Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Dec 1931

Vol. 15 No. 4

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1931—Report and Final Stages.

Mr. MacEllin

I beg to move amendment 1: —

Section 59, sub-section (2). To insert before the sub-section three new sub-sections as follows: —

(2) Where, in the opinion of the Minister, a dwelling-house is wholly unsuitable for the proper and healthy accommodation of the occupier thereof and his family the Minister may, subject to the provisions of this Act and regulations made by the Minister thereunder, make to the occupier of such dwelling-house, or to a public utility society, a grant (in this Act referred to as a building grant) towards the erection on the site of such dwelling-house or on another site a new dwelling-house in substitution for such first-mentioned dwelling-house.

(3) Where, in the opinion of the Minister, a dwelling-house is on account of its small size or its lack of sanitary accommodation, ventilation, light or other amenity or for any other reason unsuitable in its existing condition for the proper and healthy accommodation of the occupier thereof and his family and the Minister is satisfied that the condition of the dwelling-house is such that the expense of improvement can be economically incurred the Minister may subject to the provisions of this Act and regulations made by the Minister thereunder make to the occupier of such dwelling-house, or to a public utility society, a grant (in this Act referred to as an improving grant) towards the improvement or extension of such dwelling-house.

(4) The amount of an individual grant made under this section shall not exceed —

(a) in the case of a building grant the sum of forty-five pounds, or

(b) in the case of an improving grant the sum of twenty-five pounds.

My main reason for submitting this amendment is to endeavour to give to the people in the rural areas a status more or less equal to the status of those in the urban areas — to enable them to avail of provisions such as are made for the town areas. If the amendment is adopted it will allow a grant of £45 in the case of a new building and, in the case of reconstruction, a grant of £25. As the Bill stands it seems to me that it aims at putting the town up against the country. It gives special consideration to the town slums and it gives little benefit to the country areas except, perhaps, what may be given through the goodwill of the local authority.

At no time under any Housing Act has any grant been given towards reconstruction in rural areas. I believe there was a reconstruction grant at one time given in the case of towns of a certain population and it included a portion of the rural area surrounding such towns, but at no time that I am aware of have rural areas as a whole got any grant towards house reconstruction.

There is another reason why my amendment should be adopted. It is quite possible that the local authorities may not be prepared to implement this legislation. If a local authority does not give effect to the measure a peculiar situation arises, I doubt very much if, in the poorer counties, they will be prepared to operate this measure. If they do not it is probable the moneys made available will not be made use of because the grant towards building a new house is given only on consideration that the local authority will give an additional grant. By inserting this amendment in the Bill a reasonable allowance towards reconstruction work can be given.

So far as the claims of the rural areas are concerned, I believe they are equally as strong, if not more so, than the claims of the towns throughout the Free State. Let us take the province of Connacht as an example. In the town areas you have 2,541 people living in apartments consisting of only one room; there are 6,103 people living in two-room houses and 7,304 in three-room houses. In the rural areas in Connacht you have 7,950 living in one-room houses and 76,376 in two-room houses.

If you take a poor county like Mayo you have 153 people in the town areas living in premises consisting of only one room. In the rural areas in County Mayo you have 678 people living in houses consisting of a single room. There are 436 people living in two-room houses in the town areas as against 6,721 living in two-room houses in the rural areas. From those figures it is obvious that the claims of the people in the rural areas in Connacht are far greater than the claims of the townspeople.

It is imperative on us to give some consideration to the rural areas under this Bill. The only method by which we can give them proper consideration is to adopt this amendment. I ask the House seriously to consider it.

Mr. Comyn

I beg to second the amendment. It will be remembered that when a Bill dealing with housing in the West of Ireland was before this House on a former occasion Senator MacEllin moved an amendment of a nature somewhat cognate with this. The House was so impressed by his arguments that Senators carried the amendment notwithstanding the opposition of the Minister. That remains in my memory on account of the very curious circumstance which immediately followed. On the Report Stage the Minister brought in an amendment to negative the amendment of Senator MacEllin which had been carried.

This amendment is fairly long, but it is worth the perusal of Senators. It deals with a condition of affairs that, I am happy to say, is rather peculiar to the Province of Connacht. In that province there is a growing and a healthy population. They are very fine people, but they are poor. Many of the dwelling-houses are unhealthy. They are very old. Some of them are made of mud. Many of them are thatched. If there is anything in the theories advanced regarding microbes, probably a good many microbes may be found in the straw in the thatch, in the sods on the roof; quite possibly there may still be there the germs of the various diseases that have visited the province during the last century.

I think public money could not be more wisely applied than in the way suggested in Senator MacEllin's amendment. He aims at the removal of the old, unhealthy houses of the very poor and at an improvement in other houses situated here and there throughout the Province of Connacht. It makes one feel sad to think of the numbers of people in this City of Dublin who are living under cramped conditions. Too often we come across the case of a family occupying one room. I think between one-third and one-fourth of the population of the city are so housed.

Contrast those conditions with the conditions existing in Connacht. There you have 7,000 families occupying apartments consisting of only one room. Of course human nature would not stand it were it not for one thing, and that is that God gives them fresh air. I have often been in the fishermen's cabins. I have spent hours and days in them. These poor people have only the one room to live in. You go in the door and over to the fire, and sit down for a talk. The cooking and other household arrangements are going on. That is how those poor people live. They have the fresh air; they could not stand it otherwise.

Living under such conditions cannot be good for health. These old houses cannot be healthy. I recommend the Seanad carefully to consider Senator MacEllin's amendment. Most of you, I daresay, have been in Connacht. You have seen these hamlets by the sea, and, inland, you have seen the little cabins amongst the mountains. They are quite as bad as those little houses by the sea. Senator MacEllin comes from that area, and he knows exactly what he is talking about. Those of you who have not been in Connacht may take his word for it that the conditions are just as bad as he described them.

I ask you to read through the amendment carefully and, with your knowledge of Connacht, I am sure you will realise that too much is not being asked. The Senator does not aim at the establishment of a public utility society, because people like those in the West do not organise; they have not the knack of organising; they cannot be brigaded and drilled as other people; they are very backward in many ways. The Senator merely asks that a grant of £45 be made to an individual anxious to construct a house and that a grant of £25 be given where a man is anxious to improve his dwelling.

