Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1936

Vol. 63 No. 6

Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1936—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Bill now before the House intends to implement the financial provisions of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1936, by providing a further sum of £700,000 for the payment of grants to private persons and public utility societies. The only alterations in the existing enactments proposed by this Bill are to limit to 800 square feet the maximum floor area of houses to be completed in urban areas after 31st March, 1937, and to extend to 1st April, 1938, the date for the completion of houses in both urban and rural areas.

The necessity for the introduction of this Bill arises from the fact that the sum of £2,100,000 already provided has been almost fully allocated, and with the evidence at present before me of building activities it is estimated that a further £700,000 will be required to meet grants for houses which will be completed before 1st April, 1938.

An examination of the position at 31st May of this year shows that 6,160 new houses have been completed by private persons and public utility societies in urban areas. Progress in rural areas has been sustained and 7,651 houses were completed on the 31st May. The total number of completed houses whose erection has been assisted by grants is 13,811. The reconstruction provisions of the Acts have been availed of extensively by small farmers and agricultural labourers, and houses to the number of 5,883 have been reconstructed at this date.

The amount of money allocated at 31st May for the erection of houses in (a) urban areas was £484,907 for the erection of 8,827 houses, (b) rural areas was £883,869 for the erection of 13,096 houses. The amount allocated towards the reconstruction of existing houses was £638,926 for 16,616 houses, making a total of £2,007,702 for the erection and reconstruction of 38,539 houses.

The House will see, therefore, that the progress made, when judged by the number of houses erected and the amount of grants allocated, has exceeded expectations. The applications on hands at present will, it is estimated, exhaust the full sum of £2,100,000 already made available by the Oireachtas.

In these circumstances I find it necessary to request An Dáil to accord its approval to the Bill now before the House.

To give Deputies a picture of the progress made by the Government I will cite the activities of local authorities since the passing of the 1932 Act. Since then 18,034 houses have been completed, 6,863 houses are in progress, and 6,142 houses are about to be begun. This makes a total of 31,039 houses completed, in progress, and about to be begun by local authorities. To this figure must be added 14,558 houses included in schemes at present being prepared. The part played by private persons and public utility societies in the solution of the housing problem should not be underestimated. These agencies off-set the housing shortage, and are very helpful in supplementing the efforts of local authorities to solve the housing problem. As the Bill which I propose for Second Reading to-day deals only with private persons and public utility societies I will not deal any further with the progress of local authorities. Suffice to say that the stage reached in the Government's housing programme by local authorities has more than justified our expectations.

Under the Principal Act of 1932 houses provided by private persons and public utility societies must be completed by the 1st April, 1937. Section 2 of the Bill now before you proposes to extend to the 1st April, 1938, the date of completion of houses by private persons and public utility societies in rural areas, the reconstruction of existing houses in rural areas and the erection of houses for letting at approved rents in urban areas. The necessity for the extension of the date of completion arises from the fact that new applications are reaching my Department in such volume as to indicate that housing operations will continue beyond 1st April, 1937. As I already stated in this House, the Government is prepared to sponsor legislation for the provision of money for housing until such time as the housing demand is satisfied.

Section 2 (b) of the Bill proposes the insertion of a new paragraph at the end of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1933. The present grant available for a new house of floor area not exceeding 1,250 square feet in an urban area is £45. The effect of the insertion of this additional paragraph is to limit the floor area of any house in an urban area commenced on or after 1st July, 1936, and completed after 31st March next, to 800 square feet. The amount of the grant (£45) remains unaltered. Deputies will remember that in the Second Stage of the previous amending Bill—the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1933—I stated that I was satisfied that in urban areas assistance could be withdrawn or, at any rate, considerably modified as regards the size of houses which should qualify for subsidy. I have given the question careful consideration, and, in view of the persisting housing demand and the volume of applications, I have thought it best to meet the situation by restricting the floor area of the houses to 800 square feet. This new provision, it is hoped, will induce speculative builders to engage in the production of a house suitable to the needs and means of the average family. Such a house would be similar to a substantial five-roomed corporation type with bathroom, etc., such as may be seen in Dublin to-day at Marino and Croydon Park. The existing provisions regarding the partial remission of rates for a period of seven years will remain unchanged. In conclusion, I ask for the co-operation of all parties in giving effect to this measure to ensure the continuance of the housing programme initiated by the Government in 1932. Truly a nation will be what its homes make it, and, until such time as the housing problem ceases to trouble our national conscience, I will not refrain from appealing to you for support in my efforts to deal with the present housing shortage.

