The Committee was considering amendment 16 by Deputy Good to Section 3.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - HOUSING (BUILDING FACILITIES) BILL, 1924—THIRD STAGE. RESUMED.
There has been some doubt in the minds of Deputies regarding an amendment that was accepted yesterday as to self-contained flats. Having examined the matter over-night I have come to the conclusion that the acceptance of the amendment yesterday does not unbalance the Bill in any particular. To sub-divide Section 3 into parts (1) dealing with new houses to be erected, (2) dealing with the construction of flats or at least the buildings which will contain flats, and (3) reconstructing houses so as to make them suitable for letting in flats, would simply mean repeating in three parts of the Section what is already embodied in the one Section and extending that Section to an unusual extent. It is anticipated that the rules which will be adopted under the Bill can be so arranged that one set of rules will deal with a particular type of house. The construction of a building to contain flats or the reconstruction of a house already in existence, in order to make it suitable for letting in flats, would also form the subject of special rules, so that the rules, I think, will more than meet any of the objections that were made to this particular Section.
I think, notwithstanding what the President has said, that some sub-division will be necessary. We have been dealing with Section 3, and his point of view is that that Section as it stands is applicable to the three classes of work that he mentioned. Let me take Sub-section (c) of that Section referring to floor area. Floor area can be applied all right to a new building, but how is one to apply floor area to a reconstructed building? Take one of those houses that attention was directed to yesterday. The rooms could not be made to conform with certain measurements. They are in existence and cannot be altered. I quite agree that when you are designing a new house you can construct your rooms to conform to the Regulations. But surely it is impossible to alter existing houses in order to comply with any such requirements. I would point out that as the Section stands, notwithstanding what rules and regulations may be attached to it, it is going to cause very considerable trouble, and may possibly defeat the object we have in view.
I would like a particular case to be mentioned. If we take one of the larger houses in any of the Squares, there are very few of them that have rooms exceeding 20 by 30 feet. That would be an average-sized room, and one does not, as a rule, find two rooms on the same landing having such a floor space. If rooms of these dimensions were found in a particular house, it would certainly be an exceptional case, and if there were no other room on that floor, there would only be the 200 feet which is provided for in another Sub-section. I do not know that that particular Sub-section binds the Minister in the case of a reconstructed dwelling. It was obviously intended to apply to newly-constructed houses, and I take it that he might reasonably make rules to deal with the matter. Even if it were taken to apply to a reconstructed house we can, on the Report Stage, insert a Section which would meet that difficulty.
What I wanted to make clear is that we have in Section 3 several Sub-sections dealing with reconstruction and with new houses. Who is to decide which of these Sub-sections apply to new houses only, and which apply to reconstruction. Sub-section (c) decides that the maximum area shall not exceed 960 feet or 1,000 feet, which was mentioned yesterday. It may be impossible in the adaptation of the space of these reconstructed houses to comply with that. Therefore, a large number of houses may be ruled out.
I think it was understood in the course of yesterday's debate that the area specified in Sub-section (c) applied only to new houses, and that the question of the application of Section 3 to reconstructed houses did not arise until we reached Sub-section (e).
Who is to settle that? The Bill does not settle it.
That was the understanding arrived at yesterday when dealing with that Section. With respect to reconstructed houses, I think there will be discretionary power vested in the architect associated with the scheme on behalf of the Local Government Department. As Deputy Good has pointed out, not only in respect to the reconstruction of flats, but in respect to the reconstruction of existing houses or buildings, it would, in all cases, be impossible to confine oneself to the more or less stereotyped method of planning that will be laid down by the Local Government Department, both as regards the arrangement of the rooms and the size of the rooms. As regards the total areas comprised in the cases of reconstructed flats, building or old houses, the discretionary power must naturally be vested in the architects who are officially identified with the scheme. In all schemes of that kind the planning must necessarily be submitted to them. That will give a fiat as to whether it is advisable to part from the rigid limitations the Bill imposes. The President says the rules will make provision for some elasticity in that respect.
In the absence of anything in the Bill to say which of these sub-sections apply to new houses, I think there would be a difficulty. I suggest that might be got over by including in the definition clause something of this kind: "that house means not alone dwelling-house, as already stated, but includes self-contained flats." If there were some statement of that kind I think it would largely obviate that difficulty.
Looking at the Section as it stands, Sub-sections A., B., C. and D. obviously refer to new houses. In Sub-section E., for the first time the question of reconstruction of houses arises. Personally, I do not see that there is any danger of complication, but I would undertake to look into it before the Report Stage, and see if it is necessary to bring in anything to qualify it.
I support the views of Deputy Good in this matter, regarding the necessity for some closer definition. Sub-section I. of Section 3 says: "Subject to the provisions of this Section, this Act applies to a house which fulfils the following conditions." If self-contained flats are deemed to be a house, then these conditions apply to self-contained flats. The Sub-section, therefore, applies to self-contained flats, and unless the Section is amended there will be no possibility of the elasticity that Deputy O'Mahony has spoken of.
It seems to me that the whole idea of the Bill is in the direction of new construction, and when you come to Part I. of the Schedule, where it is defined what the grant shall be, you find it laid down that in the three-roomed house £60 is granted. If you take a large house in the centre of the city it might be possible to reorganise it so as to have five or six three-roomed flats in it. I am not sufficiently conversant with the matter to know but it seems to me that that is the basis on which the grants are given. Assume, for instance, that there is a house that may be converted into six flats it would mean that the grant given would be £60 for each flat or £360.
No; if Deputy Good will look at the first column he will see that where sewers and water mains are available the grants are £40 for three rooms, £53 6s 8d for four rooms, and £66 13s 4d for five rooms.
At all events turning a house of that sort into flats would make the grant a very substantial one, more so than the reconstruction of the house would justify. This whole question wants consideration. I admit that it may be all right, but it is obviously foreign to the idea of the people who drafted the Bill.
Is it necessary to get this matter settled before we go on with the amendments? What is to become of this discussion? Will it arise again on the Report Stage?
Yes, on the Report Stage. I think Deputy Good might then unburden himself, and we will try to console him as far as we can.
We will take the amendments as they are, and leave over this discussion. Amendment 16 is therefore withdrawn.
And amendment 17.
Amendment 16 and 17, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (1) (f) after the word "conditions," line 23, to add the words "and any existing building capable of reconstruction as a house shall be similarly certified before reconstruction is begun."
This is simply the sequel to amendment No. 2 that I moved yesterday, and that was approved of.
I am ready to accept the amendment.
I wish to make a few remarks on this sub-section.
You can go into it when we are putting the Section later on. Is it relevant to this amendment?
I think so. I handed in an amendment, but it was ruled out of order.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (f), to add the following: —"or, where in a special case approved of by the Minister, the reconstruction is commenced within six months before the passing of this Act, the house shall have been in a ruinous or defective condition at the commencement of reconstruction, and no such certificate of capability of reconstruction shall in that case be necessary."
The Section as it stands only enables a grant to be made in respect of reconstruction begun after the passing of the Bill. The object of the amendment is to enable the grant to be made in special cases approved by the Minister where reconstruction has begun within six months before the passing of the Bill.
Should the word "or" be omitted in view of the last amendment?
Yes.
I just raised the question whether houses which had been in the course of reconstruction for conversion into flats would not mean houses which have only been defective from the point of view of self-contained houses. That is to say a house which may have been quite effective as a complete single whole but may be defective as three self-contained flats—whether in such a case the passing of this new sub-section would mean that persons who have taken over houses for conversion and have been working at them for the last three months may come forward and claim this subsidy.
I am not particularly keen on the adoption of this amendment, if there be any objection to it. It is on the lines of the one I mentioned yesterday, and on which I asked that the opinion of the House might be obtained, so that there should be no complaint afterwards and no injustice done to any person who had started in good faith, and had done a useful public service by starting the construction of houses. This Section is so worded as to meet the case mentioned by Deputy Johnson. "Defective" in being applied to houses means defective only in so far as a number of flats are concerned. It may also mean defective from other causes, but a house in reasonably good repair—say in one of the squares—which might be occupied by a single family, would not be defective in so far as any real reconstruction would be required. That house would come within the terms of this Bill or of this particular amendment. Even if the amendment were not put forward the word "defective" would apply to that house in so far as the house was not at present suitable for letting in self-contained flats, and in order to make it so a certain expenditure would be required. I am not pressing this amendment; I will leave it to the sense of the Dáil. If the amendment we passed yesterday with regard to reconstruction of houses begun before the Bill was passed was good, we thought this amendment would not be required. I do not know that the case really arises or that there will be any claim under this particular head. It is simply to make it a parallel case with the Sub-clause dealing with the construction of new houses that I am putting it in.
I think there is much greater likelihood of claims for the subsidy on account of the conversion of large houses into self-contained flats, which work has been begun within the last six months, than in the case of smaller complete houses. Again, I suggest that notwithstanding the assurance that the term "defective" would mean that the converted flats would be defective if they had not certain accommodation, that would not be the interpretation held by Courts. In the case of the reconstruction of an existing house, "that existing house shall be in a ruinous or defective condition." I think the term "defective" would not bear the interpretation that the Minister has suggested; that while a house would be in good order from the point of view of a single occupancy, it might be defective from the point of view of several self-contained flats. I think the house would have to be defective before the conversion began under the Section, as it stands, but apparently it is desired to change the original intention. If that is so, I submit that this paragraph would have to be re-cast. I suggest it is a matter for the Minister for Local Government who, I take it, will be responsible for the administration of this Act, though he does not seem to be showing very much interest in it. From the point of view of the Ministry, if it is satisfactory that some of the £50,000 will be transferred to work which has already been commenced, I do not know that I, for my part, will have any objection. But I think if there is any likelihood of the money being called for for other reconstructed houses it would be better to allow these houses that have already been begun, notwithstanding the absence of the subsidy, to remain without the subsidy, and let the subsidy be available for new work which might be undertaken.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move Amendment 20:—
In sub-section (1) to delete paragraph (g) and insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph:—"(g) in the case of the erection of a new house, such house shall not be a house erected in fulfilment of a re-instatement condition within the meaning of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923 (No. 15 of 1923), and shall not be erected on or on any part of the site of a former house which has or shall have been the subject of a claim under the said Act or any other Act relating to compensation for criminal injuries."
This is a drafting amendment. The paragraph, as it stands, speaks of the site of a house being subject to a claim under the Damage to Property Act. This is not correct. Any claim under that Act is in respect of the house, not in respect of the site. The paragraph further assumes that a new house built in pursuance of a re-instatement condition under the Damage to Property Act will necessarily be built exactly on the site of the destroyed house. That is not the case, either. The new paragraph remedies defects in the existing paragraph, but in no way alters the effect that was intended.