We are asked to give the money whenever the necessity arises without the formality of those societies or organisations that can be more easily applied in crowded areas. Anybody who understands the conditions that prevail in Connaught will appreciate the reasonableness of this amendment. I will ask the Minister to give it his most serious consideration.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I would like to have the point about the one-room house made more clear. I would like to be quite certain that Senator MacEllin is not including amongst the 7,000 families living in houses consisting of only one room——

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (General Mulcahy)

The Senator said 7,000 persons.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I understood the Senator to say 7,000 families. Is he including in those houses what I would call the partitioned house, the type in which very large numbers of families live, inadequately, I admit, but sufficiently comfortably? In many cases the one room may be 40 feet long, and it may have two partitions, one at each end, and over each there is a loft. People so accommodated have a living room and, in actual fact, two bedrooms. Compare that with the case of the man who lives in one room in the town. In that one room all the cooking and other work has to be done; it comprises bedroom and everything else. I think, in comparison with the man in the town, the man in the country is much better off. If the Senator is including such houses in the number of one-room houses he has quoted then a great deal of the argument falls to the ground, and I think we should concentrate on clearing out the slums in the urban districts, the main purpose for which this Bill is intended.

Mr. Comyn

The Senator has described what is really a four-room house.

Colonel Moore

Anyone who has lived in the West and has, as I have, seen the condition of housing there a great many years ago and observed conditions as they exist to-day, will sympathise deeply with the object of this amendment. I remember the time when a great many of the people there were living in mud houses, not only at the edges of bogs, but actually in the bogs, with the water coming round them whenever there was a flood. Sometimes I observed people living in what I will term dug-outs on the side of the road. Those conditions have mostly, if not entirely, disappeared. The buildings I have described were succeeded by buildings nearly but not quite so bad.

Here and there will be found wretched little cabins built by people uninstructed in building, erected in most cases in a hurry. The people who constructed these houses had very little capital. They quarried the rough stones and built the houses as best they could. Nearly all the houses, except those that were erected by the C.D. Board, were built by the people themselves in a rough way. The C.D. Board and the Estates Commissioners, when they were building houses, generally built them in nice convenient places where they could be seen from the railway line. Usually they would be erected on the side of a hill overlooking the railway and it used to be the custom of the C.D. Board officials to point them out to strangers as nice houses.

On the other side of the hill, which could not be seen from the railway line, there was quite a different class of house to which no attention at all was paid. At the present time the houses in many parts of the West are very bad indeed. So far as the slums in Dublin are concerned they could not possibly be worse. I must say at the same time that the housing conditions in the country are every bit as bad as in the City. If these districts were within easy reach of Dublin the dreadful houses would, I feel sure, be speedily done away with. As it is, they are far away and people do not notice them or bother about them.

They are really a disgrace to any country, with their mud floors, wornout thatch, cracked walls. Most of them are tumbling down and it is time that something was done to replace them with new houses or else reconstruct them so as to make them habitable. Rebuilding would be the proper thing. Those houses can be erected rather cheaply if the people are given the money to do the work, because they will be able to secure the help of neighbours who, perhaps, may be masons and then they can count upon local carpenters and other workmen to do the whole thing cheaply.

These houses can be erected at a price in great contrast to the price charged by regular professional builders. Such people charge enormously for their work. Their charges are out of all proportion to what is done. I could instance the erection of a number of houses in Kerry and Cork under such a system as I have suggested, and I am aware that they were built very cheaply. I think that system might be followed with advantage in other districts.

Mr. Farren

I would like to support the amendment. It seeks to do for poverty-stricken areas not included in what is known as the Gaeltacht area something of the same nature as has been and is being done in the Gaeltacht area. The amendment states: "Where, in the opinion of the Minister, a dwelling-house is wholly unsuitable for the proper and healthy accommodation of the occupier." That is quite clear and distinct. In the first place, before a grant is made, the Minister must be satisfied that the house is wholly unsuitable for habitation.

It was suggested that this will deal with conditions in Connemara and with the West generally, but the amendment does not state that. The amendment, to my mind, covers any locality where the Minister is satisfied that the house is unsuitable for occupation. He is empowered under certain circumstances to allow a grant for reconditioning the house or constructing a new house.

General Mulcahy

It does not even say poverty-stricken areas.

Mr. Farren

No, it does not say that. If the Minister is satisfied that the house is unsuitable he is entitled. If people are condemned to live in places which are insanitary, we ought to endeavour to make every effort to properly house these people. For that reason I will support this.

Mr. Wilson

Money was granted for the building of houses in the rural areas seven or eight years ago under the 1924 Act, and quite a number of these houses were built in the country. I take up the position that we should pass away from the time when we should give grants to people to build houses, except those who are unable to build houses for themselves. The Bill proposes to build houses for the labouring people, or to build sanitary houses for the poorer classes. It does not propose to deal with the granting of moneys to private people to the same extent as previous Bills. In this particular area there are local authorities, and where there are insanitary houses they will be entitled to grant £20. The Minister can give them £20 more. The position then will be the same as if we carried this amendment, because £20 will be given by the local authority and £20 will be given by the State. Subsidising building for private people should be stopped, and no houses should be subsidised by the State except those of the poorer working classes at a time when rates, taxes and everything else are so high. It is impossible to carry on.

Mrs. Wyse Power

A soldier's park?

Mr. Wilson

When the Bill proposes to build houses for those who are able to provide houses for themselves I am not in favour of it.

Mr. Johnson

I take it that Senator Wilson is speaking on behalf of the Party which supports the Government, but primarily as a farmer——

Mr. Wilson

Yes.

Mr. Johnson

——when he says that farmers should agree to an additional rate so as to enable a local authority to pay something towards a subsidy for the building of new houses. The Senator is advocating the raising of the local rate for rehousing of the people in insanitary houses in rural areas. It is well to have that definitely from the Senator and I hope it will be taken note of. He is the leader of the Farmers' Party. He thinks the farmers of the country should support an addition to the rates for the purpose of housing because in that case there is, under other sections of the Bill, practically a certainty that the Government will come along with an additional subsidy of equal amount. I wonder whether the Senator could inform the Seanad that in his view it is likely that the farmers of the country, the ratepayers in the rural areas, will agree to that additional rate for the purpose of housing? If there were any assurance given by the Senator in that respect then I think something could be said for his attitude, but my conviction from reading the local reports of local government meetings and the attitude of farmers on local authorities generally is that there is very little likelihood indeed of farmers levying that rate, so that they will not only lose the £20 subsidy which the Senator speaks of, but also the £20 which the Minister is likely to give. In view of those circumstances are we to understand that those living in unhealthy houses unfit for healthy accommodation should remain in those houses or does the Senator contend that that class of person is quite able out of their own resources to build houses for themselves? The Senator must take one or the other of those decisions. Either they have plenty of resources and must build houses for themselves or the local authority is quite prepared and ought to levy an additional rate for housing purposes or there should be a continuation of the present insanitary state of those people. I am not sure whether the Senator voiced the view that rehousing should not be confined to the Gaeltacht. Certainly there was a fairly wide expression of opinion that the scheme of the Gaeltacht Housing Act would be well extended to other areas.

