Vol. 6 No. 12
I beg to move:—
In line 17, to delete the words "on a vacant site."
The object of the amendment is fairly clear. All sites acquired by local authorities and others for the purpose of building are usually wholly or partially occupied, and if we were to confine the operations of this Bill to vacant sites I am afraid the difficulties of getting sites would be considerable.
I do not know that the amendment is necessary. What is meant by "vacant site" in the Bill is what the Deputy has in mind. We understand that sites may be encumbered with rubbish or old ruins or something of that sort, but that is what the Ministry of Local Government has in mind as "a vacant site." If Deputy Good thinks that is not sufficient, and requires to have this term taken out, I do not see any objection, but I think it complicates it rather than otherwise.
I think its removal would clarify the measure, because considerable discussion will arise round the question as to what "vacant site" meant. In fact, I have in my mind at the moment a case in which discussion did arise. I do not think this amendment will weaken the measure.
Very good, I am willing to accept it.
I beg to move:
To insert after the word "house," line 21, the words "or building."
In many cases existing buildings will be available for the purpose of conversion into houses and the wording of the Bill, as it stands, will prevent their being used for that purpose. In many country towns buildings originally used for domestic purposes have been converted into stores. Their purpose as stores in many cases is no longer a useful one, and they are well built and have everything in the way of construction to make them suitable for reconversion into dwellinghouses.
The purpose of the next amendment is much the same. I do not know whether the Dáil would agree to discuss the two together.
There is no objection to accepting the words "or building," but I think the existing word "house" will probably meet the case. I take it even a building is a house, although it may not be used for habitable purposes.
Is not "house" defined as "dwellinghouse" in the definition Clause?
Yes.
I would like to have information about this. Does the acceptance of the amendment mean that stables might be converted into houses, or might be deemed to be houses for purposes of reconstruction? The word "reconstruct" is to mean repair, "or reconstruct an existing house or stable." Is that what is intended? If you insert the words "or building" is it intended to apply to any reconstruction of a building which might be converting it into a house? I think we should understand what is the intention and find out whether the amendment really carries out the intention.
I think that is the meaning. I have seen cases where stables have been made suitable for dwelling-houses by reconstruction, and I have heard of one case where a gentleman has reconstructed his garage as a diningroom. As I believe that is the intention I would be willing to accept the amendment. There may be cases where huge buildings, or even stables, or other accommodation, might be adaptable for the purpose of providing accommodation at a small price. In that case it would be an economic proposition. There are safeguards with regard to sanitation appurtenances and so on in another part of the Bill, so that it is not likely any person would be allowed a subsidy towards rendering a house a habitable dwelling, and at the same time offend against any of the laws of sanitation. It is not intended, and I do not think it is meant by the amendment, that that should be the effect, but that where buildings are capable of adaptation or reconstruction as dwellinghouses they will not be ruled out by the fact that they are not at the present moment dwellinghouses.
The President has covered all the points. Protection is provided to see that buildings converted are suitable for the purpose, and that all the operations are such as would enable the Government to make a grant for conversion. I regret that some of the houses for which provision is made for conversion in the Bill as it stands are not better than stables.
I think there is a certain element of danger about this reconstruction problem. I think it should be surrounded by safeguards. For instance, a building could be reconstructed and made into a house, and would be perfectly useless except for the man who reconstructed it. Money spent on it might be for a purely local advantage that would be no benefit to the general public. If this Bill concentrates upon providing accommodation where it is required, it would be good business to reconstruct a house there. If a house was in a position where it would not be in the public interests to have it, I think the Minister should have power to refuse public grants in such a case.
Section 4 covers the point mentioned by Deputy Hewat. The real reason for this is that a person having some sort of claim to public funds for the provision of houses gets accommodation at a much smaller price. It is an economic proposition to facilitate him in regard to that. If you take it in another way, a man at present living in a house sees an opportunity for reconstructing a building that would make a suitable habitation for himself, and as a result another house is made available for someone else. Congestion is relieved to that extent. The congestion problem is the real problem, and, at the present moment, any alleviation of it is a real advantage. To that extent I am prepared to accept the amendment.
But it might be a place not congested at all.
Section 4 makes it clear that reconstruction is reserved for places where it is generally admitted there is congestion.
Such reconstruction must be approved by the Ministry before public money can be expended.
I move:—In line 22, to add after the word "houses" the words "or flats." The reason I suggest that should be put in is that I hope that these moneys will be available for the reconstruction of a number of these large old city houses. It would be a terrible thing to think that in these old squares, where there are some fine houses, money should not be provided for adapting them to city circumstances and to the need of housing many of the working classes. The difficulty in regard to the wording at the moment is that on each floor in the house you might have, I suppose, some half dozen different flats. You could not call them houses within a house, and I think that the description by which they are generally known in the trade is flats. I think this defines the idea in the minds of many that these houses could be adapted as flats for housing the working classes, and that in that way they could be utilised, as they are at the moment, in many cases utilised without being adapted.
I hope the President can see his way to accept this amendment. Deputy Good has in his mind the same purpose that I am trying to press, that something should be done to improve the conditions of habitation of these old houses in Dublin, known at present as tenement dwellings. In that way we will do something directly for the poorest class of tenant in Dublin. The Bill, as at present framed, will help them, I admit, indirectly, in that it will ease the pressure, so that the poorer tenant will have a wider choice of rooms. I think something might be done, and done economically, directly. It would require very little money to convert some of these old houses into most comfortable habitations. I think the President is probably better acquainted than most of us with the conditions of life of the poorer workmen of Dublin, but he will learn that in many cases tenants prefer the bigger rooms of the older tenements to the small rooms of the new houses. I would press the President to consider this amendment carefully. It will lead to some consequential amendments in the Bill, but I think it will produce a great deal of relief at a very small outlay.
Would there be any objection to putting in "self-contained flats?" Would that meet it?
Quite so; that would meet it.
Well, I would accept that—"One or more houses or self-contained flats."
I move to insert the words "or building" after the word "house," in both cases, in line 26.
That is consequential on the last amendment.
It is amending that Section of the Bill, to carry through the idea that we have already approved of.
I move:—
In line 33, to delete the words "the word `prescribed' means prescribed," and to substitute therefor the words, "the words `prescribed or approved,' mean prescribed or approved."
When this Bill was drafted, I think it was the intention that the drawing or plans for these houses should be prescribed plans which were already in the hands of the Department. The President will remember that when he was introducing the Bill—or during its Second Stage—I asked him if these new houses, that we hope will be erected under this Bill, were to be limited to these prescribed plans, and the answer he gave was that they were not, that these designs would not be compulsory. That being so, I think it would be necessary to alter the wording of several clauses, and I propose that where the word "prescribed" occurs you add the words "or approved." That means that the new houses may be in accordance with the prescribed plans, or they may be in accordance with plans approved of by the Ministry. I think the President will see the object of this addition.
I do not quite understand whether the Deputy intends that the approval shall be before building. If so, then the term "prescribed" might be held to cover approval, although it is an approved plan submitted by an outside architect or builder. As the amendment reads, it might mean approved after building, and I think that is somewhat risky. The approval ought to be before the building is done.
It must be.
It must be, I hope, but it does not follow that it is, if the amendment is accepted in its present form. "Prescribed," of course, implies something happening before the event, but approval may mean after the event, and I suggest that it does not matter who supplies the plan; if it is approved of beforehand, it is a prescribed plan. If the words "approved beforehand" are accepted I will support the amendment.
I suggest to Deputy Johnson that nobody would start building a house and run the risk of not getting the money without getting the approval of the Minister before he starts.
I quite agree; but one never knows. All kinds of things might happen between now and the end of this scheme.
