Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jan 1944

Vol. 28 No. 6

Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1943—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

This Bill is concerned mainly with extending the time for the making of grants to private persons and public utility societies in respect of the erection of new houses in rural areas and the reconstruction of existing houses by small farmers and agricultural labourers under the system of grants established by Section 5 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932. Section 2 of the Bill proposes to extend as from the 1st April, 1943, to the 1st April, 1945, the time for the completion of such houses. The houses in question, therefore, must be completed before 1st April, 1945, in order to qualify for a grant under the Act of 1932.

An extension of time is also proposed in respect of the provision of the Act of 1932 for the acquisition of houses by municipal authorities with the aid of grants under the Act and the improvement and enlargement of such houses by these authorities and philanthropic societies. The provision whereby grants are made to public utility societies for the erection of houses for letting in urban areas is also proposed to be extended.

Clause 3 of the Bill defines the term "reconstruction" for the purposes of the Act. The term was not defined in the Principal Act of 1932, or in any of the subsequent Housing Acts. The Public Accounts Committee of the Dáil, on a recent review of the operation of these Acts, expressed the opinion that the term should be defined. In deference to that opinion, "reconstruction" is now being defined as the carrying out of any structural alteration to a house, including the extension or enlargement thereof, or the carrying out of any other work, which, in the opinion of the Minister, would be reasonably necessary for making the house a better habitation. Generally speaking, reconstruction grants have been given for re-roofing, the building of an additional room, the enlargement of existing windows and such like works.

Under existing legislation, no special assistance is given to public utility societies in carrying out schemes for the rehousing of persons displaced from slum areas or unfit houses. Special assistance, however, is, on the other hand, offered to municipal authorities who undertake works of this kind and contributions of 66 2/3rds of the cost of such works within the prescribed limits of £500, are payable to local authorities carrying out rehousing schemes, as against grants of one-half that amount in respect of the provision of new houses.

Section 4 of the Bill will enable a local authority to grant assistance to a public utility society carrying out rehousing schemes and the assistance can be given under the terms of the Bill in one or other of the following ways, either by loan, by contribution to annual loan charges, by capital grant, by grant or loan or by the execution of site or other development works.

Section 5 of the Bill transfers the real cost of affording assistance given by the local authority under Section 4 of the Bill from the local authority to the Exchequer and enables the Minister to recoup the local authority in respect of any assistance given by it under Section 4 of the Bill. The recoupment must be made in accordance with the rules set out in the Schedule to the Bill, and these rules provide that the maximum recoupment which the Minister may make to a local authority must not exceed the value of the assistance given to a local authority if it, itself, carried out the work in the first instance. Section 6 ensures that houses or flats provided by public utility societies with assistance under Section 4 of the Bill will not be entitled to a remission of rates under the Local Government (Remission of Rates) Act, 1940, as amended.

Section 7 provides for the making of regulations generally for the purposes of the Act and Section 8 provides for expenses. The final section is the usual one dealing with the Short Title and Citation.

Mr. Counihan

Might I ask the Minister a question? Does this Bill or existing legislation entitle his Department to make grants for the building of parish halls?

Mr. MacEntee

No; it has nothing to do with anything except with the making of grants to private persons to provide for the erection of houses by small farmers and agricultural labourers.

Mr. Counihan

Is there no possibility of putting in an amendment which would bring in parish halls?

Mr. MacEntee

None whatever.

General Mulcahy

The Minister is making provision in this Bill for the continuation of rural housing on the one hand and housing in the city areas on the other. I take it that he is going to see whether public utility societies can help in the rehousing of people displaced from insanitary dwellings. We would like to avail ourselves of the opportunity of the Minister's presence here to inquire what exactly is happening in the matter of house-building throughout the country? Section 2 of the Bill indicates that under certain paragraphs of the Principal Act grants will continue to be paid. Sub-section (a) refers to paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Principal Act. The latest information we have about the position of building under these paragraphs is contained, I think, in the Parliamentary Records of the Dáil of February 5th, 1941, which give information up to September 30th, 1940. By the 30th September, 1940, the number of houses built by ordinary agricultural labourers and private persons entitled to the grant of £70, was 614. Of these, 90 had been built in the 15 months previous to September 30th, 1940. The total number of houses built by persons deriving their living from agriculture with £15 valuation or under was 986, of which 95 had been built in the 15 months referred to. In respect of persons deriving their living from agriculture with valuations between £15 and £25, the figure for houses built was 297, of which 50 were erected during the 15 months I speak of. So far as valuations above £25 were concerned, the number of houses built was 6,265, of which 904 were built in the previous 15 months.

The number of houses built by private persons was 8,162, and of these, 1,139 were built between the 30th June, 1939, and the 30th September, 1940. Up to the 30th September, 1940, there had been built by public utility societies: for agricultural labourers, 2,214 houses; for persons with a valuation of £15 and under, 7,421 houses; and for persons with a valuation of from £15 to £25, 1,494 houses. The number of these that had been built during the 15 months ending the 30th September, 1940, was as follows:—410 for agricultural labourers; 1,077 for those with a valuation of £15 and under, and 296 for those with valuations of from £15 to £25; so that 2,922 houses had been built by public utility societies in those 15 months. In their case the grants totalled £192,190.

Now that we are extending the grants, I wonder if the Minister could tell us how many houses have been built since these returns were issued in 1941? Will he say if there is any substantial number of houses in process of being built at the present time, and what he expects are likely to be the commitments in respect of grants? In regard to the improvement grants, the total number of houses that had been improved at the 30th September, 1940, was 25,906, at a total cost of £994,012. The total cost in grants in respect of 4,444 of these during the 15 months ending the 30th September, 1940, was £169,000. It would be interesting to know to what extent that work is being done at the present time, and what employment is being given on it. Will the Minister say whether there is any serious difficulty in regard to the carrying out of this type of housing in rural districts, particularly in the matter of getting materials?

I think that the Minister's proposal in Section 4 of the Bill is a new venture. Does he entertain the hope that any substantial number of houses will be built by public utility societies for the rehousing of people in urban districts who have been displaced from insanitary dwellings? As far as we know, very little is being done in that direction by public bodies at the present time. It would be interesting to know if public utility societies, by the employment of some kind of ingenuity, are likely to succeed in doing what the local authorities are not doing. It is indicated in the Bill that a public utility society, carrying on this work, may be given certain assistance, including assistance by way of loans. Can the Minister say at what rate money will be loaned to public utility societies carrying out such work? Since the setting up of the Central Bank, certain discussions have taken place and a certain amount of public interest has been aroused in the interest rates charged for money needed for the carrying out of economic work. We have seen that there have been complete changes in the handling of finance for the carrying on of the war. In the discussions that have taken place about these changes, quite a number of very conservative, very important and very well-informed people have indicated that this is not merely a new war technique, but that it is a new understanding of money in relation to the carrying on of constructive work.