Amendment agreed to.
I move Amendment 21:—
In sub-section (1) (h) after the word "house," in lines 28 and 29, to add the words "or building."
This is consequent on the passing of Amendment 2 yesterday.
Is it necessary? We have already agreed that the expression "house" will mean house or building.
I think this will come under the review the President had in his mind when he said he would inquire into the whole of this clause. I think this really touches the same point.
It can be passed now, and if necessary it can be reconsidered on the 4th stage.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 22:—
In sub-section (1) (h), line 31, to add immediately after the figures "1923" the words "or any other Act relating to compensation for criminal injuries."
The amendment is intended to meet the case of a claim for malicious injury under Acts prior to the Damage to Property Act, 1923, or under the joint operation of any of the earlier Acts and the Act of 1923.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 23:—
In sub-section (1) (h), page 3, line 31, to add after the figures "(No. 15 of 1923)" the words "but this paragraph shall not apply to amalgamated workhouses subject to claims under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, and the amount awarded for such claims shall be utilised by the local authorities for the reconstruction of the said buildings into suitable dwelling houses."
On the Second Reading of this Bill I asked the President if it would be possible to have the workhouses vacant owing to amalgamation converted into suitable dwellings—even temporarily— in order to relieve the congestion in the towns in which they are situate. If this amendment is inserted in the Bill these workhouses can be converted into dwelling-houses without any extra cost and without even borrowing for the purpose. Nearly all these workhouses were taken over by the British Government during the Anglo-Irish war, and in some cases from £700 to £900 was awarded as compensation for the damage done. In one particular instance—Athlone—there has been paid over to the local authorities by this Government £777 for the damage done. At a later stage, after the signing of the Treaty and after the Truce, when trouble arose between ourselves, these workhouses were taken over by the National Army and the guardians of these institutions will also, I suppose, be applying for compensation for the damage done. What I want to urge is that that money should be utilised for the conversion of these workhouses into suitable dwellings to relieve the congestion in these towns, even temporarily. I would rather see the workhouses turned into factories, but at the present time there is no more speedy way of supplying house accommodation for the people. I therefore move the amendment, which I think is a reasonable one and one that should be accepted.
I think that this is a very short-circuit method of dealing with a very complicated subject. If I understand the amendment correctly, it is that where there is a vacant workhouse, in respect of which there is a claim for damage or cost of occupation or anything of that sort, the Deputy proposes that the money so realised and all the bricks and mortar and other suitable material there should be pooled together in order to provide accommodation on the sites of these particular workhouses. Now, the workhouse obviously belongs to somebody. Whoever owns the workhouse has got some right to say to what purpose it should be put. If a claim lies in respect of damage to, or occupation of, that particular building, whoever has the claim to the building, owns that money and should at least be consulted before we would commit the State, by a single clause in this Bill, to ordering its expenditure on a particular service. Workhouses generally, as far as I know, are vested now in the Ministry of Local Government. It is not what we would call a beneficiary trusteeship. It is simply a trusteeship for somebody else and, in that connection, I do not know that a single clause like this could deprive the Ministry of Local Government of its liabilities in respect of whatever position it occupies as a trustee, nor do I believe that you would be entitled to take off the ratepayers of a particular district whatever sum of money is ear-marked as their property to be devoted to this particular purpose.
In any case, the question arises as to how far these particular institutions, as they stand, are physically capable of being utilised for the purpose intended. I should say, on the face of it, that they are not easily adaptable for the purpose of housing. They usually contain large rooms; a considerable amount of work would be required, and then one cannot take away from institutions of that sort their peculiar barrack-like appearance. It is easily conceivable that you might be committed to a much larger expenditure of money than the return would justify. Certainly, without examining the problem, seeing what those amounts are, that the Deputy appears to regard as considerable, seeing what that money could do, and how far people having a claim against the money would be agreeable, I do not think that I have the power to pass judgement—certainly not without consulting at least, and hearing what the beneficiaries have got to say on the subject. I cannot accept the amendment in its present form.
Would the President agree, if local authorities wished to devote the money to the purpose mentioned in this amendment, to advise the Minister for Local Government to sanction such a scheme? In the town of Athlone at present there are engineers going through the workhouse, and they find that £500 would leave this workhouse in a suitable condition to house 35 families. If 35 families can be housed for an expenditure of £500 and the local authorities approve of such a scheme, I do not see why the Government should not sanction it. As the President says, somebody owns these workhouses. The ratepayers of Ireland own them. They may have been built by the British Government, but the ratepayers of Ireland paid for them. They are now vested in the Irish Government, and I was very pleased to hear from the President that the local authorities will receive some consideration and that everything will not be done over their heads, without consultation. Heretofore the public bodies in any scheme they adopted, whether they were unanimous or not, were turned down by the Government. I would like to know from the President if the local authorities agree to have this money expended in the way I have indicated, will they sanction the scheme?
Is not that outside the scope of this Bill altogether?
The fact is overlooked that on many of those workhouses there is a very large ground rent. Who is going to accept the liability for that? Will the local authorities accept the liability, assuming the buildings are made over to them? As I understand the position, it is as the President stated. These buildings are vested in the Minister for Local Government. We had the same difficulty over a union in the South, the claim being made that all the funds should be lodged with the Ministry here as trustees for the building. I really believe that if you take into account the unsuitable houses you will produce in this way at a cost of building almost absolutely new houses and the ground rents attaching to these buildings, you will find that the money can be put to a much more useful purpose and that it will be much more satisfactory to those who will occupy the premises if the money is used for some other purpose than the conversion of these workhouses.
The Ministry of Local Government are sending an architect to inspect some of these workhouses, and I believe they will consider the matter sympathetically, but beyond that I am not in a position to go at the present moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move the deletion of Sub-section (2). My reason for putting this amendment down is that on reading the Bill I cannot find that any provision whatsoever will apply to residents in rural areas. In fact, this Bill as it stands makes it impossible for residents in rural areas to reconstruct or rebuild their houses. I would call the attention of the President to a statement which he made on the introduction of the Bill. It was in reply to the general speeches that were made, but it had particular reference to a statement by Deputy Gorey. The President said: "Every tenant farmer in Kilkenny who wishes to build a house will get the benefit of this scheme, and every part of the country has the same advantage."
I do not quite know if the President meant that the farmers in these counties were to have the privilege of building houses, but were not to have the privilege of reconstructing houses under the Bill.
That is exactly what I said.
My opinion is that the President should give very careful consideration to this amendment of mine. It is important that an opportunity should be given to the farmers to reconstruct rather than to build. I am sure he is aware, as we are all aware, that there are great numbers of poor quality houses, insanitary houses, inhabited by the small farmers all over the country, and I think it is about time that the Government took some step to place those people in such a position that they can reconstruct their houses. It is advisable that something should be added to the Bill so as to give those people that opportunity. The loans given by the Board of Works were of great advantage to the farmers in the past, but these have been stopped, and the result is that there are no improvements possible now unless they are made through the farmer's capital, and I may say that that capital has become a very small quantity nowadays. I would prefer that a special Act would be brought in dealing with rural housing altogether, and dealing in particular with houses for small farmers.
If I could get an assurance from the President that such an Act would be introduced, I would be quite willing to withdraw my amendment. I feel that this Act was never intended to apply to rural housing at the time it was drafted, and it was only as an afterthought that it was suggested it could be applied. It does not fit in as it is. I am of opinion the opportunity should be given to the farmers, if they are inclined to take advantage of it, to accept the grants available under this Act.
One of the first things a State must consider when it is providing a service is that the service should be an economic one. In this case if we were to extend these particular provisions to rural districts, the cost which the State would have to bear in order to make the service efficient would be almost equivalent to the grants that would be spent, and there would not be a good return. On the other hand, I am surprised at the Deputy's statement. Take the farmers' representation—a very fine and intelligent representation—and looking at the members of it I am amazed to think that they have come out of insanitary dwellings. Looking at them and looking at my own party or at the party opposite, I am inclined to say that we ought all go to those insanitary dwellings if they can produce such fine men as we see on the Farmers' benches.
I do not think the Deputy has made a case for extending the provisions to rural areas. The difficulty of examination, of inspection, and so on would be enormous, and I do not know that it would be even satisfactory to the farmers themselves. As regards the other part of the Bill dealing with the £250,000, they have their advantage in that, and I would say—and I think it will be admitted by the Farmers' representatives and all sections of the Dáil—that the construction of suitable dwellings in urban areas has not had the same attention as the construction of dwellings in rural areas. If one were to make an examination one will find that something like 50,000 labourers' cottages have been constructed within the last 30 or 40 years, and in the urban areas up to two years ago the total number constructed, for much the same class of people in perhaps even more than 60 years, was less than 10,000. Much more has been done from the point of view of the country as a whole for the agricultural community than for the ordinary industrial or town-dwelling community. I think it will be admitted that the cost of inspection, examination, reporting, and so on would more than outweigh the advantages that would be derived, and I do not think the Deputy ought to press the extension of the provisions of the Bill to the rural areas.
The President probably is under the impression that what has been done for rural areas has been done by the State. Perhaps it is news to him to know that what has been done the rural areas have paid for.
Are you sure?
Certain. No grants have been given at all.
What?
I do not like this distinction made in sub-section (2) of Section 3. The President assures us the provisions of the Bill with regard to building will apply to all the rural areas as well as the urban areas, but with regard to reconstruction he draws a distinction which, to my mind, establishes a bad precedent. He talks about the cost to the State. I would like to remind him that it is only a certain class of worker in the rural areas who has ever benefited by the building of houses or any of the Acts that have been put in force. I would like also to remind him that the people in the rural areas pay their share for the upkeep of the State. That may be news to him. I do not think anybody will at this stage deny the fact that the dwellers in the rural areas do pay their share for the upkeep of the State, and when the Minister says that the rural areas have benefited, it is only a very limited class there has benefited. As I said on a former occasion, the very small farmers, the men with two or three to twenty-five acres, are perhaps the most needy class of the community with regard to houses. No other class needs housing as badly as those small farmers or cottiers. Nothing has been done for them. In the matter of reconstruction or rebuilding they should have equal claim and equal facilities given to them as any other class in the community, and any Government or any Minister who would deny them that would not be, in my opinion, playing a fair game.