As I read it this amendment practically asks that some assistance should be given by way of State subsidy to enable people not in the Gaeltacht to build houses for themselves. I do not know how Senator Wilson views that or whether he speaks the voice of the farmers who are organised in farmers' unions and the like when he makes the speech he has made. I am not quite sure whether this new sub-section is in the best place, but that does not make much difference. I think the Seanad should support the contention of Senator MacEllin in making this proposal.

Mr. Dillon

I disagree with Senator Wilson's statement as another farmer. Some of the farmers I know of are living in as poor a district as that mentioned by Senator MacEllin. I certainly think they should not be called upon to supply money for houses in the towns or cities while they themselves would be left out in the cold. Small farmers and agricultural workers, who are the main wealth producers, are living in mud cabins and thatched houses, many of which are decayed and gone out of use. I protest against the suggestion that they should be called upon to subsidise housing in rural areas. I support this amendment. I am not opposed to giving money for housing to those who need it, but I protest against asking farmers to supply money when they do not receive any portion themselves. It would be an excessive charge on their production. I know twenty or twenty-five sites in my own locality that should have been acquired a quarter of a century ago and no houses have been built on them since. I am heartily in support of this amendment.

General Mulcahy

There are two parts in this amendment. The first where there is a dwelling which is wholly unsuitable for the accommodation of the occupier and his family and where he proposes to build another house in substitution for his first house he is to get a grant of £45, and in the second place where in the opinion of the Minister one house is in a slum area or lacks sanitary accommodation or for other reasons is unsuitable to the occupier he be given a grant of £25. The Bill provides that where a person is building a house, whether it is in substitution for another or not, so long as it does not exceed 1,250 square feet in a rural area where the local authority gives £20, the State gives £20 also. It is to substitute for that a provision that he gets £45 from the State, and that is to be done where a private person in a rural area is carrying out work analogous to slum clearance here.

This amendment was already before the Dáil, and everything that is implied in it has been very fully considered. Since the amendment was before the Dáil it apparently has been thought that instead of getting £80 for that class of work £45 would be sufficient. It shows that this question of slum clearance in the rural areas which this particular Bill is intended to provide for has not been fully thought out. Let us deal with the clearance question first, that is, the houses where we are substituting new houses for insanitary houses. I took occasion when this was before the Dáil to suggest that the amendment was out of order, as it was undoubtedly out of order in a Bill which provides for grants to private persons of a different character from those which were provided before. It makes particular provision for slum clearances in urban areas. On the rural side, in so far as the building of houses in place of insanitary dwellings is concerned, it provides additional facilities under the Labourers Acts whereby the State would provide the capital sum necessary for the building of any labourers' cottages necessary and will give a grant the value of which is increased from £50 to £60.

So the only provision we propose to make in this Bill is for dealing with the insanitary conditions of rural areas or increasing the facilities for local authorities taking advantage of the Labourers Acts. In connection with that, we make provision by which lands, in the way Senator Dillon mentioned, can be still retained by the local authorities for the purpose of building these houses. This matter was considered on this amendment in the Dáil, and the Government, considering the matter, have decided to stand by their present policy with regard to the main outline of this Bill. In so far as there is a problem in rural areas which is in any way analogous in volume or its general character to the slum position in urban areas, then we can only face the solution of that problem when the matter has been fully envisaged and fully considered.

At present we have a position in which a number of counties have appointed county medical officers of health. In some counties in the West they are slow in appointing these officers. We are asked, say, in respect of Mayo to make haphazard provision to deal with any possible slum areas in Mayo without any picture of the problem being put before us, without our being in the position of getting any systematic picture put before us. Only the county medical officer of health in Galway has surveyed his area in a suitable way. If there is to be an approach of the rural slum area in any way analogous to the approach of the urban area, then I can hold out no hope at this particular moment that it can be approached in any way radically different from the way in which we are approaching it in respect to the urban area, and that is that any public losses in rehousing in such areas should fall equally on the State and on the local authorities, and that the extent to which the cost of rehousing would take place would have some reference to the conditions of the people you were dealing with. If rural Senators think that by a casual amendment like this they can escape, for the ordinary rural areas, the financial cost of rehousing in respect to possible rural slums, then I think they are too hopeful.

With regard to the second part of the amendment, on which Senator MacEllin laid most stress — that is, reconstruction — it is true, as he said, that in the Housing Acts prior to 1929 there was provision by which certain grants were made for reconstruction. The intention of that reconstruction clause really was to provide facilities in larger urban districts, and where there were older types of houses to provide facilities by which persons occupying these houses could divide them up more or less into flats, so as to provide family accommodation. Very little was accomplished in that particular direction. The reconstruction clauses were dropped from the 1929 Act, and in all only 600 grants of one kind or another were given. Here we are asked to provide a £25 grant in respect of any houses in rural areas under certain conditions. If we take the position that is proposed to be created here, the Minister is going to be put into the position that he has to express his opinion as to whether a house is too small.

Mr. Comyn

No.

General Mulcahy

In these conditions, as I explained already, the provisions in respect of rural housing in this Bill were criticised equally by Wexford as they were by Leitrim and Mayo, in spite of the fact that the number of people living in three-roomed houses and under in Wexford is 18 per cent. of the total number of families. In Mayo it is 80 per cent.

The Minister finds himself in this position. He is put the question: is a two-roomed house good enough for a farmer in the West of Ireland? The answer is "No." If this amendment is carried any person in a rural area who has got a one-roomed, a two-roomed or a three-roomed house will be in the position that he can come along to the Minister and ask for £25, and if the Minister refuses then he is told that the Ministerial mind is that a one-roomed, a two-roomed or a three-roomed house is good enough for the farming community.

Mr. Comyn

Do not be so sensitive to criticism.

General Mulcahy

I am sensitive to this. I do not appear before our people in a representative capacity and attempt to sympathise with doing things in a way like that. Every person who wants an additional room to his house can come along and look for £25.

Colonel Moore

Is that a large sum?

General Mulcahy

Take three-roomed, two-roomed and one-roomed houses. If you were to give £25 in respect of every one of these houses it would cost five and a quarter million pounds. In Mayo alone it would cost £625,000.

Colonel Moore

Is that to do the work by contract?

General Mulcahy

A £25 cheque written out and handed to each applicant. That is the position. We dropped the financial provision for reconstruction in urban areas in 1929 because it did not give us what we were looking for. I argued — unsuccessfully, I admit — in the Dáil, when this amendment came up, that it was out of order, because it was so much out of keeping with the general tone of the Bill. The name of the Bill was so wide — Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — that I was not able successfully to resist a discussion on that matter here. Our main construction at the present moment is additional houses, and any money that we are likely to get at the present time will certainly be wanted for additional housing accommodation even in rural areas. To open the door for the distribution of money on those things that could be called reconstruction of houses in rural areas by way of grants is do a thing that we are certainly not prepared to do.