The man in the street, both from what he infers from the discussions that are going on and from the calculations that he is able to make for himself, has figured it out that money for such work as housing should be made available at a rate of interest substantially less than it has been customary to give it even to local authorities. It is thought, and may perhaps soon be argued sufficiently to make the man in the street very dogmatic about it, that money can be made available for such purposes as housing at a rate of interest that would be not less than 2 per cent. below what the local authorities have been paying for it in the past. If money could be obtained at this lower rate, it would mean, in the case of a house costing £400 to build, that the rent could be reduced by 3/-. It is important that these matters should be thoroughly investigated so that operations carried out on these principles would not shake public confidence in any way.

The rise in the cost of building has been so great that it is essential that these matters be thoroughly investigated. Advantage might be taken of the modern technique and the modern theory with regard to money before such bodies and public utility societies are induced to engage in work which the local authorities are rather shy about undertaking at the present time. It may be that, due to some kind of ingenuity on the part of the organisers of public utility societies, they may be able to do some of this work. If so, they ought to be assisted in every possible way so that they will not find themselves saddled with costs in respect to capital charges. They might be spared all that if a little thought and examination were given to this question now by Parliament and the Government. As the Minister is here, we would like to hear him say something on these matters. We would be glad to know if there is a substantial amount of rural housing going on at the present moment. Can the Minister tell us what relation the grants paid at the present moment bear to those paid pre-war, and how present prices for building in rural areas compare with pre-war prices?

Mr. Hawkins

It is appropriate, I think, that our first discussion in the Seanad in the New Year should be on this question of housing because, in my opinion, it is one of the biggest problems that we have to deal with. It is a problem that the Government have to face. I am glad that, in doing so, they have decided to look outside the local authorities for some assistance in trying to solve it, particularly in the urban areas. Those of us who go through the slums in the poorer districts of our cities and towns are well aware of the terrible conditions under which large numbers of our people are housed at the present time. Much has been done to help to relieve that situation, particularly under the housing programme which the present Government put into operation soon after they came into office. Still, much more remains to be done. I welcome the view of the Government that some token of appreciation should be shown to such bodies as public utility societies or other people who may be anxious to come in and help the local authorities to solve this problem. I fear that the provision at present in the Bill will not encourage such societies very much. A society will have, in the first place, to get approval from the local authority and the local authority will be burdened with the responsibility of financing the scheme put forward by the public utility society even though recoupment come later from the Local Government Department. I think that mere approval by the local authority of the plans and proposals put forward by a utility society should be sufficient, and that the Local Government Department should supply the funds forthwith, rather than ask the local authority to do so. If a public utility society is approved of by a local authority, and the local authority wishes to place funds at the disposal of the society, it will have to borrow the necessary money or raise it by way of rate, which it would hesitate to do. In lending it back to the public utility society, there would be a small increase in the rate of interest, thereby increasing the rate of interest to the members of the utility society. If mere approval of the project put forward by a public utility society was regarded as a sufficient certificate by the Local Government Department or the Board of Works on which to make funds available, the system would be much more efficient, and the charge on the public utility society would be 1 per cent. or ½ per cent. lower.

This question of housing is not one which affects urban areas only. We have in our rural areas slums as bad as there are in the bigger cities. At the moment, there are three bodies dealing with houses. The Land Commission is responsible for building houses in cases where they take over and divide lands. In the Gaeltacht areas, Gaeltacht Services erect houses for people residing there. The Local Government Department make grants to people in urban and rural districts to assist in the erection of houses. Then, we have the local authorities and now we are to have the public utility societies. I suggest to the Government that the time has come when we should set up a national housing board, with powers analogous to those of the bodies entrusted during the emergency with our shipping and similar operations. Provision should now be made for the post-war building that must take place. Senator Mulcahy has asked for figures in connection with the number of houses at present under construction. He has also asked for particulars of cost and if the emergency conditions have interfered appreciably with house building. We all realise that building cannot go on during the emergency as it did before and as we hope it will do when the emergency ceases. Now is the time to lay our plans. I suggest that a national housing board, with increased powers and with a really national outlook, be set up by the Government to organise the whole building industry. The making of grants alone is not sufficient. The placing of money aside for the building of houses is not sufficient. It is necessary to have qualified men to erect the houses. If we do not set about making our plans now, I fear that we shall not be able to carry out the necessary work when the war is over. The supply of raw materials— timber, steel and other things — will present a big problem. This question of housing is one that should get careful consideration. It is one which would solve 99 per cent. of our employment problems after the war. We all know that, in addition to the employment provided in building, building gives increased employment in a number of allied trades. It is for that reason that I think a national housing board should be set up and given power to enter into contracts either immediately or as soon as supplies are available. It should bring in in bulk lots the necessary timber and other materials and organise this industry as it should be organised.

Section 4 of the Bill affords encouragement to public utility societies. That is a very good thing. We should have more of those public utility societies. In every industry in which a number of workers are employed, the people interested — particularly the labour people — should encourage the establishment of such societies, so as to obtain the benefit of this section of the Bill, and enable houses to be put up for workers in the industry. It would be a very fine way for trade unions and directors of industry to invest some of their money. So far as I understand, the section refers only to public utility societies when catering for people removed from slum areas. I should like to see that provision enlarged. We are about to start a campaign against tuberculosis, and these cases should be given special consideration. I know of a case in which a father, mother, and seven children — five of whom were receiving treatment in Galway sanatorium— could not get a house because they had not the good luck, or the misfortune, of living in a slum area, or of having been evicted from a slum house, while old bachelors and old maids who happen to live in those areas got new houses. The people concerned had to go in as sub-tenants to them. I know that it is hard, when making regulations, to provide for the human element in every case, but I think the regulations should be sufficiently elastic to permit of just treatment in cases of this kind.

There is also to be considered the question of housing under the Land Commission. The Land Commission are, as it were, landlords of a number of houses and many of these houses are in very bad condition. The occupants have very small holdings of land and the grant of £80, given in cases in which the valuation is under £15, is not sufficient to enable those people to undertake the heavy responsibility of building new houses. With their limited incomes and, in almost all cases, very large families, these people cannot proceed to erect a decent house for themselves. We hear a lot of talk about the flight from the land. It is no wonder that children brought up in such homes should try, at the first opportunity, to get away from their surroundings. I put it to the House and the Minister that the Land Commission should be instructed to undertake the improvement of all such houses or the erection of new houses or that they should make available to the tenants facilities for so doing. Otherwise, it should be delegated to the housing board that I suggest should be set up Public authorities were, in the past, very reluctant to undertake the erection of sufficient houses for people in their districts because to do so meant a certain increase in the rates. I am very much afraid that under the present system that position will be aggravated if we do not now set up some authority that will have power to compel local authorities to make plans for the erection of sufficient houses.

