Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Mar 1936

Vol. 20 No. 30

Public Business. - Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1935—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

The Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932 authorised the making of grants to the extent of £700,000 towards the erection or reconstruction of houses up to 1st April, 1935. The Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1934 increased the amount to £1,400,000 and at the same time extended the date of completion to the 31st March, 1937. It has become necessary to introduce the present Bill because the moneys already made available have been exhausted and provision must be made to meet the grants to be made to private persons and public utility societies who erect or reconstruct houses before 1st April, 1937. The Bill now before you is intended to implement the Acts of 1932 and 1934 by making available a further sum of £700,000 for the payment of these grants. The Government's housing programme initiated by the Act of 1932, made provision for generous financial assistance to the three main house building agencies, local authorities, private persons and public utility societies. The activities of local authorities to meet the needs of their respective districts continue apace and it is expected that these needs will be met within the allotted period. The assistance given to private persons and public utility societies is intended as a help towards the solving of the general housing problem and as an offset to that of the local authorities who were faced with a very heavy housing programme.

The present Bill only deals with the provision of houses by private persons and public utility societies and I do not propose, therefore, to deal further with the activities of local authorities for which the parent Act of 1932 still provides financial aid. It suffices to say that the progress made is well up to expectations.

For the information of the House I shall detail the activities of private persons and public utility societies up to the 31st December, 1935. At that date, a sum of £303,898 had been paid in grants in respect of 5,344 new houses completed in urban areas; £434,818 in respect of 6,786 new houses completed in rural areas; and £176,354 in respect of 4,538 houses reconstructed by small farmers and agricultural labourers. Thus, within a period of three and a half years the satisfactory position has been reached wherein 12,130 new houses are completed and 4,538 existing houses reconstructed. In passing, I am happy to be able to record the erection of 16,308 houses by local authorities.

The erection of new houses in rural areas has, up to the present, commanded the greater proportion of grants made to private persons and public utility societies. This fact is not without significance. An examination of the position reveals that the counties where housing conditions were worst are those which have made most progress in the erection of new houses.

Under paragraph (i) of sub-section (c) of Section 5 of the 1932 Act, provision was made for the granting of financial aid towards the erection of houses by public utility societies in urban areas for letting at rents approved by the Minister. Public utility societies have been slow to avail themselves of these grants, and only four societies have in hands the erection of 160 houses, of which 36 have been completed. However, should any further houses be provided in this way before the 1st April, 1937, the grants at the existing rates will be paid. The provision of the parent Act enabling grants to be paid to local authorities and philanthropic societies for the renovation of existing tenements has not been made use of to the extent anticipated. Difficulties have been experienced in securing suitable properties at reasonable expense. Any schemes which have been formulated up to the present can only be regarded as experimental. The number of philanthropic societies which have undertaken such work is two, and the number of tenements renovated with State assistance 22. Present indications go to show that undertakings of this nature will in the main have to be promoted by local authorities themselves.

The remission of rates for a period of seven years granted by the 1932 Act continues. This provision is not set aside by Section 2 of the Bill now before the House. Section 2 of the present Bill is only inserted to meet the wishes of the Commissioner of Valuation. Section 10 (5) of the 1932 Act provided that the valuation of a hereditament or tenement of a house availing of the reconstruction provisions of the Act would not be increased for seven years after reconstruction. At the same time similar relief was, in practice, afforded under the Valuation (Ireland) Act, 1852 (Section 14) in respect of new farm buildings. Cases have arisen in which the Commissioner of Valuation has been obliged to afford double relief as in the case of a farmer who completed the reconstruction at the close of the exemption period previously given under the Valuation Act. It is clear that the intention was not to afford such dual relief.

Saorstát materials and appliances are being used increasingly in the erection and reconstruction of houses for which grants are being paid under the Acts. The payment of grants is conditional on the use of Saorstát materials as far as possible, and the failure to comply with this condition leads to a substantial reduction or in some cases to forfeiture of the entire grant. A list of Saorstát manufacturers of house-building materials and appliances has been compiled by the Department, and there is no longer any reasonable cause for failure on the part of builders to use Saorstát materials. The percentage of Saorstát materials used in house-building in 1932 was, it was estimated. 30 per cent. of the whole. This had increased in 1934 to 45 per cent., and to-day it is 53 per cent. approximately. When the further amount for private building to be provided by the present Bill is allocated, it is intended to review the question of making grants to private persons and public utility societies.

Mr. Farren

I think the House is indebted to the Minister for the interesting survey he has made with regard to housing conditions and the progress achieved. We all welcome the Minister's proposal to make available another £700,000 to assist in dealing with the tremendous problem of housing we have to face in this country. In the Minister's survey he drew comparisons with regard to the rate of progress that had been made in urban areas and rural areas for the different classes provided for in the 1932 Act. I have taken, during all my life, an interest in this problem of housing. I think I understand the problem at least as far as Dublin is concerned, and notwithstanding all we have been doing during the last few years, I am not satisfied with the rate of progress that has been made. We have, if I might say so, two problems to meet in Dublin. The municipality is dealing with a tremendous problem, and I think it can be said that as far as the municipality in Dublin are concerned, they are doing everything humanly possible to cope with this tremendous problem. It is an enormous problem and they are doing their level best to deal with it; but I am sorry to have to say that they have been considerably hampered in getting ahead with the work. At the moment the municipality have numerous schemes on hand. The principal scheme I might say is the building of a new town where there have been already laid seven miles of roads, and seven miles of sewers, and the municipality tackled that tremendous job in a business-like, and a statesman-like way. They intend to provide accommodation for at least 10,000 people.

Unfortunately when the municipality endeavoured to get sufficient money to get on with the work, and made an appeal to the public to subscribe to a loan, with the best security in the world behind it, for the sake of one-quarter per cent in the interest they failed to get the money required. That handicapped the municipality in carrying on that tremendous work. But I am happy to say that when the municipality attempted to float another loan it was entirely successful, and they are now getting on with the work. I think it is only fair to say that as far as the Dublin Corporation and its officials are concerned, they are doing everything possible to cope with this problem.