If the President is ignorant of the fact that rural communities contribute largely to the State, he must be particularly inattentive to the speeches of the Minister for Agriculture. The Minister for Agriculture has told us that the rural communities contribute over 70 per cent. of the wealth of the State. I thought that 70 per cent. was graven in the heart of the President. The keen interest that the Farmers' Party are showing in this question makes it evident that the rural communities are deeply moved. I think the President would be well advised to adopt, if not Deputy Heffernan's amendment, some amendment of the same sort as this, because the Clause as it stands makes building outside the Corporation of Dublin impossible. And I think that is hardly desirable. There is no urban district—nothing but a rural district from the north-eastern corner of the City of Dublin. I do not think Raheny is an urban district, but once you get inland, and go right along round to the west until you come to Rathmines there is not another urban area. There is the South Dublin rural district and the Rathdown rural district. You will not be able to build houses in these areas except there happens to be a town with a population of not less than 500.
The Deputy misunderstands the Section. It applies to reconstruction.
It is also desirable to reconstruct. I do not know whether under this Bill you could reconstruct houses at Kilmainham even. That may be inside the City boundary. It possible is.
But not inside the Bill.
You could not reconstruct houses at Castleknock or at Clondalkin. I am not sure what the population there is, but surely those areas which are within fairly easy reach of the City are exactly those places to which you would want to move population. These are places where you can get your building done rather more cheaply than in the City. I would like to know whether this amendment is merely opposed on account of administrative difficulties or whether there is a settled policy in the President's mind, or is he thinking of creating in Ireland something of the conditions that exist on the plains of Northern Italy where there are no villages and where the whole rural population lives in small towns about ten miles or so from one another, and where the people of those towns go to their work in the morning by tram. I do not know. There are certain advantages in that. You get more civilised communities. You get the pictures and people possess more of the amenities of civilisation, and it makes agricultural life very much less dull. I am afraid if Deputy Egan were present he would oppose me in this, as he regards pictures as the last infirmity of the mind. I would like to know if this clause were put in on account of administrative difficulties or if the President visualises something of the kind to which I have referred. That would give us an inside light on the future of agriculture in this country.
As one who has taken an active part for many years in the administration of the Labourers Acts, which have provided housing accommodation for the greater part of the agricultural labourers in the country, I may say that those houses were provided by the ratepayers and not by the State. It is true that the Government at the time advanced loans for the purpose of enabling the District Councils or Boards of Guardians as they were then, to build those houses. These loans had to be repaid. And a very good plea which may be made for the class of persons that would be affected by Deputy Heffernan's amendment is, that these very people, small farmers of some 10 to 15 or 20 or up to 30 acres, have contributed in rates to the loss and burdens cast on the rates by the building of those houses, because the rents which were fixed were not economic rents. They were not able to meet the repayments of the loans. Anyone travelling through the country at the present time, and even persons not having the fine aesthetic sense of Deputy Figgis, will be struck by the dilapidated condition of the houses of the small farmers. During the past few years owing to the high cost of materials and the high cost of labour and all that, very little has been done by those people. We are afforded this contrast—you have on the one hand now substantial labourers' dwellings, and on the other hand the tumbledown dilapidated houses of the small farmers. I think the Dáil will agree that that is not a proper state of affairs, and that something should be done to enable the people of the rural parts to obtain decent, comfortable dwellings.
I am rather surprised at the attitude that has been taken up on this particular measure. This is the first time in which the State has come forward to help or to contribute towards the provision of houses for all sections of the community within a certain figure, within a figure of £200 to £500. It is the first time that the State has come in. Now because we have not extended this particular advantage in all directions, we are criticised for it. Deputies say that the rural communities have paid the interest and the Sinking Fund, and so on, on the loan for the labourers' cottages. Now, what are the facts? It would be a great matter if people would pay a little more attention to exact figures when speaking about finance. While labourers' cottages were being built in the country the money was being loaned for the purpose of enabling them to be built. All that was charged to the local authorities in the rural areas was £2 1s. 7d. per cent. Was the money borrowed at £2 1s. 7d. per cent.? It was not. The usual price was, I think, somewhere about £3 5s. per cent., and in order to get it down to £2 1s. 7d. a contribution had to be made by somebody. It was made by the rest of the country to the extent of 36 per cent. What happened in the case of the various Urban authorities in the country? They had to borrow money at £3 5s. per cent., and pay a Sinking Fund in addition. Now mark the difference between the two—you got money and you paid £3 5s. per cent., being allowed 36 per cent. off, and your loan was paid off in 68½ years. That was in the country. In the case of the City of Dublin they borrowed money and paid £5 1s. 7d. per cent. And then you say you derived no more advantage from this than what was the case in the rest of the country. In other words, that no burden was laid upon the back of the State by reason of this housing activity in the rural areas. Now that is not the case. Go further, and we are faced with the contrast, in the one case of bad housing amongst the small farmers and others, and in the other case we point to the slum areas. Is there a comparison between the farmers' houses which are in a bad condition and the slum areas? You know there is not.
There is in favour of the slum area.
I am surprised at that.
The President has not been in the country.
He has not been in the bogs.
I have been in the country; I have spent a good deal of my time in the country. I have been through the slums, and anybody who says there is an advantage in favour of the slums knows nothing whatever about it. I have seen sights in the City of Dublin that would appal the Farmers' Representatives if they saw them. Those sights would appal them; they were shocking sights, enough to make one's flesh creep. I have seen men lying along the floor in a large hall, as large as this, in something like coffins. And the odour of the place was unbearable. I could not remain in the room, I had to go outside. That was in a slum. I have gone through slums that would almost suffocate one from the odour of the houses and the whole area. What are the facts of the case? We do not send people from the City to build the population in the country. We do not; but you send them in, and the drain on the country is enormous. The population of Dublin is only 60 per cent. native born. Otherwise, 40 per cent. must come in. Is not that an extraordinary drain?
Where would you be without the country people?
The Deputy does not understand the point of the argument at all. We draw upon that. It is a field upon which we ought not to draw. If there be such a drain as that there ought to be reasons for it. If there are cases that could possibly be corrected, we ought to endeavour to correct them.
The houses are bad; that is the reason they are coming into the towns.
Precisely, the houses are bad.
In the country.
Well, if the houses are bad in the country how are they able to keep up the supply? We are drawing from the country a continual supply. I remember being present at a conference in 1914 called by the South Dublin District Rural Council, where a case was made for £1,000,000. A loan was asked for from the British Government of £1,000,000 to build 10,000 labourers' cottages, or some number like that. The case put up for that was that there were 78,000 people in the rural areas who were living in dwellings which were considered to be insanitary. Mark the number, 78,000. Examine the census of the City of Dublin in the last year in which it was compiled—I think it was 1911—and you will find that there were something like 20,000 families living in single-roomed tenement dwellinghouses, with as many as twelve people in one room. Is there any small farmer with that number living in one room? I do not want these particular claims to be put in contrast, but I want Deputies to realise that if we make that claim in respect of urban areas we make it on good grounds. These evil effects ought to be remedied, and I am sure nobody would stand in the way of their being remedied and considered in relation to the whole subject of housing. It was because there are in various urban districts houses which we thought might be arrested from going into decay that we put in this particular Section. There are various streets in this city, streets which were fashionable thoroughfares, of large houses, lived in by wealthy people 40, 50, 60 or 100 years ago which are now becoming tenements. Being used as tenements, they rapidly deteriorate. It was because we thought it might be possible to adapt some of those houses to supply three or four flats that we put in this, not with the object of remedying or improving, or anything of that kind, but simply making them decently habitable at a lesser cost to us and to the community. It is only for that purpose, and not because a man had a house that was in a bad state of repair and that might possibly be renovated at the cost of the State. It was on the assumption that a person might put up three or four times the amount we have down here. In the case of one of these large houses we might be able to get five flats at a cost of £300 to us, and at a cost of £700 £800, or £1,000 to the individual, where five families could be accommodated in decent conditions. It was for that purpose that this was put in, and not to make a present to people who desire to improve their dwellings.
When I put this amendment on the Paper I had no intention of making a contrast between the slum conditions and the conditions in the country. This Bill has my very great support, and I think it has the support of all Deputies on the Farmers' benches, in so far as it applies to the renovation of the slum areas. We are aware of the terrible conditions of the slums; we do not need to be told about them here. We would be blind indeed if we went through Dublin and did not recognise the terrible evils which have resulted from overcrowding. But, as a matter of fact, I am strongly inclined to think that this Bill will not affect the actual people who are living in the slum areas, that is that the rent at which these slum houses will have to be let will make it an uneconomic proposition for the present slum dwellers to reside in these houses, and I am strongly of the opinion that these houses will be largely occupied, not by slum dwellers, but by people of the official, or lower official class, and people corresponding to them. Contrasts have been made about the grants. I had no intention of raising these matters at all, because I do not think it is a matter of what the urban dweller gets as against what the rural dweller gets. I think the Government is, or should be, a Government earnestly working for the good of all members of the community and not of the urban dweller as against the rural dweller, and I had no intention in introducing this amendment to make the contrast. I presume this Bill is only a start and that this is not the only grant that will be made. I am sure grants will be made in future, and I do feel that when the first grant is being made we should not be excluded.
We have slums in the country almost —if not quite—as bad as in the city. The people in them have certain advantages; they can go outside their houses and they have the pure air of heaven to breathe, which people have not in the cities, but the conditions within these houses are very nearly as bad, in many cases, as those prevailing in the city dwellings. I am sure the President must be aware of the conditions existing in the West and North and in West Cork and West Kerry, and the class of houses occupied by small farmers in these places. Very often the whole family of seven, eight, or nine occupy one room, or at the most two rooms, with miserable thatched roofs, with the grass growing upon them, and these are slums, just as much as the slums in the city. As a matter of fact, my belief is this, that even if the grant is made to apply to the reconstruction of houses, it will not be availed of to any great extent, for the reason that the money will not be available to these farmers to build houses, but it may be available in a few cases, and I really think that the President should consider our amendment and make it available. I do not see why any distinction should be made, and why a grant made available for the towns should not be made available for the country. I think the reason the President gave in regard to the inspection is hardly a sound one. I do not think the matter of inspection would be sufficiently expensive to make it impossible to carry out this idea. I would ask the Government to give our suggestion its very best consideration.
The President has made a very full and ample case for a very much larger and stronger measure than this, and I think that the feeling in his mind, and in the minds of everybody, is one of regret that we were not able to deal with this question on a bigger scale. He has not quite met my point. If you are able to reconstruct houses, if you are going to make flats for the slum dweller, will you not do it more cheaply and under more sanitary conditions if you do it a little way outside the city boundary? Under the Bill as it stands you can reconstruct houses in the city of Dublin; you can reconstruct a house, say, in Swords, but you cannot reconstruct a house along the road from Dublin to Swords. All over Dublin there are old houses. Some of them have fallen out of repair, and some of them are even going to fall down.