Mr. MacEllin

The Minister more or less shocked me when he stated that it would cost £5,000,000 to build an additional room in the case of three-roomed houses down. Surely it cannot be said that the moment this amendment is passed everybody with a three-roomed house, a two-roomed house or a one-roomed house would make a rush for this £25? It would be absolutely ridiculous. Some years ago there were very substantial grants given, from £85 to £100 or over, and we had fewer houses built in Co. Mayo than in the last few years when the grant was only £45. If this amendment were passed I believe it would cost very little, and that the work to be done could be done within the provisions of the money that has been allotted in the Bill.

The Minister laid stress on the fact that this Bill was to deal with urban areas, the large towns and cities. I would like to point out that the Bill definitely does one thing more than that. It does away with all the grants given in rural areas under the previous Bill to public utility societies. So the position has been created that preferential treatment is being given to the towns. I have shown you already that there are more people living in one-roomed houses in rural areas than in the towns in the province of Connacht. I quote the province of Connacht as a matter of argument but I am not confining my amendment to Connacht.

As to the point raised by Senator Wilson, I think Senator Dillon dealt with that pretty effectively. There is no doubt that Senator Wilson's point of view is more in keeping with the farmers' point of view than what the Senator has said. Nothing would justify an increase of rates at the present time. The price that the farmer is getting for his produce has fallen recently by at least 25 per cent. and no increase of rates would be justified, not even for housing.

Senator Johnson was anxious to know whether the local authorities would assist in subsidising houses at the present time. I have already dealt with that. I must say that what primarily led the small farmer to build houses in the past was the American cheque and not the small assistance that might be got from the State. The American cheque did more to get them out of dirty houses in the past than anything else. Now the American cheque has practically ceased to come. If the thousands of farmers who are living in one-, two-and three-roomed houses in the poorer districts are to get out of these houses it is more important now than ever that the State should come to their assistance.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 25.

Tá.

• Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
• Comyn, K.C., Michael.
• Connolly, Joseph.
• Cummins, William.
• Dillon, James.
• Dowdall, J.C.
• Duffy, Michael.
• Farren, Thomas.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Johnson, Thomas.
• MacEllin, Seán E.
• Moore, Colonel.
• O'Connor, Joseph.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Farrell, John T.
• Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
• Quirke, William.
• Robinson, David L.
• Robinson, Séumas.
• Ryan, Séumas.

Níl.

• Bagwell, John.
• Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
• Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
• Brown, K.C., Samuel L.
• Browne, Miss Kathleen.
• Costello, Mrs.
• Counihan, John C.
• Desart, The Countess of.
• Douglas, James G.
• Fanning, Michael.
• Garahan, Hugh.
• Guinness, Henry S.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Kennedy, Cornelius.
• MacKean, James.
• MacLoughlin, John.
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
• Moran, James.
• O'Hanlon, M.F.
• O'Neill, L.
• O'Rourke Bernard.
• Staines, Michael.
• Toal, Thomas.
• Vincent, A.R.
• Wilson, Richard.

Tellers: — Tá: Senators MacEllin and Comyn; Níl: Senators O'Hanlon and Wilson.

Amendment declared lost.

The following amendments were on the Order Paper:

2. Section 63, sub-section (1). After the words "grants to" in line 36 to insert the words "public utility societies or". — Senator MacEllin.

3. Section 63, sub-section (1). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "or to private persons erecting such houses for their own occupation". — Senator Connolly.

Mr. Connolly

Might I suggest that these two amendments be taken together? They deal with the same section, and one fits in with the other.

Mr. MacEllin

I move the amendment standing in my name. My reason for moving it is that it will give an opportunity to public utility societies to operate as under the 1929 Act. We are prescribing a certain method of building houses. There are individuals, however, who might not undertake to build houses on their own, but who would like to buy them. Public utility societies have given valuable assistance in the past in the way of building and selling houses. There are quite a number of people who would like to choose a house from a line of houses that have been built and who would be in a position to buy such a house. I think under the present Bill individuals will not get assistance in that way. It seems that societies can only build for the purpose of leasing or renting the houses, and it would be very desirable that this amendment should be adopted.

Mr. Connolly

In seconding Senator MacEllin's amendment, I am rather sorry that the two amendments are in the form in which they are. My purpose in asking my friend to embody my argument in the change of phraseology of sub-section (1) of Section 63 was to eliminate the contractor or speculative builder.

This amendment of mine is really based on the idea that Senator MacEllin's amendment is going to be carried — which is rather a presumption, I think. That is why I ask to have the two amendments considered together. My sole object is to eliminate the speculative builder from the operations of the Act. I feel that individuals building houses or having houses built for their own occupation, or public utility societies working on a co-operative basis, are entitled to be helped. The speculative builder has been helped in the past. He has had his turn out of the grants that have been provided. I am opposed to the idea of supplying the speculative builder with grants for putting up the type of houses that he very often does put up. I am in favour of giving assistance to the private individual who wants to build a home for himself as well as to the public utility society founded by public spirited people who want to provide decent houses for the members of the community. I think both classes should be assisted. I want to have an assurance from the Minister that both elements are deserving of further support, more than will be afforded to the speculative builder as such.

General Mulcahy

I feel rather confused by the statements that have been made by Senator Connolly and Senator MacEllin. What we propose to do for the private person is to give him facilities to get, subject to the percentage fixed by the local authority which may be up to 90 per cent., capital for the erection of his house. We propose under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act to provide capital for building houses up to 90 per cent. The local authority considers 90 per cent. is the right figure. We also propose to give him the grant that is arranged in the Bill, that is £20 from the State and £20 from the local authority. In the matter of the public utility societies we are bringing them back to their position under the Industrial Provident Acts, 1893-1913, providing them, if they want it, with 75 per cent. of their capital and giving them the same grants that we are giving to the local authorities, but requiring them under regulations to build houses to rent.

With regard to rural areas I do not see how public utility societies of the kind mentioned are going to work. Public utility societies have been working in the rural areas under the Housing Acts, but under a changed definition. In fact their only functions, where they have operated, have been to get an increased grant for the person building a house. A person building a house himself under the 1930 Act got £45, but if the house were built for him by a public utility society the grant was £60. In very few counties do these public utility societies work at all. The position with regard to them on 31st March, 1930, was that one house had been built by a public utility society in the County Cork. I do not think we should contemplate giving increased grants to these societies for the purpose of enabling them to build one house. One house was also built by public utility societies in Galway. South Tipperary and Wexford. Counties in which a number of houses were built by public utility societies were: Dublin, 118; Monaghan, 43; Wicklow, 13.