The municipality has to provide for people living under inhuman conditions in slum dwellings. They are building a type of house situated in the most healthy part of the city and very good surroundings. They are building three-roomed houses provided with baths for 7/6 a week; and they are building four-roomed houses with baths, hot and cold water, for 10/- a week. They are building numerous flats in the centre of the city providing for families who cannot well live far away from their work. They are dealing with that part of this tremendous problem which must be dealt with first, that is with the most deserving people. But there is another class. There are artisans, and people of that type, whom for many years to come the Dublin municipality will not be able to cater for, because at the moment the Corporation are taking families of not less than ten in number and it will take years to get down to those of six in family. The small families of the artisan class are without provision at present except through the efforts of the utility societies. The money provided in this Bill is to meet that particular type of person; and for the purpose of enabling private speculators and public utility societies to provide houses for people not provided for by the local authorities. There is something more required than the provision in this Bill of £700,000 to meet the big problem that exists in the city.

In other parts of the country the local authorities are enabled to provide money, I think, under the Local Loans Act, for the purpose of making advances to enable people to purchase this particular type of house. The difficulty in Dublin is that the Dublin Corporation are not entitled to make application for advances under the Local Loans Act, and that they have to provide the money that is to be lent to meet the demand for such advances, under the Small Dwellings Act. The Minister referred to slowing down. I think one of the principal reasons for slowing down, in the Dublin Metropolitan area, was very largely because of the fact that the Corporation had exhausted the money at its disposal for the purpose of advances under the Small Dwellings Act and, therefore, they had to slow down. The particular types of persons I am speaking about are not in the position to raise money by any other means than advances under the Small Dwellings Act.

I have some little association with a public utility society — the Dublin Building Operatives Building Society. We attempted to build a type of house suitable for the artisan class. We took a piece of ground from the Corporation on which we erected 90 houses. We built them in brick. They were five-roomed houses with hot and cold water in bathroom and scullery. The tenants paid a deposit of £40; we gave them the advantage of the £60 grant from the Government, and the Corporation advanced £400 on each of these houses. After meeting their demands — repayment of interest on capital, spread over a period of 35 years, payment of ground-rent and payment of one-third of the rates — these people are living in five-roomed houses built of brick for a total payment of 13/- per week for each house.

Mr. Wilson

How much is the ground rent?

Mr. Farren

£5 a year, and that is covered in the repayment. If a man or woman was getting married in Dublin and looking for house accommodation they have to go to a slum area and are asked for 10/- a week for a single room, showing the necessity there is for utility societies to cope with the problem to be faced. Everyone in Dublin is continually pestered with applicants for houses. Unfortunately we are not able to provide for them, although the public utility societies are doing a little to help in this tremendous problem with which we are faced. From our experience of the ordinary artisan type we know they have no other method or means of raising the amount necessary to purchase a house, because everyone knows that renting a house in Dublin is out of the question. No one rents a house now if they can possibly avoid it. When a house becomes vacant it is immediately sold, and because of the dearth of accommodation people agree to pay prices far beyond their value. Likewise, when renting flats, they are paying up to 30/- a week, and they are paying it, not because it is a just rent, but because they have no other alternative if they want housing accommodation.

I mention this matter because, from my experience, I believe, and I think most people who understand this problem realise, that it is necessary that money should be available to enable tenants to find the balance of the purchase money required to enable work on the building of a house to proceed. There was a considerable slackening down because money was not available to enable these tenant purchasers to purchase their little houses. Thanks to the success of the last Corporation Loan there is a certain amount of money available, but it will not last long. When that money runs out, there will have to be a slackening down again. Some people are fortunate enough to be able to make arrangements through other channels, but the ordinary tradesman type is not in a position to do so. If he goes to one of the insurance societies he has to take out a policy with very high premiums, and they are generally put to the pin of their collars to meet the requirements for their houses without having to pay high premiums on a policy of insurance. I agree that it is the first duty of the Corporation to find money and to make it available for the real poor in the slums. They are the real problem which we have to deal with, but, side by side with that, there is another problem, and something must be done to meet it.

I know from past experience that the Minister has always been very sympathetic in this matter. I have discussed it with him more than once, and he is very sympathetic. He knows what the problem is, and all I say is that when the Corporation does look for money to deal with this housing problem the people who have the money ought not to hesitate to give it. I have all my life been listening to people being full of sympathy towards the housing of the working classes. They are full of sympathy for the slum dwellers, but they will have to go a little further than merely being sympathetic. Sympathy is very good, but bricks and mortar are the things required to deal with this problem, and they cannot be bought and put together unless the necessary finances are forthcoming. I think this problem is the most urgent we have to face in this country to-day, and I go so far as to say that, with the solution of this housing problem of ours, we shall have solved many of our other problems as well. For that reason, I welcome the Bill. I made the statement I have made with the deliberate object of finding out whether means can be found for making money available under the Small Dwellings Act in order to allow the second portion of the problem to be dealt with.

Mr. O'Farrell

Quite a good deal of State money has been spent in the promotion of housing within the last nine or ten years, but I think we have to admit that, notwithstanding that fact, we are very much behind the rate of progress at which we should proceed if we propose to solve this problem within a reasonable period. I think we are inclined to boast a little too much about what we have done, and, consequently, tend to a slowing down of progress. The President, in his broadcast to America, boasted about having built 33,000 houses since 1932. The City of Birmingham, in the same period, has built about 40,000. Any one city across the Channel that has had a housing problem has built far more houses since the war than the whole of the Free State has built. For instance, you have the case of the Leeds Corporation, which proposes to spend 14½ million pounds, in addition to what has already been done, in the next five years for slum clearance and house construction, so I think the less we publish to the world our figures, the more likely we are to impress them with the progress we are making. The progress we have been making in the last four years or so is good only in comparison with the snail-like progress that preceded it, so that when we think we are doing marvellously well, it is only in comparison with things that were exceptionally bad, and we are still a long way behind what most progressive nations are doing in this respect.

