We have had a pretty long and a fairly exhaustive discussion on housing this afternoon, for which I thank the various Deputies who spoke, though 90 per cent. of them were, with all respect to the Chair, out or order and talked on anything but what is in the Bill. Nevertheless, their remarks were of interest to me and their criticisms, so far as they were levelled at the Bill, are accepted with the greatest goodwill by me. In most cases, if not in all cases, I think they were meant to be helpful. The Bill does not purport to deal with costs at all or with the building of houses by local authorities. That is outside the scope of the Bill, though 90 per cent. of the talk was on that subject. I never resent anybody talking on housing. I think Deputy Dockrell's recollection must be at fault where he suggests that the Government are at fault for not providing more time for discussions on housing. There have been many opportunities, and if Deputies did not avail of them to discuss housing in Dublin it was not the fault of the Government. Every year we have Estimates, and Supplementary Estimates sometimes, relating to local government and money for housing, on which Dublin could be discussed if any Deputy wished to do so. However, that is aside from the main purpose of the Bill. As the Ceann Comhairle has been so generous, and has allowed the discussion to range over a field outside the scope of the Bill, I shall take advantage of his generous mood to answer some of the criticisms, perhaps not exactly in the order in which suggestions were made, but as they occur to me.
Deputy Mulcahy opened the discussion on the Bill with the suggestion that there were very heavy burdens being laid on local authorities, and upon the State by this housing legislation. The Deputy is right there. Very heavy burdens are being laid on the State by the Oireachtas, at the Government's suggestion, if you wish, and upon local authorities, and through that on the people as a whole in connection with housing. I think the House and the country should be fully conscious of that. Certainly the matter has been brought before them very frequently in the last few years. It is not even since this Government took office that the housing question has been discussed. Considerable time has been given to it inside and outside this House and to suggested remedies for ending what every member of every Party realises is a grave and an urgent problem; that of ending the slums as soon as we can, and providing proper sanitary housing accommodation for dwellers in slums, and the working classes in general. The proposition that housing must be provided for those who cannot afford to provide for themselves, by using State finances and local finances to that end, is one that is accepted. People may discuss the amount of the burden. I have stated ever since I sat in this House and discussed housing that it was going to be a very heavy burden indeed, one that would require not only considerable time but an enormous amount of money, as well as increasing the burdens on the State and on local authorities in order to deal adequately and efficiently with the problem. I emphasised that several times here, and I suggested that the House and all Parties should realise that situation. I have invited criticism on the subject.
No one has attempted to say that we should not spend all the money that is necessary to end the housing problem, as we have known it in our day. I am not at all adverse to Deputy Mulcahy or any one else calling attention to the amount of money that is being spent, as well as the additional burdens the State is bearing, and that local authorities are asked to bear—and that they are bearing willingly in connection with housing. It is all to the good that that should be so, because I have often had it borne in upon me that some people in their exaggerated demands do not realise what the State is doing. I am talking now from the purely financial point of view of what local authorities are doing. A great effort is being made, and generous grants have been put at the disposal of private persons, public utility societies, and local authorities—more generous than ever in the history of the country, and more generous in proportion to our resources probably than any other country, so far as I am aware. That is all because the Oireachtas agrees with the Government, that the problem was so great that an effort should be made to find a solution of it. The House has agreed with me when I have stated the proposition here that whatever money is required to find a proper and satisfactory solution to the housing problem must be found.
Deputy Mulcahy referred to the question of unemployment and called attention to the rise in the unemployment figures which he gave for the last few years. Certainly it is true that in the last 12 months there has been an increase in the number of men in the building trade who are on the unemployed register in the City and County of Dublin and in the country as a whole. If you examine the total figures you will find that the unemployment is greatest in the City of Dublin. That arose last year from stringency of money for house building. It will be within the recollection of Deputies who read newspapers that the housing loan floated by the Dublin Corporation last year was not a success for one reason or another which we need not go into now. The banks had to carry an unduly large share of the loan then floated. But there has been a great change within the last few months.