Mr. Dillon

The precedent established in regard to these Housing Bills has been to permit a certain latitude in discussion, with a view to viewing the housing problem as a whole as each of these Bills came along to amend or develop the housing code. I think it is right, when the Minister comes before the House to introduce a Bill which envisages a further expenditure of money on housing, to remind the House that we are progressing very rapidly in the matter of rural housing. I would also remind the House that while the late Government—the Cumann na nGaedheal Government—in my opinion proceeded along lines which, if they erred at all, erred on the side of conservativeness, they did leave office without having accumulated one penny of debt on the State in respect of housing. They paid for their housing programme, such as it was, out of current revenue. Personally, I think they were a little too conservative in doing that, but they did it, and they left a free field to their successors when they came into office. While it is true that the State has built during the last four years a very considerable number of houses, it is right to remember that as a result of that building the State has now, in respect of houses built to date, a dead weight liability of approximately £3,250,000. What alarms me about that situation is not the debt itself, because I think houses are very good value for money, but the problem that remains to be dealt with after so great a debt has been accumulated.

I want to make this submission, that the intense activity which is going on throughout rural Ireland, building labourers' cottages and houses of one kind or another, has reached a stage when we are pushing an open door. There is no difficulty about building houses in rural Ireland. You simply pass an appropriation, you draft a scheme, you get it approved, the land is there, and off you go. You can build houses in rural Ireland ad infinitum so long as the Government is prepared to shoulder the debt, and the thing is being largely financed by borrowed money. A very great impression has been made upon any shortage of houses that did exist in rural Ireland. I quite agree that the ideal has not yet been reached, but the back of the problem has been broken in rural Ireland. Can we say that anything like that has been done in Dublin, Cork, Limerick or Waterford? I live in the country and I represent rural constituents. I depend on rural dwellers for any votes I am going to get, but I want to say perfectly clearly that at no time was the housing problem in rural Ireland comparable in gravity to the housing problem in the City of Dublin or in the City of Cork, or in the City of Limerick or in the City of Waterford. It is true there were bad houses; there were insanitary houses; but the condition of a family living in an insanitary house in rural Ireland is infinitely better than the condition of a family living in an insanitary tenement in the City of Dublin.

What I am afraid of is that this House is getting into a complacent state of mind. We are making such progress, and we are talking in such magnificent sums of money, and in such great numbers of houses built in rural Ireland, that we are beginning to lose sight of the fact that the real housing problem—what we used to mean when we talked about the housing problem— is still there as much alive as ever. When we come to allot the blame for that situation we have got to bear in mind the words of a very experienced man, Deputy Tom Kelly.

It is fortunate, Sir, that the Dublin Municipal Elections are now over, or else one would be charged with trying to make political capital out of the elections. However, there is no political capital to be made out of the election, at the moment because there will not be another Corporation election for three years. Deputy Tom Kelly pointed out previously that the conditions of the slums in Dublin were so horrible that, as he said himself, he was almost ashamed to use the appropriate language to describe these conditions as they exist in Dublin. We, who know the city and who live here, can appreciate what it means to go home to one's house, when the weather is warm, and to find oneself in a state of misery as a result of the stuffiness of the house. As I say, one goes home and finds the house stuffy and warm, but it suddenly occurs to one that, in the same neighbourhood where you find your house stuffy, there may be a man with a wife and five or six children, all living in one room, sitting there, having to sleep there, cooking there.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy expressed his intention to discuss the problem of housing in general. The Chair has allowed him a certain latitude. The Deputy, however, may not go into the problem of the clearance of the Dublin slums. Were the Deputy permitted to do so, other Deputies would follow on similar lines. This Bill proposes to provide money for private builders and utility societies. It has no relation to the activities of corporations, county councils or boards of health.