I cannot believe that some of them are not suitable for reconstruction, and I do say it would be far better instead of reconstructing houses in a tenement area, where even if the conditions of he houses are improved the conditions of the streets outside are not improved, that you should get as many people as possible out of these streets into the country, within reach of their work, and where the children will get fresh air, and there will be a little more comfort and room to move about. I ask the President to give me an answer as to why we are not building houses in rural districts. If he would say "contiguous to urban districts," and put that in on the Report Stage it would meet my case.
Amendment 26 deals with that.
That does not give scope enough. I think 440 yards is too little.
Let us understand what is meant. Let us take one of these houses the Deputy mentions, say, half-way between Swords and Dublin. Is it really an attractive proposition for four families to go out there and take up residence in one of these old places?
I was not suggesting half-way. I was suggesting about half a mile from Dublin.
Well, we are going a quarter of a mile outside, and that is near it.
I agree that it is not a question so much as to the character of the houses as to the demand for the houses. In the cities and urban areas you have a larger demand for them than in the country. I think that is really why the sub-section dealing with houses to be reconstructed should not be extended to the country, seeing that the money at the disposal of the Ministry is comparatively small.
I have a certain amount of sympathy with the amendment proposed by Deputy Heffernan, because I recognise as much as he does that there are small farmers in country areas who are not in a position to reconstruct their houses, and who have allowed them, for one reason or another, to deteriorate. But I cannot understand his amendment coming at this stage. One would think that at one of the later stages he would have thought fit to move an amendment that the £50,000 might be increased to something like £150,000. To my mind, all the discussion about this thing is more or less a storm in a teacup, in view of the fact that only £50,000 is available to reconstruct houses in the slum areas. I have a little knowledge of the slum areas in the various towns in Ireland.
I think I would be right in stating that £50,000 could be spent in Dublin alone for the reconstruction of houses, and still this problem would not be solved. I do not think this is the time when the Government should be asked to extend this particular Section of the Bill to the rural areas, because the money is not sufficient. If Deputy Heffernan had been in earnest in the matter he should have moved under Clause 2 to have that increased. I do not think there is any necessity to have a discussion as to the merits or demerits of the urban areas versus the rural areas. I think we are all imbued with the one idea, to help everybody who might be in need of it, but certainly the urban areas require the first attention, as the President said, and he has been in close touch with the slum areas in Dublin. The city of Dublin is a byword all over the world so far as slum dwellings are concerned, and I think the Government ought to be congratulated in concentrating on doing something for the unfortunate citizens who dwell in them.
In reference to this amendment and to the discussion that has taken place on it, I had no case in my mind at all where reconstruction would apply in the rural areas, because in the rural areas not one of the houses occupied by the class of people who need it most is capable of being reconstructed. It is the principle the sub-section establishes I object to. I do not believe that £1,000 could be availed of in the rural areas in this connection. It is the wording of this sub-section excluding them I object to. There is no necessity for it at all, for it will not be availed of for reconstruction in rural areas. I do not think there are ten houses in these areas that would bear reconstruction. The President has instanced the case of the Dublin slums, and he contrasts it with the rural areas. I do not think the contrast is quite correct. In the Dublin slums you have a house, and the conditions in these slums may be abominable, terrible, but at least you have the houses. In the rural areas you have not a house, you have a hovel, and brave man as the President is he would scarcely walk into some of them for fear they would tumble down on top of him. You have a house of one or two rooms with a thatched roof, a mud wall, and a mud floor. These are the conditions in the country, and very largely in the constituency Deputy Professor O'Sullivan represents, and in constituencies other Deputies represent. There are whole country-sides where the population lives under these conditions, and they are not buildings at all. In Dublin you have the buildings; you have something you can reconstruct; while, as I have said, in the country you have only hovels scarcely fit for pigs to live in. I wonder how people have lived in them so long.
The only advantage they have is fresh air, the air of the bogs, and the migration into the towns to replace their dwindling population. I think that has been the natural process not alone in Dublin but in every city in the world, no matter what the sanitary conditions are. You will probably find as hardy a population as and a smaller death-rate in the slums than you do in the big commercial communities in the cities. You need but look at the names over the business houses in Dublin and you will find them changing and being replaced by the names of people who have come from the country, just as you will find the slums made up by the country population. I do not think this particular sub-section will help the country, but I object to it for the reasons I have given.
I am glad Deputy Gorey has realised the weak point in the sub-section, and that is that only a very small percentage of the houses of these farmers would be capable of reconstruction. It would be pure waste of time to ask architects to inspect them. Many of them are built of mud walls, and it would be much easier and cheaper to build new houses than to attempt to deal with them by reconstruction. In so far as the Bill can be of practical use in connection with the farmers' dwellings, they have everything but one clause in the Bill that they will be capable of availing of. Even if they were able to avail of the full benefits of the Bill there is only one-sixth of the monies earmarked in favour of reconstruction, and the rural share of that would be relatively very small.
Therefore, there is no necessity for the sub-section.
Well, it makes the position more definite, and it avoids the unnecessary expense that would be involved in bringing down architects to inspect these houses, and I believe in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred they would report them as being unfit for reconstruction. I agree with the Deputy, of course, as regards differentiation, but after all that has no practical effect on the benefits the rural community can derive under the Bill. I realise that the position of many small farmers is such that they are entitled to the full benefits of the Bill, and I say that the full benefits in 99 out of 100 cases, in so far as their Association is concerned, will be derived with respect to the construction of new houses and not in reconstructing old houses, because the number of old houses capable of reconstruction in the rural areas is absolutely negligible.
I deprecate any tendency to pitting the rural slum against the urban slum. We are all agreed that both ought to be abolished and replaced by decent habitations, and if it is to be a test as to how rapidly they will be abolished then it is a good thing. But, to be pitting the sores of one section of the community against the other for the purpose of competing for certain State subsidies is not very satisfactory, and might lead rather to discord than harmony in a matter of this kind. I think there is a tendency to forget the intention of the Bill, which was to facilitate the provision of dwelling-houses; in other words, to relieve the pressure. While it is very desirable that the rural slum should be abolished and replaced by a better habitation it is not quite as true to say that the bad house inhabited by the small farmer is in the same position as the urban slum or the semi-urban slum. There is a house, no matter how bad it is, and as a rule it is not occupied by two or three families, as is so often the case in the town. I am inclined to support the deletion of this sub-section, first because I do not think it is necessary, and secondly because it puts a limit to towns having less than 500 people. I have in mind towns or villages, or the remains of towns which have less than 500 people, where the people are living in very slummy conditions, where the housing conditions are as bad as in the City of Dublin and where there are houses or buildings within a very short distance of the towns which might be reconstructed if the Bill allowed it. It is a pity, I think, to introduce a Section which would prevent the possibility of an old house in an old town being reconstructed to provide habitations for people living in overcrowded slums within twenty or thirty yards of the big untenanted or partly tenanted house. It seems to me that even on that score this amendment should be accepted. I think there are provisions in the Bill which would allow the Minister to prescribe the conditions under which any grants would be given, and that alone would prevent the £50,000 which, if there were no such provisions, might easily be swallowed up under a system of reconstruction of rural dwellings, being swallowed up in a short time. I think it is not fair or reasonable, and it certainly is not necessary that a restricting provision of this kind should be inserted in the Bill. As Deputy Heffernan has pointed out, it does seem to create a precedent which it is not desirable to create if it can be avoided and if it is not necessary. I suggest to the President that he could well accept the amendment, and by doing so the Bill would be improved, inasmuch as it would provide for the possibility of relieving the pressure in these small towns which, as I say, are as slummy even as the worst slums in Dublin city, and, I think I may say, in the President's own constituency.
A population of less than 500?
I think so.
I would be glad to consider any cases of that sort that would be put up if it were considered advisable to insert an enabling Section. But the cost to the Ministry would be enormous in sending round from place to place, visiting one house in one district, another in another, and so on. The return would not justify the considerable amount there would be spent upon it. This particular Section, to my mind, would scarcely be a success from the point of view of providing accommodation for people who have not got it at present, but only in the event of getting the type of house that I mentioned earlier in the day, that is, one which has not yet become a tenement. I do not anticipate there will be the activity under this Section which is represented by the amount of money involved. I wish it were possible and likely, but I do not know that it is. In any case, while there may be, in certain towns, cases for consideration under this head, I am not satisfied that even those cases would warrant us in committing the Ministry to such a considerable amount of money as is involved.
took the Chair at this stage.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided:—Tá, 22; Níl, 38.
Tá.
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John Conlan.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- David Hall.
- Connor Hogan.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Tomás de Nogla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Donchadh S.O Guaire.
- Mícheál R.O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Nicholas Wall.
Níl.
- Richard H. Beamish.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus de Burca.
- John J. Cole.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- John Good.
- John Hennigan.
- Tomás Mac Artúir.
- Seosamh Mac Bhrighde.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Seosamh Mag Craith.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail. Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Thomas O'Mahony.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Séan Príomhdhail.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move amendment 25:—
In Sub-section (2) after the word "Houses" in each case on line 33 to insert the words "or buildings."
This follows on the acceptance of amendment No. 2 on yesterday.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 26:
In sub-section (2) after the figures "1854," in line 35, to insert the words "or to a house or building situate within 440 yards of the nearest point of the boundary of such County Borough, or Urban District or town having Commissioners."
I will not occupy the time of the Dáil in putting forward my reasons for this amendment, as I understand the President is willing to accept it.
Yes.
Before this amendment is accepted, I would urge that the point 440 yards should be extended to 880 yards, and that it should be made refer not only to County Borough or Urban Districts or towns having Commissioners, but to towns having not less than five hundred inhabitants. Whatever case there may be for one type of town surely applies to the other. I do not think that there is any conflict between the two ideas, except that it will bring a larger number of towns into consideration.
I intended to appeal on the same lines as Deputy Johnson. These restrictions create an atmosphere of distrust among the people we represent. I do not like this question of distinctions. These distinctions obtain in nearly every Government department. They obtain in the Post Office. People living outside a certain area have to bear undue hardships. They have to pay a shilling for the delivery of telegrams. We will not have these distinctions, if we can help it.
Perhaps it would have been better if I had explained my reason for extending the area for building in the case of reconstructed houses. There are some urban areas that have no available sites. In many cases people who carry on their business in the urban area are compelled to live outside it—generally close to the town. Take the town of Fermoy: the population, according to the last census, was over 6,800. The area of the township is only 325 acres. The town of Mallow has a population of under 5,000, and the area is 1,600 acres. The same opportunity for obtaining sites does not prevail in Fermoy as prevails in Mallow. The same thing applies to Youghal where, with a lesser population than Fermoy, the urban area is close upon 1,200 acres.