This money that is being spent is not always spent with the care and surveillance that is necessary. To my own knowledge, grants have been given where they should not have been given because of the faulty type of construction of the houses concerned. I have in mind a housing scheme not very many miles from Dublin where no provision whatever for ventilation under any of the floors was made, where the little bit of garden came right to the back door, and where not even a square yard of concrete yard was given. Even the path into the door had to be made by the tenant himself. After a while the absence of any ventilation under the floors, the provision of which seems to me to be an elementary principle of construction, caused such dampness that the tenants who could afford to have a bit of linoleum or carpet had to pull them up because they got rotten. The paper fell off the walls on account of that dampness. All this matter was reported to the manager of the district in question. Numerous letters were written to him without the slightest effect. The Minister's Department was written to about a year ago, but although persistent letters were written and demands put forward by the tenants who were purchasing these houses on the instalment principle for some amelioration of or some attention to this horrible system of house building, not a solitary thing has been done, and beyond a mere acknowledgment, no redress has been given.

In my opinion, that money has been received under false pretences. It is a wicked waste of public funds, and it is a scandal that either the manager in question, appointed by the Government, or the Department of State concerned, will give no redress to the tenants. I saw another scheme out in the same district in respect of which, in my opinion, no grant whatever should have been made. You opened the door of a house, and in one step you were into the living room. There was no privacy, good, bad, or indifferent, and you almost put your foot on the first step of the stairs as you stepped into the living room. The stairs were so narrow that no furniture, no matter how small, could be got up the stairs except it was taken in sections. Then there is this question of erecting three-roomed dwellings in the slums. It is, in my opinion, a frightfully retrograde step at this stage of our development, and a sort of admission that we are progressing backwards. Did anyone ever hear of a one-roomed flat being constructed at public expense? Yet we are constructing one and two-roomed flats in Dublin.

We hear a good deal about high ground rents, and the awful evil they are. A case came to my notice within the last week where, in the case of a £700 house — or £715, to be exact — built on Dublin Corporation ground, the ground rent is £9 10s. We have the Dublin Corporation going out on a profiteering scheme in regard to ground rents. I inquired into the matter because I know the young man who is trying to purchase a house on the instalment system. I asked how it was he was being asked such an abnormal figure for a small plot of ground, and the explanation he got, on inquiry, was that it belonged to the Dublin Corporation. Consequently, our benevolent City Manager had to mulct this young man, with a young family, to the extent of £9 10s. per annum, where the average rent would be £6, at the very most.

Mr. Farren

You ought to ascertain whether the Corporation gets that. You will find that it does not.

Mr. O'Neill

Was this particular house built by the Corporation or by some other body?

Mr. O'Farrell

No, it was not built by the Corporation. It is built by a gentleman calling himself a public utility society, and that is the explanation of the high rent. I have no more to say in regard to that except that when it comes to discussing ground rents I think the Corporation should set an example and when letting land for the purpose of building to private speculators they should set it at a ground rent that the tenant could afford to pay.

I entirely approve of the public utility society, but I am afraid there is also a tendency in some directions for this to become just a private speculative business. The case was mentioned to me quite recently of a society in which the members of the committee are drawing salaries that very few directors of private companies draw. Here again I think a certain amount of surveillance should be exercised by the State. I do not know to what extent the accounts of a public utility society are audited or examined in the making of a grant, but in view of some of the information at my disposal, I think it is desirable that the closest surveillance should be exercised in regard to the funds and the accounts of these societies.

I also think that where grants are made it should be the business of somebody, acting on behalf of the State to see, for instance, that the woodwork put into the houses should not be of the despicable character you see installed in certain houses. It is fresh and badly worked out and it is generally not only an eyesore but a perfect nuisance to people afterwards when it begins to shrink and crack and after a year it has to be reconstructed by painting to try to put it into form again. A lot of people are just speculating for the purpose of making big profits out of the housing requirements of the community, and to the extent that it can be prohibited it should be. Some builders excuse their shortcomings on the ground that they have to use Irish material — that the doors and the windows are of Irish material and, consequently, they must be bad. I cannot understand why that should be. I do know that is the excuse advanced by a lot of contractors for scandalous work for which they have got a grant from the State.

It is obvious, notwithstanding all that was said about the profits made out of rents, that the building of houses for the purpose of letting them is not an economic proposition at present. If it were, surely there are people anxious to make a fortune who would build houses and let them. But it is not. The anxiety on the part of the landlords to sell houses as they become vacant is another indication that there are no fortunes to be made out of house rents just now. Consequently, it is well-nigh impossible for a person to get a house to rent, except in a rare case on exorbitant terms. An attempt is being made to cater for the very poor by the corporations and public authorities, but the class mentioned by Senator Farren and others, such as clerks with small or fair salaries, and a lot of people in a very small way of business have nobody to help them except to the extent that they can, under the Local Loans Fund, secure a loan on long terms at a reasonable rate of interest to enable them to provide themselves and their families with a home.

That is a direction in which the Government should be encouraged to lend or to enable local authorities to lend a fairly considerable amount of money. It seems to me to be a perfectly good investment. These tenants are all people who are able to put down a little money as an instalment and the house itself is a good security. They pay back the money at a rate of interest which is higher than the local authority or the State gets it at, so that there is no loss to the ratepayers or to the taxpayers. It is by that means that you will succeed eventually in housing a very large section of the community in decent conditions — not in three-room slums, or one-room flats, or constructions of that kind, but in the type of house that any community might be proud to see its average, middle-class citizens housed in.

I sincerely hope that there will be a tendency to make money available in that direction. For one thing, it will encourage house building, not only on the part of public utility societies, but also by private speculators, and we must encourage the private speculator if we are going to solve the housing problem. He will build if he can sell, and he can only sell if the money is available, and the money is not available in the case of a large number of people who would like to buy and who could buy if they could get the money on reasonable terms. It can be provided under the Local Loans Fund, and I would earnestly urge on the Government the desirability of fostering this aspect of the problem, just as well as the other aspect of it which covers the very poor.

Mr. Honan

My position is that I was not able to hear Senator Farren's and Senator O'Farrell's remarks, and in case I repeat anything they have said, you will understand the position. I have had a very considerable experience of house building schemes in urban areas, and it is with very great pleasure that I am able to say that they are progressing, in urban areas at least, very favourably. In my town, where I am chairman of the local authority, great progress has been made. We have completed a scheme of 81 houses without any hindrance or bother either from the local authority or the Local Government Department. We are able to produce a five-roomed house, complete with roads, sewerage, water, railings, footpaths to the door, etc., which can be let at a rent of 4/- per week. These houses have been occupied for some considerable time now, and, unlike the experience of Senator O'Farrell, I am glad to say that we have not had a single complaint from any tenant so far.