If these plans were available much could now be done in the way of development work that would give employment to some of the unemployed. In a number of cases that work will not be undertaken now. I do not wish to mention the Department or the local authorities that were concerned where money was expended on the development of a site, but — whether it was the engineering or some other staff was responsible — instead of the cost decreasing it will be increased, as there will have to be further excavation and development work. That shows the necessity of organisation and of having available a sufficiency of intelligent workers. I suggest to the Minister, where the advance of £80 was not sufficient, that he might have discretionary power, where a county medical officer or the engineer appointed by the Department so recommended, to give an increased grant. There are cases where it is absolutely necessary that that should be done, if the people affected are ever to have facilities to enable them to erect houses for their own use.

Mr. Campbell

This Bill, as the Minister so clearly indicated, is narrow and very limited in its scope. It is not in any sense a general housing Bill and, therefore, precludes any general discussion. It relates only to minor but none the less important aspects of the general question of housing. It refers solely to the payment of housing grants to private persons in rural areas, and to public utility societies in both urban and rural areas, who provide houses for the working classes, and where such houses are used for the rehousing of persons displaced by the operations under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1931. It would appear that Sections 4 and 5 empower local authorities to make arrangements with a public utility society to erect houses or flats for rehousing persons who otherwise would have to be provided for by a local authority, such as the Corporation of Dublin. Such a society might be able to obtain donations or loans free of interest or loans at a nominal rate of interest from philanthropic people for this special purpose, and thus relieve the corporation of even a little of its burden, and, at the same time, evoke the practical, sympathetic and continuing interest of such people in the housing problem. In such cases the corporation may with the consent of the Minister, and in accordance with the regulations made for the purposes of the Act, make grants to the society, and the Minister may recoup the corporation, subject to the limit line regarding the amount set forth in the Acts and regulations at present in force.

Hitherto, I am informed, the utmost assistance that could be given to a society in these circumstances has been a lump sum grant from the State not exceeding £100 per dwelling making, with £50 grant from the corporation, say a total of £150. Under the proposals in the Bill the society would be placed, in regard to the State subsidy, in a similar position to that of the corporation itself — always provided that the corporation is co-operating— that is, the State would recoup the corporation for the assistance given to the society by paying an annual contribution towards the capital charges up to 66? per cent. on a maximum of £500 per flat or £400 per cottage. As it stands no date is given as from which these provisions may be applicable, and they would appear to have effect only in respect of dwellings provided subsequent to the Bill becoming law.

That brings me to the point I wish to make, or rather I should say to the appeal I wish to make on behalf of a utility society that has done a splendid piece of housing work. A similar appeal was made in the Dáil when the Minister was piloting the Bill through that House. I refer to the Charlemont Public Utility Society. That society in 1941 and 1942, with the help of the corporation and the Minister for Local Government, erected a block of 13 flats in Charlemont Street. Apart from the State grant of £100, and the corporation grant of £50, the capital was obtained in large part by donations of about £6,000 from public-spirited citizens, and, in part, by a loan of £3,000 or so from the Local Loans Fund. To meet this sum, the society raised by way of donations about £465 per flat; by loan from the Local Loans Fund, £225; by grant from the State, £100; and by grant from the Dublin Corporation, £50; making the total of £840 per flat to which I have referred. If the present Bill had been operative at the time these flats were erected, the financial position might have been (per flat): Grant from State, £333 (that is, 66? per cent. on a maximum of £500 per flat); grant from the Dublin Corporation, £50; and, by donations, £457; making the same total of £840 per flat. In this case it will be seen that, if the flats had been erected under the financial provisions of the Bill now before the House, it would not have been necessary to apply for a loan at all from the Local Loans Fund.

It is on behalf of this society that I appeal to the Minister. The society is a genuinely philanthropic one. It is made up of public-spirited citizens whose social conscience is shocked at the terrible housing conditions under which so many of our poorer citizens are forced to exist. The society has not sought, and does not intend to seek, any profits whatever. Its sole concern is the provision of decent housing accommodation for those who need it; and, in so far as the flats it already has erected are concerned, it is quite prepared to vest them in the Dublin Corporation, simply desiring that they should retain responsibility for administration, and maintaining personal contact with the tenants with a view only to promoting their social welfare. The society asks that it should be brought into a position in the present Bill that would entitle it to the financial assistance it would have received if it had been in operation at the time of the erection of their flats. In other words, they ask that the provisions of Section 4 of the present Bill be made retrospective, and that they be afforded the same financial assistance from the Department as the Dublin Corporation receives. The affording of this financial relief would give a new impetus to the work of their society — work to which the Minister himself paid handsome tribute in the Dáil, and which he said he greatly valued.

Senator Mulcahy has already expressed the hope that utility societies would be induced to embark on this class of work. Here we have a striking example of what a utility society can do in this respect. The society has obtained from the Dublin Corporation a site for an additional 37 flats. If the Bill is amended as I have suggested, they would be able to look for additional funds from those public-spirited citizens who helped it before, and they would then be in a position to proceed to make arrangements for the erection of these additional flats at the earliest possible date. The Minister is concerned, and rightly concerned, at the danger of creating precedents in matters of this kind, and of the undesirable consequences that might ensue from them. I submit, however, that in this case the danger is negligible, and the amount of money involved is infinitesimal. There is no possibility whatever, I am informed, of any other utility society claiming the assistance asked for by the Charlemont Utility Society, and the amount of money involved in making Section 4 of the Bill retrospective would not amount to more than £3,000, or £4,000 at the outside.

In that connection, might I suggest that in Section 3 the word "reconstruction" is retrospective, and in its application might involve a bigger charge on the Exchequer than the known amount which the application of the retrospective aspect of Section 4 would involve. In conclusion, therefore, I would earnestly appeal to the Minister to bring forward an amendment on the Committee Stage to make the provisions of Section 4 applicable retrospectively to cover the housing scheme of the Charlemont Utility Society, by inserting a new paragraph (f) in Section 4 as follows: "This section shall have and be deemed to have had effect as from the 1st April, 1941."

The Minister in the Dáil expressed in no unequivocal terms his appreciation of the value of the contribution to the solution of the housing problem made by the utility society on whose behalf I am appealing to him. The Minister also said that he knew the Minister for Finance was very sympathetic in the matter, but that he was up against what was really a fundamental principle, namely, that it was not possible for him to allow people to carry out works on one basis, and then ask the State to give them public moneys which those who had undertaken the works did not envisage when they had embarked on these projects.