Mr. Dillon

Well, I do not want to wrangle with the Chair, but I think I may be permitted to submit a point of order. All these housing schemes, I take it, are designed for the abatement of the problem of overcrowding, and we give grants to enable people to get out of rotten houses into, let us say, medium houses, and so on. The Minister for Local Government himself, during the course of the Second Reading, referred to the activities of local authorities and pointed out that this Bill is only part of what one might call a mosaic designed to help the problem of housing generally—in other words, that we are providing houses in order to solve this general problem of slums and overcrowding.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question of slum clearance was debated on the Minister's Vote, and that was the appropriate occasion. The Deputy asserts that the Minister referred to this matter. Quite true, but only in one sentence. The Minister stated that he would not pursue the matter as this was not an appropriate occasion. The Deputy has been accorded considerable latitude on this point. I suggest to the Deputy that, to submit plans for a solution of the Dublin problem, in connection with this Bill, apart from being irrelevant, would be useless, inasmuch as this Bill makes no provision for a solution.

Mr. Dillon

My submission, Sir, is that a Bill of this character is likely to give rise to a certain feeling of complacency on the part of members of this House that active measures are being taken to deal with a problem, which in my submission is not being dealt with at all, and that, while the Minister plans, under this Bill, to provide a very large additional sum by way of grants to enable private builders and building speculators generally to build houses, I want to urge him that, if he feels free to appropriate further sums of money, that money ought not to be primarily devoted for this type of housing at all. Having made that submission. I want to suggest, Sir, that, in fact, by marshalling our resources skilfully, we ought to be able to find enough money, not only to deal with the problem at which this Bill is aimed, but also to deal with the problem of the slums of Dublin. I should also like to say, Sir, that, while I am not prepared to give the problem, at which this Bill is aimed, precedence over the slum problem, if I must make a choice between dealing with the problem of the slums or the type of house for which this Bill is designed, then I would advise the Minister to drop this Bill and devote himself to dealing with the problem of the slums.

In this connection, Sir, I want to remind the House that Deputy Tom Kelly, in dealing with this question, pointed out to the House that it is not for the want of goodwill on the part of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Fine Gael Party, the members of the Dublin Corporation, or the members of any other Party that this problem exists in the acute form in which it does exist. Deputy Tom Kelly pointed out that all Parties are anxious to deal with the problem. He pointed out that it was not due to the lack of goodwill or competence on the part of the housing officials. He stated that they were excellent men, who were just as anxious to overcome this problem as anybody else is, but that the difficulty was the lack of money. He pointed out that we cannot get money. I want to put it to the Minister that the time has come for him to say to his colleague, the Minister for Finance, that it does not meet the situation to refer persons seeking money to build houses for the poor to private individuals or private corporations for the purpose of raising money.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Are we to discuss the problem of the Dublin slums or not, Sir, in this connection?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Dublin problem may not be further discussed. Deputy Dillon has been given sufficient scope and has made some broad references to the problem, to which the Chair did not object, but the matter of raising money for the solution of the Dublin slum problem does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Well, Sir, I am not attempting to evade your ruling, but I thought that this matter of the Dublin slum problem could be discussed in this connection.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must realise how wide such an irrelevant discussion might become.

