment will apply to a much larger area and that if we pass it, it will apply to every housing scheme of the same nature in every town and city in the Free State. We are also told that it will prevent other new houses of the same class from being built, because the Corporation and the various authorities, will not undertake the erection of them owing to the effect it would have on their taxation. These are two questions which put a different aspect on the matter altogether.

If we are dealing with Dublin alone and if the amount which we add on to the rates in Dublin can be put at a certain figure which we all know, it is for us to say whether we will pass that for Dublin. But if the amendment applies automatically to the whole of the building areas in the cities and towns of the Free State, if the effect of it is going to be that the authorities who will have the raising of this money will not proceed with the building of houses for the working classes, if we remember all we have heard, not once or twice in this House, as to the conditions not of the best of the working class, but those of them whom we see moving about so much here in Dublin, if any vote is going to prevent building schemes for these people or if it is going to take that class of the population out and give them decent houses—I say these are tremendously vital considerations. If I were clear that it would not prevent the building of other houses, I would vote for Senator Farren, but if I am convinced that it is going to stop the building of houses I shall vote against him. If Senator Farren satisfies me that it is not going to apply beyond Dublin and that it will not prevent the building of more houses for the poorest class of the working people then I shall vote with him, but unless I can be con vinced on these two points I am afraid I shall have to vote against him.

Mr. BROWN

There is another matter that we should take into consideration before we adopt the resolution moved by Senator Farren. I quite feel the same difficulties as Senator Jameson in voting for this resolution. There is another matter that affects my mind and it is that if this Bill is held up, as it will be if we stick to our amendments, we will deprive a very large number of people for another tax year of the benefit they would get under this Bill. Is that not so?

The PRESIDENT

Yes.

Mr. BROWN

If that is so it has a very serious result, affecting another class of persons altogether, which we ought to consider seriously before we adopt this resolution. It will deprive the people who are getting the benefit of this Bill of this year's reduction of rates. I would ask the Minister if he could give us an assurance on that subject. If that is so it is a matter that should affect our minds very seriously.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Perhaps the Senator will allow me to read a statement made by the Minister in the other House. He said that in order to have the benefits of this section for local authorities this year it was necessary that the Bill should be in force before the 21st of this month.

Mr. BROWN

That is different. That refers to the £30,000 they are going to make out of the new mode of applotting the agricultural grant. I would like to be assured that a large class of people who are to benefit under this Act are not going to be deprived of that benefit for the present tax year. I might remind the Senator that this Bill gives a real advantage to the class of people for whom we have so much sympathy. They get a remission for any improvement that is made in their houses during the period of 5 years.

Mr. BENNETT

I must say that I am unconvinced by the additional facts that have been mentioned. I come from a rural area where for years we have provided houses for people in our employment without any remission of rates. The view I take is that the same thing should apply in the city. It should be up to the people concerned to provide houses. I feel about this particular measure that, while rating or the remission of rates may be vicious, it will not be made less vicious by inflicting this change on the particular class least able to bear it. The Government think that the principle of remission of rates should be accepted in certain cases. No new evidence has been given to satisfy me that any injustice would be done to the ratepayers or to anyone else by passing the amendment.

Colonel MOORE

I am astonished at Senator Jameson's objection to the principle being extended to other parts of Ireland. I do not know why people in other cities, who may be just as badly off as the people in Dublin, should be deprived of the same advantage. I think it would be very unfair to do so.

Mr. JAMESON

The only reason was because the statement was made that if it did apply it would prevent the building of houses for the working classes. That is the matter for consideration.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (Mr. Burke)

Before the question is put I think it is necessary that I should make an explanation on the general issue. I do not intend to get involved in the figures. The President and Senator Farren are au fait with all the circumstances of those building schemes and know them much better in detail than I do. I am afraid that in paying very close attention to a particular point there is a danger of losing sight of the main issue. Perhaps it is also necessary to make some explanation in view of what has occurred here and in the Dáil. To do that it is necessary to go into the genesis of this particular Bill. This Bill is not as one would gather from the discussion, a Housing Bill. It can scarcely be described as a Local Government Bill. It was to deal ad hoc with various defects and difficulties that arose in the working of the Local Government Act of 1925. It was drafted in particular to deal with a section which was put in at the instance of Senator Keane, in order to enable the cost of roads to appear separately on demand notes. The amendment was put in on the Report Stage in the Seanad. When amendments of that kind are put in naturally one does not always know what the consequences will be. As a matter of fact the amendments resulted in a very complicated system of applotment, and added to the cost which was already exceptionally high, owing to the increase in the cost of labour. It made the work excessively expensive. Senator Keane put down a motion in the Seanad later drawing attention to the Public Bodies Order and condemned this particular amendment.