Senator O'Farrell's remarks did not seem to be of a very cheery nature. It struck me that he seemed to have got his experience in some kind of secondhand way — a woman told me that a woman told her. That may or may not be. I am very glad to see that more has been done in the last couple of years in the way of house building than was done in the 25 years before. There are little snags here and there which are only natural, but I think housing is progressing very well indeed, in urban areas anyhow.

The Small Dwellings Acquisition Act is a very useful Act. Under that Act a person who gets a loan from the local authority can build his own house and the house becomes his own property as long as he pays his annuity. With every payment he is redeeming the price of the house, and after a certain number of years the house will be absolutely his own property. If he wants to dispose of his house after a certain number of years, or if he is changed from one town to another, he has a selling interest in the house. I had occasion to observe the other day that a man who was in one of these houses for five years sold his house. He got approximately the amount of the annuities he had paid for the time he was in it, so that he had the house rent free practically for about five years. That is a scheme that should be encouraged. The only little snag, which may be adjustable, is that under these schemes, whether a number of houses are built or an individual house, the local authority is bound to provide sewerage, water and the other amenities to the town. They do not come into full range for seven years. That sum that provides water and sewerage for the amenities I have mentioned is not included in the loan.

Therefore, the ratepayers have to raise a loan and put it on the rates in order to supply that sewerage and water. The result is that this comes very heavy on the urban ratepayers. Of course the time will come when this will be good business for the ratepayers, but I think it would be a good idea if some portion of the cost of the sewerage and waterworks was included in the loan to the individuals, who have to pay some portion of it, and not to have their unfortunate brothers who built houses half a century ago paying rates in order to provide these sewerage and waterworks schemes. The Minister ought to try to give some relief in that direction.

Apart from that, in the urban areas in my own part of the country and in the neighbouring towns, housing is progressing at a wonderful rate. The Minister at one time threw out the challenge that the local authorities could not go too fast for him in the building of houses. He afterwards found out that one of the local authorities exceeded him by a few paces. They had actually built houses before they applied for the loan at all. However, that thing was adjusted, and now everything is going on well. I want to say that the slums in the small towns were just as bad as in the city. It is wonderful to see them disappearing year by year and month by month. I hope that by the end of this year we will have houses for workingmen and every class of man that will be fit for human habitation, and I am hoping that in my own town there will very soon be no such thing as a house unfit for human habitation.

Mr. MacEllin

I did not intend to say anything on this Bill until Senator O'Farrell made a statement with regard to yesterday's broadcast by the President. The Senator may have thought that the way in which he put his arguments was the proper way in which to do so — to utter disparagements against the Government. These disparagments thrown on the efforts of the Government towards dealing with housing revealed, to my mind, a rather extraordinary attitude on the part of Senator O'Farrell. I remember that as far back as 1929 in this House I had a number of amendments to move to a Housing Bill, and my recollection is that at that time Senator O'Farrell voted against my amendments and against the members of his own Party.

Mr. O'Farrell

The Senator is entirely wrong. I never voted against my Party on any question.

Mr. MacEllin

I have a distinct recollection that the Senator voted against my amendment in this House. It was an amendment dealing with small farmers under £15 valuation, and the Senator voted against it. But we have since carried the principle of that amendment. The Senator voted against his own Party that time.

Cathaoirleach

I think I must ask Senator MacEllin to accept the statement of Senator O'Farrell that he did not vote against his Party.

Mr. MacEllin

In spite of all that has been done in the way of housing since then, Senator O'Farrell was not so pessimistic about the position then as he is now.

Cathaoirleach

That may have been so.

Mr. MacEllin

Now, having said all that, I want to say that I was glad to hear the Minister say that the rural areas had taken such great advantage of the facilities given by the Government in the way of housing. Now that the Government have gone so far to help the poorer section of the community in the rural areas, the Minister ought to examine the position further with a view to stretching out his assistance on the other side of the line for the rural people. The housing accommodation for the live stock is altogether inadequate, so much so that oftentimes when the sow litters or the cow calves farmers have to make use of the warmth of the kitchen to help the animals over their difficulties. A good deal of that sort of thing still happens because of the fact that there is inadequate accommodation for the live stock. I know that some provisions have been made to help people to build those out-houses. But it has not been taken up in the spirit in which housing should be gone into. I feel that small farmers are as much entitled to assistance in providing warmth and comfortable out-offices for their live stock as the people in the towns are for their claims for sewerage and waterworks. After all, it is on the cleanliness and the comfort of the out-offices that the success of the smaller farmer in the way of producing good live stock depends. These matters should be looked after. I suggest to the Minister to concentrate on that question and to tackle it as wholeheartedly as he has tackled the provision of houses for the urban dwellers.

Mr. Jameson

The remarks of Senator Farren and Senator O'Farrell hardly applied strictly to the provisions of this Bill. However, when we are faced with an expenditure of £2,100,000, any Senator who criticises the manner in which the money is being spent is, with the concurrence of the Cathaoirleach, within the rules of order. Both these Senators spoke with weight, because they knew what they were talking about. They know the people who inhabit these houses, and any information they give to the House as to the construction of these buildings or the people inhabiting them is extremely valuable. What have these Senators in mind as to the manner in which the expenditure of this money can be improved? I take it that that is what the remarks of the Senators were directed to. The Minister will be able to tell us what amount of Government inspection there is in respect of a house which is to receive part of a State grant. Is any specification made out by the Government, the standard of which the house must reach? Who gives the certificate on which the grant is paid? Is he an ordinary Government employee, or is he an architect who has special knowledge of the building of this class of house? In the City of Belfast some big contracts were carried out and, when an inquiry was held subsequently as to the manner in which they had been carried out and as to the materials used, there was a very big public scandal. I do not suggest that any such thing is going on here, but Senator O'Farrell described houses which seemed to be very bad value, having regard to the materials, the rotted floors and want of ventilation under the floors. These are all things which any one of us in the habit of arranging for building would know to be essential and would know should be provided for in the specification. Under the Government there ought to be some authority without whose certificate that the houses are built in accordance with specification the money would not be paid. The Minister will be able to tell us what Department takes care of that, and how they make sure that the houses are rightly built before the money is paid. Whoever pays the money should call the tune.