Mr. Dillon

Well, Sir, I bow to your ruling, and, whether or not any views of mine on this subject would be a guide on the matter, I must wait for another occasion to impress on the Minister that there is an aspect of this problem which, in my opinion, is not being dealt with vigorously enough. However, in view of the fact, as the Chair has stated, that that question does not fall within the scope of the matter we are now discussing, there is one other question, of infinitesimal detail, about which I should like to have some information from the Minister. I should like to hear from the Minister what are the functions of public utility societies. I have consulted all the relevant authorities on this matter that I can find—the standard legal manuals and books on local government, and such other authorities as deal with this question—and the nearest approach to a true definition of a public utility society that I can arrive at is that of a body of persons who come together jointly to bear any indebtedness that may arise as a result of building a house for any individual of the society—in other words, the pooling of credit by a number of persons in order to give greater security to any individual advancing money to one member of the society; thus to facilitate persons who, on their unsupported credit, would be unable to borrow sufficient money to make the deposit necessary to qualify for the grant for the building of the house. If that is a true definition of a public utility society, I say that 85 per cent., or probably 90 per cent., of the so-called public utility societies in this country arc not public utility societies at all. I ask any Deputy in this House representing a rural constituency to suppose a case where there are 25 neighbours in a public utility society— say a Fianna Fáil club—and, as things are at the moment in Ireland, the terms are almost identical, because that is the way that they are managed largely in rural Ireland at the moment. As I say, the local Fianna Fáil club constitutes the public utility society, and the members of the club get a grant of so many pounds. Does anybody for a moment suggest that if one member of the club had engaged in certain commitments of this kind and then went burst, the other members of the club would pay his debts? Does any Deputy seriously suggest that, if a member of a Fianna Fáil club of, say, 25 members were unable to pay, the other 24 members of the Fianna Fáil club would come forward and pay his Bill?

They have not the slightest intention of doing so, and if that was explained to any of them, they would never enter into such liability at all. My submission is that they have never entered into such a liability, and that public utility societies, in the vast majority of cases, are completely fraudulent, and have no function except the extraction of £10 extra by way of grant from the Government. Some people might argue that it is useful to have these bodies in order to have an informed person acting as secretary to fill up the forms required by the Department of Local Government, so as to qualify for a grant. I challenge the Minister to state if the forms of public utility societies are filled up any better than the forms filled up by private individuals. I had to approach the Department in one or two cases where public utility societies were involved, and I got every possible assistance from the Department, and every possible guidance in respect of the persons, on whose behalf I was making the representations, and I found that where a public utility society had intervened confusion had become worse confounded. When dealing with a grant founded on the application of an individual, it was plain sailing, but where public utility societies were concerned you found that you were misled.

I want to put it to the Minister that we are not dealing in fictions, and if he thinks that these persons ought to get £80 then let everyone get £80, but do not let us have a situation where a group of chisellers get together and start saint some one's public utility society, and get grants of £10 extra amongst 20 or 30 of them, whereas a simple, honest neighbour who wants to build his own house, and who does not want to have any codology or fraud decides to write to ask for a grant in the ordinary way and only gets £70. I do not see why the cute boys should get more than a neighbour. I freely admit that you may find in certain areas real public utility societies, and where you have genuine societies, such as you may have in the City of Dublin and in other districts, where you have reliable men, there may be some real value in these bodies when you get the proper men together to pledge their credit jointly. In that way it may be possible for these men to build houses and to raise the money. If the Minister has investigated the working of public utility societies, to find out if they are functioning properly and in accordance with their true purpose, then I think they are institutions that should be encouraged, but I object to fictitious bodies masquerading as public utility societies, and I allege now that if the Minister will get a list from his Department of public utility societies, or direct an inspector to go around and carefully inspect their records, books and the form of contracts by which their members are bound, he will discover that the vast majority have a purely fictitious organisation, and that they have no proper standing under the Friendly Societies Acts or whatever legislation they are registered under.

There are detailed matters relating to rural housing which might be mentioned now. However, my mind is directed to the question of the slums, and I do not want to introduce such observations when dealing with rural housing and so I have nothing to add to the details mentioned.

Mr. O'Donovan

In connection with the reconstruction of houses in rural districts, emphasis has been laid on the necessity of extending the valuations from £25 to £35 for the purpose of giving grants in rural areas. It is very hard on a man who has portion of a house built, whose valuation is £25 5s. to learn that he cannot get a grant for reconstruction purposes. Appeals were made to the Minister to raise the valuations in which grants could be given in order to help a deserving class of people in the community who are anxious to avail of these grants for the building of houses.