On that occasion I undertook to move an amendment to the Local Government Act, 1925, to deal with the matter. In my Department and also in the country I had various experts working at the amendment for a considerable time. The main sections in the Bill were Sections 6 and 7. They hang together. I had intended originally to bring in other amendments. I think the Bill was drafted last May, but owing to pressure of business on the Oireachtas, it was not possible to introduce it. I foresaw that if I introduced contentious matter, it would be impossible to deal with this particular amendment in time to enable local authorities to avail of it this particular year. It does not often fall to the lot of a Minister to be able to introduce a measure which is wholly, and in all respects, good. I was in the happy position of being able to do that. It not only simplified the system of applotment but enabled the ratepayers throughout the country to have a better idea of how their money was expended than was the case under the previous system. It also purported to save £30,000 sufficient to set up county medical officers in every county. I was anxious to save that measure for the ratepayers. Another section was put into the Bill, Section 11, which was not on all fours with other sections. I was loath to allow that particular section to go into the Bill because there was a conflict between this House and the Dáil regarding housing.

My position was that if I was to get the Dáil to agree with everything I wanted, I could put in nothing of a controversial nature. In order to get the goodwill of the Seanad I was told they would like a section like Section 11, which extended the remission of rates for a further period. It was with that view it was put in. I wanted to get accommodation on that Bill. I thought in going as far as I could to meet this House I would get some facilities. I introduced Section 11. There was some discussion in the Dáil. However, as the discussion did not crystallise in the shape of a division, I felt that I should allow the section to stand. In the Seanad Senator Brown had practically carte blanche. He introduced an amendment which certainly improved the Bill. I was anxious to facilitate this House on a measure of that kind without accepting something that I knew I could not carry in the House below. Accordingly that measure was agreed to and carried. I have been accused here of not being, perhaps, sufficiently explicit on all these amendments. It must be remembered that local government is an extremely complicated code, particularly in connection with Housing Acts, which are interlaced together like the Celtic designs in the Book of Kells. You do not know where you are with amendments. Accordingly, it is a very serious thing to make cocksure pronouncements on the spur of the moment on what the effect of any section will be. I am here in a responsible position, and statements that I make or figures I quote are supposed to be reliable. For that reason I cannot chance my arm on fanciful facts or figures merely to make debating points. I have to be extremely cautious in any statements I make.

I will pass over Senator Linehan's amendment and come to Senator Farren's. He proposed an amendment to a certain section which I knew was going to be of a highly controversial nature. The amendment was broadly considered, similar to an amendment moved to the 1925 Act which was turned down both by this and by the other House. Senators will realise the difficulty that I was in in having that amendment put forward again. Senator Farren is an old Parliamentary hand, and did not attempt to ground his case on reason. His contention was that houses constructed by the Corporation were not getting the same terms as houses that were being built under the Housing Facilities Acts. There was no analogy between the two cases. He realised that and did not go too far. What he did was, he made a sentimental case. A similar case made in 1925 for a retrospective measure has not worked out very well. That skeleton has been dragged out of the cupboard on every available occasion. Apparently, Senator Farren was proceeding on the principle that two wrongs make a right.

Senator Farren made a sentimental point by drawing attention to the Marino portion of the housing scheme undertaken by the Corporation, and comparing it with those houses built there by public utility societies. These got the remission of rates and the Corporation houses did not. The Senator asked how could that situation be justified? I asked the Senator if he had the figures dealing with the rents and annuities. Neither he nor I had the figures and the Cathaoirleach adjourned the matter in order that the Senator would get fuller information. On the next day I dealt with the matter fully and I pointed out that, even as matters stood, on an average the houses built under the Corporation scheme had a decided advantage over the houses built by public utility societies, notwithstanding the fact that the public utility societies' houses were getting the remission of the rates and that the Corporation houses were not. If the Corporation houses were, in addition, getting the benefit of the remission of rates it would mean that they would have an advantage of approximately £80 per house. I pointed that out to Senator Farren. He got up and quoted from a document which he said came from the fountain head—the Dublin Corporation. He quoted facts or figures to show that my statement was incorrect. I had quoted a round sum of over £700 for the houses. He purported to prove that in no case was the cost of a Marino house more than £600. The Senator said there was a mistake somewhere and asked me to clear up the difference. I was in the happy position of having exactly the same information as Senator Farren. I had an exact copy of the statement he had, taken off the same typewriter, and at the same time. I quoted from the document a statement which Senator Farren has suppressed, which corroborated my statement showing that the all-in cost was £700.