I think there is a good deal in what Deputy Johnson says, that if you mean "beforehand" you should say it. If you mean to build a house first and then rely on the Minister being lenient, if you have done things you should not have done, then I think the better thing would be to put in the words "approved of beforehand."
I think Deputy Good's idea is right. There may be occasions where one word would occur by itself, and in that case that definition of "prescribed or approved" would not, I think, apply.
I see no particular objection to accepting the words "or approved," although I am hazy about what use they will be to the Bill. While we have quite a considerable number of plans, we do not intend to confine builders or architects to those plans, and if "approved" means that we have to approve of the plans it may possibly occasion a good deal of delay. A good number of plans may come in and, as usually happens in these cases, architects may see something which hurts their eyes or sense of proportion, and a suggestion may come from them for an alteration here and there. But if the houses were built they would be more likely to say, "Give the man his £50, £80, or £100," and that ends it. If the Deputy likes I will look into it before the Report Stage. I take it that if it means a delay or anything of that sort he will not press the amendment, and that it is only with a view to facilitating the builders that it is put in.
That is so to a certain extent. What I had in my mind is this, that though the Department has a number of these plans there might possibly be a number of cases in the country, and that owing to the situation and circumstances of the site these plans would not be suitable in those cases, and plans would have to be prepared for these particular circumstances, and before the builder proceeded with the scheme he would send plans up for the approval of the Ministry. We want, in the Bill, to have that all arranged, so that the builder will not be compelled under circumstances where the prescribed plans do not apply to use the prescribed plans.
Might I suggest that the Deputy's object would be served by this amendment: "The word `prescribed' means prescribed or approved by the Minister before building."
So long as the word "approved" is in, I am quite satisfied.
Would it not be possible to alter it and say "prescribed and approved"?
I undertake to look into it before the Report Stage, and see if it is necessary, and that it will not interfere with the smooth working of the Bill.
I move:—
Before Section 2, to insert a new Section as follows:—
"There shall be and there is hereby constituted a Council of Architects to assist the Minister in the administration of this Act. Such Council shall consist of three persons who shall be nominated by the Council of the Institute of Architects of Ireland and appointed by the Minister.
"Every design of every house in respect of which any grant shall be made under the provisions of this Act shall be submitted to such Council of Architects, who shall advise the Minister as to its suitability; and in making such advice the Council of Architects shall have special regard to the beauty and dignity of the building proposed to be erected.
"The Minister shall have power, and such power is hereby conferred on the Minister, to order that no grant be made in respect of any house the design of which has not been approved by the said Council of Architects. The advice given by the said Council of Architects shall be made in writing, and such advice shall be laid before the Oireachtas at the request of any ten members of either House of the Oireachtas.
"The said Council of Architects shall further have power to recommend to the Minister, and the Minister may confirm by Order, the qualifications and professional standing of every person entitled to submit any design for any house in respect of which a grant may be sought under the provisions of this Act. Provided that every such Order made or confirmed by the Minister shall be forthwith laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and if either House shall, within twenty-one days of which such House has sat next after the Order is laid before it, pass a resolution annulling such Order, the Order shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done previously thereunder."
This amendment more or less follows on what we have already been discussing in regard to the approval of the description of the plans, or, as I believe they should be more correctly described, designs. I feel we are now making a very important departure in the State, and the houses that will be built during the next few years in pursuance of the arrangements made in this Bill will be houses that will remain, not merely for one generation, but several generations, and will give a kind of character and imprint even to the very civilisation that shall prevail in this country for a long time to come. We know that if something of this kind had been adopted in England before the housing that followed on the industrial revival in the forties of the last century, we would have been saved some of those hideous eye-sores that have been not only destructive of all beauty in England in her industrial centres, but have actually produced, by their effects, a criminal class. As students are well aware, people who live in certain circumstances of depravity and ugliness are influenced by them. I have, therefore, suggested, and my amendment proposes, that a Council shall be appointed consisting of three architects to help the Minister in regard to designs that may be put forward in respect of the houses claiming, or desiring to claim, assistance under the provisions of this Bill.
It is assumed that the Minister, in any event, will have to rely upon the advice of some architect, and it is hardly likely in any case that decisions of this kind will be taken by him without some kind of appeal to professional assistance. If there is to be that appeal, then I urge that the appeal should be given by persons appointed officially by the profession concerned. The matter is one of some very considerable importance. It might be argued, and it has already been suggested to me to-day in the Dáil, that an amendment of this kind might involve extra expense, not merely in the provision of this Council, because there the professional assistance that would be required would be so small an addition that the expense would be immaterial, but that such a Council might demand that kind of houses which, fulfilling certain requirements as to beauty of design, might be more costly than other houses that would be put up. In reply to that, I would say that even if it were the case that a small additional cost would be incurred by making houses that would not in the course of ten, twelve or fifteen years, look like slum houses, and be in effect slum houses, even that small extra expense would be a right expense for the State to incur at this present moment. But I think it will be found in practice that there will be no additional cost to the houses that will be built, and that, in fact, a saving might be made. That I put forward. I had a very remarkable instance of it within the last seven or eight months. Approaching a certain town in a country district very well known to the President, because it lies in his constituency, I noticed that there was a row of cottages, or houses that might be dignified by the term "cottages," and that were in effect and in fact the ordinary type of red brick houses one sees when approaching an ordinary industrial site in England, joined side by side, ugly to look upon, and obviously horrible to dwell within. Then, as the town will grow in the course of time, it will be the natural centre for the creation of a slum. The person in whose company I was informed me when I commented on these houses, that if the builder of them had been aware of local conditions he might have built from local stone houses that actually would have been cheaper and, even from an aesthetic point of view, far more comely to look at, and that would have resisted the natural tendency of that kind of house to become a slum of the future. I know I will be met by people who will say to me that the word "slum" applies, not to houses in the country, but to houses in a city or a large town.
I remember the most remarkable slum that I ever saw in my life when I was travelling in England. On the brow of a hill twenty miles from any city or town there was one long line of miners' cottages—a horrible thing to see. I believe that conditions of that kind could be avoided if there were to be a Council that would be giving its sole time and attention to a matter of this kind.
Who designed those houses?
They were designed probably by the builder who built them. They were probably designed by a person who had no competence whatever to design them. I feel these matters should be given attention to by persons who are competent. No man should be allowed to-day to set up and give professional advice in respect to the health of an individual, if he were not properly qualified to give that advice by the profession to which he professes to belong; and no person should be entitled to give advice, or act on his own advice, in respect of a matter involving, not the health of an individual, but the health of the community at the time and the health of the community of the future. I think this is a matter on which the responsibility should be imposed on the profession concerned, and I urge this amendment be accepted because it is along the lines of thought that actually have been adopted in the Constitution that calls for the creation of Councils of this kind.
This Bill has been introduced and is being taken through all its stages by the President. When the President has brought it to its triumphant conclusion, he will pass it over into the hands of the Minister for Local Government and Health to administer. I wish that I could have spoken here in the Dáil, if not directly, to the Minister for Local Government, whose primary responsibility it surely is, or that I could at least have spoken in his presence on a matter of this kind. It does so happen that I hold certain hostages from him. I have a book which he himself wrote, in which there are many remarkable and eloquent passages. I quote these words from the Minister for Local Government:
"When the future historian comes to write the story of the co-operative movement in Ireland he will probably say that Ireland has reason to be thankful to the English Government for one at least of the many tyrannical policies she adopted towards her, namely, that of arresting her economic development. We have to thank her for the absence of the slum, especially in the few places where we were allowed to progress industrially, the smoke and smell of the factory, and the degraded and degenerate proletariat of the blackened and poisoned country-side. Economic development will now come to Ireland, but it will come unattended by these terrible companions, disease, squalour, crime, hunger, vice and misery. We have had the experience of the whole world to learn from, and if we do not learn the lesson it teaches correctly, we have no one but ourselves to blame."