I do not know whether the Minister for Finance was fully aware of the amount of money involved, and of the fact that only one society was concerned in the request being made; but, again, I would appeal to the Minister to use persuasive eloquence with the Minister for Finance. If he does so, I have little doubt that the Minister's appreciation and the Minister for Finance's proverbial sympathy will be productive of good for the society on whose behalf I speak. There may be difficulties in the way of creation of precedents and the possibility of other people looking for this amount, but I am very reliably informed that there is no other society on the same basis as this society in regard to applying for a retrospective grant.

Mr. Honan

As the other speakers have said, this Bill is a very desirable and useful one and a lot of good work has been done throughout the country by the grants which have been allocated to small farmers and others. There is one little snag which I mentioned here before: I do not know if it has been adjusted yet. The Minister has mentioned that one of the purposes of the grants is the building of additional rooms but, strange as it may seem, there was a regulation governing this, that where an addition was made to a thatched house the grant was reduced if the additional roof was not composed of slates or tiles. That seems to be very ridiculous, as a house which is two-thirds thatched and one-third slated or tiled does not look nice. Such a regulation can have no practical purpose, and I cannot understand why it should have been made. I hope the Minister will see that, if that regulation still exists, it will be eliminated henceforth from all regulations governing this matter.

I suppose it would be digressing slightly to deal with housing in slum areas and towns. By a recent move we made to have some houses built in my town, I have reason to know that this will be an extremely difficult proposition, as the law exists at present. Some eight or nine years ago, when materials were at normal prices, we built about 60 houses, costing approximately £360 each, for which the Government gave a subsidy of two-thirds remission. Under that scheme, a house was let at about 5/8 per week, including rates. We have the estimate of the same engineer for similar houses at present, showing that they would cost £700 per house. Under the present law, there is remission given only of two-thirds of the first £350 and the second £350 has to be borne in full by the local authority. To pay back the interest and sinking fund on that money and to recoup it from the tenant, the rent would amount to 11/- per week, plus rates. On a valuation of £5, the rates may be assumed to be 2/-, which would make the rent 13/- per week. I do not know how that is going to be got. The rent might be got from a certain class of people who might require houses, but certainly not from the class of people whom it was intended to house — people in slum areas, whose houses have been condemned— and it is the opinion of wise people, as Senator Mulcahy pointed out a few minutes ago, that wherever the financial aid is to come from, or whatever view we may take of finances in this connection, unless there is a remission of two-thirds of the all-in costs of the houses, there can be no remission of the rent of these houses, and it will not be possible to provide housing for those who, at the moment, are compelled to live in the slum areas of the towns and cities.

I think, therefore, that it would be well for the Minister to look into such questions, and to bring in a new Bill, dealing particularly with urban and city areas, in view of the fact that the most that the slum dweller in the towns and cities can pay — the ordinary worker or, if perhaps not the ordinary worker, the casual labourer — would be about 5/6 a week. There is no use in building a house for that man, at a rent of 15/- a week, because that would mean 50 per cent. of his entire income. For that reason, I say that this whole matter will have to be considered in a very broad way, and I believe that there will be no real housing provided for the people who are now dwelling in the slum areas of the towns and cities unless a new Bill is brought in which will make provision to the effect that the highest rent to be called for from any poor working man will be 5/6 or 6/-.

Mr. Colgan

As one who does not belong to either of the major Parties in this House, I should like to pay a tribute to this Government and the previous Government for the work that both Governments have done for the housing of the people of this country. In the main, I agree with what Senator Hawkins said, but I deprecate his suggestion that the previous Government had not done its share in this matter of housing. I think that a tribute should be paid to them for the work they did. I, personally, had experience of the work they did in connection with Marino, Donnycarney, and other areas in the City of Dublin, and I think a tribute should be paid to them for that work.

The suggestion that trades unions should invest money in housing has certain difficulties, and I am sure that the Minister could tell the Senator that trades unions are prohibited from investing money in any other than gilt-edged securities. Whether speculative building would be regarded as a gilt-edged security is another matter, but the fact is that trade unions are only allowed to invest their moneys in gilt-edged securities. My main purpose, however, in getting up to speak here is to appeal to the Minister to raise the ceiling figure of £500. Under the 1932 Act the ceiling figure was £500, in connection with flats or houses, and I am quite sure that the Minister will understand that, with the rise in price of various building materials since that time, the new charges would amount to about £800 now. Senator Honan made a point on which I should like to elaborate to some extent.

As I have said, the case for increasing the grant is obvious, in my opinion, in view of the costs of building materials at the present time. Speaking as a member of the Dublin Corporation, I can say that we have that difficulty at the present moment, and whether it will be possible to build any houses at all within the next two years is very problematical. That is the case so far as the corporation is concerned. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get building materials, and it is my impression that, even when the present housing schemes which the corporation has in hands are completed, we will not be in a position to embark on other schemes for a considerable time to come, in view of the difficulties that are almost certain to arise when the present emergency has passed. Most of us will remember the difficulties that were experienced after the last war, and will recollect that these difficulties did not actually become apparent until the war was over. Accordingly, I would say that the possibility of any building being undertaken either by public authorities or public utility societies, within the next two years, is very problematical, and I would appeal to the Minister to consider the point I have made to the effect that, although £500 might have been a fair figure in 1932, it is certainly not a fair figure to-day.

Senator Honan spoke of a rent that would be within the capacity of the people to pay. Members of the Dublin Corporation have experience of unfortunate people living on the dole, and yet the lowest rent at which the corporation can supply a house at the present time is around about 8/- a week. Take the case of a man, with a wife or four or five children, living on the dole: no matter what else is paid, the rent must be paid, and the result is that the Dublin rates at the present time are carrying far more than their fair share of the burden of housing these people. The corporation would be only too anxious to reduce these rents if possible, and for that reason I think that the grant might be increased. At the present time, the rent that the average family in Dublin can pay — that is, taking the people whom the corporation try to house: people with families of four or five children who are now living in one room —would be about 10/-. Very few of these people are in a position to pay a higher rent than 10/- a week, and it can be appreciated that that is not an economic rent, when you take into consideration the difference between the cost of building the house and the amount that the tenant is able to pay; and that is bound to have its effect on the rates.

I would certainly say that this will not encourage public utility societies to step in and indulge in further building activities. Senator Campbell seems to look upon them, in effect, as a kind of charitable organisation, but after all a public utility society is a commercial concern, which wants to make a profit on the building of houses for the working classes, and in view of the present circumstances these public utility societies certainly will not step in to do the work when they see that the public authorities themselves find it impossible to do it. I think the Minister should seriously consider the question of raising the ceiling figure from £500 to £800.

