Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1947

Vol. 109 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1947—Committee (Resumed).

Question proposed: "That Section 22 stand part of the Bill."

On the section, purely as a matter of curiosity on my part, I wonder would the Minister tell us how much of the £3,500,000 provided in the 1937 Act is still available? I notice he is only increasing the amount by £50,000 and I am wondering how much of the original is still left.

I cannot give the Deputy that information offhand at the moment.

I presume that we may take it that there is a considerable sum.

Oh, there is a considerable sum.

I took that to be so from the fact that you are only increasing it by £50,000.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 23 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25.

On behalf of Deputy Doyle, I move amendment No. 25:—

In sub-section (2), line 10, after the words "one-roomed" to insert the words "or two-roomed".

This is to give preference to families with two rooms as well as families with one room.

I am in a great deal of doubt about this amendment. It would put families who are in the occupation of two rooms in exactly the same position as families who have to live in one room. I have no doubt that the Dublin Corporation had good reason for suggesting this amendment, but it is very difficult for me to make up my mind as to whether the merits of it outweigh the fact that a family living in two rooms is certainly a great deal better off than a family living in one room. Whether we should put them on exactly the same plane is, as I have said, a matter about which I find it very difficult to make up my mind. However, I am prepared to hear what is to be said for it.

You may have a worse condition with a big family in two rooms than with a family in one room.

The general position is that you do not. When we are writing things into a statute, it is the general position we have to deal with and not the particular hard cases that arise.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25 put and agreed to.
SECTION 26.

I move amendment No. 26:—

In lines 25 and 26, to delete "council" and substitute "corporation" and to add the following new sub-section:—

(2) A housing authority (being the corporation of a borough or the council of an urban district having a population of over 12,000) may provide reserved houses for occupation by persons of a particular class.

This amendment will empower an additional group of housing authorities to provide houses for recently-married persons or persons about to marry.

Can I take it that the Minister is accepting amendment No. 28, which is in this sub-section (2) to leave out the words "and, if required by the Minister, shall" which appear in sub-section (1)?

Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.

I move amendment No. 28:—

In lines 26 and 27, to delete the words "and, if required by the Minister, shall".

When I put down this amendment, I had visions of the Minister at some time extending the provisions of Section 26, as introduced, to other areas of the country. As the Minister has indicated by the introduction of a new sub-section that he does not intend to use these powers of direction in the case of smaller towns, I am quite satisfied to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 29:—

In line 27, to delete the word "houses" and substitute the word "dwellings".

It is not quite clear whether the accommodation to be provided may be either flats or cottages. It is, therefore, suggested by the amendment that the word "dwellings" should be substituted for "houses" in the wording of this sub-section.

I think there is a point in the Deputy's amendment and I will bring in a somewhat similar amendment on the Report Stage to Section 23.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.

I move amendment No. 30:—

In paragraphs (a) and (b), page 11, lines 40 and 43, to delete "Local Registration of Title Act, 1891" and insert in lieu thereof "Registration of Title Acts, 1891 and 1942", and in paragraph (b), lines 43 to 51, to delete all words from "by the General Order" to "apply accordingly" and substitute the following:—

"by the Solicitors' Remuneration General Orders, 1884 to 1947, with the exception of Clause 6 and Rule 11 in Part I of the Schedule to the Solicitors' Remuneration General Order, 1884."

As will be seen from the text, this is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 29.

I move amendment No. 31:—

In paragraph (b), page 12, line 8, to delete "county council" and insert in lieu thereof "council of a county".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
Section 30 agreed to.
SECTION 31.

I move amendment No. 32:—

In sub-section (2), page 12, to delete "where practicable" in line 47 and in page 13, line 2, to insert "whereever practicable" immediately after "shall".

This is also a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Question proposed: "That Section 32 stand part of the Bill."

Major de Valera

The Minister is aware of the awkward position under the Labourers Acts in regard to the acquisition of property which is not required for the purposes of the Acts. In Section 7 of one of these Acts there is a provision that in case property of this nature is not required, the original owners and certain other people have certain rights. I understand that it is now an antiquated provision and that it is the cause of considerable difficulty in administration. I think that it might be appropriate for the Minister to consider amending Section 32 and whether or not it would be desirable to provide that such powers of acquisition should be freely disposable or interchangeable between schemes.