If these houses are built of bad materials, there is something wrong. There ought to be specifications in respect of the one-room, two-roomed and three-roomed flats of which Senator O'Farrell spoke, and the conditions of the specification should be complied with before the State pays the money. The Minister will, I presume, give us an assurance as to the inspection and certification required before the State pays the grant.

The opinion seems to be that builders are not at present inclined to push ahead with the building of houses. It does not seem to be a paying speculation. We are brought back, therefore, to the questions we were discussing the other day on the duties imposed by the Department of Industry and Commerce. I referred to these as interfering with building and raising the cost of building. We have heard remarks as to the quality of the materials which are being compulsorily used under these various Orders. I do not want to make accusations against manufacturers in this country, but I do think that if you went around the builders and asked them what kind of materials are available for their work in Ireland, they would tell you that they are not comparable with what they would put into these houses if they had a free hand. If one were the building industry, were making contracts for houses and knew that there was a power sitting over one which, at any moment, might compel one to alter the whole terms of the contract and take materials one had never specified and did not think of using, one would not be inclined to rush ahead with business. One of the reasons why house building is not going on better in this country is because of these duties upon imports for which nobody can allow. They are coming out by the bushel every week and no man can provide for them in any contract. So long as that goes on, you will have the same trouble as regards the building of houses. Good material will not be used, and high class builders will not go into the business. The Government should seriously consider what they are doing, because we are all agreed that we require decent housing for the people. It is, therefore, desirable to secure that the houses which are being assisted by the State will be fit to live in. All this is completely outside the Bill, and I do not know how we could make the Minister answer these questions, but if he would give us any information on the matters I have mentioned I should be extremely grateful.

Mr. Foran

I would not have intervened in the discussion on this Bill if it were not for the fact that Senator O'Farrell and Senator Jameson have attempted to make a case on it that is not there at all. We all know that the gerry-builder is as old as the City of Dublin, and nobody believes that, with the tremendous push in house building that has gone on in this country — the huge development that we have had in that way — we were going to eliminate the gerry-builder altogether. Senator O'Farrell and Senator Jameson complained that in the houses that are going up provision is not made for having them properly ventilated with the result, as they say, that the flooring soon becomes rotten. In my opinion, their remarks were altogether wide of what actually exists. The Dublin Corporation are putting up very good, suitable houses. Their contractors are not faced with any great difficulty in the matter of using a large proportion of Irish materials. I agree, of course, that so far as the Corporation houses are concerned, there is a good deal of supervision to ensure that the right quality of Irish material goes into the houses.

As regards the people who require the houses, I must say that the slum dwellers — those to whom many politicians owe their positions — are fairly well catered for. I want, however, to put this point to the Minister: that it is about time the old citizens of Dublin got fair treatment in the allocation of new houses. It is not fair to old residents, born and reared in the slums, to see men coming up from the country and getting Corporation houses in preference to them. Let me give particulars of a case. This is a family that can count on over 50 years' residence in the city. The number of children in the family entitled the parents to get a Corporation house. The mother was delicate. The apartments they were living in had been condemned by Dr. Russell, the City Medical Officer of Health, as being unfit for human habitation. As a matter of fact, they were living in a cellar in Mountjoy Square. I did everything in my power to influence the Corporation to give one of their new houses to that family, but without success. We can all see Civic Guards occupying these Corporation houses. They get them in preference to people living in the slums and to people with small wages. As a result of the refusal of the Corporation to give that family a house, the mother has since died. The children are now motherless. The Corporation refused a house to that family, but they do not hesitate to give their new houses to people who are comparatively well off. This is a matter that ought to be attended to by the Corporation. It is far more important than some of the matters that have been raised here.

I venture to say that the trades union that I belong to has more money in housing loans than any other trades union in Ireland. Yet, despite that I have succeeded to a lesser extent to get houses for slum dwellers than some other people who have not anything like the amount that we have in these housing loans. I can say that in the case of every loan that has been floated, either by the Government or by the local bodies for housing purposes, our union has invested large sums of money in all of them, no matter what the rate of interest offered was. We never recommend any except deserving cases for these new houses, and yet we fail to get houses for them. That is an aspect of the housing problem that should be seriously taken up with the local bodies. It appears to me that the people who get houses are those who are not the most deserving applicants but rather those with the biggest political pull.

I admit that the efforts of the Government have gone a long way to solve the housing problem. In the carrying out of that policy certain abuses, which were inevitable, crept in. One of them, in my opinion, is the utility society. These societies no longer serve the purpose for which they were organised, at least, a number of them. It is certainly true to say that a considerable number of them are now limited companies. So far as this Bill is concerned, my only regret is that it does not empower the borrowing of a larger sum of money. I suggest to the Government that the time is opportune to borrow big sums of money for housing at a low rate of interest. The present low rate of interest may not continue indefinitely, and, therefore, the Government should avail of present conditions and take power to enable local authorities to borrow larger sums for housing.

In conclusion, I may say that, in my opinion, we might help to solve the complex question of hospital accommodation if we dealt with the housing of the working classes in a more generous way than we have been doing. Huge sums of money are accumulating in the sweepstakes' fund. There is great trouble about the allocation of this money, the class of hospital that we are to have and so on. But is it not the slums that provide almost all the patients for the hospitals?

Mr. Farren

A slum dweller finds it very hard to get into a Dublin hospital.

Mr. Foran

Well, the poorhouse is always there for him. At any rate, it is the slums whether in the cities or in country towns, that provide almost all the patients for the hospitals. They are, so to speak, the material upon which the medical staffs are trained. If the money from the sweepstakes is to be wisely spent we should consider allocating a certain amount of it for the housing of the working classes. I regret that the Bill does not give power for the borrowing of larger sums of money to cure the awful cancer, due largely to wretched housing conditions, that exists in the City of Dublin.