Some two months ago, however, when the last loan of £1,000,000 was floated by the Dublin Corporation, it was over-subscribed two and a half times. That is a big change within less than 12 months, and I think it is largely due, as Deputy Kelly said, to the better financial position which the country as a whole and investors found themselves in, perhaps as a result of the financial operations of the State directed by the Minister for Finance in the last 12 months. But as a result of the stringency of money at that time the city manager found himself unable to provide money to finance the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts, and he also slowed down the giving of contracts for building schemes that were well advanced and could have been gone on with at an earlier date if money had been available. That accounts, I think, for the increased unemployment in the building trade as exhibited in the figures with regard to last year. Building, however, is going to go ahead at a much greater rate in the current year. The city manager has already accepted tenders for a number of large schemes and £250,000 has been made available for the operation of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. That will put back into employment a great number of those in the building trades who have been on the unemployed register so far as Dublin City is concerned.
The Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act has been referred to by different Deputies who spoke. I believe that the Act is a useful one and has helped local authorities and private individuals to provide houses that would not be otherwise provided and at a much less cost to the State and to local authorities than if the Act had not been in operation. I agree with a great deal Deputy Norton said with regard to the utility of the Act and the desirability of keeping it in operation and making finance available for it, especially in the City of Dublin. But I am also in agreement with the suggestion as to limitation made by Deputy Kelly. I believe that so far as the £1,000 house is concerned the field should be left to the private building speculator. Usually the person who wants a house costing from £750 to £1,500 is able to provide the necessary finance out of his own resources. The person who wants to live in a house of that kind in Dublin I believe can get money from the banks or other sources. At any rate, I do not think he is the type of person that the local authority ought to limit its resources or its credit in order to house.
So far as local authorities and the Government are concerned, our main task is to wipe out the slums and provide proper sanitary and decent housing accommodation for those who are unable to provide it for themselves. That is our problem, and not to provide houses for persons in the City of Dublin or outside of it who wish to live in houses valued at £1,000 or £1,500, such as Deputy Kelly referred to. But, with that limitation, I believe that the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act is a useful and valuable Act, and certainly in the urban areas it should be put into operation. So far as the credit of the local authorities will allow, I should like to see it in operation everywhere that it can be prudently worked.
There are difficulties with regard to its operation in rural areas under county councils. Where people are holders of land under various forms of title under the Land Commission, legal difficulties have arisen where such people want to avail of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, and so far we have found it next to impossible to get over these. In addition to that, cases have been brought to my notice in one or two counties where there has been gross default. In that case I would advise the local authorities concerned to make an example and go slow, if not to stop the operation of the scheme altogether, until those who have neglected their duty have been brought to their senses and the civic spirit in the neighbourhood generally has been improved.
Deputy Brennan raised a point as to delays in paying grants. I know that a couple of years ago there used to be pretty frequent complaints about delays. So far as my personal experience as Minister is concerned, judging by the letters of complaint received, the complaints are much less frequent than they used to be with regard to the paying of grants to private persons and public utility societies for housing. Deputy Brennan also raised a point about the responsibility of the Local Government Department towards builders' providers who provide persons building their own houses with the assistance of grants with building material for the erection of those houses. The Department of Local Government and Public Health does not accept responsibility for the payment for goods supplied to any private persons by private builders, suppliers or others, except where private individuals building houses, having been notified that such grant will be available to them, have signed a form giving authority to the Local Government Department to pay the grant to the builders' providers. That responsibility we take, and we will pay the grant to the builders' providers in the name of the person to whom the grant is given. That grant is paid directly to the builders' providers. They have got to get the signature of the grantee to it. But further responsibility than that we do not take. If persons to whom Deputy Brennan refers want to take risks other than those that prudent businessmen would normally take, well they must bear the consequences.