This Bill follows upon the existing housing arrangement of the Government. The housing scheme that is being carried out by the Government at present providing a large subsidy for local authorities is confined exclusively to urban and to borough areas. When the question of housing proposals was before the Dáil some time ago I made a suggestion in favour of the erection of these houses in the future by private enterprise, as public undertakings were known to be costly, ineffective and slow. The natural result of the adoption of the suggestion I made would have been to confine the operations of this Bill exclusively to the compass of the areas under the present housing scheme; that is the urban and borough areas. But the Government did not restrict themselves to those areas. They extended them to the rural areas, acting in a very generous manner in so far as the provisions of this Bill are concerned. In so far as effectiveness is concerned, the Government are giving under the provisions of this Bill identically the same privileges to the rural areas as to the urban areas. So far as Deputy Johnson's suggestion is concerned, to extend this limit to 880 yards instead of 440 yards, I am in agreement with it if the President can see his way to accept it. As to the suggestion that it should apply to towns of a population of 500, I think that will be found impossible to carry out. As far as I know, these towns have no definite boundaries. They are not areas in the same sense as urban areas, the areas under Town Commissioners or borough areas. They have no definite boundaries. You have no point from which to measure, and the same congestion does not prevail in them as in the case of the other areas. The same reason that would suggest an extension such as I have proposed in this amendment does not apply to these cases. The only variation of my amendment that commends itself to me, if the President will accept it, is to substitute 880 yards for 440 yards.
I think the President intimated that he was prepared to accept this amendment. Before doing so may I suggest to him that the distance might be extended. If you are going to knock out all towns of a population of 500, you might allow some further distance from the boundaries of the nearest urban district or town commissioners' area. I am thinking mostly of my own constituency. I suppose we all are. Take Rathfarnham, which is a rural district, and yet on the tram line. Surely it would not be unreasonable to build houses a half a mile from Rathfarnham boundary. Dundrum is a rural area. If this amendment is accepted it would not be included. And yet it is a very suitable place for the reconstruction of houses. It is within four minutes' rail of the city. Unless you allow at least half a mile you cannot do any reconstruction work in this district. My personal conviction is that if we are to tackle the slum areas in Dublin, the first thing we have got to do is to move the people out of the city. The people of the slums must be housed somewhere, and I think it is on the fringes of the city that we shall be most easily able to place them.
It may possibly have left some doubt in the minds of Deputies when I stated that the maximum claim that could be put forward on behalf of the rural areas in 1914 was that something like 78,000 persons were housed under unsanitary conditions in the rural areas of all Ireland— that is, the thirty-two counties. The facts are that while that was the case in the rural areas, in the City of Dublin alone something like the same number of persons were living in single-room tenement dwellings. This Bill seeks, as far as its limits will allow, to deal with the congestion. In order to extend it beyond the areas we have outlined in the measure, some case ought to be put up for its necessity in those areas rather than one of "Give us as much as anybody else is getting." The case in the urban areas and in the towns with a population down to 500 is an intense case. It could not possibly be worse. I was speaking to the Town Clerk of Dublin this morning, and I said, "You may not have done much, but at any rate for the last three or five years you have put up as great a proportion of houses as—if not greater than—you put up for any other given period of years." He said that was so. I said: "Have you kept pace with deterioration? Has the accommodation you have provided within these years made up for the number of houses which had to be closed?" He said: "No, it did not; if we were to build 1,000 houses every year for the next five years we would do no more than keep pace with deterioration." I would ask Deputies to look at that angle of the problem and not to consider only what is a fair distribution or otherwise of this particular sum that we are setting apart for reconstruction of houses. If the case be put up to us that there are a certain number of towns in various parts of the country which contain houses which admit of reconstruction and which will be excluded if we do not make some provision for them in the Act, I am prepared to consider that. But what you are asking me to consider now is a potential number of houses that might be adapted. I have only got again to say that it is a very particular class of house that will lend itself to reconstruction, and you are imposing upon the Ministry of Local Government the duty of getting inspectors to motor from one part of the country to another to look at houses ten miles apart. This work would occupy an immense amount of time; it would necessitate the expenditure of a good deal of money, and in the long run might result in very little good. Is it the case that in any of these towns there are houses that would lend themselves to reconstruction so as to provide three or four self-contained flats? Do we not know, in substance that there are very few such houses in the country? I submit it would be only reasonable for me to ask for evidence of the fact that there are such premises in towns of not less than 500 population in which there is congestion. A case for adapting this measure to meet those particular towns should be made before we ask the Ministry of Local Government to have architects and officials eternally on the march and seeing very little return for their work. Because of the extraordinarily high cost and the highly problematical results which would be realised I think this should not be enacted. I agree to the proposal regarding the 880 yards.
Amendment, as amended (880 yards instead of 440), put and agreed to.
The next amendment is in the name of Deputy Heffernan. and it was contingent on the passing of a previous amendment. It is as follows:—
After sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to prevent the making of a grant in respect to the building or reconstruction of a house by the owner of an agricultural holding, on that holding, and no conditions shall be prescribed which may have the effect of obstructing the obtaining of the prescribed grants by such person under the Act."
On behalf of Deputy Heffernan, I desire to say that the amendment will not be moved.
Before you depart from that, it was only with regard to reconstruction. I think the rest of the amendment must be considered from our point of view.
I would like to disabuse the Deputy's mind. This Bill does not restrict farmers or other persons, but you cannot ask for them special facilities denied to residents in the towns. Take this particular sub-section: "No condition shall be prescribed which may have the effect of obstructing the obtaining of the prescribed grants by such person under the Act." What does that mean? I take it to mean that if you want to build an 8-room house, you must get the £100 grant. You are not debarred. If you show us where you are debarred in any place, from cover to cover in the Bill, we are prepared to consider it. But why have special mention of it? It would be open to Deputy MacCarthy, who represents a large area of the city of Dublin, or to Deputy Doyle, to say the same thing in regard to persons living in the towns because the word "urban" does not occur in the Bill, so far as I am aware, in dealing with the provision of new houses. Therefore, it is not necessary in this case.
We accept the President's assurance, given before, and now repeated, and we are quite satisfied.
Amendment not moved.
Question put:—"That the Section, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
SECTION 4.
(1) The person to whom a grant is made under this Act in respect of the erection or reconstruction of a house shall not at any time before the 26th day of June, 1926, sell or lease that house at a price, fine or rent exceeding the appropriate price, fine or rent specified in Part I. of the Schedule to this Act.
(2) If any person to whom a grant has been made under this Act contravenes any of the provisions of the foregoing sub-section he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
I beg to move the following amendment:—
To delete Section 4 and to substitute therefor a new Section as follows:—
(1) A house in respect of the erection or reconstruction of which a grant is made under this Act shall not at any time before the 26th day of June, 1926, be sold or leased at a price, fine or rent exceeding the appropriate price, fine or rent specified in Part I. of the Schedule to this Act.
Provided that in the case of a reconstructed house to which the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923, applies, the rent shall not exceed the rent allowable under that Act, but the percentage increase allowable under sub-section 1 (a) of Section 8 of that Act shall be calculated on the amount of expenditure referred to in that sub-section, less the value, to be determined by the Minister, of any assistance granted under this act in respect of the reconstruction.
(2) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of the foregoing sub-section he shall be guilty of an offence under this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
The objects of this amendment are threefold. In the first place the object is to attach the conditions as to sale and leasing to the house itself and not to the original builder, so that the house will remain bound by the conditions after it has left the builder's hands. In the second place the object is to make provision for a possible conflict between the limitations against this Section and the limitation imposed in the Increase of Rent Act on the amount of rent, the intention being that in no case is the rent to exceed the amount allowed by the Increase of Rent Act. In the third place the object is to alter sub-section (2) so that any person who contravenes any of the provisions of the foregoing sub-section shall be liable to a penalty and not merely the person to whom the grant was originally made.
I would like the Minister to explain more clearly than has been done what is meant by the reference "shall be calculated on the amount of expenditure referred to in that sub-section, less the value, to be determined by the Minister, of any assistance granted under this Act in respect of the reconstruction." I would like some explanation to be given to the Dáil of that. It might be assumed that the grants would be in all cases the full amount specified in the schedules.
It is meant to convey that whatever grant is given it will not be the subject of calculation by the landlord for an increase in rent. I think on re-consideration we may have to make an amendment to this particular Section. I notice that a three-roomed house is to be let at 7/4½. I do not think it will be possible to reconstruct houses so as to let them in self-contained flats, at that price. I am informed that as a matter of fact persons could take over these houses and let them at a much higher rent than 2/6 a room without committing themselves to any expense in reconstruction so as to make the houses into self-contained flats. I may have to review that on the Report Stage. The intention there is that in the event of a grant being made towards reconstruction, a percentage increase in the rent charged would be allowed less the sum the Minister would allow for the reconstruction.
If this Section is going to be considered on Report, may I suggest to the President that the penalty is scarcely adequate? The Section states: "A fine not exceeding £100." The maximum price for which a man may sell a house is £450. Suppose he were able to sell it for £600, he would be able to pay his penalty and at the same time put £50 in his pocket. Will the President consider the question of an excess over the purchase price?
All we lose is £100, and if we get that back we will make a present of the remainder.
I do not know if I am in order now, but I would like to ask the President the meaning of the word "grant" in this Bill. I would like to have some information regarding the remission of rates. Suppose a builder refuses to accept your cash grant because of the conditions surrounding it, is there anything to debar that builder from getting a concession from the local Council giving him a remission of the rates on the building he erects out of his own money, without applying for the Government grant? A case has been put to me in which a builder is prepared to build a house with his own money sooner than avail of the facilities in this Bill. The Corporation of Dublin quite recently adopted a report—I do not know whether this Bill takes the powers from them now—under which anybody who wanted to build a house on virgin soil within three years shall be facilitated to the extent that the Corporation will make the roads and sewers free of charge. If this Bill passes, can the Corporation do that work for the private builder who does not want to avail of the cash grants contained in this Bill, or can they, under the scale mentioned here, give a remission of rates for twenty years? I would be glad if the President would give me some information on the point. The matter has been put to me by persons interested in house building.