That was the position at 31st March, 1930. Since then there was a development in rural areas with regard to the building of houses by these societies. The total number built, or for which arrangements to build have been made, up to date is something like this: Dublin 132, Galway 4, Mayo 44, Meath 3, Monaghan 61, Roscommon 5, Tipperary 1, Wexford 1 and Wicklow 15. Even in the case of Mayo, where there was a development in the last year or so under the Housing Acts in the case of public utility societies, we have no evidence at all that this work was the result of anything except the banding together of individual persons for the purpose of getting the additional grant. In the rural areas under the present Act persons will have facilities provided enabling them to obtain up to 90 per cent. if necessary of the total cost of the building of a house through the local authority. They will also get through the local authority a grant of £20 from the local authority and £20 from the State. From the information available, we do not think that a public utility society can be of service to people in that position.

The public utility society that we contemplate under the new financial provisions in this Act is assisted to build houses to rent for the working classes. If it is shown that there is a particular type of co-operation that can be developed in the rural areas that will assist in the building of houses in any way analogous to the building of houses for working classes in the urban areas, then that is a matter that can be considered. Under our present arrangement we want to deal with private persons who by borrowing capital through the local authority and getting grants through it are anxious to build. We want, too, on the urban side to create a position by which a public utility society proper will be helped to develop for the purpose of building houses and renting them to the working classes. I did not understand that to be the purpose of Senator Connolly's amendment.

Mr. MacEllin

The Minister, in the course of his statement, referred to the operations of building societies in the rural areas. He referred in particular to County Mayo and said that the formation of building societies there was simply the banding together of a number of private individuals to enable them to get increased grants. With that to a great extent I agree. As a matter of fact the public utility society there was established on the Minister's advice. As Senator Connolly has pointed out, I moved an amendment two years ago. One in practically the same terms appears on the Order Paper in my name to-day dealing with special grants for farmers under £15 valuation. Two years ago, when I moved my amendment, the Minister put up the argument that we had the opportunity then to get the special grants if we formed public utility societies. The Minister refused to accept my amendment at the time. We accepted his word and we established a public utility society. That society did a good deal of very useful work. Apart altogether from the question of getting any increased grants, the fact that it was in existence was a great help to people. They knew where to turn to get advice as to whether grants were available or not. The society was able to give a good deal of assistance to people who were not very well acquainted with housing legislation and who did not know what steps to take in order to get grants. In that way these public utility societies in rural districts can do and have done a lot of good. Perhaps Senator Connolly's amendment would be more effective if it were made to read "public utility societies and private persons erecting houses for their own occupation."

Mr. Johnson

I want to support very strongly the claim that the public utility society should be made use of under this Act and that it should not be confined, as the Minister proposes, to that kind of society which is philanthropic and is going to build houses to let. I think the Minister has failed to realise how important a part the public utility society has played in securing the erection of houses within the last year or two. The Minister presupposes in all his arguments that the local authority is going to take advantage of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act and that it is going to make provision through the rates for a subsidy. The history of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act in Ireland is that only one local authority of any considerable extent, even pre-war, took advantage of the facilities of that Act, and that, taken altogether, only three or four local authorities in the country took any advantage at all of the facilities provided by that Act. I do not see that there is any justification for assuming that the local authorities are going to take advantage of the provisions of that Act for the purpose of assisting house building, so that when the Minister relies upon the operation of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act he is relying on something that he has no justification for relying upon.

Now undoubtedly Senator MacEllin's argument is a good one: that the public utility societies have been extremely valuable for the purpose of securing the building of houses for people to purchase. In a considerable number of cases that could not be done by the individual acting alone. It astonished me to find the Minister taking the line which he did of anti-co-operation. He practically said that every individual who wants a house must act alone. Each man must employ a special architect and make his own special individual arrangements with lawyers, whereas a public utility society having at its service a specialist in the technicalities of house building is able to give assistance to the prospective builder. It is able to give him the advantage of that specialisation, and thus enable him to reduce his law costs, architects' fees and the other technical activities that enter into the cost of a house to an individual. It seems to me very reasonable that the advantages that are going to be given to the individual, or to say ten individuals acting separately, should at least go to those ten individuals acting through a co-operative organisation named a public utility society. First of all these ten people can avail of the specialised knowledge and information given through a public utility society. The ten will get the same advantage from the fact that they are co-operating.

I would be glad if the Minister could introduce some provision making sure that the public utility society that I am speaking of, which gets a grant, would in fact ensure that the purchaser ultimately is getting advantage of the subsidy. I fear it is true that certain nominal public utility societies have in fact been mere builders, with two or three friends, and have not given the advantage of the subsidy to the purchaser in the ultimate purchase price of the house. That is another matter that could be dealt with if the Minister would agree to secure a provision that the grant which is given to six, ten or twenty individuals if they act individually should go to these six, ten or twenty individuals acting co-operatively. All the advantage lies in favour of treating public utility societies as a co-operative organisation of prospective purchasers. There are no disadvantages that I can see.

The Minister has pleaded that in future public utility societies are only to be those which are able to obtain and lay out capital and rent houses built under their auspices. I am afraid that means the death of public utility societies and of the movement in favour of their establishment.

For the benefit of the Minister, who has been absent, I repeat my argument. He assumes that local authorities are going to take advantage of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act for the purpose of getting money, and that they are going to be given a subsidy. I do not think there is very much chance of that outside one or two places. Therefore, I would support the amendment that public utility societies should be made possible recipients of the subsidy.

Mr. Connolly

I would like to be clear whether we are taking amendments 2 and 3 together.

Cathaoirleach

We are taking amendment 2.

Mr. Connolly

The Minister mentioned that he could not see very much point in amendment 3. The sum total of it is to confine the grant to public utility societies and private persons building houses for their own occupation, thereby automatically eliminating the speculative builder. That is the purpose I had in putting down the amendment.

Mr. O'Connor

I am very much against the idea of the speculative builder being encouraged in any way. I would prefer to see the individual encouraged and helped. Judging from the Minister's statement, he is in favour of that — to help in any way he can a man building a house for his own comfort. I am very much opposed to the idea of building flats in the country for the accommodation of people. I think they are most undesirable. Some of the buildings put up by speculative builders are of a very flimsy character. I know of some that were put up in the County Kildare. I think that the individual who wants to build a house should be helped. I hope that will be done in the districts that are badly in need of houses. I do not want to enter into what has been done in the County Mayo. Senator MacEllin, who is acquainted with that district, spoke on that.

I am prepared to vote for this amendment, because I am anxious to see some practical work proceeded with in that area. It is rather unreasonable to have it so long delayed. If these increased grants are made available I am sure they will be gladly accepted by the people. The Government could not be associated with a more popular move than to help to erect new houses or reconstruct old ones. I suggest that under the supervision of county surveyors or assistant county surveyors in different counties cheap houses should be erected as an example to the people who are in need of suitable accommodation.