Mr. O'Donnell

The aspect of this housing question that interests me is the one that was raised by Senator Mulcahy, who seemed to deal more or less with the question of costs, and in that connection I should like to say a few words in regard to the question of the price of money — a question which has been the cause, perhaps, of some unpleasantness on other occasions. Now, there are certain schools of economic thought that have had their conservative views altered by the course of this war. A colossal structure of machinery of destruction, it appeared, could be created at a very low price, whereas, when it came to the creation of things which would add to the happiness of the human being, such as housing, and so on, money for such purposes could only be got at a very high rate of interest. Has the Minister considered some of the schemes which, I know, have been advanced by certain schools of economic thought in this connection? I know that he does not agree with some of them, but would it not be possible to issue money free through the central banks, and finance the building of houses on that basis, and just charge the actual administrative costs? It can be proved that housing costs and charges are, to a very great extent, added to by the interest charges which fall due during the years of payment, and I think it might be well for the Minister to examine the whole financial structure in regard to this matter, in the same way as Ministers in other countries have had to do.

I am glad that Senator Mulcahy raised this question, because it is a fundamental one. I fully agree with Senator Hawkins as to the establishment of a national housing board. That is a thing which has been needed here for a long time. As a matter of fact, if there is socialisation in the air, it might be no harm to think of it in terms of housing as well as in other forms.

General Mulcahy

There is one in existence, but they have not yet devised the tombstone to put over it.

Mr. O'Donnell

With regard to Senator Hawkins' suggestion that industrialists might consider the question of helping in the creation of public utility societies, industrialists have already done so and they do look upon the housing of their workers, strange and ironical as it may seem, as a most desirable form of gilt-edged investment.

Mr. Healy

I would like to support the appeal that has been made with reference to increasing the housing grants. The building position is fairly difficult just now, and I think members of the House will realise that. Reference has been made to the price of money, but if you had all the money in the Bank of England at the moment for the purpose of erecting houses, I doubt if it would be possible to do much in that direction just now. There are some of us who have been very closely associated with the housing question in the City of Dublin. As will be quite easily understood, there are many houses in Dublin that have outlived their span; there are many on the point of collapse. The inspectors of dangerous buildings in Dublin are daily condemning houses, and they would be prepared to condemn more houses if it were possible to find accommodation for the people who occupy them.

Let us examine this matter of housing. A great quantity of the material used in building houses can only be procured from abroad. Senator Hawkins, who knows something about the timber business, is aware that timber is a very bulky material and that the timber used in the construction of houses here in other years was imported from the Scandinavian countries — the greater portion of it. Every Senator knows that there is very little shipping space available and that there is none for bulky material such as timber, with the result that, so far as timber is concerned, building operations in this country have to be confined to whatever native timber can be obtained. From the outbreak of the war in 1939, building difficulties gradually became more acute. In the period between 1932 and 1939 the progress made in the erection of houses in this country was very good indeed. One can easily observe the progress made in Dublin City. In the central areas as well as in the suburbs and the outlying districts, such as Crumlin and Cabra, some splendid work has been carried out.

Senator Colgan has referred to the Dublin Corporation. I may say that the members of the corporation are fully alive to their duties. Although they cannot get building materials, nevertheless they are busily engaged in preparing for future building operations. Sites have been acquired and cleared, sewers have been laid, roads constructed and everything is ready to proceed with the work of constructing houses. We are only waiting for the day when it will be possible to issue advertisements in order to get contractors to tender for housing schemes. Owing to the scarcity of houses and the building difficulty, the Dublin Corporation has interested itself in the reconditioning of some of the tenement houses throughout the city, and workmen are engaged in converting them into modern flats. That task was forced on the corporation because of the difficulty of getting building materials. The members of the corporation are now endeavouring to meet the housing shortage in this particular way. Some fine work has been accomplished in tenement houses in Gardiner Street and other streets throughout the city. I am in favour of helping the people who are engaged in building houses.

Mr. Foran

I cannot subscribe to the bouquets that have been handed out to the efforts of the last Administration and the present Government in relation to housing. I submit that both Governments merely caught up on arrears. They made no adequate effort to clear up the slum problem. That problem is as acute to-day as it was 20 years ago, notwithstanding the schemes that have been introduced. That is my experience, and, because of that, this country is to-day paying the penalty by having a pestilence in our midst, such as tuberculosis. We are now proposing to spend millions in order to eradicate this awful disease. I say that the disease is largely attributable to slumdom. Realising that, we cannot truthfully say that the past or the present Government have done enough to meet the requirements of our people in the matter of housing. We must keep that foremost in our minds.

There are great difficulties with regard to building at the present time, not only for this country, but for every other country in the world. If we sleep on it and neglect to plan in order to meet our country's requirements, what will our position be immediately after the war, when every other country will be clamouring for materials to rebuild the portions of their cities that have been destroyed? We will be in competition with them, and what chance will we have against those mighty countries, or countries that were mighty in the past? I should like to hear from the Minister what steps have been taken with reference to post-war planning, particularly in the matter of housing.

Senator Mulcahy raised a fundamental matter connected with the housing of the people. He referred to money, the proper use and exploitation of money, and I think he mentioned that 2 per cent. for housing, would be a normal or natural amount. I do not think the Senator would be satisfied with that.

General Mulcahy

I said it should be possible to get money at not less than 2 per cent. below what local authorities were paying for it in the past.

Mr. Foran

The Senator means 3 per cent.; we are paying about 5 per cent.

Mr. MacEntee

Prior to 1932 they were paying 6 per cent.

General Mulcahy

I mean less than 3 per cent.

Mr. Foran

It might even be 4 per cent.

General Mulcahy

I would come down to 2 per cent.

Mr. Foran

There ought to be some rearrangement with regard to the application of money to housing schemes. Deputy Hawkins suggests that trade unions might invest their money in housing schemes. I should like to say that there is no section of the community that would be more willing to invest money in housing schemes than the trade unions, if the Trade Union Act permitted them. They can only invest their money in trustee securities or hand it over to the Government, free of interest, as some of them have done already and would be willing to do again, I am sure, in order to make their contribution towards ridding this country of slumdom.

Mr. Hawkins

They might form a utility society for that purpose.

Mr. Foran

They have done that and with great credit to themselves. A number of unions have made a substantial contribution to housing in this way. The next point raised by Senator Hawkins was that there should be a proper, active, live national council established, in order to consider, if necessary, such matters as the utilisation of prefabricated houses. We know the difficulties of procuring raw materials at present and we may have to depart from the ordinary method of providing houses in future. Now is the time for our engineers and scientists to get together to see what can be done to surmount the difficulties which will become greater as time goes on. These are features which occurred to me during the discussion and which indeed have been in my mind for a long time.