Mr. Johnson

There are certain matters of fact I might be able to deal with, as I am sure the Minister will deal with matters of policy. Senator Jameson referred to the fact that this Bill deals with the provision of grants and he doubted whether a discussion as to the use of the grants was in order. It seems to me that is very proper when dealing with grants to private persons. Some of the discussion followed the course taken in the other House, and dealt largely with schemes by local authorities which are not within the scope of the Bill. I am not at all astonished at Senator O'Farrell making the suggestion about Government surveillance over the quality of the materials that go into houses for which Government grants are made, but I am astonished at Senator Jameson making that plea. It is quite evident that if the Government, on the score of making a grant of £45, were to make the surveillance he seems to desire in regard to the quality of the materials going into the houses, it would mean the appointment of armies of clerks of works for every private builder building houses, and a surveillance and interference with private persons' businesses which the Senator himself would be the first to oppose. Let us bear in mind that the grants, particularly those to which the Senator referred, are £45 for £1,000 houses. I wonder would the Senator desire that all the business of persons building houses should be under the supervision of Government inspectors. He asked what amount of inspection was made. Even the amount of inspection given in respect of grants of £45 is resented by some builders. Inspection takes place when the house is approved for a grant; there is also inspection when the house is half built, and there is inspection before the grant is paid, after the house is completed, but that inspection does not pretend to be an examination of every detail of the building. It could not be.

Mr. Jameson

Evidently not.

Mr. Johnson

What the Senator seems to desire would make it necessary for a clerk of works to be on the spot all the time. If you want a cheap house you will not get it that way. If you want to encourage private enterprise you will not do it that way. If you want to do what I imagine Senator O'Farrell would not be averse to, to build houses for the middle-class, or the artisan class, as well as for slum dwellers, and to have them all built by a public authority, that could be done. But I think Senators will have to bear in mind that if you are going to have constant surveillance in respect to grants of £45, you are going to add a great deal to the cost of administration, and you are going to have a great deal of opposition from private industrialists engaged in private building. As to the quality of the materials, a committee in connection with the Prices Commission made an examination of the cost of building materials, and from half-a-dozen different persons outside the Prices Commission, public inspectors and private builders, assurances were given that the quality of the timber going into houses to-day is better than ever it was. There have been doubts cast upon that assertion. I think it is probably true to say that two or three years ago there was a certain quantity of timber imported which was not first class. That statement is probably sustainable. Because of complaints, and after a close examination of them, assurances were given by builders, architects and timber providers that the quality of the timber coming to this country at present is as good as ever it was, while some suggest that it is better than ever. I can assure the Senator that that is the statement of responsible people who have no reason whatever for misleading the Government and who have no interest in this matter.

The Senator repeated to-day in much fewer words, and in less detail, what he said last week, in regard to the effect on prices of duties upon certain building materials. I am not going to say anything about the general question of the effect of protective duties. I have always acknowledged, and I think it is undeniable, that the effect of duties of a protective character is, at least, in the first instance, towards an upward movement of prices. But that touches on the general question of protection. Whether Senator Jameson is convinced in principle against protection or protective duties, I do not know, but that is not a matter we need enter upon at this stage. There is a great deal of misunderstanding as to the effect on prices of houses, of these duties. The Senator dealt particularly with cement, slates, timber and iron goods. There is no duty on timber. Let us take cement, slates and iron goods, such as rain-water pipes, ranges and grates. The Senator might be astonished to know that on a small house costing £500 the total cost of the cement used, the slates on the roof and the rain-water goods is not more than 10 per cent. of the cost of the house. If the whole amount of the duties went into the cost of these materials, it would mean a very small total in the cost of the house, so that there is a tendency to exaggerate the effect of these duties upon the particular goods to which the Senator referred.

He made a mistake last week in mentioning Irish cement. I am sure that was due to a misunderstanding of the position. He appeared to think that Irish cement was on the market and was being used, and was not as good as British cement. He was told that there was no Irish cement being made at present. Therefore no Irish cement was going into the walls of these houses. The fact is that by far the greatest quantity of the cement used in house building here in the last few years has been Belgian and Danish, and so far from being of the inferior quality which the Senator suggested, there is no question whatever about its quality. There is nothing to warrant the assertion that the quality of the cement going into houses is any less fit for that job than any cement made in the world. For a Senator of his standing in the public light to suggest that the quality of the cement going into the houses is bad, is, I think, wrong.

Mr. Jameson

May I say, as the Senator is dealing with this matter, that I was under the impression, from information I had, that some Irish cement was being used and that it was not good. The Senator then said that no Irish cement was being used and that settled the matter. I do not know any more about it. If the Senator says that the cement is of excellent quality I agree. Was there any duty on the cement coming in? The Senator might deal with the point I raised, the duty on the cement that was being used in these houses.

Mr. Johnson

I took down the Senator's words: "I have heard remarks on the fact that Irish cement going into these houses was not right."

Mr. Jameson

Right.

Mr. Johnson

The Senator made a mistake about the cement being Irish. The point I am concerned about is the statement that the cement going into these houses was not first-class.

Mr. Jameson

I never said so.

Mr. Johnson

So long as the Senator withdraws anything he said I am satisfied. As to the effect of the duty on cement in 1932, the price to builders for Belgian and Danish cement in Dublin was 41/6 a ton. In 1935 it was 30/-, until the duty of 5/- per ton was put upon it, and then the price rose to 35/-. Three weeks ago the price was 40/6, because of the fact that the Danish and the Belgian manufacturers have come to an agreement and have arranged by a system of quotas that Ireland shall be within the scope of their arrangement and that prices must go up. The price has gone up undoubtedly, but to-day it is at the same level as it was in 1932. On the wisdom or unwisdom of putting a duty of 5/- on to the 30/- which was the price a few months ago, I am not going to dwell. It raised the price to 35/-, which was 6/- less than in 1932. Whether that is a protective duty or not, it is for somebody else to argue. I think it is merely a Revenue duty, and it was announced as a Revenue duty. It appears to me to be a Revenue duty which is better justified than many other duties which have been imposed.

The price of Irish slates has risen from that which obtained in 1931-32, but it was asserted that the figure which then prevailed was quite uneconomic for the proprietors of quarries, even when they were paying very low wages. That is a matter upon which I am not going to express an opinion. The price has been raised by about 15 or 20 per cent. since that time. Most of the public think that the Welsh slate is of better quality, but again the whole question of the desirability of assisting by State grants, bounties or protective duties, the development of Irish industries is raised. If one is against that system, one would oppose these schemes, but having accepted them, I think it must be agreed that the effect of these various duties on the price of building materials has been relatively small and should not affect the price of houses for private persons to any great degree.