I say England to-day, in its houses, and the type of civilisation that these houses connote, that were built as a result of what has been done in England during the last fifty years, are something from which we can learn. If England had before herself the lesson of her own past, as we have, she would do what I am urging we should now do, and that is, that properly competent persons should lay out the lines and designs of the houses to be built, in order that the Minister might be able to rely on competent and professional advice in that regard, and that we shall not within the next twenty years have to deplore the fact that when we had the opportunity to make careful plans ahead for what we might and should do, we neglected it. If this amendment were accepted there would be appointed a Council that would be able to give its whole attention to this matter, so that the best could be done in order that in future houses should not be built that were degrading to look upon and that were the natural creation of the tenements and slums of the future.
I was wondering, when the Deputy was speaking, if he thinks that the Minister for Local Government is the person in his Department who looks after the designing of houses and the construction of them. From my experience of that Department, I am aware that there are several capable architects employed there. If Deputy Figgis wants to augment the number of architects already employed in the Department by the appointment of three gentlemen from the Institute of Architects, I think we will have something tending towards a multiplicity of new Boards, that was never intended. If, on the other hand, he wishes to burden the scheme with the salaries or fees that these gentlemen will have to get if they are employed, I do not think it will be for the good of the State or the good of the unfortunate people who will have to pay the high rents that will be charged for these houses.
I know from personal experience the type of houses that have been built, and the appearance that it was necessary for them to have, in country towns. They were built for accommodation. Listening to Deputy Figgis, one would think that we were now going to build grand mansions, beautifully erected buildings, and that we have millions of money to spend. Instead we have a miserable £300,000. I could understand if we were going to build great castles that we might take all the precautions he outlines, but with the limited resources at our disposal I do not see that there is any necessity for the provision of this suggested sub-section at all. I hope the President will not accept it.
I beg to support the argument put forward by Deputy Hughes. Deputy Figgis made no suggestion, when discussing the feasibility of setting up this Board, as to how it would affect cost. He made a statement that it probably would not increase the cost. I suggest that this Board he is proposing would be more or less in the position of the Commissions that look at one side of a question without looking at the financial side, and their report will be precisely in the position that many reports of Commissions have to be in, because those Commissions do not look at all sides of the question or take into account the amount of money necessary. They would have to be turned down. In my opinion, delay and difficulty would be the only result of adopting an amendment of this kind. Coming from the Deputy who spoke so strongly in regard to other appointments, it is refreshing to see him suggesting the appointment of, I presume, three fairly highly qualified people. Like a Government architect, they would be independent of the Government, and are not bound to take into account questions of expense.
I think the Dáil is taking Deputy Figgis and his speech too seriously. I thought he was trying to find a permanent home for the Oireachtas, by the terms of his amendment.
He talks about a Council of Architects who shall advise the Minister as to its suitability, and "making such advice, the Council of Architects shall have special regard to the beauty and dignity of the building proposed to be erected." I do not know does Deputy Figgis mean some of the words contained in the new Sub-section that he proposes. He also said in his speech that he objects to houses being built near each other. Does he propose that these houses should be standing in their own grounds? I think he should have some regard to the possibilities of the money at the disposal of the Government, and the possibilities of providing houses in towns and around the country. I think this proposed Sub-section is a most ridiculous Sub-section, and could only be based on the assumption that previous Local Government Boards had never any assistance from their architects, or that their architects were incapable of advising them. Anybody who has had any connection with Local Government schemes knows that they had very good advice, that several plans had to be submitted to them, and that they selected a series of designs that suited the requirements of the town. That. I think, will be the case again. I think their designs will meet the requirements that we have in view. We do not want too much of this beauty and dignity. We want good houses for the people, and we must have them cheap if we are to have them at all.
I am surprised that Deputies have not entered into the spirit of this amendment. The paragraph that has been referred to, and I think the paragraph which Deputy Figgis laid most stress upon, is only the preamble to the really important paragraph—that is, the last one. Deputies should really realise what they are opposing. The proposition that Deputy Figgis has put before the Dáil is that there should be set up the equivalent of the Medical Council, or the Incorporated Law Society, or the Bar Council of which we have heard so much, which will decide the qualifications of the people who are engaged in designing houses; that there will be established a Corporation of Architects, self-contained, self-governed, and a law unto themselves. Now that may be a very desirable object, and I am sure Deputy Good will approve of it, and so will Deputy Sir James Craig. I almost think that Deputy Gorey ought to approve of that principle. But I raise the question—is it desirable to introduce it just in this fashion as an amendment to this temporary housing Bill, when, at the outside, the number of houses to be built in the whole of the Free State is 3,000, and when it is very questionable whether anything like that number will be built? We are asked, incidentally, to establish by law this Incorporated Society of Architects that will be endowed with a monopoly of house-designing. It may be a very desirable object, and may well be argued on its merits. That is the kernel of this Section, and I thought, perhaps, Deputies would like to express their views upon that proposition.
I do not know how far Deputy Figgis has had the advice of any of those members of the Institute that he mentions, but it appears to me that, looking at this amendment in the most favourable light, it radiates a sort of goodwill towards humanity, and endeavours to improve conditions and to increase the beauty of our towns and countryside. The facts are that slums grow up or slums are generated from conditions which are more the conditions of the inhabitants than the actual bricks and mortar. In other words, you rarely see houses, cottages, or anything else, the property of the occupiers, degenerating into a slum. It usually goes the other way—that where they have no interest in the houses, and where there is no attraction to keep the property in good order, it degenerates into a slum. Now, there are two or three criticisms I would like to pass on this new Section. One is, that two things appear to me to be confounded. You have in Deputy Figgis's mind the landscape gardener and the architect. The two are not the same. You may have a splendidly-designed house, and it may hurt the eye-even of an aesthetic observer like Deputy Figgis. It may be necessary under this Bill to build long rows of houses. You do not hear of people saying that Gardiner Street is an objectionable thoroughfare; it is a thoroughfare of fine houses, but with the same monotonous prospect of bricks and windows The same monotonous, magnificent windows are there in house after house. But when one sees smaller houses, one says: "Look at the hideous monotony, "particularly in the case of persons who do not realise what a change it is to get into that hideous monotony from the great big tenement house, which was originally a splendid building, but has degenerated because it was nobody's business to keep it in order. The landlord's interest is to get all he can out of it, and the tenant holds it is the landlord's duty to look after repairs. This Bill aims at giving houses to people who will look after them, and giving them at a fair price. Even where the builder comes in, when constructing a house without an architect, he will be facilitated with the designs compiled by people who have given years of study to this particular question. Now, architects, as such, may be divided into various orders. You will get some architects—brilliant men, who have made their names household words—who are hopeless in the designing of working-class dwellings. I have known one, myself, a man who designed magnificently for an institution or anything of that sort, but who designed the very monotonous dwellings that were condemned a few moments ago by Deputy Figgis. It is scarcely fair, I think, to the Ministry of Local Government to put up a section of this sort, having regard to the fact that for the last eighteen months or two years they have been engaged in this work of supervising and looking after contracts, tenders and designs, and in every conceivable form of activity in connection with house building. If I were to disclose to the Dáil and make public how complex these activities have been, I am not sure that there would not be some people peacefully picketing these officials and the Ministry of Local Government, and I do not think that would be fair. But I can say this, that some of the work that has been done by these officials can be viewed. If we only go to the South County Dublin and see the labourers' cottages built there, I challenge contradiction that there could be designed a more suitable and a more durable house, or a house of a more general standard of excellence than there is in that area. We have, I believe, in the Ministry of Local Government one of the architects responsible for the designing and the subsequent construction of those houses.