In conclusion, I want to add my appeal to that of Senator Campbell on behalf of the Charlemont Utility Society. He has said all that can be said on their behalf but I want to say that this is a really philanthropic, keenly interested body of people who have no desire to secure profit or benefit for themselves. Any money they might get under the retrospective clause in the Bill would be an inducement to them to construct more of these buildings. Testimony has been already paid to the splendid work they have done. They were pioneers in this class of building and, like all pioneers, they suffered for it. If the Minister would use his influence with the Minister for Finance, who I know because of his own experience of slumdom in Dublin is very sympathetic, it would go a long way towards helping a society of this kind. At any rate, if such an amendment is not inserted, I feel that it is not the Minister for Finance we shall have to blame but the Minister for Local Government and Public Health because I think we would get a much readier response from the Minister for Finance than we are likely to get from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. I hope the Minister will deal with this matter when he is replying.

Sir John Keane

I am tempted to intervene for a very few moments in respect to the hopes expressed by Senator Mulcahy and another Senator, whose name I am afraid I did not catch, on the question of cheap money. Money is a vital factor in almost all activities of life and, to my mind, housing is one of the main activities of life. What I complain of in the observations of these Senators is the lack of any constructive scheme for the provision of this cheap money. Undoubtedly cheap money, if it could be obtained, would be a great asset in the provision of housing, but how is it to be got? The money is going to come in either of two ways: either by borrowing from the savings of the people or by the issuing of credits by institutions such as the Central Bank which was mentioned. Now if the Central Bank is going to issue credits free of interest, what is going to happen? Firstly, it ceases to make any return to the revenue because it will have no profit on its operations out of which these returns can be made. In that case the revenue is pro tanto diminished and the deficiency has to be made up out of the pockets of the taxpayers. Then if it can borrow money at 3 per cent. and lend money at, say, 2 per cent., who is going to pay the difference? You cannot borrow money at 3 per cent. and lend it at 1 per cent. unless you have somebody to make up the difference. The Government can borrow money in the region of 3 per cent., but if they were to lend that money for housing, free of interest, the interest would have to be found in some way. As far as I can see, you have either got to inflate by issuing credits or you have to call on the taxpayer to make up the difference. I should like those who make these facile suggestions to tell us how it is going to be done or where it has been done. I do not know where it has been done outside a fully socialistic system. Under the present system of ordinary commercial operations I do not know that money has ever been provided for housing or any other activity free of interest except out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

General Mulcahy

I wonder would Senator Sir John Keane tell us how many million pounds the banks are able to get at the present time at 1 per cent.?

Sir John Keane

Yes, at 1 per cent. for short-term bills, but housing does not come within that category. Banks will undoubtedly lend money on Treasury bills at very low rates, but that is a very different thing from lending money to public utility societies for building operations on long-term credits.

Cathaoirleach

I have permitted Senator Mulcahy to make a passing reference to that matter, but I do not think that the debate can be allowed to develop on the line of the relative values of money.

General Mulcahy

On a point of order, may I point out that in Section 4 the Minister takes power by which he can recoup to a local authority a loan granted to a public utility society? If we are in completely new circumstances now, passing legislation by which the Minister can cover a loan given to a public utility society, I submit that we are, at least in a passing kind of way, entitled to ask what he is going to charge for the loan particularly in view of the fact that the interest rates will vitally affect the rents that would be paid for the houses.

Cathaoirleach

It was permissible to make an incidental reference or a passing reference to these matters, but I could not allow the debate to develop into a general discussion on monetary schemes and projects.

Mrs. Concannon

To help to rescue the debate from the hands of the financial experts, I wish to say a few words from the point of view of a woman who does not know very much about finance at all. There are two points in the Bill which I think deserve publicity. One is not new — the allocation for the reconstruction of rural houses. I should like in that connection to make a suggestion somewhat similar to that about which the Taoiseach spoke recently in regard to the provision of dower-houses. That does not mean that you would need separate houses but the provision of such dower buildings would lead to a great deal of harmony in families. After the son of the house married, a little addition such as a kitchen or bedroom could be made to which the old people could retire. I think that would be possible under the reconstruction scheme embodied in the Bill. In this connection I was glad to learn from an answer made by the Minister recently to Deputy Gerald Bartley that if a person has a thatched house, the addition need not be slated. I think that if that were made a condition, it would be a great drawback and it would prevent a great many people from taking advantage of these reconstruction schemes. I should be glad to have the assurance of the Minister that, in any case where it is proposed to make additions to a thatched house, the addition will not be the monstrosity of a slated building. The people should be encouraged to add to their houses for the purposes of which I speak and which the Taoiseach so strongly stressed.

Another matter about which I should like to speak is the encouragement given to public utility societies by the Bill. I should be glad if the Minister could find it in his power to provide that the Charlemont Public Utility Society should get the help it deserves. I say "the help it deserves" because it sets a headline which might be advantageously followed by other bodies. It seems to me — and this is one of the reasons for which I rose to speak — that if, for instance, a section of the St. Vincent de Paul Society formed itself into a public utility society, it could do an immense amount of work, not alone in the matter of the provision of houses and flats, but it would have the advantage of big architects and other people who have studied modern materials and modern methods. They would bring to the solution of the problems which will arise for everybody in the matter of house building and make available to the poor the newest ideas about materials and construction and it would be a wonderful work for such a body as the St. Vincent de Paul Society. I mention the St. Vincent de Paul Society for the reason that there are so many public men of great ability connected with it. If they helped to construct the buildings for the working classes who need houses, it would not only be an act of immediate good, an act of immense importance from both the social and the moral point of view, but it would set a headline from which other builders could learn.

Mr. Maguire

During the course of the debate, there was no mention whatever of one section of the public which has provided an enormous number of houses for the working class of Dublin. I refer to such companies as the Dublin Artisans' Dwelling Company, Messrs. Guinness, Messrs. Power and other firms of that type. It would appear that such firms are completely debarred from any benefit under this Bill. I should like to know from the Minister en passant why such companies are debarred from receiving the privileges accorded to any body which calls itself a public utility society. I do not see any reason why the Government should discriminate between reputable companies established in this city for generations and newly-formed companies, which are formed in many cases, and in fact in most cases, for the benefit of private speculators who have tons of brains and very little money.

Every member of the House knows that in areas in Dublin many of the working class houses belong to big firms. Some of them own hundreds and others thousands of houses. Why should that type of firm not be included so far as receiving the benefits of the Bill is concerned? I ask the Minister to include in the Bill a public company or private company; that is, ordinary companies such as are members of the Federation of Irish Industries and which give an enormous amount of work to the people of the city. There is no reason why they should be debarred, so far as I know. Any census of house building I ever read always seemed to show that private enterprise built practically as many houses as were built by public bodies, and why should private individuals be debarred from receiving benefits which two or three people can get by coming together and calling themselves a public utility society? I ask the Minister seriously to consider that point.