Mr. Brennan

Like Deputy Dillon, I am anxious to know what are the functions of utility societies, and what purpose they really serve. I have before my mind the case of a man, who came to me during the week, which has been going on for two years. He made application to a certain utility society in the district in which I live, and became a member in order to get a grant. He says that he visited the offices once a fortnight for a long time and then once a month, but got no "forrader." Although he paid contributions to the society nothing has been done for him. I mentioned on a previous occasion complaints that were made last year about the position of utility societies in County Roscommon. Certain traders complain that utility societies came to them and stated they required materials to build houses and that the grants would be paid to the traders. In that way the traders felt that they were acting as agents for the Department of Local Government. I understand that is part of the function of these societies. Here is where the crux comes in: the utility societies having guaranteed to the traders that the grants would be paid them if they supplied certain materials to applicants building their own houses, when the inspectors from the Department came down they stated that the work was not done to their satisfaction, and they would not give grants. As a result the traders had to go without their money. They had no redress. The utility societies do not appear to be responsible bodies. The traders say that it is not possible to follow up these societies as some of them had nothing, and as far as they could see the money could not be recovered. The materials were given in good faith, on the understanding that the grants would be paid to the traders, but nobody, traders or public utility societies, had any authority to see that the work was properly done, and when the inspectors came down they very rightly condemned the work and stated it would not be paid for. I mentioned previously a case in Roscommon, where over £1,000 was outstanding for materials for nearly three years.

The Minister has at his disposal a Housing Board about which questions were asked when the Estimate for the Department of Local Government was under consideration. I wanted to know the functions of the Housing Board but I could not get information. The Minister ought to direct the attention of that Board to this matter, to see if some kind of an inquiry could not be held into the manner in which public utility societies are operating. As Deputy Dillon pointed out, if the only object of these societies is to secure an extra £10 grant for the members there is no reason for their existence. If these societies are not bona fide agents of the Department of Local Government when giving certificates, there should be some authority to see that they are made responsible for their acts. I ask the Minister to look into the matter to see what the position is, and if certain people are neglected by these societies, as has been alleged.

There is another matter to which I wish to direct the Minister's attention and it also might be considered by the Housing Board, if that Board has any utility at all. It is with regard to specifying certain materials used in housing. Roofing tiles have been used, but I understand that there is nothing like agreement amongst the engineers as to that type of covering for houses. The Minister under other Acts is entitled to specify that only certain materials are to be used. Is the Minister satisfied, or are any of his engineers satisfied, that the tiles that are being used to roof houses in the country to-day are made of sand that is washed? If not, would the Minister find out what is his engineers' opinion of tiles made of unwashed sand? I know perfectly well what I am talking about. I have seen tiles made of unwashed sand, and I would ask the Minister if he would direct the attention of the engineers to this matter. After all, if this House is providing certain moneys for housing purposes, we ought to see that we get value for our money. It will be very hard lines on people who undertake the building of houses and who put their earnings into them, in addition to whatever they get by way of grant, if after a few years they find that the roof is faulty. I am sure the members of this House who are accustomed to working concrete of any kind will realise the difference that washed sand and unwashed sand makes, particularly when it enters into the composition of an article such as a slate which is possibly only half an inch thick. The smallest piece of clay in that article means that it will eventually leak. I think it is up to the Minister and the officials of his Department, particularly the engineers, when they are specifying certain materials, to see that these materials are something that will last, so that when the nation provides certain moneys for housing, the people who get these grants and who themselves have to pay the greater part of the cost of the houses, will have something we can stand over. Those are two matters to which the Minister ought to direct his attention or the attention of the Housing Board, if the Housing Board is still operative—the question of utility societies and the use of materials which may be inferior.

Mr. Walsh

I do not know what Deputy Dillon and Deputy Brennan expect from utility societies. They may have some unpleasant experiences of certain societies but my experience is that these societies fulfil a very useful function. The ordinary small farmer or labourer throughout the country, who is applying for a building grant, knows very little about the method to be followed in making the application and where there is a society which takes an interest in these people, it fulfils a very useful function by directing them to proceed along the proper lines. They frequently also are very useful in helping an applicant to get credit, but why should Deputy Dillon or Deputy Brennan expect that these men, promoters of the society, who get no financial benefit whatever out of the society, should turn round and take responsibility for bad debts?