So that there is nothing which is proposed to be affected under this particular section that has not already been provided for, except one thing—a Council of Architects. Such a Council has either to be honorary or paid and, if honorary, you are imposing on it conditions to which I do not think any body of professional men would submit. That is, having given their fiat on the suitability of design, it is to be subject to the examination of members. It comes up for criticism and for condemnation if the Dáil thinks fit. I do not know that any professional man would stand that. Take for instance the case of a doctor. A doctor prescribes for a headache, but if his prescription is to be made the subject of a motion here condemning him, we would not have him prescribing. It is the same with the architect. I think everything is intended to be affected by that, except one thing and that is the landscape gardener, and, to some extent, that is provided for by the regulations and by-laws of the local authorities themselves. I think what the Deputy has in mind has already been provided for, and what is otherwise intended is impracticable at this stage, as it would delay the construction of these houses, and would not be an improvement on the present position.
I did not put forward this amendment with any intention of delay, and as long as I have drawn attention to the essential matter in it I am satisfied. That essential matter is that at the outset of this project, care should be taken to see that not merely the right pattern of house be built but that the responsibility should be laid upon the profession concerned. So far, my object has been achieved, and I will not press my amendment, but I would like to deal with one comment made by Deputy Hughes, and repeated by Deputies O'Sullivan and Gorey. The assumption was made that when you talk about beauty and dignity you mean a palace.
I never mentioned that matter from the beginning to end of my speech.
Deputy O'Sullivan said that the Oireachtas, in considering the matter, would not pay attention to the financial side. The other two Deputies did make that clear reference, and I say, you may have a simple cottage with dignity and beauty and have a palace ugly in every aspect. There are, moreover, buildings in Ireland to-day built on the responsibility of local authorities and built from materials that give an ugly result, whereas, if the authorities were properly advised, they would have got another result at a much cheaper cost. I agree with the President that slums do not come wholly from bricks and mortar but I believe they assist very largely towards that result. The President has more or less met the point which I wished to make. I believe ultimately that the responsibility for such matters will have to be laid on the profession that is concerned with them, and I would like to see that done now. I do not press the amendment but I think that the substance of it is sound and will have to be taken into consideration at an early date.
I beg to move:—"In Sub-section (1) (a), line 50, after the word `sanitation,' to insert the words `and area of the site, and in the case of a group of houses, the lay out.' " This Sub-section (1) as it exists determines the class of house that may be built, and the amendment aims at allowing the Minister to determine the class of site and the lay out of the house on that site. The amendment aims at providing that the site shall be suitable, and also that the lay out shall be suitable.
I think that the object of the Deputy would be met if he were to leave all that matter in the hands of the Minister. I do not think that the clause, as amended by him, would read properly. He starts with the word "house," and then introduces the words "area of the site." I suggest all that should be left to the approval of the Minister. If there are certain departmental restrictions at the moment, a number of them might be relaxed in certain circumstances, and I think the object which the Deputy has in mind is to give the Ministry that power. I think it might be met by eliminating all words after the word "sanitation," and by putting in the words "to be approved by the Ministry." Everything then would be subject to the approval of the Ministry.
I think there is something more required than that. The sub-section speaks only of the planning, construction, and sanitation of the house. I would imagine that there should be added the words "or houses." It does not deal with the surroundings, or the plan, or the lay-out of the site. It is desirable that the powers given to the Minister under this Bill should include not merely the house, or the houses, but the position of the houses. The sub-section, as it stands, speaks of the number per acre. That, of course, it is desirable to retain, notwithstanding Deputy Good's next amendment. There is something more than the number per acre required. There is also the lay-out, and the general plan of the scheme, that might be under discussion, and I think the section as drafted does not deal with the lay-out of the site or the general plan of another larger scheme that may be referred to, because it speaks all through of the "house," and "house" means dwellinghouse. There is no suggestion of groups of houses.
Quite right.
It is obvious that some amendment is required to deal with the power of the Ministry over the plans and lay-out of the scheme.
I quite agree that that is a very important consideration, but Clause 11, Sub-section (1) gives the Minister power to prescribe certain conditions, and I take it that that would be one of them. In addition to that there is the question of the time and manner of making grants and where, if the conditions are not complied with, the payment of partial instalments will be considered.
With regard to lay-out, I am fairly satisfied that when it is proposed to start a scheme in which there are a number of houses the plan would be submitted, because the very question there of a number per acre arises, and although it does not specifically include the lay-out, I fear if you were to include that, it might complicate the matter and frighten the builders. In other words, the Bill is itself requiring a network of conditions of one sort or another. What has been put in gives some latitude, but the inclusion of a condition of this sort would leave us open to the charge, not alone that we were determined to get certain conditions with regard to building, but that we also wished to impose conditions as to the lay-out.
Has not the Minister pointed out that under Section 11 these conditions will be imposed?
Yes, but what I mean about conditions is that one gives these conditions and they are embodied in the Bill. In addition to that if there are other parts of the Bill that they must look at they will easily get frightened. They may come to the conclusion that we wish to do them out of the amount. That is not the desire.
I would just like to make a point which I do not want to urge too strongly. It seems that the Section with which we are now dealing only has in view the house itself, and seems rather to suggest individual houses. The only exception I can see is when you use the words "and number per acre." Surely it was not intended that all other questions, planning and lay-out of the scheme, should be left unconditional. Surely there was an intention to have some supervision over the plan of any scheme which is accepted?
I would be prepared to consider that question between this and the Report Stage as to whether it was not advisable to deal with the question of the number of houses.
I move:—
"In sub-section (1) (a), lines 50 and 51, to delete all words after the word `sanitation' to the end of the paragraph and to substitute therefor the words `be approved by the Minister.' "
This touches the same point. I think under this Bill it would be very unfortunate if we were to tie up the Ministry or to arrange that they would not have latitude to deal with certain prescribed sites. There are difficulties in connection with it. There are many sites of that nature in the city. I think to impose limitations on a Ministry that if so many cottages cannot be got per acre the scheme must be discarded, is a bad thing. If we are anxious to get houses we must join together to remove the restrictions on getting them. I do not want those restrictions unfairly removed. We want them removed without causing great difficulty. I suggest in that case power might be given to the Ministry to use their own opinion in matters of this kind.
So far as I can see the advice we are getting from Deputy Nagle and Deputy Good is in conflict. Deputy Nagle is anxious to take into consideration the site. Deputy Good would wish for ampler scope for the builder in that direction.
For the Department, approved by the Ministry.
I do not know how it can be read into it, that the house shall, in respect of its planning, construction and sanitation, be approved by the Ministry. I do not know whether the Minister would have power in the event of its being left to him alone to object. Say if he got 56 houses to the acre. I believe that number is on an acre in the City of Dublin. I do not see how you can object to 40 per acre without some condition being set down in black and white, limiting it.
Clause 11.
That is the condition. It might be brought in. A man might be entitled to say there are already constructed in Dublin, 40 houses per acre. Even the Corporation put 40 per acre in some places, and in other places it had up to 30. Unless some justification outside the rules is given, I prefer it to be left over to be considered on the next stage.
I would like to point out to the President that there are two points in this, the planning of the house on the site, and prescribed conditions. That would govern the number of houses on the site. In any case, if the first amendment is limited to the planning of the house, then it leaves the whole of that matter in the discretion of the Ministry. If you take that in conjunction with Clause 11, it must be in accordance with prescribed conditions, laid down by the Ministry. You have both points. Those are covered by the two Sections.