Some Senators told us about the grand work done for housing by this and the previous Governments. I do not altogether agree with them. Within the last few minutes, remembering that in my early days I had occasion to read some Acts of Parliament, I sent down for the 1919 Act which was passed specially for this country. I find that in that Act the facilities in respect of the building of workmen's houses were infinitely greater than those provided by this or the previous Government. I ask the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Finance, when they think they are being generous, to refer to the Housing (Town-Planning) Act, 1919, which was applicable to Ireland. There they will find that anybody building a house at that time could by way of loan get 75 per cent. of the cost — the cost of the land, the cost of laying out, drainage and erection. Of the complete outlay, he could get 75 per cent. and he got it, not when the work was finished, but as it went along, from day to day.

I think that, viewed by the standard set out in a public statute of 1919, housing legislation in this country has been of a definitely retrograde character. That legislation has gradually got worse and worse, and it has all tended of late years to throw all house building on to the public utility societies and corporations instead of assisting private enterprise. This Bill with which we are dealing seems to leave out altogether private enterprise, which is the most important thing in the country, when all is said and done. It would be very interesting for those Senators who are interested in housing to turn up that Act, passed by the British Government in 1919, and to read that anybody building a house could get 75 per cent. of his total outlay, from the buying of the land to the finishing of the house, including legal and other expenses. That cannot be got to-day. I ask the Minister and anybody who thinks we have advanced to read that Act and to say whether we have not gone far back instead of forward in the matter of house building and in the matter of legislation governing house building.

I should like to support what Senator Colgan said about raising the ceiling of £500. That ceiling is absolutely out of the question to-day because you can get very little done for £500. I have had a great deal of practical experience and I know that the fixing of a ceiling of £500 does not make sense to-day. I saw a flat being altered the other day and the lowest estimate for the work was £1,010. The estimates went up to £1,200 and normally that work could be done for three or four hundred pounds. I ask the Minister to agree to raise the ceiling from £500 to a much higher figure.

Mr. MacEntee

This Bill is a Bill to amend in some minor particulars the legislation which has governed the erection of subsidised and subvented houses since 1932. It would not be appropriate, I think, in a measure of this sort to deal with the situation which will exist in circumstances which are entirely visionary and hypothetical. I refer to the situation which will exist when the European conflict has been brought to an end. No useful purpose would be served by spending one's time in vain speculations as to what provision will have to be made, not to-day or not to-morrow, but when this war is ended, to ensure that this problem of housing for the people will be properly dealt with.

It is a well-established principle that when a Bill to amend an Act in a minor particular — and in this case it is merely a Bill to extend the operation in some respects of the existing statute — is before an Assembly, the debate should be confined to that narrow ground. As I am a stickler for order in Parliamentary debates, I do not propose to traverse the wide field which Senator Mulcahy has opened and to give a general review of the housing situation in the State. I am concerned with what is in the Bill. In that connection, I must say that, so far as the Government are concerned, and so far as those who would be responsible for giving effect to legislative provisions are concerned, at this moment there is no question of revising the main structure of the Act of 1932. All we propose to do is this: that the Legisture having determined that certain provisions of this Act should lapse on the 1st April, 1943, we are asking them to allow us, as a temporary arrangement, to prolong the currency of these provisions until such time as a comprehensive housing review can be undertaken and a new policy framed to meet the new circumstances which will exist after the war.

Accordingly, I do not propose to argue the merits of raising the ceiling, as has been stated, from £500 to £800. Quite obviously, if housing costs are to go up, and if housing difficulties are to increase, new provisions will have to be made for dealing with them. I do not think that the difficulties at this moment arise from the shortage of money, as some Senators have suggested, but arise, as Senator Colgan and Senator Campbell and Senator Healy pointed out, entirely from a shortage of materials. You can print all the cheap money you want, but it will not grow one tree, it will not produce one brick, it will not create one new roof-tile. It is not paper we want; it is not cheap credit we want, but a ready supply of materials which are not forthcoming in present circumstances. Therefore, there is no use in suggesting that the root cause of the problem is a financial one. In fact, most of us are convinced that it is not a financial one.

As for this new understanding of money which has been referred to, I should say it is only an old misunderstanding dressed up in a new way: that you can continue to spend to-day without thought for to-morrow and that one day or another you will not have to meet your liabilities. The fact that people who are engaged in a struggle for national existence are prepared to spend all their substance in order to maintain their freedom is no proof that, if circumstances were normal, it would be possible to continue to put off indefinitely responsibility for meeting the bill when it would fall due. There is no use in trying to equate abnormal war-time expenditure with the normal expenditure of peace times. Everybody knows that the belligerents are spending because their one chance of maintaining the possessions they have, of securing the liberties which they have, is in using all their resources, not merely of money but of materials and men, in order to defend them. If victory should attend their effort, then on the morrow the problem will arise for them as to how they are going to face and how they are going to shoulder the liabilities and the responsibilities which they are incurring to-day. The question will then have to be faced which had to be faced after the last war: who is going to pay the war-time debt?

Everybody realises that, whatever may have been the aftermath of the last war, one thing did remain and did cripple productive enterprise all the world over — the obligations and the financial liabilities which had been contracted during the years 1914 to 1918. I have no doubt that when this sorry story is ended and peace is seen again, the one serious problem which will face those communities which are involved in this war, and who will spend, and rightly spend, every 1d. they have in order to maintain themselves, is, how they are to meet the commitments which they are now incurring? Then the question will be: are they going to allow the crippling taxation to continue so that commitments in respect of the public debt will be met, or is there going to be repudiation or a capital levy? One way or another, this borrowing will have to be paid for.

There is no use in anybody saying that there is a new understanding of money. There is a new line of propaganda to facilitate the raising of money and it is, of course, entirely related to the financial needs of the belligerents. People who before the war started would have looked at this problem realistically and objectively are now saying that the purchasing power problem is all a matter of Government book-keeping. It is all a matter of Government book-keeping as long as the war lasts. But, when the final account has to be presented, it will be found that what is being spent now on armaments and munitions and in waging war will have to be paid for, and paid for by the people in blood and sweat and toil afterwards. That is the old understanding of money and that is the only one which will prevail in the end as long as man has to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow.

Mr. O'Donnell

How can a people pay itself?

Mr. MacEntee

A people cannot pay itself, but one section of the people can be made to pay the other, and that is what Government borrowing has meant. The people who cannot lend have to pay and the people who can lend receive the payment.

Mr. Baxter

They will all be able to lend when the war is over. There will be plenty of capital. They will all be capitalists — they will have savings.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps some farmers and those fortunate enough to have real property may be capitalists. However, I must apologise. I started off by saying that I have a great regard for order, but I was led into this wide discussion. Senator Mulcahy asked a number of questions which were relevant to the Bill, and I would be glad to give him the information he wants. He pointed out that no figures of housing progress have been given since the 31st March, 1940. In relation to the houses built under the provisions of the Housing Acts to which this measure relates, since 31st March, 1940, 4,168 new houses have been built and 5,395 existing houses reconstructed, making the total number of houses dealt with under the Acts, 9,563. In addition to that, there are at the present moment 1,460 new houses in course of construction by private individuals and public utility societies.

