Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Jul 1924

Vol. 8 No. 13


asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state the number of persons in Dublin City who are taking advantage of the facilities offered in the Government's recent Housing Act, if he is aware of the demand for increased facilities for the building of houses in Dublin, and if he will state the Government's proposal to meet the demand for housing accommodation in Dublin.

The number of houses so far approved under the Act is 105, and it is understood that at present 20 additional cases are under consideration. The Dublin City Commissioners have several schemes under consideration. The reconstruction of Keogh Barracks is in hands. Large subsidies have been provided for Dublin housing. Owing to the unfortunate dispute between workers at Marino, housing, for which a sum of £200,000 is available, is being delayed.


May I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that that was not the question I asked. I asked him if he could state how many persons in Dublin have availed of the facilities offered in the Act.

The answer is that there are 105, with twenty additional cases under consideration. I think that answers, by implication, the question as to the number of persons who have taken advantage of the facilities offered.


That was not my question. I asked the question with a view to finding out if any private builders or private persons are availing of the recent Act. That hundred houses referred to may include some of the Corporation schemes or some other schemes approved of before the passing of the Act. I want to find out the utility of the Act.

I suggest that the Deputy should put down his question in a proper way asking for a discrimination between private persons and others.


I wish to draw attention to the fact that the answer is a complete evasion of the question.

If I might point out, the answer may be a complete evasion of the question which Deputy Byrne now states he intended to ask, but it is not an evasion of the one on the Paper.

Arising out of that, is it not possible that the whole 120 houses are being built by one person or one authority? Deputy Byrne's question is not answered.

If Deputy Byrne puts down his question in a new form he may get the desired answer.

Surely, "the number of persons" is perfectly plain on the Order Paper.

No single question to-day has been answered by the Minister to whom it has been put. I know that there are reasons of health to prevent them being here, but it is rather unfair to Deputies who want to ask supplementary questions.

I am at a loss to know, in the absence of the Minister for Local Government, who is laid up as a result of over-work. Probably the question is not phrased as, apparently, the Deputy intended it to be phrased.


That is a matter of opinion.