I beg to move:
"In sub-section (1) (a) after the word `conditions,' line 51, to add the words `except that in existing streets in Borough or Urban areas the Minister may waive the condition limiting the number of houses per acre to suit such special cases.' ”
This really will meet occasional cases that will arise in urban or borough areas where you may have a site for a certain number of houses. The regulation respecting the number of houses per acre would be more generous with regard to the amount of ground allotted to each house than would be possible to conceive in such cases. Those are cases which will arise in urban or borough areas.
I hope the Minister will not accept this amendment. It is not necessary in any case, because the conditions have still to be prescribed, and it is within the province of the Minister to make exceptions under Section 11; but to put in this amendment is too like an invitation to the Minister to waive conditions limiting the number of houses per acre, and more especially in the boroughs and the urban areas. There is no need at all to suggest such congestion, because it was owing to the desire to prevent congestion that the conditions have been imposed, and it will be generally agreed, I think, outside certain quarters, that such congestion should not be allowed. Now, under the Bill it is within the province and powers of the Minister to make exceptions without this amendment; if the Dáil formally passes this amendment it may well have the effect of suggesting to the Minister that he should waive conditions so that houses could be crowded in the most unfortunate manner at the suggestion of the Dáil, because that is what it would mean. I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment, because it is too much like a request to the Minister that he should waive the conditions limiting the number of houses to the acre.
I should think the wording of the amendment is such that the fears of Deputy Johnson have really no meaning, because unless it was given effect to then in the majority of cases the reconstruction of existing dwellings could not well be carried out because in the reconstruction of an existing building the ground under it would be likely to be found less than that provided for in the schedule to be prepared by the architects stating the specified number of houses to the acre.
How would it affect the amendment we have already accepted from Deputy Good about flats if we rule out Deputy O'Mahony's amendment? There is a danger, is there not, that converting large dwelling-houses in Dublin into flats could not be undertaken?
This section does not deal particularly with reconstruction. My point is that without this amendment the power of the Minister to exempt special cases remains, and there is no need to suggest to the Minister, as would be the case if we accept this amendment, that it is desirable for him to waive conditions. He has power to do it in special cases, but if you put this amendment in you practically tell him that the Dáil desires that he should waive these conditions.
I am inclined to agree with Deputy Johnson that it is not necessary to put this amendment into the Bill. There is no hard and fast rule as to the number of houses per acre. The number of houses per acre must be taken usually with the estimate of the number of persons per house. The number of persons per acre is normal or abnormal according to the considerations that must be taken into account. It may be, for example, that in the case of a huge hotel in New York, or Chicago, one would have to take into account the number of people on each floor. The whole building might not occupy more than a few acres, and it might be found that there were 1,000 persons to the acre, but is that a fair estimate of density in a slum area in which there were, as I remember, found in one tenement house as many as 109 persons? These are not parallel cases. One is not entitled to say that the density of that tenement house is less than a huge hotel in New York. I think it is better not to have any mention of the number. I think the general idea of enlightenment or advanced views as regards housing schemes is to have a smaller number of houses to the acre and to work down from what 10 years ago was regarded by certain housing experts as not very objectionable, namely 30 or 40 houses to the acre. That has come down in 10 years to 20 or 30 houses, and it is now, I believe, below 20. The gradual trend is to have a lesser number per acre. This amendment might do more harm than good. At the present moment the Minister's hands are not tied, and he is in a position to waive certain conditions.
I beg to move amendment No. 10:—In Sub-section (1) (b), page 3, lines 2 and 3, to delete all the words after the words "appurtenances be" and to substitute therefor the words "approved by the Minister." I move this with exactly the same idea that the President expressed some time ago, when he said that the Ministry should not be bound by any hard and fast rules. Now this clause, as framed, says that the houses shall, in respect of the size and number of rooms and necessary appurtenances, be in accordance with prescribed plan. I want the words "in general accordance with prescribed plan" eliminated so as to give the Minister wider powers, and to substitute the words "approved by the Minister." I think you will see the object of that if you read the marginal note in Section 3, which mentions "houses to which this Act applies." Deputy Sullivan pointed out a moment ago, quite properly, that we gave a wider meaning to the word "house" when we incorporated flats in Section 1, and if we are going to tie up the hands of the Minister in connection with reconstruction by the statement that reconstruction cannot be carried out and that you cannot get the prescribed number per acre we will defeat the object we have in view. Therefore, I suggest that this clause would be greatly improved by the elimination of these words and the substitution of the words I mention.
Will the President clear away a misconception either in my mind or in the mind of Deputy Good? Perhaps it is not for the President to do this, but at the same time he might assist in the matter. Deputy Good has suggested that we have already defined a house to be a flat.
Partly.
I think that is not correct. We did not alter the definition of the word "house" where, in the ordinary course, the word "house" means flat. I am not going to try to define it. The only change we made was, we defined the word "reconstruct," and I would suggest when we have agreed that the word "prescribed" is to be made mean "prescribed or approved by the Minister" before the job begins that Deputy Good's purpose will have been served without this amendment.
The point in my mind, when I raised this before, was that you said "prescribed" or "approved" means the same thing, but here we have "prescribed" by itself, and we have not said what it means.
I think what Deputy Good has in his mind are the thirty plans that I mentioned on the Second Reading of this Bill. He seems to think that the houses must be built in accordance with these plans. That is not our intention. These plans are in the offices of the Ministry of Local Government for one purpose, and that is to assist, as far as possible, persons inclined to build houses: in the first place to give them the considered opinion of persons engaged in these housing matters for a great number of years, and, secondly, to give them a conception of the class of house that is likely to be accepted. I take it that Deputy Good himself could probably give us a design of a house as good as any of those at present in the office of the Ministry of Local Government. At all events, he ought to be able to do that, because he has been interested in house building for a great number of years. There can be no real difference, or at least any great difference, between what we put down as being in general accord "with prescribed plans." It would simply mean that in some houses the living room does not bear the same relation to other rooms in one particular house as it does in others. I remember that when I was a member of the Dublin Corporation there was a very strong feeling, on the part of some people, who were interested in housing that the living room, in other words, the kitchen or the room in which the people spent most of their time, should be far larger, in fact twice as large if possible, as any other room in the house. Sometimes the case was made that the living room might reasonably be the whole of the ground floor, and that the upper floor should be divided into two or three compartments as people might desire. Now, there are people who object to that, and say that there should be a smaller living room, with a parlour on the ground floor. We will suppose, say, that three different plans are submitted. Number 1 specifies a single living room on the ground floor, with three bedrooms upstairs; number 2, a living room and a parlour downstairs and two bedrooms upstairs; number 3, a living room downstairs and a parlour and three bedrooms upstairs. It is quite reasonable to expect that plans of these descriptions might be sent in, and to meet the suggestion made by Deputy Good I may say that we would have no objection whatever to any of these plans being accepted. Any one of them would be, in general accord, with what we have laid down. From our experience in the past I think it will be found that any of the three plans I have mentioned will be approved of by the Minister, and the building can then go on. If you take it then that the building can go on as soon as the plans are approved of, there is no difference between our proposal and that of Deputy Good, but if, on the other hand, it means approved by the Minister before you start there may be a delay, and to that extent Deputy Good's amendment may require further consideration.
There is a point here that possibly we are overlooking. I mentioned the marginal note before to Section 3, which reads as follows: "Houses to which this Act applies." I am rather inclined to think that there is no distinction at all in the Bill between what you would call houses that come under the term of reconstruction and ordinary houses. I do not know whether I am wrong in that idea or not. It does not say in the Sub-Section that it only applies to self-contained houses, and that it does not apply to reconstructed houses.
I take it that (b) in the Sub-Section refers to new houses.