I do not know that it would be possible for them to take something and leave the rest as far as this Bill is concerned. This Bill, as the Deputy knows, is a complex measure which seeks to provide for a class, as I explained before, between the sums of £250 and £400. It needs a special effort. The State subscribes a certain sum; it enables local authorities to make a further grant, and it prescribes that only a percentage of rates shall be charged against the person occupying the house for a certain number of years, and for all those concessions made there is a set price laid down for the sale of the house. In that case the State bears a portion and the local authority bears a portion. We anticipated the other two contracting parties, the employers and the employees, would of themselves contribute something. If there is a case made now that one of the parties to that particular part of the contract says, "No, we would rather take something that is there and give us a free hand with regard to the rest," what is to prevent the other side saying, "This is not a time when we ought to be called upon to put forward a maximum effort because somebody is going to make money out of it."
Obviously, if a builder wants some concession to be given to him and to avoid all the other obligations we are not in a position to ask the maximum contribution from the other two parties to the agreement. If the Corporation were inclined and they put up a proposition to us in the shape of a Bill from themselves we would be prepared to give it consideration. It is not on all fours with the purpose of this Bill, and I think we ought not to deal with it in this Bill.
Will the same concession be given to every public body if they wish, say, to allow a big number of ratepayers to do this? As far as I can see, Deputy Byrne's question means that a man could withhold the rates in lieu of a grant. If this were given I think it would be very bad policy indeed from the workers' point of view, and from the ratepayers' point of view. The ratepayers would in other cases then try to get the same concession by withholding rates in lieu of the grant. There is another point of view in this Section 4. That is, the provision in the case of the reconstruction of houses, "shall not exceed the amount allowed under the Act." What does that mean? Does it mean that the question I raised on the Second Reading, that there will be no increase of rent allowed on the portion of the advance and the portion of the grant given by the Government? Would the person who would get the grant be in a position to charge an increased rent on the ground that he can charge on his own expenditure—am I right in that?
That is the intention. As regards the other point, it is for the local authorities to put up a case for the remission of rent in the event of the buildings being constructed on vacant sites or on virgin soils and so on. It is not for us always to be leading the pace. We ought to get some assistance from persons having some knowledge of this work. There is a danger, as the Deputy says, that the ratepayers may say: "We ought also to have a relief from the rates." But where is the money to come from? One could go too far in this matter. It is a dangerous principle. Even what we have ourselves put forward in the Bill of remitting rates for a period is a dangerous principle, because the people who get these houses will not bear their share of the burden for 20 years. But it must be admitted that they are in a very different position to their brothers who had houses built 10 years ago, and at a much smaller priced market and who had the benefit of occupying the houses at a fair rent for the past 10 years. These houses, no matter how one calculates the advantage given by the State or the local authorities, are, nevertheless, very much dearer than the same class of house built in 1914, or previously would have been so far as the rents are concerned. But the existing burden must be distributed as fairly as possible, and the distribution is not always perfect. It is, however, the best thing we can do in this case.
Is the President aware that in the towns there is an awful amount of outstanding rates? What I want to know before this particular clause is inserted in the Bill is this—Is a person who may owe £100 in rates at present to be in a position to come in and say: "I intend to reconstruct these houses which have not paid rates, and I demand my right to withhold the rates in lieu of a grant." I quite agree that if ratepayers have paid up their rates in full, and then if they intend to reconstruct that it would be right to allow this portion of the grant in lieu of rates. But I do not agree that people who owe rates should be allowed to come in now and make their claim successfully.
I suggest to the Deputy that he should hand over such ratepayers to the Cumann na mBan to be destroyed.
In that case I think I should hand over half the Saorstát.
Amendment put and agreed to.
There is an amendment standing in my name (amendment 29), and as the first part of the amendment has been accepted in Deputy Duggan's amendment, I desire the leave of the Dáil to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I wish to ask for leave to withdraw my amendment (No. 30). It says: "In sub-section (1), line 38, to insert after the word "person" the words "or persons."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of Deputy Corish. It is:—
"It shall not be lawful for any person at any time before the 26th day of June, 1926, to transfer or accept the transfer of an option or agreement to purchase, lease or rent a house in respect of the erection or reconstruction of which a grant is made under this Act in return for the payment of any sum or the giving of any other consideration."
The object is to prevent the possibility of (to use a word which has come into common use) wangling, between a builder and his friends, and to really embody the intentions of the last new Section—Section No. 4—which has been agreed to for still further restrictions on the possibilities of making a profit out of a State subsidy. I think the Minister will recognise the necessity for preventing the sale of options. Probably the amendment is quite clear.
I wonder does that amendment meet the purpose in view? It appears to me to be very involved. What Deputy Corish had in mind was that there was to be no key money or a particular option outside the price. Now, I do not know that the passing of this particular clause would effect that purpose. If it does, I have no objection to it, but it appears to me that no matter how one words a Section of this sort that there is a possibility of a loophole, a transfer or re-transfer, or a boxing up one way or another, in which it may be evaded. Each transfer costs money, and to that extent the oftener the transfer takes place the more costly it is. Now, I am not satisfied that this is watertight as it stands, or any more watertight than the one we have put down. I am prepared to have it examined to that extent to see if it could be done. But I think one could easily slip in with regard to that, and possibly not come under the clause, where they would be liable to a fine of £100.
But there is a difference in this clause and the preceding one which has been adopted. The preceding clause says that a house could not be sold at a price exceeding the figure laid down in the Schedule. This new Section goes further, and says that a house cannot be transferred. It is quite obvious you cannot sell a house if you cannot transfer it. It would be rather against the intersts of the Bill that the house cannot be sold at the figure mentioned in the Schedule, for this would do away with the right to sell at the rate set out in the Schedule, if the owner is prohibited from selling.
That is what I feared about this particular amendment.
Might I suggest that the amendment is not of any particular advantage to the Bill. The principle underlying this Bill has often been repeated and that is of unnecessary Governmental interference in connection with dealing in those houses.
After all, is not the purpose of the Bill mainly to get houses built and to get them built as quickly as possible? Where is the object of putting in a number of restrictions that seem to be trying to provide for every possible contingency? You cannot do it. In other words, the main idea is that nobody is to make anything out of it at all. Human nature will not allow you to carry that very far. People will make money here and there, and all the Acts of Parliament that you put on the Statute Book will not prevent dealing in these houses. I think the clause is making the Bill more involved than is necessary, and I do not think it will do any good.
I would ask the Deputy to note that there is a restriction in the Bill, and that the subsidy is being given on condition that the rental charged, for instance, shall be restricted to a certain sum and that the price of the house shall be within a certain limit. If there were no such protective clause as this, the intention of those restrictions may well be lost. The builder will receive his subsidy and there may be a transfer any time between now and July, 1926, and the benefit of the subsidy would be gained by somebody for whom it was not intended, but there will be profit-making in the State subsidy. If it is intended that the Bill should allow that, I will not quarrel very much with it because I do not think the Bill is going to do very much good, and, therefore, I am somewhat careless on that point. What I am trying to ensure is that the intentions of the Bill should be guaranteed, and whether this particular drafting would insure that intention I am not going to argue too strongly. If the Minister will find some better drafting between now and the next Stage, so as to ensure that there shall not be trafficking in the Government subsidy, I would be satisfied.
As Deputy Johnson says, there are restrictive clauses in this Bill. Of course there are, and they may be necessary, but I say it is unfortunate that there should be any further restrictions. As a business proposition, I say it would be much more effective ——
It is not a business proposition.
If it were a business proposition, what I think any business man would say would be: "I want so many houses; to everybody who will put up a house that will come within the range of the purpose I have in view I will give £50 or £100, as the case may be." It would leave the thing clear and effective and you would get your houses built, which is the main object of the Bill.
I trust the President will reconsider this, and see whether he can meet the position by the wording of the amendment, because undoubtedly this Bill is not merely to provide houses, but to provide houses of a certain type, and it is clear from the business-men's point of view that they do not want to exclude Government interference, but only Government interference of a certain kind. They do not object to everything. They do not object, for instance, to the amount given by the Government, and in a sense that is Government interference. But what they object to is that the Government tries to impose conditions on the grant. It is quite clear from what Deputy Hewat said that there is need for an amendment.
May I say that personally I think it is a misfortune that it should be necessary to ask the Government for any subsidy in this matter at all. It is only on account of the peculiar circumstances of the case, that the houses cannot be built economically without some assistance, but I deplore the necessity for having to ask the Government for anything. It would be much more satisfactory if the houses could be built as an ordinary commercial proposition, and leave the Government free from all liability.
This amendment was apparently put down without any knowledge of the amendment just passed. It provides exactly for the things that Deputy Duggan has dealt with in his amendment, that no person shall, before June, 1926, sell the house at a price in excess of that provided for in the Bill. In the Bill originally, as Deputy Duggan pointed out, that provision applied only to the person to whom the grant was made, and the Deputy who tabled this amendment used the very same expression that Deputy Duggan used, that is that "It shall not be lawful for any person," so that the amendment was evidently put in without any knowledge of the amendment moved by Deputy Duggan, and carried, which exactly provides for the prevention of the abuse that Deputy Johnson seeks to provide against.
There is a real misapprehension about this amendment. It does not interfere with the actual sale of the house. It merely refers to a possible bargain behind the scenes for some money to be paid for an agreement by an option to buy the house. Nothing at all was said about the transfer of the house itself, but the transfer of an option or agreement to purchase. I think what the President said was quite right, that no amount of legislation will be able to prevent some kind of bargaining. It is desirable to prevent it, but can it possibly be done by legislation? The amendment does not at all interfere with or refer to what has been allowed by the previous amendment, that the house cannot be openly sold for a sum above a certain specified sum.
I take it that Deputy Corish does not object if these houses are sold at the prices specified in the Schedule. His objection does not lie against a sale as such, but he would like it to be a bona-fide sale, and at the price mentioned. That raises an opportunity for me at this stage to say something upon the general lines of the Bill and the special need that there is for taking something more than ordinary steps to make it a success. Somewhere about the year 1876 a number of gentlemen from all classes of business and commerce and the professions, came together in the city of Dublin and formed a society known as the Dublin Artisans' Dwellings Co. Looking over the list now, and seeing the huge subscriptions that were made by these people, one is amazed to find that there was at that time such a conception on their part of their duty as citizens, and how they discharged it. It may be that a great change has come over the city of Dublin since, but I do think it is possible to get together again in our day, fifty years afterwards, an organisation of business and professional people who would be able to do as much without incurring any loss whatever, as those gentlemen did in their day. There is a reference in this morning's paper by, I think, the Chairman of the Tramways Company, in which he said that his Company had been considering the question of housing; that they had already housed a number of their employees, and that now with this Government measure they intended to see what they might further do in that direction. Is it possible to get together the Chamber of Commerce, the big business and professional people to meet and see what guarantees they will give, granted we are satisfied that this Bill is a practical proposition, and enter into a contract for, say, something like 500 houses under this Bill? It only means £200,000, and with the Dáil, Seanad, and business people pulling together on this, with any assistance that can be got from other sources, it ought not to be said of us in our day that we were not able to get a sum of money equal to putting up 400 or 500 houses in the city of Dublin. Certainly we are poor representatives if it could be said of us that we are unable to do it. There cannot be, as far as I can see, a loss if our Bill is a success. If it be not a success, this is the place where we should hear about it. We have in the Dáil members drawn from all walks of society; the professions are represented, business is represented, the labour representatives are here, and, agriculture, the principal industry in the country, is represented, and if we cannot be so satisfied as to be able to back our opinion of this, then I say the Bill is going to be a failure. I would be prepared to call a meeting at any time with a view to considering that, and giving an exhibition of our being able to do something other than write headlines for other people to follow.