I would very much like to see houses of the four-room type constructed. If houses of that type could be erected in the various counties under Government grants, I think it would tend to a distinct advance in the health of the people. It certainly would be of much more advantage than to permit indiscriminate reconstruction work such as patching up old houses or adding rooms to them. Very often such reconstructed dwellings are unsightly, and in most instances the work might be very badly done. I am sure that from an engineering point of view such patchwork would not be approved. I would much prefer to have new houses built. These new houses would be of great benefit to the districts in which they would be situated.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 25.

Tá.

• Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
• Comyn, K.C., Michael.
• Connolly, Joseph.
• Cummins, William.
• Dillon, James.
• Dowdall, J.C.
• Duffy, Michael.
• Farren, Thomas.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Johnson, Thomas.
• MacEllin, Seán E.
• Moore, Colonel.
• O'Connor, Joseph.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Farrell, John T.
• Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
• Robinson, David L.
• Robinson, Séumas.
• Ryan, Séumas.

Níl.

• Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
• Bellingham, Sir Edward.
• Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
• Brown, K.C., Samuel L.
• Browne, Miss Kathleen.
• Costello, Mrs.
• Kennedy, Cornelius.
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
• MacKean, James.
• MacLoughlin, John.
• Moran, James.
• O'Hanlon, M.F.
• O'Neill, L.
• Counihan, John C.
• Desart, The Countess of.
• Douglas, James G.
• Fanning, Michael.
• Garahan, Hugh.
• Keane, Sir John.
• O'Rourke, Bernard.
• Parkinson, James J.
• Staines, Michael.
• Toal, Thomas.
• Vincent, A.R.
• Wilson, Richard.

Tellers: — Tá: Senators Comyn and MacEllin; Níl: Senators Wilson and O'Hanlon.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Connolly

In view of the attitude of the House with regard to the last amendment, I beg leave to withdraw amendment 3.

Amendment 3, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MacEllin

I beg to move amendment 4: —

Section 63, sub-section (3). After the figures "£45" in line 47 to insert the words "provided that a farmer whose sole or main source of livelihood is derived from land the valuation of which does not exceed £15 may be given a grant of £45."

We have heard a good deal to-day about rural areas, and I think there is very little left for me to say upon this amendment. I think it is an amendment that deserves the support of the Seanad. It is the most important amendment that has been submitted to the House to-day, and I would like it to receive very special consideration.

The Minister pointed out that the wording of my first amendment in relation to reconstruction was so wide that it might be possible to spend an enormous sum. The wording of this amendment confines the grants to a very deserving section of the farming community. Those people cannot afford to build houses unless they get very substantial assistance. If you give them a grant of £45 they will be only too glad to go ahead with the work. As the Bill stands, they will never get an opportunity to progress with their houses. I am quite satisfied that that will be the position in the West of Ireland, and it is for that reason mainly that I suggest the amendment.

The section of the farming community with which the amendment is concerned is not getting the fiscal fair play that it deserves. The people concerned are not getting any consideration under the Bill. I appeal to the Seanad on their behalf to adopt the amendment.

Mr. Dillon

I desire to second this amendment. The farmers the amendment seeks to deal with usually inhabit the type of house that is subject to rapid decay. As the years go on the housing question in the case of these farmers becomes more acute. They generally dwell in a thatched mud cabin which lasts for a limited number of years. The housing difficulty becomes more acute year after year for many of our small farmers. There is considerable difficulty in getting people to erect this particular type of house. I have had experience of difficulty in getting contractors to erect labourers' cottages because the amount of money available was not considered sufficient. That will serve as an illustration of how difficult it is to secure people to erect these small dwellings. It is almost impossible for those poor men to restore their houses once they begin to decay. I am sure Senators fully appreciate the difficulties.

Mr. Comyn

I wish to stress the last few words uttered by Senator MacEllin. He said that in the rural areas the farmer whose valuation is below £15 is not getting fiscal fair play. He certainly is not getting fiscal fair play in the matter of housing. I do not think he is getting fiscal fair play under any other activity of the Government. I would like Senator MacEllin's protest to receive serious consideration. It is one that I whole-heartedly support.

There has been a lot of talk about housing. There have been a great number of houses built. I have seen the class of people for whom houses are provided. Some of them are people with considerable incomes. There are two classes of people who seem to be wholly uncared for, and these are the very poor in the slums of Dublin and the very poor amongst the farming community. Senator MacEllin suggests that in the case of a farmer whose valuation does not exceed £15 and whose house needs repair, the grant to that farmer should not be reduced to £20 but should remain at £45.

I will ask Senators to consider the type of man represented by a £15 valuation. I should say that he is essentially a working farmer. If he is in a dairying district he probably has five cows. It usually happens that people in that rank of society have many children, probably six or seven in family. That type of man is the very backbone of this country, poor as he may be and hard as he may find it to struggle through. During the coming winter and spring the income of that type of man will be very considerably reduced. The little yearlings he may have to sell will, I hope, command a rather high figure, but from the way in which stock are being sold at the present moment I am afraid he may look forward to rather lean times.

If that man is in Connacht or in an agricultural district in any other province he probably has a horse and about 5 or 6 acres of land. He is a poor, hard-working man. He is left absolutely untouched by any of the ameliorative legislation that benefits other sections of the community. It appears you can get nothing unless you join some sort of awkward squad of one kind or another. I desire to emphasise the protest made by Senator MacEllin. The small farmers in this country are certainly not getting fiscal fair play.

Mr. Wilson

If this amendment is carried, according to paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) the local authority will have to give £45. Is that not right?

General Mulcahy

That is only a detail. It is so.

Mr. Wilson

It has been argued by the mover of the amendment and other people that the local authority will not give even £20. How can you expect them to give £45? Those poor people are the people who are best able to keep up against the bad times. It is the big man with the big way of living that comes down first. The 15-acre man will live no matter how bad the times are, because he is a worker. You have a chance of getting £20 from the local authority, but you have no chance whatever of getting £45.

Mr. O'Connor

I wish to support Senator MacEllin's amendment on the grounds that the man it is proposed to help is the most deserving man in the community. The man with £10 valuation is much poorer than the ordinary labouring man. I disagree that that man has five cows. If he has two or three milking ones he will be very lucky. He might have one or two calves. The present prices are not sufficient for a man in that position. From my experience these men are too proud to complain. They are really worse off than the poorer classes, and any assistance that is going should be given to them. I do not agree with Senator Wilson on the question of their getting £50 instead of £20. I would aim at getting the highest money for them. They should be helped in every sense by advice with regard to the building of houses. They should be assisted financially and should get the service of the assistant, surveyor in the way of engineering schemes. If it were only to set an example, this grant should be given, and I think it would be one of the most generous things the Government could do.