There was a good deal of talk in the early part of the debate about different kinds of contractors and bad contractors. We have not had many complaints about bad building or bad workmanship where large housing schemes are concerned. Generally speaking from those builders, certainly in the City of Dublin and in the Cities of Cork and Limerick and other large towns and county boroughs where building schemes have been concluded, we have had no complaints. I have seen work and seen building schemes completed for the last three years and, as to these contractors and their workmanship generally speaking, I must say, it has been very satisfactory. The chief complaints which have reached me are, to a certain extent, complaints as to where labourers' cottages have been advertised, and where persons who had little or no experience in building were accepted as contractors for the building of two, three or four cottages. They seldom get more than that. Sometimes it is only one cottage, and it often happens that 12 months after that contract is signed and sealed the foundations of the cottage have not been begun. That sort of thing has happened in several cases. But while the housing section of the Department of Local Government, in consultation with myself, has often raised with the local authorities the advisability of allowing contracts go to people of that kind, we have been met frequently with deputations from the local T.Ds., members of the boards of health and county councils, urging us in the case of men who had sufficient financial backing and who were not builders themselves, that they would employ competent tradesmen to do the work. We have frequently given way and the results are not always satisfactory. There are cases in Clare that I know of, there are cases in Leix that I know of and there are cases in other counties where cottages built by such contractors have had to be taken down because of very serious defects which had to be remedied. There are cases where the Department have urged the local authorities, on the reports of our inspectors, to refuse further payment to those people until the defects were made right.
We have had also difficulties about delays referred to by several Deputies who have spoken. I suppose in a time like the present, when so much building is being done, it is natural to expect that many new people would come into building operations. In Dublin City there are pretty competent builders, but a number of these were not in the building trade in Dublin City five years ago. I could reckon at least a dozen of them who are carrying out pretty large contracts now who were not builders four or five years ago. They get, I suppose, expert advice and competent workmen and, so far as I know, they have done, and continue to do, good work.
It is where you have small men in the country, men who are building one or two cottages at a time, that the difficulties arise. These men are without experience, and this is certainly a matter that requires very close inspection and very careful watching on our own part and on the part of the engineers and others connected with the local authorities.
Where there has been such a tremendous increase in the building business, it is natural to expect that some difficulties of this kind will arise. I know there are places where it has been found next to impossible to get tenders at all. There are such areas. We have asked these boards of health, at any rate when building labourers' cottages, to try and get the houses taken in groups, but there again we have found that it very often takes six or eight or ten months before they can get a contractor to take the cottages. Some of these cottages are scattered over the area and that is what causes most of the difficulty. There is a cottage here, another cottage half a mile away, and others two or three miles away. The contract in such cases does not offer a big enough financial profit to contractors to go into the business. At any rate, for some reason or another, perhaps owing to the great stress of the times, owing to the great demand for building contractors and for building operatives, there have been difficulties and delays that perhaps, with greater experience, as time goes on, will disappear.
I do not know whether the system suggested by Deputies Norton, Murphy and others, of putting this type of building out to direct labour would or would not be a success. I know that in some counties very good houses, at reasonable prices and good workmanship have been turned out under the direct labour system. While that is so in some counties it is equally true that in other counties we have had under the direct labour system bad workmanship, delays and costly houses. We have had both types of experiences and we have had them also under both types of schemes. We have had difficulties under the direct labour system and we have had difficulties under the contractor system. We cannot draw any very definite conclusions from these.
There is this difference between direct labour and contracts that in the case of the contractor you can impose penalties. There are often penalties clauses in the contracts. But when it comes to the time to enforce them the boards of health are reluctant and they very seldom do it. We sometimes force them to take action, but I cannot recall any one case in which we succeeded in getting the contractor to pay up. Sometimes when we have got the local authority to the point of sueing the contractor for the penalties it is found that the sureties offered are men of straw. We meet things of that kind and these instances show the difficulties there are in carrying out to 100 per cent. the terms of the various contracts that had been entered into. There have been successes and there have been failures under the direct labour system and under the contract system as well. There is no definite opinion in the Department against direct labour. If a local authority, whether it be an urban council or a board of health, is strongly in favour of direct labour, and we are satisfied that they have a staff of engineers who will give satisfaction in the work, we have no objection—in principle, at any rate—to a scheme of direct labour in building being operated.