Do I understand the President to say he will consider making this a watertight provision between now and the Report Stage?
I do not think it is possible to draft anything through which you cannot drive a coach and four, but I will try and see if it is possible to make the provision anything more watertight, or how far this will meet the purpose, but I am not sanguine as to the results.
I think the provision is necessary, and that it would be found possible, by referring to the Rent Restrictions Act, to have phraseology inserted in the Bill to ensure what is desired by the amendment. I would ask Deputy Corish not to press the amendment at this stage, if we are given some assurance that some attempt will be made to find ways of making this watertight. If the Minister cannot do that by the Report Stage, I suppose we will be able to move an amendment in this form, or some amended form, for that stage.
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 32 by Mr. S. Lyons was not moved.
I wish formally to move: In Sub-section (2), lines 43 and 44, to delete the words "to whom a grant has been made under this Act," and in lines 44 and 45 to delete the words "the foregoing sub-section," and to substitute therefor the words "this Section."
Surely it is obvious that if any person contravenes an Act he should be punished. That is the intention; not only those persons to whom the grant has been made. If, for instance, a person has been engaged in the manipulation of the grants who is not a person to whom a grant has been made, that third party ought to be amenable to the law just as much as the immediate recipient of the grant.
I think the point made by Deputy Corish's amendment has already been covered by my amendment.
I think a misconception arose owing to a word or two being left out in the Bill as drafted, and consequently in the amendments as they appear.
I am perfectly satisfied on that point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question: "That new Section 4 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Every grant made by the Minister under this Act shall be paid at such time or times, in such instalments, and upon production of such evidence (in the case of payment of an instalment) of partial compliance with the conditions imposed by or under this Act, or (in the case of a final payment) of complete compliance with the conditions aforesaid, as shall from time to time be prescribed, and the decision of the Minister as to whether any such condition has or has not been complied with (whether wholly or partially) or as to whether sufficient evidence of such compliance has or has not been given shall be final.
I move:—In line 56, to add after the word "final" the words: "Each house for which a grant is made by the Minister for Finance under this Act shall be insured by the Minister to the extent of the value of the grant." I do not know if this will be causing an increased expenditure by paying a premium on the money invested. But I think it should be essential before anybody gives away £250,000 for building houses, and £50,000 for reconstruction, that some means should be adopted for saving that amount of money in case these houses were destroyed. I understand why the money is given away gratis, and that once it passes through the hands of the Minister for Finance you have no more call to it. What I want to safeguard is that the tenant who builds his house would, by having this amount of money insured, if the house was destroyed at any time, be protected, and that the landlord will have to rebuild, or that if the house is not rebuilt he will forfeit the total amount of the grant he received. I hold no brief for any insurance society. I only want to try, if possible, to safeguard the amount of money granted. Even if the Government were to start themselves a new insurance society to insure their own property, it might be more profitable than giving £300,000 away without any guarantee as to how the money will be safeguarded. I think this amendment or something equivalent should be accepted.
I do not know whether the Deputy has anything else in his mind besides this. In this Bill £100 is the maximum grant. The insurance on that would be 1s. 3d.
That may be all very well from your point of view, but it is not from the point of view of the tenant.
I think that the matter might be safely left in the hands of the person who puts up a very much greater sum of money, so far as he is concerned, than the money the Government puts up, and he is not likely to leave the house uninsured.
There is no safeguard at all for the £300,000 given by the Government. If these houses are destroyed, the persons who get this grant will probably come on next year or later and ask for another grant.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
(1) Any local authority may with the approval of the Minister, and subject to the prescribed conditions, do any one of the matters following; that is to say—
(a) make to any person to whom a grant is payable by the Minister under this Act in respect of a house situate within the area of jurisdiction of the local authority, a further grant not exceeding the amount of the grant payable by the Minister in respect of that house;
(b) make to any person to whom a grant is payable by the Minister under this Act in respect of a house situated within the area of jurisdiction of the local authority, a loan not exceeding twice the amount of the grant payable by the Minister in respect of that house, such loan to be repayable by instalments or otherwise within a period not exceeding fifteen years from the making of the loan, with interest at a rate not more than ten shillings above the rate at which the local authority can at the date of the making of the loan themselves borrow money, and to be secured by a mortgage or charge on the house aforesaid;
(c) grant or lease any portion of any land then in the possession of the local authority to any person, subject either to a covenant that such person will erect on such land a house or a specified number of houses to which this Act applies, or a covenant that such land will be used solely as additional garden space for a reconstructed house to which this Act applies;
(d) execute any works necessary or incidental to, or tending to promote the development of, land suitable to the erection or reconstruction of houses to which this Act applies.
(2) Any local authority may, with the approval of the Minister, borrow money for the purposes of the foregoing sub-section, and moneys borrowed for those purposes shall not be reckoned as part of the total debt of such local authority for the purpose of any limitation on borrowing imposed by or under any statute.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (1), line 58, to delete the word "one" and to add in page 4, at the end of the sub-section, the following proviso:—
"Provided that the total value of such assistance, as determined by the Minister, shall not exceed the value of the grant payable by the Minister in respect of that house."
I had an amendment down to delete the word "one" so that it would be within the option of the local authorities to assist in a variety of ways if they thought it desirable and were able. The amendment is to limit the assistance to be given by the local authorities to a sum equal to the sum given by the Government, but that that sum will be valued in a more elastic manner than was originally provided for. That is to say, part of the sum may be a grant, part of it may be loan, part of it may be by the provision of site. While I think it is better in the form that is now moved than in the original form, I am not satisfied as to the wisdom of restricting the generosity of the local authorities in this matter. If they are able and willing to give greater assistance than the Government, why should they be restricted? If the desire is the provision of houses, and the local authorities are in a position to assist to a greater extent than the Government, I submit that they should have the liberty to do so. I think more particularly the opening up of the site for building purposes by the local authority should not be included in the amount of assistance that a local authority should be empowered to give. That at least should be outside the limitation suggested by the Ministry. I would like to know what justification there is for restricting the activities of the local authority in this way, and would urge that the restrictions should not be imposed and that the local authority, if they wish, should be free to extend the amount of such assistance to any or all of the methods submitted in the Bill as originally drafted.
One would like a little explanation of what is meant by this amendment. It appears to me that this is going to limit the powers of the local authority much more drastically than possibly the mover of the amendment thinks. First of all, take the remission of the rates. The Government grant in this proposal on a three-roomed house amounts to £60. I have not worked it out, but I question if the value of the remission of the rates for 20 years would not approximate to the same sum. Consequently, the hands of the local authority would be tied in going beyond that. It was always the intention of the framers of this Bill, as far as I was able to find out what was in their minds, that the site, plus the rates, mains, and the other incidentals of a site, was to be provided free by the local authority. If the local authority is tied up, as apparently is the intention of this amendment, it is going to defeat the whole object of the Bill.
I have tabled an amendment based on the proposal of Deputy Johnson. Furthermore, I propose to eliminate the word "may" in the case of the local authority, or that if the local authority refused that an appeal could be made to the Minister to compel the local authority to grant any or all of these concessions, if the Minister were satisfied that in the public interest it was desirable they should be granted. I feel that at any rate in the urban areas in Ireland it would be necessary, if the scheme is going to be a success, to avail of all the concessions that are tabled here by Deputy Johnson. Furthermore, it must not be left in the hands of the local authorities absolutely to refuse the concessions because local authorities in the country, like some local authorities nearer here, occasionally have friends to whom they make concessions while there are other people to whom they will make no concessions. Take the case of a scheme in an urban area as compared with a scheme in the city of Dublin. Everything stands in favour of building in the city of Dublin as compared with areas in the provinces. I will give you a practical instance. Recently I had occasion to buy plaster slabs here in Dublin. These slabs are delivered on the site to any contractor in Dublin. The cost of the slabs was £20 4s., and the railway carriage alone was between £9 and £10. That meant that a person in the provinces building a house would have to pay an additional sum of £9 or £10, as compared with the Dublin builder, on an outlay of £20. I had also recently to buy a consignment of 2,000 floor tiles, and the carriage on the 2,000 was £5 6s. 6d. So that if you go into the details it will be found that if effect is going to be given to the provisions of this Bill in the urban centres, it will be necessary to make all the concessions that are provided under this Section mandatory on the local authorities subject to subsequent investigation and approval by the Minister. Unless you do so local authorities throughout the country will be placed at such a disadvantage as regards the cost of construction, compared with the cities, that the natural result will be that building under this Bill will be almost exclusively confined to the large city areas. That is not the intention of the Bill. In order that the intention of the Bill should be carried out the Government should accept the amendment standing in the names of Deputy Johnson and myself.
I cannot agree with Deputy O'Mahony when he says that he wants to make it mandatory on local authorities to carry out the provisions laid down in the Bill. If the Deputy had any experience of local authorities he would know that what would perhaps suit one local authority would not suit another one. There should be some elasticity allowed in the carrying out of the Act so that local authorities may not be hampered. It is a very easy thing to have a cheap jibe at local authorities. Most of the local authorities do their business as well as any other body of men would do it if put in their place. I do not say they are all perfect, but it is not the thing to have a cheap jibe at local authorities.
As a matter of personal explanation, I made no cheap jibe at the expense of local authorities. I simply pointed out the difficulty of building in urban areas as compared with the city of Dublin owing to the enormous transit charges. I can assure the Deputy, also, that I have some little experience of public bodies.