I do not wish to criticise Senator Farren for his tactics in the matter. Everything is fair in love and war. He was entitled to make his own case in his own way, but I felt that I had caught him out in that particular matter. I am not in a position to follow Senator Farren through all the intricate calculations connected with those schemes. I suppose Senator Farren could tell me about every bucket of mortar and every nail that went into the houses in Marino. As soon as I catch him out on one point he hops to another. I have to wait and find out the exact figures as I am not in a position to chance my arm on fanciful facts or figures. However, the Seanad saw its way to agree with the amendment, and I was put in the position of having to go back to the Dáil with an amendment that I could not accept. It was turned down in the Seanad and the Dáil in 1925. I was also in the position that the Bill had to go through within a certain time. Before going to the Dáil to make my case I had the Senator's amendment analysed and discovered that it more or less cancelled itself out.

Senator Farren accused me of being sarcastic. I assure him that I had not the slightest intention of being sarcastic. All I was interested in was trying to save this money for the ratepayers. I may be accused of being guilty of undignified conduct, but I would be prepared to put a lot of pride in my pocket to spare the ratepayers £30,000. That is my position in the Dáil. As the amendment cancelled itself out it was of no effect. I could not go to the Dáil and say nothing about it. If I did I might be accused of something like sharp practice. In order to save time I was opposed to having the amendment accepted. The Ceann Comhairle in the Dáil took another view, and the Dáil thought it was better to vote on the intention of the amendment rather than on the actual amendment. Accordingly we had a division and the Bill was again sent back to the Seanad. We are in the position now that the main principle of the Bill has already received the sanction of this Chamber and the Dáil. We had already given instructions to the local authorities to be ready to prepare the rate books on the new scheme. That Order has gone out and local authorities are busily engaged on this new system. If this measure is defeated it will mean there will be a great deal of confusion in local authorities throughout the country, and they will lose the benefit of this section as well as the benefit of Senator Brown's section.

Mr. BARRINGTON

Before coming to a conclusion as to how we are to vote on this question I should like a little information. We have it, but the statement has not been supported by any figures, that if this amendment is carried the erection of houses will be curtailed. I should like to get some figures to prove that that is so.

CATHAOIRLEACH

It is only a prophecy in any case, and you can never get figures to fulfil a prophecy.

Sir JOHN KEANE

I feel in duty bound to correct certain statements made by the Minister to-day. I sometimes wonder whether he is satisfied himself with their accuracy. The Minister began by referring to an amendment which I was instrumental in moving. All we asked for in that amendment was that the total of the expenditure by the local authority should be sub-divided to show what was spent on roads, poor law, and certain other charges. I think I am right in saying that the amendment was conceded by the Government, but it is drafted in such a manner as to insure that each demand note should be sub-divided, a totally ridiculous thing. For instance, where a demand note was made out for £5 that £5 should be dissected. I quoted the English parallel where the system applies where the total was to be sub-divided and the information placed on the back of the demand note. For the complications which arose the Government are themselves to blame. The Chairman himself says those mistakes are liable to occur. When this appeared in the Public Bodies Order, as the result of sub-dividing each individual demand note under the Public Bodies Order. I pointed out how ridiculous it was, and the Minister said we were responsible. Now the Minister comes to the House and wishes to give the House an impression that that Order was carried out. The demand notes are not being dissected as required, owing to the absurd proposition which the Government brought on themselves. The old method continues.

Mr. BURKE

That is not correct.

Sir JOHN KEANE

It is; at least in my county the Order has been departed from so far. The demand note was not dissected.

Mr. DOWDALL

Is this discussion in order?

CATHAOIRLEACH

Yes. The Senator is quoting to show how difficult it is to get reliable facts.

Sir JOHN KEANE

Moreover under the powers the Minister takes himself under this Public Bodies Order he is empowered to authorise any departure from the Order and frequently decides in a manner injurious to the ratepayers. He frequently allows publishing firms to copyright new forms which, I go so far as to say, he has never approved of himself.

What is this saving? It is merely the saving of expenditure which may, in certain counties, occur in one year. It is not the saving of expenditure of rates in the past. It is merely the abolition of certain abnormal expenditure which occurred owing to a misunderstanding by the Parliamentary Draftsman. Yet, he says ratepayers will be £30,000 better off and can afford county medical officers of health. To say that an additional expense incurred owing to a mistake on one simple proposition is a saving by which he can impose county medical officers is grotesque and absurd. There will be more about that.

Mr. FARREN

I want to raise one or two points. I have given certain figures with regard to the whole cost of the houses. I have given details. They have not been controverted. I want to call your attention to one point. I have included, in the cost of the houses, the cost of development which has not been charged against the Public Utility Societies. I make that definite statement that the development work was done free for the Public Utility Societies and I have allowed in my figures £53 as the average cost. The next point is with regard to the President's statement with regard to 17/8 being a heavy cost for rent. The President forgot to add to the 17/8 the cost of maintenance of that house; 17/8 is paid to the Corporation. The maintenance charge would work out at about £6 a year. I make that statement from my knowledge of the position.