Mr. Brennan

We do not expect them to do that.

Mr. Walsh

A person who has applied for and qualified for a grant may not fulfil the conditions under which the grant is given. He may start his building operations in the wrong way or complete them in the wrong way and the local trader gives him credit. Is it a sensible proposition to put forward in this assembly that the local utility society should be responsible if that man is unable to pay his debts? Is there not only one way by which we can guard against a trader being done out of his money? That is, that there would be an actual contract signed between the man who gets credit and his creditors, and that the Department should insist on that. Do Deputy Dillon and Deputy Brennan make that suggestion? Do these Deputies say that the Department should step in and guarantee that the shopkeepers will get their money and that they will act as guarantors? I think the suggestion is nonsensical on the face of it, when, as I have stated, if a man's application for a grant is passed and if he does not carry out the terms of his contract or fulfil the conditions of the grant, he has only himself to blame. Similarly, if a trader gives him credit and knows that he is not carrying out the conditions of his contract, he also has only himself to blame.

Mr. Brennan

I do not want any misunderstanding about this matter. I do not expect that the utility society should be responsible for such debts, but I maintain that because they are not responsible they are not fulfilling any function at all. All they are doing could be done through the Local Government Department.

Mr. McGovern

I wish to call the Minister's attention to the very general complaints that are being made regarding roofing tiles used in my county. I think that the Minister, seeing that so much public money is being voted for housing purposes, should insist on that money being expended on good materials. There are a number of complaints that roofs on which tiles have been used are now leaking. I asked the Minister some time ago if he had made inquiries as to whether these tiles were giving satisfaction and his reply was in the negative. Recently a question was asked of the secretary of a utility society as to whether these roofing tiles were giving satisfaction and his reply was that they had made inquiries and found that they were giving satisfaction. The impression the man received was that these inquiries were carried out under the directions of the Minister, so that really the reply deceived people who were building houses. They found on making further inquiries that tiles are not giving satisfaction. I think that in this important matter the Minister should think it worth while to make inquiries himself, and if he finds that these tiles are not giving satisfaction, he ought to see that the materials are changed or that the manufacturers whose tiles are not giving satisfaction should endeavour to improve the quality of the materials used. There is undoubtedly something wrong, and it is too important a matter to let go by the board. I think the Minister would be well advised to see that, before grants are made, houses are roofed with proper materials. The difficulty the Minister will encounter in having inspections carried out is that people who are looking for grants will in all cases say that the roofs are giving satisfaction until they get the grants. If the Minister wants to find out the truth he should make inquiries amongst people who have received the grants already and they will tell him the truth. People who want to get a grant will always give a good report on the material used. I think the Minister should make his inquiries amongst people who have received grants already.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I personally would not have any objection whatever to any aspect of the housing question in town or country being debated here and thoroughly ventilated. It is, Sir, entirely a matter for you to decide what is in order. My own desire would be that the fullest possible debate should be allowed on any occasion that we are discussing housing in this House. However, it is for you, Sir, to decide what is in order and what is not. I do not want to do anything that would even suggest disagreement with the ruling of the Chair.

On the last day on which we were discussing housing, when Deputy Mulcahy emphasised the fact that a very heavy financial burden had been imposed upon the State under the Act of 1932 for which I was responsible, I said to Deputy Mulcahy, and I will say the same to Deputy Dillon now, that I am glad when he or anybody else calls attention to the fact that a heavy burden has been placed, and is being placed, upon the taxpayers of the country as a whole in connection with housing. It is a heavy burden. I do not think it is too heavy, if we are to find a solution for that problem, which has been with us for so long and which so urgently demands a remedy. We have already demanded from the State, under the Act of 1932, a liability of several million pounds. I think the liability is fully justified. I think whatever the liability, something similar ought to have been undertaken at an earlier date, and that while good work was done by the last Government since 1923 or thereabouts, in housing, an earlier attempt ought to have been made to tackle the problem in a way that would help towards an earlier solution. That is what we have done in town as well as in country. I do not want to go further.