This Bill, I take it, is for the provision of houses in urban areas, no matter where situated. I think there is too much made of and too much talk about the city of Dublin. The Deputies seem to think of no place else as far as this Bill is concerned. The Bill provides for the building of houses by local authorities in the twenty-six counties. If people are going to get the real benefits of the Bill I think the local authorities should have power, if they so desire and if they can, to give the assistance proposed in the Bill. I would not go so far as Deputy O'Mahony and make it mandatory on the local authorities to give assistance. If Deputy O'Mahony's amendment is accepted I believe it will hinder the building of houses in certain areas in the country while giving the benefit of the Bill to other areas that do not perhaps need it.
That is exactly what I want to provide against so that the benefits of the Act would be extended to urban areas throughout the country where building cannot be done as economically as in the city of Dublin. The amendment I had tabled, if it had been printed as I sent it in, did not make it mandatory on public bodies. I altered the original provision, as Deputy Johnson also did, to provide that public bodies might do all these things and not as provided originally in the Bill.
We are not now discussing Deputy O'Mahony's amendment. We are discussing the amendment moved by Deputy Duggan.
I thought we were discussing jointly the amendments of Deputy Johnson and Deputy Duggan. One hangs on the other.
As a matter of order it seems to me that precedence should have been given to the larger amendment, and if that is defeated the one having the smaller effect could be taken. Inasmuch as the discussion has ranged around the two amendments, it would probably be simpler if it was allowed to go on in that direction. I would like to know from the Ministry whether they are prepared to accept the amendment in the names of Deputy O'Mahony and myself. If not, why do they restrict the power of the local authority in this matter?
Deputies will recollect that a few moments ago we were engaged in considering how best to secure that only a certain price would be received for these houses. What does the amendment proposed by Deputies O'Mahony and Johnson really mean? We have put down £100. If a house can be built for £500, and the grant from the Government is £100, if the house is sold for £500, there is a profit on the building. No one is dissatisfied, and to a certain extent nobody suffers. Take it the other way. The Government puts down £100, and the local authority puts down £100. A house that cost £400 is sold for £500. Somebody benefits to the extent of £100.
Reduce the price.
Then you will have to reduce the scale. That is the difficulty. You will have a different scale according as the local authorities are interested in making the scheme a successful one or not. If you are going to build and to have a definite price, the less conditions and restrictions there are on the other subsidies that are going to be given, the better. In this case the local authority would consider first of all what would be their duty; what they ought to do and what the circumstances of the case demanded. If this house can be built in Dublin for £400, with the Government subsidy it is £500, the builder has a profit, not an exorbitant profit, but there is no great necessity for the local authority contributing more than the site and the rates. The Minister will take into consideration what the value of the contribution from the local authority ought to be, bearing in mind the sale price of the house. In that way we get nearer to the economy of the situation than if one gives the local authority absolute power and discretion with regard to whatever they may give. A case may possibly arise that Deputy O'Mahony, I think, desires to avoid. We take the town of X——, where there are three or four friends of a local builder. They get the local authority to give the maximum contribution that they can give. Possibly it might amount to £150.
It has to be approved by the Ministry.
The Minister must to some extent be influenced by the representations made by the local authority.
What is the maximum?
£100.
Mr. BYRNE
In cash?
In value estimated by the Minister.
Mr. BYRNE
Road making, remission of rates and acquiring of sites. That would be more than £100.
That is for the Minister. The question is whether it is advisable in the circumstances not to make the restriction as moved by Deputy Duggan. I think it is wise. If it be unwise, and if it be necessary to extend it, it must certainly have some effect on the ultimate price. I think I would have no hesitation whatever in saying that the Bill was going to be a real success if we take out that schedule at the end. There is no doubt whatever about that.
The Minister is working on the assumption that houses will only be built by speculators who think that there is a chance of making something out of them. If that was the only idea the restrictions are quite satisfactory, but I submit that it is reasonable to expect that even a local authority may desire to impose restrictions, and if they are prepared to extend their grants beyond the sum of the Government grant, they should be allowed to do so under conditions. For instance, the condition might be that the weekly rent would be limited to a certain sum. In such a case, if the local authority are prepared to spend a larger sum than £100 the tenants might get houses at a weekly sum which would come within the limits of their income, and allow the Bill to fulfil the purpose for which it was designed. Or they might make a condition that the sale price should be even less than the Government sale price. I do not know whether there is any possibility of this happening. I have not the slightest idea whether any local authority is willing to do it, but I am against placing restrictions upon local authorities where they are willing to do the enterprising thing and show what can be done, what perhaps the Government ought to have done, and may be eventually obliged to do, but are not yet willing to do. I think the local authorities should have the opportunity to do that if they are willing to do it, even though they make restrictions limiting even more than the Government has limited in the Bill the rental, or, alternatively, the price at which the house may be sold.
I desire to support this amendment. I do not think the Government need have any hesitancy in accepting it, in view of the fact that the Minister has full discretion in the matter, as recorded here in the beginning of the Section: "Any local authority may, with the approval of the Minister." I do not think it is right to restrict a local authority to grant any one of the following conditions: For instance, a local authority might have sites at its disposal and might immediately offer those sites, practically free, to any speculator—after all, there will be speculators under this scheme— who is willing to build some houses. There may be some areas in which builders would not be inclined to take advantage of this scheme. As a further inducement, I think the local authority ought to be allowed to give a grant or a loan. I suppose we may take it for granted that when the Government were making their calculations to arrive at a figure at which these houses ought to be sold, they did not take into consideration that local authorities might give a grant or a loan.
If the Deputy will look at the second note in the Schedule, he will find that provision is made for that.
That is a footnote. In that connection I would like to know, at this stage, if the Government received any encouragement from any part of the country that they are likely to get any number of houses built in the different areas in the Free State. I am inclined to think, as I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, that this Bill is not going to be the success we all desired it should be. I believe still that local authorities should be allowed to enter into it more fully than they are allowed to. I believe it is absolutely necessary that this amendment should be accepted, especially when the Minister has such powers as are afforded to him in the Bill. I think the Government should not have any hesitancy in accepting it. I do believe that it will be absolutely necessary to offer some inducement to private builders, apart from the offer of a free site. As I said before, the Minister has power to prevent local authorities going too far.
Might I ask the President, at this stage, what are the privileges of councils so far as the Bill is concerned? You have provisions for the acquisition of sites, freedom from rates for twenty years, and the Dublin Council, at any rate, has an order published that they will make the roads. I want to know whether under this Bill the builder is entitled to only one, or all, of these concessions, that is: the Council to make the roads for him, to provide sites and to relieve him from rates, as well as the grant of £100 under the Bill. These things are not yet clear, and I would like to have them made clear—whether a man can apply for the three concessions as well as the grant. If this clause goes through, Councils can only give a sum equivalent to the grant, whereas these three concessions for a five-roomed house in Dublin would work out at about £160. It works out at about £40 to make a road and footpath outside a house with a twenty-foot frontage. It does not appear to be clear whether the builder can get all these concessions or only one of them. I would be glad to know, as a member of a Council—I have been asked to raise these points with a view to finding out exactly what are the powers of Councils at the present moment.
At the present moment councils have not got power to do any of these things. Under the Bill, as introduced, they were restricted to one of the various sub-sections of Section 6. With regard to the second sub-section, with the approval of the Minister they could borrow money and lend the money to a person going to build. In the next section power is retained by the Minister to allow rates off, making a charge of only 5 per cent. of the rates during the first year. I think it may be taken generally that that power will be universally exercised by the Minister. You may write that down as certain. It is proposed, then, in amendment No. 35, to take out the word "one" in the phrase "any one of the following matters"—that is to say, do any of the matters—and there is a proviso, then, limiting the value of the assistance to be given by the local authority to the sum of £100. That is what the Deputy asked me.
In the case of a five-room house I have given you roughly the cost of providing the requirements. Roads, and sites and rates work out at about £160.
What is the point the Deputy is making?
All that councils can do is give a man a sum equal to £100, but £60 is spent straight off the reel by the builder in the acquiring of public services, which are going to provide rates some time or other. That £60 for acquiring the site has got to be recovered somehow, and it is telling against the cost of the building.
Would the President make it quite clear—or perhaps I should say repeat—that in estimating this total value referred to in the proviso introduced by Deputy Byrne, the value of the remission of the rates is not to be counted? That comes in in a later section.
Yes.
That should not be referred to now.
There ought to be a clause excepting that. The words "total value" may be given a very wide interpretation. Following on what has been said by Deputy Byrne, if the total amount a local authority can spend is only to be an amount equivalent to the Government grant, that in the case of a five-room house is a sum of £60. Taking an average, it would be £80 as between a three-room and a five-room house. £80 will produce about £4 per annum, and it is quite obvious that under this Bill the local authority could not expend any sum that would be in excess of £4 per annum per house.
The President has behind him at the moment a number of officials who have a very large experience in the cost of acquiring of lands for housing in Ireland and the cost of laying out lands for roadways, pathways, sewers, lighting, etc. I would like to know what the cost per house of those items I have mentioned amounts to.
The Deputy knows very well that is a very involved question. If he asked me what the development of a site along a seaboard, which we could take as running along here beside Deputy Good, with a complete road along which you are going to build houses from one end to the other, would cost it would be a different proposition to taking virgin soil over where Deputy Byrne is seated, and developing that all round with roads and lighting and so on. In addition, there is the question of how these houses are going to be disposed over the whole site. I have had some experience of it myself in the Dublin Corporation. I must say that I did not see the last word being written on development. Some architects paid very great attention to having every possible economy in the number and cost and size of the roads through the various sites. Others were utterly indifferent in this respect. I have known of one case in which development cost £20 per house, and I have known of another case where it cost £80 per house—all according to the extravagant notions of the particular architect dealing with it. To write down a mean for that sort of thing would be impossible. If it were the concern of the builder to save as much money as possible in the circumstances, a very considerable saving might reasonably be expected from that service. I do not know whether the Deputy has seen one site that was developed by the Dublin Corporation—a site known as the McCaffrey Estate. There, there was very great economy in the provision of roads, but it would be utterly impossible to say what the cost would be in these cases. You would be obliged to have regard to the character of the site, its levels and so on. I am sure we would be on reasonably solid ground if we were to write down £40.
Is that £40 per house for the purchase and laying out of the land?
I did not say the purchase of the land. I would like to tell the Deputy that the very same variation in prices exists in that respect as in regard to the matter I have mentioned. I have known £300 given for an acre of land in Dublin, and I know other lands to have cost £10,000.
The whole basis on which these figures have been erected is the free site. I mentioned that at the very start, and that is the basis on which we went into calculations. Now, if the local authority is prevented by a clause such as this from giving a free site to builders, the whole scheme collapses.
I move to report progress.
Agreed.