General Mulcahy

In rural areas?

Mr. MacEntee

These are all in rural areas. In addition, 3,313 existing houses are being reconstructed, making the total 4,773 for houses dealt with under the Acts. Houses in the course of construction by local authorities in urban areas number 1,353 and in rural areas 217. Since 1932, 22,589 new houses have been built in rural areas by private persons and public utility societies and 30,026 houses have been reconstructed.

Senator Hawkins, apparently, is under some slight misapprehension as to the effect of Sections 4 and 5. He seemed to understand that if a local authority made a loan to a public utility society under Section 4, they would not be fully recouped by the Government for the expenses thereby incurred, and that accordingly they would have to charge the public utility society a somewhat higher rate of interest than that at which they themselves were raising the money. I think that is a misunderstanding of the section of the Act. Section 5 provides that in accordance with the regulations made for the purposes of the Act, the Minister may recoup the local authority in respect of the assistance so given. I assume the word "recoup" means recoup in full to the limits indicated by the rules and the schedule.

I do not propose to enter into the question whether it is necessary to establish a new housing board or not, because that is a matter which is far outside the scope of the Bill and one on which a great deal might remain to be said. Senators Campbell, Colgan, Foran and Mrs. Concannon and others have pressed me to make Section 4 of the Bill retrospective. I am sorry to say that I do not see any hope that we should be able to do that. The Minister for Finance, very much against precedent, has permitted me to include Sections 4 and 5 in this Bill, a Bill which, as I pointed out, was merely to grant an extension of time, and I fear that battle has been fought and lost and there is very little hope for the reasons mentioned in the other House — reasons very sound and very strongly pressed — that these provisions of Sections 4 and 5 could be made retrospective.

Senator Foran is generally very generous in his appreciation of the situation. I must say I was disappointed — at least I was disappointed to find he was disappointed at the amount of work done——

General Mulcahy

That is too bad.

Mr. MacEntee

After all, we should be pleased at the astonishing progress we have made since 1932.

Mr. Foran

Agreed.

Mr. MacEntee

If we are in agreement, I can only say that I am glad that Senator Foran's disappointment was not felt as strongly as he seemed to express it. On the question of housing and tuberculosis — I do not want to enter into a long discussion— but there are some rather remarkable things coming to light in relation to that problem. One of them is the remarkable figures which have been recorded since the year 1940. If there is one country in the Western Hemisphere where, at the moment, overcrowding for one reason or another is prevalent, where housing conditions should be highly conducive to the contraction and spread of this terrible disease, I suppose it would be Great Britain. There, you have all sorts of people who, owing to a number of causes, have to live in highly unhealthy conditions operating in very trying circumstances. Yet in that country, the rate of mortality from tuberculosis has declined very considerably since the year 1940. On the other hand, I understand there were reports indicating where people moved from overcrowded houses in slum areas to areas where housing conditions are very much better, there has been an actual increase in the disease. It seems to me that when we are speaking about tuberculosis we should be very careful not to ascribe it to one cause more than another. There seem to be factors operating in relation to that disease which are not very strictly related to housing conditions. I am raising that only because I think it is time we tried to look at this problem much more objectively and not in the light of preconceived ideas as to what really is the cause of it.

Mr. M. Hayes

Bad housing is only one factor.

Mr. Baxter

Bad food, or lack of food, is worse.

Mr. MacEntee

Or unsuitable food.

Mr. Baxter

Lack of nourishment.

Mr. MacEntee

Not lack of nourishment alone.

Mr. Baxter

Lack of nourishing food.

Mr. MacEntee

Sir, this is completely off the track. We are told of preventive foods. There are countries where people are getting less preventive foods than we are, and yet their history in this regard is much better than ours.

Mr. Baxter

That is not an answer.

Mr. MacEntee

Senator Honan referred to the question of the extension of thatched houses. That question was raised in the Dáil and I told Deputy Bartley that so far as I knew, that there was no regulation which insisted that where a reconstruction grant was being given for the enlargement of a thatched house the extension or alteration should be roofed with slates or tiles. There is no such regulation and what I am puzzled to know is how the idea that there was such a regulation got about and if Senator Honan or any other member of the House can send me a note or give me some instance where a reconstruction grant was refused specifically on the ground that an addition to a thatched house must be slated or tiled, then I would be very glad indeed to look into it.

Mr. Honan

As a result of the extension not being slated the grant was reduced.

Mr. MacEntee

That might be. Perhaps the cost of reconstruction was not so great in that case, but I would like to have some particulars in relation to that matter. Senator Maguire referred to the position of companies like the Artisans' Dwellings Company and houses which were erected by commercial undertakings. I suppose that most of the property built by brewers, distillers and the Artisans' Dwellings Company has been erected for a considerable number of years, certainly before the Act of 1932 came into operation. If it has been erected since, there does not seem to be any great difficulty about these companies putting themselves inside the terms of the Act. There is nothing simpler than forming a public utility society including as one of its main objects the provision of houses for the working classes. That provision in the rules or regulations will put the society immediately within the scope of the Act of 1932 and will qualify it on certain conditions for the grants in exactly the same way as other public utility societies. But, so far as houses erected prior to the Act of 1932 are concerned, they cannot qualify for grants under that Act. These, I think, are the only points that I have to make.

General Mulcahy

The Minister indicated that he was going to fix the ceiling at £500. I want to ask him if it is not a fact that the fixing of the ceiling at that particular figure has no statutory effect. It is simply the Minister's regulation. I suggest to him that if the price of materials increased after the ceiling had been satisfactorily chosen beforehand, this would have the effect of stopping building perhaps unnecessarily because of a small increase in cost.

Mr. MacEntee

The difficulty there is that these regulations are the basis on which the legislation was framed, and, therefore, it is not intended to depart from them.

General Mulcahy

I want to tell the Minister that the regulations were framed after the legislation was passed, and after the Department had a certain amount of experience of how building costs were going at the time.

Mr. MacEntee

No. I had the other end of the stick then, and I know.

Question put and agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage of the Bill?

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps the Seanad might like to have some little time before taking the Committee Stage. As I have already mentioned, the difficulty about the Bill is this: that it is intended to extend the time limit for the completion of houses from the 1st of April, 1943, to the 1st April, 1945. I suppose that some of these days we shall be asked to make payments in respect of houses which are now being built, or houses which are being reconstructed. In order that we may be able to make these payments, I would like to get the Committee Stage of the Bill at the earliest moment.

General Mulcahy

We are prepared to give the Minister all stages of the Bill next week.

Mr. MacEntee

Very well.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 19th January, 1944.