The PRESIDENT

It was £3 18s. last year.

Mr. FARREN

That was the first year of its existence.

The PRESIDENT

£3 18s. is the average for houses, some of them 40 or 50 years old.

Mr. FARREN

That is not my experience. I want to call Senator Jameson's attention to the fact that the remission of rates was granted by the 1925 Act and applied all over the country. Not the ratepayers of Dublin alone but every house built from 1913 would be entitled to a remission of rates under the 1925 Act. The question did not arise then about its extending to the country. The number of houses that this will extend to will be extremely limited. Someone mentioned that this will have an effect on future housing. I think it will be admitted by members of this House that I take as great an interest in the question of the future of housing as anyone. During my lifetime I have been interested in the question of housing. I am the product of the Dublin tenements. I know their evils. I know what is suffered. I should be the last in the world to hinder the erection of houses for the working classes. I say this will have no effect because the Commissioners have made a definite statement that from this on in any scheme put forward steps will be taken to see that a reduction will take place, so that the Commissioners or local authorities are going to build houses. They are altering existing affairs too. I ask the House to deal with this question fairly and squarely on its merits. You have seen the development of Fairbrothers scheme which cost £128 per house to develop. Most of it was done on unemployment and emergency grants, during the Great War, given by the British.

I told you earlier that different sets of plans were prepared on three or four occasions in connection with this scheme. I told you the manner in which the development work was done and I ask you not to accept that argument against the case I put forward. I have told you that the people I am pleading for are not getting justice and are not getting the same facilities as other people, and I have proved that they are not in a position to pay 17/8 a week. If they have to pay that rent these areas, which we had hoped would be a credit to the State, will be simply turned into fresh slums. The tenants will not be able to pay that rent and will be obliged to let rooms. My case is a just one and I appeal to the Seanad to see that justice is done on behalf of the people I represent.

The PRESIDENT

The Senator stated on the 9th February that the average cost was £509 for 218 houses. On the Kehoe Square scheme the Corporation spent £7,800—that was in addition to the contract price—in making foundations and have before them a claim for £8,000 in respect of extras, leaving the estimated building cost at £581 per house.

Mr. FARREN

I did not include the building cost at Croydon Park in the Keogh Square scheme.

The PRESIDENT

That appears in the statement you made on the 9th February.

Mr. FARREN

I discovered since that the Keogh Square cost should be eliminated from the last figure. I made out my figure of £568 for the Marino and Croydon Park schemes.

The PRESIDENT

You have excluded the Fairbrothers Fields scheme?

Mr. FARREN

I have.

Mr. GUINNESS

If this amendment is rejected what happens?

CATHAOIRLEACH

There is an end to it then. The Bill then passes in the form in which it passed the Dáil.

Mr. KENNY

Would the Minister agree to a joint Committee now without pressing the matter to a division?

Mr. BURKE

I am already too late with this Bill. I want to have a vote taken one way or the other. I want the matter decided now.

Question—"That the Seanad do not insist on its amendment with which the Dáil has disagreed"—put and agreed to.

CATHAOIRLEACH

I will now put the second part of the amendment: That the Bill be amended in the following form: In Clause 11: to add a new sub-section as follows: (9) sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Principal Act shall be amended by the deletion of the words "Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act 1890 to 1921" and the said sections as so amended shall apply as from the passing of this Act to any houses erected under the aforesaid Acts."

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 21.

Tá

• Thomas Westropp Bennett.
• William Barrington.
• P.J. Brady.
• William Cummins.
• Michael Duffy.
• Sir Thomas Henry Grattan Esmonde.
• Michael Fanning.
• Thomas Farren.
• Thomas Foran.
• James Perry Goodbody.
• Sir Henry Greer.
• Sir John Keane.
• Cornelius Kennedy.
• Thomas Linehan.
• James McKean.
• William John Molloy.
• Colonel Maurice Moore.
• John Thomas O'Farrell.
• Michael F. O'Hanlon.

Níl

• John Bagwell.
• Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
• Samuel L. Brown.
• John C. Counihan.
• Countess of Desart.
• James Douglas.
• J.C. Dowdall.
• Sir Nugent Talbot Everard.
• Oliver St. John Gogarty.
• Sir John Purser Griffith.
• Henry Seymour Guinness.
• Benjamin Haughton.
• Andrew Jameson.
• Patrick Williams Kenny.
• Earl of Kerry.
• Francis MacGuinness.
• John MacLoughlin.
• Bernard O'Rourke.
• James J. Parkinson.
• Thomas Toal.
• William Butler Yeats.

Amendment declared lost.