If one is concerned about the cheapness of these houses, there is one aspect of the question, which, if dealt with, would have a much more considerable effect. If one could persuade those who are interested and who have an influence with the money lending fraternity to induce them to reduce the rate of interest they charge for loans for house building, it would have a much more formidable effect on the price of houses than anything that could be said in regard to duties. Taking a house that would cost £500 or £600, over the period allowed for repayment, a reduction of even 1 per cent. would enable the purchaser to save over £100. Perhaps the Senator would devote his attention to that aspect of the question of cheapening houses. The Senator referred also to plans and specifications. Of course, in respect to a private person's house, the private person can build his house to his own specification and plan. The Government has in fact prepared model specifications which are available for any person who wishes to spend 2d. or 3d. for the use of them. The Government, before it makes a grant, does not require that the person shall build his house according to that specification or plan. Private enterprise is allowed full fling in that respect. The builder of a private house has, within a certain size and within certain limits of structure, very great freedom.

When we come to local authorities, the local authority which has been asked for a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, may have something to say in regard to the kind of house that is to be built, the quality of the structure, and many other conditions. The local authority before it makes a loan requires to be satisfied in regard to the quality and the condition of the work, so that in one way or another the amount of check on the quality of the structure is much greater than the Senator would suggest. When, however, you come to the private person who is building a house and who does not apply for a grant, the Government does not intervene. The local authority may, in respect to certain aspects, but so far as the Government is concerned, it does not interfere with the man who is prepared to forego his £45. He can to a large extent evade these duties and restrictions so that there is a certain amount of misconception as to the effect of these restrictions which the Senator has spoken of. I agree with Senator Farren in his statements in regard to Dublin municipality and the work that it has set its hand to, though I am not so generous in my estimate of its work even in slum clearance and its rehousing programme. I agree entirely with him in saying that the local authority would be well advised to do all that it is possible for it to do, in respect to assisting building by public utility societies or even by private builders, so that we may have provided a class of houses which the artisan can purchase. The local authority's duty is not merely to make provision for slum dwellers. The local authority's duty is to provide for the housing of the working classes and amongst the working classes are those people, artisans and clerks, who are prepared to pay a higher rent than the slum dweller, and who are perhaps able to put down £50, £60 or £70 as a preliminary to the purchase of the house.

I am quite certain that it would be distinctly advantageous to the local authority and would ease its own burden if it were to enable these loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act to be put at the disposal of such bodies to build these houses. Senator O'Farrell referred to one scheme—I think I recognised it—which was begun and completed six or seven years ago, I think in 1929 or 1930. I am not going into that because it is a local authority's scheme and really does not come within this Bill. It is a local authority's scheme which was sold over to the persons concerned. I think it will be found on examination that some of the charges at least in regard to it are not well-founded and others of them will perhaps bear some kind of a different interpretation from that which has been put upon them. Senator MacEllin spoke of the grant to small farmers and was inclined to urge that there should be a higher grant. I do not quarrel with that, but I would point out that the small farmer is now getting a higher grant under the Bill as compared to those who are not small farmers. As against the £45 grant to some people, the small farmer is getting a £60, £70 and up to £80 grant if he works through a public utility society. That fact it might be considered would meet the claim for the comparatively bigger grant which enables the local authorities to provide for sewerage, and so on.

The question of small farmers and the rural authorities and their housing activities has been raised. It is undoubtedly true that in some of the counties small farmers have risen to their opportunities in respect of these grants. In other counties, they have risen by no means to the same extent as in Senator MacEllin's county of Mayo. That again is a matter for the persons concerned, and I do not suppose that anyone would ask that the Minister should throw houses at farmers and compel them to live in them. I think Senator Farren is well justified in saying that notwithstanding all that has been done there is really little to boast about. I am quite sure the Minister would be the first to agree with that. The frequent statements as to the number of houses built are justified, inasmuch as the public are curious to know what progress has been made, and is being made, towards a solution of the very serious problem that exists all over the country in towns, cities and villages and the constant demand for information as to what is being done here and there. I have no doubt that the absence of the figures quoted would have been remarked very much more than the fact that they have been given.

It is true, and it is worthy of note, that some of the large cities in Britain have done as much in the last ten or 15 years as this whole country has done in that period. The circumstances, of course, are different. There is a great difference in the availability of material, and labour of one kind or another. It is hoped, at any rate, that the movement for house building here has not by any means reached its peak, and that there will be a continuous increase in the rate of progress. The Minister has frequently asserted that he will not rest satisfied until he sees we are nearing the end of this problem as an acute problem. I have no doubt at all, that when the present acute problem is blunted, we will see a growing and greater need perhaps even to replace some of the houses now being built. But there is one thing certain; there is a problem that is very acute, and very serious, indeed, and in some towns particularly, it is a very long way from being solved. Notwithstanding the public interest and notwithstanding all the generous words spoken we do find here and there that local authorities are dissuaded from taking action, and moving in any way which would cause them to add another 2d., 3d. or 4d. to the rates. That, of course, will have to be dealt with in one way or another. Public interest is bound up with this matter and public conscience is affected and I have no doubt that in the course of time the problem will be solved, and not least, by the action of persons—farmers and others—making use of the public grants made, and which are being added to by the Bill under discussion.

Cathaoirleach

Senator Johnson has given a very full explanation of the whole housing problem. To any other Senator I do not think I would have allowed such a large incursion into the whole question.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think I need add very much to the discussion that has taken place upon this Housing Bill. It is true, as Senator Jameson remarked, that a good deal of the discussion dealt with matters outside the actual scope of the Bill. You, Sir, were generous enough to allow Senators to discuss the matter from a broader and more liberal point of view, and for that I am more thankful than anything else. Far from objecting to any discussion on housing, whether the discussion took the form of blame or praise, I like to hear housing discussed, at every opportunity, suitable or otherwise. It is a subject that needs plenty of ventilation and thought. Certainly, as Senator Johnson remarked, the public conscience has been quickened to a very considerable extent on the subject of the housing problem in recent years. The public, by a little further education on housing, will see the size of the problem and the difficulties of it, and the necessity for greater advances being made in town and country to deal with what is still desired, and also the efforts made in recent and remote years to remedy what is a very difficult and urgent problem.