It is just possible that it may be read so, but on the other hand a different meaning may be read into it. If the whole of that were cleared up. I think it would be a good thing, because it does appear to me that there is a difficulty there. Furthermore, the President has pointed out that I seemed to be under the impression that there were prescribed plans which should be followed. I must say that I formed that idea in reading the Bill originally, and I am quite satisfied that when the Bill was drawn originally the idea was to erect houses in accordance with plans already in existence. That is the reason why, on the Second Reading, I put a question to the President as to whether these prescribed plans were mandatory, and he told me that they were not, that they were optional. That is the reason, therefore, why I want to have this point cleared up, and that was the reason I had in framing this amendment, to get rid of these words and to give further power to the Minister in connection with this matter. What I want to be clear about is, as to whether this Section applies to what you would call a small, self-contained house or a reconstructed house. As the Section stands it could be applied either ways.
I think the conditions that apply to houses to be erected also apply to houses to be reconstructed. If you look at Sub-Section (f) of the Section it states: "In the case of the reconstruction of an existing house, that existing house shall have been in a ruinous or defective condition at the passing of this Act, and shall, before the reconstruction is begun, be certified by an appointed officer to be capable of reconstruction as a house fulfilling the foregoing conditions."
I think the matter ought to be cleared up. I think Sub-Section (e) refers to new houses, and the one read out by Deputy Alton to houses that are to be reconstructed.
I will consider the matter, and if it is thought necessary to bring up an amendment on the Report Stage I will do so.
I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in Sub-Section (1) (c) to delete the figures "960" in line 6, and to substitute therefor the figures "1,000."
I do not think that the acceptance of this amendment would entail any additional expenditure either on the Government or on the local authorities. In the figures I have suggested I think I have erred on the side of modesty, because under the English Housing Act it is provided that the floor area shall be 700 superficial feet in the first class of house, 800 superficial feet in the next, and 920 superficial feet for a five-roomed house, with a margin up to 1,400 superficial feet. Under the Bill we are considering there will be many cases in which houses will be erected by builders, with Governmental and local financial support. Builders in many cases will erect houses for specific clients, people who have money to spare, and who with the Governmental and local help that will be available, will be anxious to provide houses for themselves.
But it will be found that the maximum area proposed in the Bill is not even a floor area because it is an area taken within the external walls. It leaves out of account the area occupied by partitions or by chimney-breasts that may be within the external walls. You have not actual floor area to deal with in the several areas mentioned here. A person might be anxious to have a bath-room and all the accommodation that is possible in a house of the kind. The extension of the area of the house does not necessarily mean a proportionate extension in the cost. The increased cost in proportion to the increased general accommodation will be relatively small. When a builder is building for speculation on the assumption that he is to sell at the price stated, he may be induced to extend the official area for the reason that if there is a readier sale for the larger house he will adapt himself to that circumstance.
In the "Irish Times" of Thursday last there were illustrations and particulars given of houses recently erected at Bray under the present housing scheme. The actual floor areas given with respect to one of the two types of houses illustrated were:— Large bedroom, 163 superficial feet; second bedroom, 120 superficial feet. Both these rooms are sufficiently large for ordinary purposes. But the third bedroom is only called a bedroom by courtesy; it is only 62 superficial feet. If you put a four-foot bed into such a room as that you have only about 24 superficial feet left over. Where are you to accommodate furniture in such a room? The total area of these three rooms is 345 feet. I say that the smaller bedroom should not be less than 100 superficial feet, or 10 feet square. That is one of the standard houses we are erecting under the Government grant. That means an increase of 38 feet. For the stair space on each floor and passages there would be about 50 superficial feet. That makes 433 superficial feet. Then you want accommodation for a bath, say 40 feet for combined bathroom and sanitary accommodation. That is 473 feet. If you add the area of partitions to that, you have 500 feet, which I say is the minimum for a five-roomed house. That brings it up simply to the figure I have laid down of 1,000 feet. I would ask the President to reconsider the area specified in this Sub-section.
The area of 520 square feet, even for a two-bedroomed house, is very small. I suggest that the Government should accept the 1,000 feet, or even be more generous, and leave it to the discretion of the builder. It is not going to cost the Government or the local authority any more, but, as I say, there are many people who will be anxious to avail of the services of a builder, with the financial accommodation this Bill will give them, to build houses a little better than those provided for in the Bill, and such people ought to get encouragement.
I approve of this amendment. In fact, I would go further and remove the limit altogether, as I do not see what purpose is served by it. It is desirable, provided the builder keeps inside the specified costs, that the rooms should be as big as possible. Perhaps there is some reason for this, but I cannot see it.
I beg to move:—
In Sub-section (1) (d), line 7, to delete the words "by an appointed officer" and to substitute therefor the words "by a competent architect or an officer appointed by the Minister."
The object of the amendment is that where a competent architect designs a scheme, and that scheme has been carried out under his supervision, his certificate would be accepted by the Ministry for the completion of that scheme, in accordance with the plans, instead of sending down an officer from the Ministry for that purpose, which is mandatory under the Bill. This amendment leaves it optional. If the Ministry is not satisfied with the competency or otherwise of the architect it has the alternative of sending down an official of its own. But where an architect is employed, and the Ministry is satisfied with his competency, it seems unreasonable that the Ministry should be compelled to send an official in order to give a certificate that the house has been built in accordance with the plans as approved and furnished.
I wonder does the amendment carry out what Deputy Good has stated? It seems to me if this amendment is accepted that the Government has not the power to object to the architect if he is a competent architect. He need not be appointed by the Government, and if the house is approved by him I do not see what choice the Government would have in the matter. Deputy Good explained that it was still in the power of the Government if they were dissatisfied with the architect to send down an official, but his amendment does not provide for that.
I think the point is a good one. Deputy Figgis's earlier amendment would have fitted into this amendment of Deputy Good's. The competence would be judged by the Council of Architects, and once any member was declared competent, no matter what his relationship might be to the builder, there would be no option but to approve. I think that the Bill does not prevent the appointed officer being a competent architect. Under the Bill as drafted the Ministry may say that so-and-so, who is an architect, has our authority to inspect this house. Under the amendment, if any person who is declared to be a competent architect, had issued a certificate that the house had been built in a workmanlike manner, the Ministry would have no option but to accept that certificate. I think that the Section as it stands is preferable to the proposed amendment.
As I read the Section it is mandatory on the Department, notwithstanding that a competent architect has been associated with the scheme, to send down an officer to certify that the house has been completed in accordance with the plans, in order that the Government grant may be paid. If the Section is not mandatory I would like to hear to the contrary. In order that that difficulty might be got over I suggested that it should be in the power of the Ministry to accept the certificate of that competent architect, and avoid sending down an officer to certify. That is the object I had in putting forward the amendment. It seems to me to read clearly; possibly I may misunderstand it. If the Ministry is not satisfied with the architect, then it has power to send down its own officer. If it is satisfied with the competency of the architect there is no necessity to make it mandatory to send down its own officer.
I suggest that if you insert the amendment the Ministry must take the certificate of the competent architect, and his no power to send down an official.
Follow the precedent laid down by the Local Government Department, by sending down an architect to inspect and certify for the building. The amendment suggested by Deputy Good, as Deputy Professor O'Sullivan has pointed out, would preclude the Local Government Department from having a say as to the manner in which the houses were finished, if a certificate was forthcoming from the architect. No Government Department could surrender the right of seeing that public money, given for the purpose of erecting the houses, had been properly expended. I think the custom that prevails is one that ought to be continued in that respect. Where architects are employed to supervise the erection of houses all over the country, the houses on completion are inspected by an architect or by an officer appointed by the Local Government Department. It is on his certificate the money is paid.
I suggest that the idea in Deputy Good's mind could be met in another way without being exposed to the objections raised to the amendment. It seems to me that what you want is to see that the Ministry is satisfied that the work has been carried out in a proper and workmanlike way.