Mr. Johnson

I would like to be able to get at Senator Wilson's mind in these things, as to the proposal that tenants of houses in the country with valuations of less than £15 should have an opportunity of building houses. The Senator quotes paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 63 which is contained in the Bill up to the moment. That would preclude the Minister from giving a grant of £45, as the Minister proposes, unless the local authority gave a similar grant; but while very ingeniously quoting that paragraph to the House to-day he forgot to remind the House that he voted against the proposal when it was proposed to delete sub-section (3) last week. Where are we with Senator Wilson? Are we to understand from the Senator that he is advocating to the local authorities, the county councils, that they should make these grants of £20 as in the Bill or £45 as he would now suggest for the building of houses for tenants of £15 holdings? Can we take it that the Senator is advocating to the farmer members of local authorities that they should vote these rates? If he does not do that, I put it again that he is practically saying that there should be no houses built, with State assistance or local authority assistance, for occupiers of houses whose holdings are under £15 valuation. The Senator is taking the position, whatever may be the position of the well-off farmers in the past, who have been able to build as many houses as have been built in the towns, that the well-off farmers have had these grants and the Senator was glad that they should get grants. Now, when it is proposed that there should be a special grant made available for the poor farmers, the Senator makes every effort he can to prevent their getting the assistance that is offered. That is the effect of his argument, and I would like the Senator to make clear his attitude and to give advice to the farmer as to what he ought to do with regard to voting rates for the purpose of assisting the poor farmer.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I would like some compromise on that. To a great extent I am in sympathy with an amendment of this kind. I would like that the grant be lowered to £10 and an outside grant of £25 be given. The reason I suggest this is because I entirely disagree with Senator Wilson about the big man and the small man. The small man has no margin whatever in cases of illness.

Mr. Wilson

I have not the right to reply, and I cannot answer that.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

In the case of his falling behind with his rent and being first processed and then decreed, he has got no margin whatsoever. I think he is extremely badly off as compared with the big man and I think we should make some compromise to help him.

General Mulcahy

On the face of it amendment No. 4 would appear to be more restrictive than the first part of amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 1 would have provided that £45 would have been granted to a person building a house in certain circumstances where he had a bad house and it was demolished. The present amendment proposes that a person with a particular valuation would get £45, but while it is somewhat restrictive on the face of it, nevertheless, if we take into consideration the case put forward with respect to the first part of the first amendment the present amendment is very much wider than the amendment which the Seanad refused to take earlier in the afternoon.

Amendment No. 4 provides for 67.4 per cent. of the total occupiers of land in the country, so that having refused to accept an amendment giving £35 in certain cases I am sure Senators arguing on that particular line would have argued that it did not come near 60 per cent. of the total occupiers of land. The Seanad is now asked to pass a resolution giving £45 in the case of a class of person occupying 67.4 per cent. of the land in the country. Senator The McGillycuddy said he would accept a compromise if this would apply to 50 per cent. of the occupiers.

The McGillycuddy of the Reeks

I said a very much smaller grant, £25.

General Mulcahy

The position in the Bill is that the local authorities standing up to the national appreciation of what kind of housing we want in the country are asked to say whether the rates should bear £20 in respect of persons building a house. If the local authority will not come to the conclusion that housing under the present Act ought to be benefited to that extent, then we are certainly not prepared without very considerably more examination of the question of rural housing to advance from the position that is here. The person the Senators have in mind can get £40, and I do not think the Seanad really has had any kind of case made out for it that would warrant their passing a resolution that would increase the grant to £45, even apart altogether from what may be involved in the local authority giving the same amount in respect of classes of persons that are over 55 per cent. of the total occupiers of land under Senator McGillycuddy's idea or 67 per cent. of the total occupiers of land under the amendment as it is.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 25.

Tá.

• Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
• Comyn, K.C., Michael.
• Connolly, Joseph.
• Cummins, William.
• Dillon, James.
• Dowdall J.C.
• Duffy, Michael.
• Farren, Thomas.
• Foran, Thomas.
• Johnson, Thomas.
• MacEllin, Seán E.
• Moore, Colonel.
• O'Connor, Joseph.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Farrell, John T.
• O'Neill, L.
• Quirke, William.
• Robinson, David L.
• Robinson, Séumas.
• Ryan, Séumas.

Níl.

• Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
• Bellingham, Sir Edward.
• Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
• Brown, K.C., Samuel L.
• Browne, Miss Kathleen.
• Costello, Mrs.
• Counihan, John C.
• Desart, The Countess of.
• Douglas, James G.
• Fanning, Michael.
• Garahan, Hugh.
• Guinness, Henry S.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Kennedy, Cornelius.
• McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
• MacKean, James.
• MacLoughlin, John.
• Moran, James.
• O'Hanlon, M.F.
• O'Rourke, Bernard.
• Parkinson, James J.
• Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
• Toal, Thomas.
• Vincent, A.R.
• Wilson, Richard.

Tellers: — Tá: Senators Comyn and MacEllin; Níl: Senators Wilson and O'Hanlon.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. Connolly

I move amendment 5:

Section 63, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section two new paragraphs as follow: —

(e) No grant shall be passed for payment unless the Minister is satisfied that the house erected complies with the specification of the Department of Local Government and Public Health and has been erected under the supervision of a competent architect or clerk of works approved by the Minister.

(f) The specification of the materials to be used in the erection of the house may be amended to include such materials of Saorstát manufacture as the Minister may determine.

I am quite aware, of course, of the fact that all houses have to comply with the specifications of the Local Government Department, but I am informed, on very good authority, that the examination of these houses is a very superficial one indeed, that in houses built in the vicinity of Dublin — the specific place mentioned to me was Bray — the foundations are not right, that the materials are inferior, and that the examination fee paid for passing these houses amounts to £1 1s. The first part of this amendment is really put down so that I can raise it with the Minister and find out how far these statements are true, and if an adequate examination by an architect, a competent surveyor, engineer or clerk of works is insisted on before grants are paid. I am told, as I say, that the foundations are inferior, the materials are inferior, and that generally speaking, many houses built under these grants are not as they should be and are not such houses as a public grant should be contributed towards at all. I can hardly believe the statement that a fee of £1 1s. is paid to ensure that the house complies with the regulations of the Department in measurement, cubic capacity and so forth, and as regards the house itself the materials and the condition of the foundations are very unsatisfactory.

The second portion of the amendment is merely to call the attention of the Department to the insertion of such clauses as they in their discretion feel advisable in the specifications. We know the position as regards industry at the present time, and we feel that every effort ought to be made to concentrate on such Irish-made materials for the building of houses as are available. However advisable that may be in the case of private buildings, it surely is a national duty when we come to a situation where public money, either from local bodies or the State, is being given as grants-in-aid. I do not know that there is much to say more than that. I would like to have the Minister's explanation as regards the inspection of these houses for which grants are being made and to call the attention of his Department to it. The other recommendation, I think, speaks for itself. All the materials that can be provided for here are well known to us—bricks, slates, and such other materials as can be supplied. I would like to see if anything can be done with regard to a definite specification for these goods for houses in respect of which grants are awarded.