Mr. Dillon

And I must be permitted to interject "Question! Question!"

Mr. O Ceallaigh

So far as I am concerned, I do not think I have made any suggestion of complacency in my position on the matter of housing in urban or rural areas. I realise that in what we have done, and have been doing, we have been helped by the local authorities to do a good deal in town and country. I realise that much more remains to be done, and a great deal more than has been done although a considerable amount has been accomplished. It would be very foolish, on my part or on the Government's part, to allow any suggestion of satisfaction or complacency, with what has been achieved, to encourage us not to press forward with greater energy and vigour and enthusiasm with the attack upon this problem until we have brought it within measurable, distance of solution. We have not got there yet; therefore, I welcome discussion and criticism—the more talk there is about it the better, and the more we face up to the problem the better it will be.

I have given a good many years of study to this question, mostly in so far as it relates to the urban areas. I do not know, except what I learned since I became a Minister, so much about housing in rural areas. I learned something since my contact with the Department of Local Government so far as rural housing is concerned. But I do know something about the conditions in urban areas. One matter in which I agree with Deputy Dillon, and with my colleague, Deputy Tom Kelly, is that there is a very great advance still to be made before the urban problem is anything like within measurable distance of being solved. I do not agree with Deputy Dillon that there is no difficulty about building houses in rural Ireland. I should like to hear him, after he had a talk with Deputy Hogan of Clare, on that subject. I could enlighten him, I think, about the difficulties we have encountered in getting boards of health in other counties to use the generous grants that have been given. I do not at all accept the statement that there is no difficulty. Many difficulties and many obstacles are still put in our way. In some rural areas I think it would not be true to say that the back of the problem is broken, while it might be true in some others. One word with regard to Dublin. Deputy Dillon said the Dublin problem is not dealt with at all.

Mr. Dillon

If I used these words at all, I used them unintentionally.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I took them down at the time. It is dealt with, but not adequately.

Mr. Dillon

That is what I meant.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is so. On the question of public utility societies, if they are, as Deputy Dillon described them, "fraudulent," I would not stand for their getting any grant, nor would anyone else in this House. I do not know anyone who would stand for fraudulent bodies, calling themselves by this high sounding title of public utility societies, being allowed to exist. I am not aware that there are such bodies in existence. I am aware there are public utility societies in the country, particularly in rural areas, that have not done anything, or anything that would justify their existence. I do not think there are many; I know there are some such societies in rural areas that have done excellently, and I know in urban areas there are public utility societies that are a great credit to the country.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I should be glad to get particulars in regard to the others that have not done well. I shall be glad to get particulars and have special inquiry made into the work of public utility societies in rural areas. If there be any that deserve the character given to them by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Brennan, I shall not hesitate to acquaint the public with the nature of these societies.

With regard to a matter raised by Deputy Donovan to get more money, the same point was raised when the last Bill was introduced some months ago. The answer I make Deputy Donovan is that until we have gone a considerable length further in dealing with the poorer people, people with £20 valuation and under, I do not think it would be fair to take any of the money made available for that class of the community to help people who, in most cases, ought to be able to help themselves. People with £40 valuation should be in moderately good circumstances. They should be able to provide £50 or £90—£45 is the amount of the reconstruction grant—to build an additional room to their houses. The poorer people ought to be attended to first. Until we have reduced considerably the demand, and reduced the number still clamouring— in their thousands—for these grants, I think we ought not to consider raising the limit of valuation. I do not say it will not be done. It probably will be done some time, but, until we have gone a great deal further on the road towards stemming the tide of demand for grants from the poorer classes, others who are better circumstanced financially, perhaps, will have to wait.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister direct that a special investigation be made into the bona fides of certain public utility societies?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I shall.

Question put and agreed to.