If it should be necessary to adopt the method suggested by Deputy Good I think the definition clause gives us that power. On the other hand, there are reasons why there might be objection on the part of any Ministry to have persons styled as competent, either as doctors, engineers, architects or dentists. What is to decide a man's competence? Is it his qualifications or that he has passed through a University? If the Ministry is to decide the competence it is open to question if that could be sustained in Court. An architect may say, "I have all the qualifications," and snap his fingers at the Ministry. At any rate, even if it were desired to save expense the Minister, if satisfied with the name of any particular person, has power to appoint a person according to the definition clause. The Auditor and Comptroller-General will object to any wide interpretation of that kind.
Of course the word "architect" could be defined in the definition clause. I am quite satisfied if the President undertakes to give consideration to the point.
I move—Section 3 in Sub-section (1) (e) to delete from the word "or," line 11, to the word "Act," line 13, inclusive. The Sub-section would then read: "The erection or reconstruction of the house shall be begun after the passing of this Act," omitting "or in special cases approved by the Minister within six months before the passing of this Act." To leave these words in would be to approve of something we had done before the Act came into existence. I do not know how that is to be worked exactly in accordance with the Schedule attached. It appears to me we are laying down rules for something to be built in the future rather than for something that happened in the past. I do not know what is the object of putting in "within six months before the passing of this Act."
I would like to hear what Deputies have to say on this question. It struck me that if this Act was not made applicable for some very well intentioned people, who are building the class of house we have in mind, obviously they would be at a disadvantage compared with persons who are going to start when this Bill is passed in a month or so. If these people are building five-roomed houses and have to sell them without the £100 it does appear that, although they are doing a patriotic thing, constructing houses at uneconomic prices, they were certainly penalised.
How are we to know whether these people have not got grants under a previous Act?
All the previous Acts have been suspended, I think. To use the phraseology of the play bills, "the free list has been permanently withdrawn for the last 12 or 18 months." There is no doubt about that. It is a matter I think of equity. The amount involved is not considerable. It may be urged that they were under no disadvantage, and that there will be no limit as to their sale. I really think it does not matter at all unless a person is constructing a house for himself. I leave it to the Dáil to decide what, in their judgment, would be the best.
Of course if there are only a comparatively small number, as the President pointed out, I do not wish to object to it. The Minister has discretionary power.
I think we should have some guidance as to whether there are many cases of what were referred to as "special cases." If, for instance, as some Deputies thought, this section dealt with reconstructed houses or flats—a considerable number of which have been converted or are in course of conversion—would these be brought in as "special cases." I think if there is any purpose in having this reference to "special cases begun within six months of the passing of the Act," we should have some evidence of its necessity.
I can imagine that there have been some cases where the person interested might get relief, but I think that in most cases where there has been any prospect of State assistance of this kind there is no necessity for it. Presumably they are being built entirely for other tenants, sub-tenants, workmen on estates, gate-lodges and the like. Whether there are such or not, I cannot say. It may be that there are farmhouses, or small houses, in the course of erection in the country which would come under this exception, but I think the Minister has to make the case for the special cases, and to explain the sort of houses they had in view when putting in this sentence.
I think the provision is a fair one. When you come to consider the fact that we are discussing this Bill to-day, it is quite on the cards that a considerable period will elapse before it will come into operation. Then when it does, its effectiveness or otherwise will be governed by conditions different from what we see exactly to-day, and it may be that the provision of six months from the passing of the Bill is not likely to be six months as from to-day, and it is not likely to affect very many people. If it does bring in certain houses that were built recently, I think it is only fair that they should be brought in because of the conditions which the people faced when they started to build these houses.
No special case has been put before us. We had no representations from any source in favour of this amendment. It was at the conference we had, I suggested that in case there were such persons who had started building in the last two or three months it appeared to me to be unfortunate that they would not get any benefit out of this Bill. No representations have been made and it is left entirely to the Dáil for its own consideration. The Ministry of Finance would be rather anxious that the amendment should be carried and, naturally, in such a case, I would not like to stand in their way.
I do not wish to press the amendment, because, as the President has pointed out, there are very few cases that will come under the clause.
I move, in sub-section (1) (e), line 13, to delete the words "in any case." I cannot see the object of them. It covers two classes of houses.
resumed the chair.
I think the words should be left in. It refers to the two classes of cases, and it seems to be clearer to leave the words in.
They do not appear to me to serve any useful purpose, and that is why I suggest we should delete them
Could we leave them there, go on, and get them out on the Fifth Stage? They are not vital.
I am puzzled to know what the amendment means. I take it that if a house has been in course of construction six months before the passing of the Bill, it shall, in any case, be completed within twelve months. If, on the other hand, a house is started after the passing of the Bill, it must be completed within twelve months. That is the meaning, if I am correct, of leaving in "in any case."
I do not press the point. I cannot see the purpose of these words, but if they serve any useful purpose I am quite satisfied to leave them in. "In every case" would be a better reading.
I move in sub-section (1) (e), line 14, to delete the words "twelve months" and to substitute therefor the words "two years." The words here are important. I see that Deputy Heffernan has also an amendment down corresponding with mine. If the Bill is to serve any useful purpose at all it is absolutely essential that it should be extended for two years, because, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, negotiations in connection with the acquisition of the site will take at least six months, and then there will be certain negotiations between the local authority and the builder. That being so, to say that these houses must be erected within twelve months would be absolutely impossible, because if the site has been obtained, waterways, roadways, paths, and other things have to be made on the site before the contractor starts the erection of the houses at all. So that, it will be generally agreed, I think, that two years is not too much to allow for the carrying out of a scheme.
I am very much afraid if we assented to two years it would take all the ginger out of it. We want houses put up rapidly; we want to try to galvanise these builders, employers and employees, into doing what is their duty, and if it will take them six months to get a site I am afraid we will have to wait a little longer than twelve months to get the houses built. In this case, if you extend it to two years they will not start to look for a site for six months. Our estimate for twelve months is £250,000; we would want £500,000 for two years, and we are not prepared to ask for a Vote on account in respect of next year. I think fifteen months would be a perfectly reasonable time, allowing three months for the acquisition of the site. Surely it ought to be possible to do it in three months. Will it take twelve months to build a house? Is time allowed for such amusements as strikes and lock-outs and things of that kind? On the other hand, I am perfectly satisfied that nine months ought to be sufficient to build these small houses—nine and six, allowing that it will take six months to get the site. I would offer a year and three months.
If the President wants to get houses I think it is essential that he should allow time to erect them. As I tried to point out, sites will be acquired by the local authority. The President has some experience of the time it takes a local authority to acquire a site. I have been told by a man of lifelong experience in the matter that the average time is six months. After the site is acquired the local authority has to carry out a considerable amount of work on it, in the way of roads, pathways and sewers, etc. All this would take a considerable amount of time, and I think if we allow twelve months for the local authority we will not be allowing too much; in addition to that we would want another six to nine months. I think nine months would be essential for the carrying out of a larger scheme, and that would be the shortest possible time in which they could be erected. I am quite with the President in trying to get houses, but there is no use in laying down impossible conditions that would only kill the scheme.
My idea about this is that the President is unduly optimistic as to the time in which he can get the houses completed, and I think he will find at the end of the year he will be at a deadlock; that is, the time will have expired, and the houses will not be built. I think our experience of contractors and the men who work for them is such as not to allow us to be so optimistic as to the wonderful results that they will achieve. I would suggest that if the President could meet us in this amendment, I for my part would be willing to withdraw, and if he would substitute for the period four months, one year, that is that the Ministry might have the option of adding one year to the period they could sanction beyond twelve months.