Senator Farren, to my mind, was quite right in giving praise to the Dublin Municipal Council for the work it has done in the last few years. The council, and the City Manager, deserve praise for the number of houses they have built. But what I said in the Dáil, and stated in public on a good many occasions I repeat here, that while praising the council and the manager for what they have done I am not happy, or satisfied, with the present rate of progress made in the City of Dublin. They have been barely able to keep pace with the natural decay that has taken place. At the present time we are hardly doing anything more than keeping pace with that. We are, perhaps, making up leeway, to a certain extent, but not to any great extent, and at the present rate of 1,000 houses a year, or less, which is the rate in the last three or four years I cannot see the housing problem in Dublin ever being solved. I agree, however, that the position has been very difficult but it must be got over and Dublin must build at least double that number if we are to see the housing problem, in its larger and wider aspect including houses for the working-classes, ended in our day.

Senator Foran raised the question of the allocation of houses by the Dublin Municipal Council. That is a matter that does not come directly under the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. It is a matter into which I, as Minister, dislike entering because I like to leave to the local authority full power and full responsibility in the allocation of houses. I have had complaints from time to time —not very many recently, although I did have a good many a couple of years ago—and where I had inquiries made last year into the wrongful allocation, as was alleged, of houses in Dublin City for the last 12 months, I can say that the cases put to me as being cases of wrongful allocation were not proved. That is not so in relation to a period more remote. I did have a number of complaints even from members of the Corporation, and, after inquiry, the inspector I sent down proved to my satisfaction that there were, perhaps, nine or ten cases in which individual members of the Corporation used their influence to get flats or houses for people who were not justly entitled to them. Other people should have got the houses, but I think that has stopped, or, at least, no case has been proved to me over the last 12 months. If the Senator will let me have particulars of any case he knows, I shall be happy to have inquiry made into it.

I think Senator Johnson answered some questions which Senator Jameson asked as to inspection and matters of that kind. All these houses are inspected. Senator Johnson also dealt with the complaint made by Senator O'Farrell with regard to certain housing schemes. The housing scheme which, I think, he has in mind is one which does not come under the 1932 Act and which would not come under this Bill. It was a scheme which was under the patronage and help of a Minister with whom, I think, Senator O'Farrell will have much more sympathy than probably he has with me. I do not know whether he offered his criticisms to that Minister when that scheme was put through.

Mr. O'Farrell

I can assure the Minister that I would be just as impartial in criticising his predecessor, and was, as I would be in criticising him. But, as a matter of fact, the faults in regard to the scheme did not come out until after the present Ministry came into office. What I suggest to the Minister is that he should insist on the local authority putting right these defects and doing what should have been done previously. It is not the fault of the Minister really; it is the fault of the local authority.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The difficulty in the suggestion made by the Senator is that the houses do not belong to the local authority any more. They have been sold to the tenants.

Mr. O'Farrell

They are collecting the annuities on them. They were sold on the instalment system.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

But the individuals are the recognised owners of the houses, and legally the local authority would have no right to spend money on houses which they do not own. Senator O'Farrell is quite right in calling attention to the fact that in towns in England, and in England as a whole, houses are being built at a much more rapid rate than they are being built here—probably three, four and in some cases ten times as rapid as the rate of even the best of our local authorities—but when considering that and comparing our rate of progress with theirs it must be remembered that there are other factors which have to be taken into consideration. They have more than ten times the population and their problem is probably a ten-fold problem in comparison with ours. Far from objecting, however, I like to hear matters of that kind brought out here. It helps to encourage our own people to quicken their pace, and the sooner they do that, the sooner the problem will be ended. I have no objection in the world to having comparisons made, even to our disadvantage here, with other countries and the progress being made in housing in other countries; but we have our own problem. It is not of the magnitude of that of England, and, therefore, does not demand the same capacity in dealing with it, but, taking a broad view of our own problem in town and country, we could certainly with advantage to the community from various points of view—especially from the public health and sanitary points of view— quicken our pace and, in some places, very considerably.

The question of public utility societies and their advantages or disadvantages was raised by some Senators. I think Senator Foran was quite right in saying that some bear the name of public utility societies but are limited liability companies, practically speaking. I do not mind what these societies call themselves, or whether they are limited liability companies or public utility societies, if they are building houses. That is what I want, and even if they get a profit out of the building of their houses, I do not mind if their profit is legally and properly earned. I am glad of the existence of anybody, whether he be private builder, public company, private company or public utility society or any other kind of society that builds houses, and the more houses they put up the better I shall be pleased. If they earn profits, it is all to the good, but I should like to see some of these societies run on lines different from those on which one or two I have in mind are run.

I want to say one last word with regard to the provision of money. It is suggested that this sum of £700,000 is a small sum to ask for. If we are thinking in terms of housing finance in England, it may be, but, relatively speaking, it is a large sum of money. Whether it is large or small, I have this assurance from the Executive Council, that whatever money is necessary for housing under the terms of the Act of 1932, which gives very generous grants to local authorities, public utility societies and to private individuals, and I doubt if the State should be asked to do more, and whatever demands are made by local authorities or private persons for grants, the Government will come to the Oireachtas and ask for the money. From what I have heard to-day, and from what I have heard on any occasion on which the question of housing has been discussed, I feel sure the Oireachtas will not hesitate to grant whatever money is necessary. However the taxpayer may feel that he is being burdened, he feels that this money spent for housing is spent for a good and necessary cause, and the money, I think, will be readily forthcoming.

Mr. Farren

Will the Minister bear in mind the particular problem I referred to with regard to having money available in the City of Dublin for advances under the Small Dwellings Act, because I think it is terribly important?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I will. Probably the Senator knows that I have discussed that matter several times with the present City Manager. The City Manager has always, when I raised the subject with him, answered me by saying that his belief was that the most urgent problem was the housing of the slum dwellers and the clearance of the slums, and that he would insist that nothing should be done in the way of raising money for houses that would in any way hamper him in dealing with that first problem. I think the City Manager agrees, and the Municipal Council will also agree, I am sure, that excellent work is being done by some of these public utility societies; that it is necessary to keep the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act in operation, and that the necessary funds should be made available. That is my view also. But the City Manager is anxious, and I would be with him, that it should not hamper the operation of the clearance of the slums and the providing of houses for slum dwellers, which is the first duty and responsibility of local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, March 25th.