Mr. O'Connor

I desire to second the amendment, especially as regards the use of Irish materials and the necessity for seeing that proper foundations are laid. I would ask the Minister to make it a condition that concrete foundations should be put in, and that that should be embodied in the specifications. I have had experience of the building of houses myself, and one of the most important things, from the point of view of health and the duration of the house is that the foundations should be made of concrete. It would ensure that the house would be fit to live in afterwards. In the case of many houses where this has not been attended to they become insanitary in a short time and more or less fall asunder.

General Mulcahy

Senator Connolly underlines the difficulty of attempting to put in an amendment like this. He mentioned Bray and said he had complaints about it. We have quite a number of good consulting engineers in the country, and the person who would do the work of the appointed officer in Bray is one of the foremost of the consulting engineers in the country. I certainly could not turn him down as not being a suitable person within the section. I feel quite satisfied with his work. The fact is that houses have been built in Bray that have been badly built, but they have not got the full grant because of the fact that the machinery already exists for drawing attention to the fact where unsuitable work is being done and the grant may be refused or reduced. If Bray is the foundation-stone upon which the Senator would make a case for this amendment, I would be very glad if conditions in every part of the country were as secure as they are in Bray. We do meet, in so far as it is practicable to meet, everything that the Senator desires here. The Housing Order of 1929, issued under the Housing Act, provides for standard plans and specifications, and the work must be in accordance with these plans. There is an appointed officer. That officer may be an officer of the local authority, as he is in the case of Bray. Where we are not satisfied that we can get a suitable officer locally the work that would normally be done by the appointed officer is done by one of the Housing Inspectors of our own Department. So that, so far as it is possible to safeguard the matters that the Senator has in mind, we do it by regulation by providing outlines of specifications, including how the foundations ought to be laid. It is not entirely confined to concrete. Where the foundation is laid in concrete the proper proportion of gravel and cement are indicated. There is as much control over these matters as is possible.

As regards Irish manufacture, at the head of our outlined specification we have "all materials where possible and practicable are to be of Irish manufacture or origin." That, with the bent of our own inspectors towards the use of Irish manufacture, I am afraid is about all we can do. We have figured out the amount of the different classes of materials in our standard houses that can be obtained of Irish manufacture. We make that pretty widely known.

Mr. O'Doherty

I do not know whether I am in order in speaking at this particular juncture or not, but one point arises out of the statement that the Minister has made. If I interpret him correctly, he stated that the Department at the moment has the power to reduce grants and that such reduction was made in respect of houses that were built in Bray. Is that so?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. O'Doherty

I think that goes to the kernel of the amendment proposed by Senator Connolly. Senator Connolly's amendment is that no grant should be paid in respect of such houses. I would like to know how payment of public money can be justified in such circumstances. A sword of Damocles should be held over the heads of the contractors in such cases. If the houses do not conform to the specifications no grants should be given. I think that is the amendment before the House.

General Mulcahy

There is power to withhold the grant, just as there is power to reduce it, but that the Department should be forced into a position in respect of every house built that it should be built under a competent architect or clerk of works and that that person should be approved of by the Minister is certainly putting a responsibility on us which we cannot undertake.

Mr. Johnson

I would like the Minister to consider the point that Senator O'Doherty has made as to what is the justification for giving a grant, even a reduced grant, if the House does not conform to the requirements of the Local Government Department. Some indication of the principles that are at work in the matter would be very interesting and useful. It does seem to me that if the requirements of the Department in all respects have not been complied with the right to the grant has been forfeited. On what grounds a reduced grant can be paid I cannot see at the moment.

Mr. Connolly

The Minister speaks of throwing responsibility on the Department. As regards approving of the architect or the clerk of works, I take it that responsibility is on the Department already. Surely the Department in making a grant knows who the person is who passes the house to entitle it to get a grant? I feel, with Senator O'Doherty and Senator Johnson, that the right to the grant should be forfeited if the house does not comply with the Local Government specifications, and even if it does comply, if the materials are found to be faulty and shoddy, as many of them are, the grant should not be paid.

A definite statement has been made to me that the fee for passing these houses is one guinea, and that the work is being done by deputies for surveyors, architects or clerks of works, and that the actual examination of these houses consists in measuring them to see that the measurements comply with the Local Government specification. I would like to point out that if a house is advertised for sale by auction, and a gentleman gets up on the rostrum and talks for half-an-hour about the house and knocks it down to a bidder he gets five per cent. for the transaction. If a lawyer draws up a document for the conveyancing of that house he is paid on the basis of 3 per cent. I want to know whether that is more important than seeing that a house that is built with public money is properly built and that the money has been rightly expended. In my opinion the Minister gave away his whole defence when he stated that houses that were built, even in Bray, got reduced grants because they had not fully complied with his requirements. I hold that no grant should be given in respect of a house that did not fully comply with the requirements, and I put it to the House that this amendment is to ensure that where public money is going to be spent the full requirements of the Minister's Department shall be complied with.

General Mulcahy

Section 11 of Schedule II. of the Housing Order of 1929 prescribes: "Where the appointed officer is not a person employed by the Minister he may require the applicant to give an undertaking in writing to pay to him in respect of any expenses incurred by him in the examination of documents and any other work involved in connection with the application a fee not exceeding £1 1s. (one guinea) for each type of house for which separate plans are submitted, provided that where three or more houses are to be erected to the same plan a fee not exceeding 10s. 6d. (ten shillings and sixpence) per house may be charged." Where the inspection work is done by an officer of the Department there is no fee charged.

As regards giving a reduced grant, surely Senators will understand that there are defects as regards departure from the specifications of the Department? Certainly, if I have not received representations from Senators, I have received very strong representations from Deputies where, in any particular case a grant was either threatened to be reduced or was reduced, pointing out how small the departure was in one way or another. I think when a person has gone to the expense and trouble of building a house the grant should not be refused without serious reason. If the defects are big or if the departures from the specifications are serious — if the floor-space is exceeded or if it is below the minimum floor-space — the grant is refused, but in so far as it complies in a reasonable way with the dimensions and the specifications I feel sure Senators will appreciate that there may be a case for a reduction, but not for withholding the grant as a whole.

Mr. Johnson

In future will the local authorities' grant rise or fall according to the Minister's judgment?

General Mulcahy

In future I take it the Minister's grant will rise and fall according to the judgment of the local authorities.

Mr. Johnson

Will the Minister take the local authorities' certificate as to whether it is fully up to the standard?

General Mulcahy

Surely. Some readjustment of the responsibility of the appointed officer may arise. Perhaps it may require consideration whether it is the Minister who shall dictate what his opinion of the situation is on the appointed officer's report. While very often we have differences with local authorities, I cannot imagine differences arising with them over a technical report.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question —"That the Bill be received for final consideration"— put and agreed to.

Question —"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.