I am not impressed. We have to speak about some particular area, some unit of the country. If you are speaking of Dublin, and I suppose Deputy Good is entitled to speak for Dublin, there is a site already available. It may take the Corporation two months to decide as to whether it is going to avail of it for these houses or not. It should not take any more time than three months for them to make up their minds as to whether they will facilitate the erection of these houses. As far as I know the roads and sewers are made. Usually when they are talking about a thing for a long time you see something done after a while. I would be prepared to make it a year and six months, but further than that I will not be prepared to go.
I do not agree with extending the time to giving an additional three months. I think three months would be enough. After the Second Reading of this Bill I received letters from people looking for houses; one was from a man who was going to get married asking would he be in time to get one of these houses, and now I must write back and say that he will have to wait some time longer, as Deputy Good wants to add three months.
The amendment was altered to read "to delete the words `twelve months' and to substitute therefor the words `eighteen months,' " and agreed to.
I move:—
"In sub-section (1) (f), to delete the word `shall' and to substitute therefor the word `may.' "
In connection with the reconstruction of existing houses it is an essential feature, according to this Section, that they shall have been in a ruinous condition. I do not know whether that was the intention of the draughters or not, for that would limit reconstruction to houses that were in a ruinous condition. These houses while they may not be in a very good state of repair might, if this clause is left as it is, not come under it at all. Take any of the houses in one of our leading squares and see would it come under this clause as it reads at present:
"In the case of the reconstruction of an existing house, that existing house shall have been in a ruinous or defective condition at the passing of this Act, and shall, before the reconstruction is begun, be certified by an appointed officer to be capable of reconstruction as a house fulfilling the foregoing conditions."
I do not think that any of us who have a knowledge of the city of Dublin could say that some of these houses that we are anxious should be reconstructed are in a ruinous or defective condition at the moment. I think it would be trying to read into this Bill what is not in it to say that they are. I suggest in order to make that clause workable that the word "may" shall be substituted for the word "shall."
I doubt very much if Deputy Good by his amendment would secure what he is driving at. I think there are two classes of houses under discussion, that is ruinous houses and the houses you want to convert into flats. Deputy Good's amendment, I think, does not secure the distinction between these two classes of houses, and I think it makes nonsense of the Section as it stands.
It seems to me, in view of our decision to allow self-contained flats that the wording of this requires re-drafting. The President said on Second Reading that he saw no reason why Utility Societies could not make use of this Bill. It seems to me that through this Section they could act, as they would not have funds to build on a larger scale; it would be through turning houses into self-contained flats that the larger opportunity would come.
I do not really see what purpose the first three lines of the clause serves at all, because unless some good purpose is to be gained, people are not going to lay out money on houses. If the purpose is that they shall turn a house which is not serving any useful purpose into a house serving a good purpose, a house that was defective already, who would the judge be as to whether it is defective or not. What you want would be the words "subject to the approval of the Minister."
May I ask the President whether it is his intention that the financial assistance to be given under this Bill is to be given for the purpose of transferring, altering, or reconstructing large houses into self-contained flats? Reading the Bill, I think it is not the intention. I rather gather that the Dáil does desire that houses may be converted into self-contained flats, and that the money available under this scheme shall be available. I wonder whether that is approved by the Ministry? If it is, I suggest that a good part of the Bill will require re-drafting. Certainly some new clauses will need to be added. I suggest before we go further with this matter that the main question should be decided, whether we desire that houses which are capable of being converted into self-contained flats may come under the definition of a house, and whether the Ministry is agreeable to that interpretation.
I am agreeable to that interpretation, but whoever intends to put the Act into force in connection with one of these houses is confined, as far as we are concerned, to the amounts that are set out in the schedule. I am not satisfied that it is an economic proposition unless in very special circumstances. Even under these special circumstances, we would be justified in making the measure adaptable for these very few cases, because I do not think there would be many. When I was a member of the Corporation I remember on one occasion a proposition being put up to us that if we got a half-a-dozen houses in Gardiner Street at a given price, and if we were to make certain alterations and convert them into flats and so on, they could be let at a certain figure. We spent some time in dealing with the matter, and we got out very unsatisfactory figures. This was in pre-war days. The figures were unsatisfactory, and at last I said—"If you get the houses for nothing, if they are presented to us, what will the result be?"
We found the result would be that the flats would be provided at a price far in excess of what the ordinary single cottages would cost the Corporation at the time, the reason being—that is, the reason that was put forward—that the bricks and mortar, which were all we took into account as getting from the person who would give us the houses, would constitute one-third of the price of the house. I believe there are other means than those adopted by a local authority. I think there has been some activity in England. A Miss Hill took up the matter, and found that her system was a success. Whether it is possible to put something of the same sort into operation here and to make it a success, I do not know; I hope it is. It is with that view that we have included this clause, which would enable us at a small expenditure to give practically the same accommodation, because every flat that is readapted or made possible by this reconstruction would be the equivalent of a family house in the ordinary way.
The Section under discussion only deals with ruinous or defective houses. I have no views or knowledge as to the feasibility of turning mansions into flats, but it is apparent that there is a desire that such reconstruction should come under the Bill. Paragraph (f) does not deal with reconstructing houses which are at present in good condition. It only deals with houses that are in ruinous or defective condition and the desire is, as I gather, that houses that are in good condition may be reconstructed and that each self-contained flat made out of the reconstructed house should be the equivalent of a dwelling-house and so get a subsidy. If there are four flats to be made out of one mansion, then there will be a £400 subsidy. I am speaking of the larger houses. There would be four new houses.
Yes, but not at the cost of £400 to us.
£60 a house. The question that I would like to be clear on is whether the Bill, in its drafting, does contemplate that kind of reconstruction. I am afraid that it does not and that it will have to be recast in several of its clauses if that is the intention.
Before the President replies may I point out that we have already settled that point, because when reconsidering the definitions we decided in line 22, Section 1, to add the words "Or self-contained flats." So we have already established the principle.
Yes.
I think a separate clause should be drafted to deal with this matter now raised. I do not agree with Deputy Good. I suggest that he should withdraw his amendment, and that the matter be reconsidered.
Might I suggest that in this whole question, and the very important one that has been raised in connection with these flats, it might be desirable for the President to consider whether he would not put in a special clause dealing with the position of the flats. When you look around Dublin and see the number of houses that are gradually going into decay and crumbling down, you must recognise the importance of the reconstruction of these houses as being even greater than going out into the suburbs and building new houses. What will become of these houses if you do not adopt some system of this kind that will encourage people to put them into livable condition for tonants? These houses are going to be like Sackville Street, crumbling into ruins, an eyesore to the city, and a source of the various troubles we would be glad to avoid. It is all very well for Deputy Figgis to talk about the æsthetic house building and all that; but you cannot ignore the fact that workmen want to be near their work, and that there is a big demand for houses as near as possible to the centre of the city. You have those houses in a ruinous condition, and unless you are going to sacrifice your city and extend it to the suburbs, leaving your city derelict, I think the most important housing problem before you to-day is the matter of the reconstruction of the houses in the old city area. In dealing with the matter, this question of flats has been raised, and I think it might be very properly dealt with separately in one or two additional clauses in the Bill.
It would be necessary to insert these clauses in the Bill, because of course the provision for selling would not apply to flats. If provision for selling is left as it is, one flat could be sold and the others need not be sold.
It does not apply.
It would be necessary to redraft the clause so as to include flats.
I suggest that we report progress with a view to having the position reconsidered. Perhaps before we reach the next consideration, the Minister will be able to help the Dáil in this matter. It is certainly a very important point. I think it is worth while for the Minister to consult his advisers as to whether the Bill, in its present form, does meet the desire of the Dáil to have these self-contained flats specifically brought into it. I move to that effect.