For instance, if you have a labourer's cottage that is not required as a labourer's cottage and which might be required for another housing scheme, I suggest that there should be a provision that would enable the Minister to have that change made. I mention that en passant. It might not arise under Section 32 but there is no other section which I can think of at the moment under which it would arise. I was not in in time to deal with Section 29, but might I mention now that owing to the extraordinary complexity of the definition of “agricultural labourer” as it exists, it might be as well to wipe out that definition?

Deputy de Valera is quite right in saying that the point he has raised is scarcely relevant to Section 32, that is the point as to the disposal of land under the Labourers Acts. Again, with reference to the section to facilitate entry of the local authority on land which it has acquired for the purposes of the Housing Acts, the existing section, Section 4 of the Labourers Act of 1896, empowered local authorities to enter forthwith on lands which were the subject of Provisional Orders in cases where consent to entry was refused, notwithstanding that the arbitrator had not given his award, provided the local authority gives security for the purchase money. Experience has shown that this procedure was slow and that local authorities in many cases have awaited the arbitrator's award in preference to availing themselves of the powers given by Section 4. It is proposed to repeal Section 4 and to give county councils, which are now the rural housing authorities, the same powers of entry as are vested in urban authorities by Section 41 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931. Under the new dispensation the county councils will be authorised to enter and take possession of lands acquired compulsorily, at any time after confirmation of the Compulsory Purchase Order on giving at least 14 days' notice to the owner.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 33.

I move amendment No. 33:—

In sub-section (2), page 13, line 53, to insert "(Ireland)" immediately after "Health".

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 33, as amended, agreed to.
Section 34 and 35 agreed to.

I am bringing in an amendment on the Report Stage to Section 35 further to modify the term "expenses" under sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Act of 1899.

Sections 36 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 39.

I move amendment No. 34:—

In sub-section (6), page 16, line 41, to delete "three" and substitute "four".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 39, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 40.

I move amendment No. 35 on the substituted sheet:—

Before Section 40 to insert a new section as follows:—

40.—(1) In every case in which a grant for the erection of a house is made under Section 15 of this Act to a person or public utility society and an increase in the valuation of the tenement, consisting of or including such house, is made on an application for the revision of such valuation by reason solely of such erection, the valuation of such tenement shall be deemed to be reduced for rating purposes by two-thirds of such increase.

(2) In every case in which a grant for the erection of a house is made under Section 15 of this Act to a person or public utility society and an increase in the valuation of the tenement consisting of or including such house is made on an application for the revision of such valuation by reason partly of such erection the valuation of such tenement shall be deemed to be reduced for rating purposes by two-thirds of so much of such increase as is attributable to such erection.

(3) Where a grant is made under Section 15 of this Act in respect of the reconstruction of a house, the valuation of the tenement consisting of or including such house shall not, on any valuation or revision of the valuation thereof coming into force within seven years after the completion of such reconstruction be increased on account of any increase in the value of such tenement arising from such reconstruction.

(4) In this section the expression "rating purposes" means the following (and no other) purposes, that is to say, the purpose of the assessment and levying of any rate raised by a local authority for the service of the local financial year commencing next after the completion of the erection of the relevant house or for the service of any of the next following six local financial years.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the immediately preceding sub-section of this section restricting the meaning of the expression "rating purposes", it is hereby enacted in particular that notwithstanding the valuation (in this sub-section referred to as the full valuation) of a tenement being deemed under this section to be reduced in relation to any local financial year, every computation for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts of the annual value of such tenement shall be made in like manner as if the full valuation were in force for the purposes of county rate in relation to that local financial year.

This is a drafting amendment. The substitute amendment goes a little further than the original amendment because it proposes to add a new sub-section suggested by the Revenue Commissioners. This sub-section removes any doubt there might be about the valuation for income-tax purposes of premises which will enjoy a rates remission under the Bill.

Major de Valera

I take it that the remissions are simply put in line with the practice to date. Do I understand that the remissions heretofore were given in one of two ways? One was on a two-thirds basis, and the other was calculated on one-twentieth of the rates in certain cases. My information on that point is not explicit. I could not find statutory authority for it but I should like to know from the Minister what is the actual procedure by which the provisions of this section will be implemented. Take a house that would come under the scheme. In what way would the scheme for a remission of two-thirds operate?

It will be a flat rate remission for a period of seven years. The question of twentieths does not arise in connection with this matter at all.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 36 not moved.

The same ruling would apply to Deputy Sheldon's amendment No. 37 but he can put it down for Report.

They will have to have these amendments in to-morrow.

May I say that I do not intend to move amendment No. 37 on Report? It was a very weak attempt but it was an attempt on my part to meet a difficulty I could see in Section 40. The Minister has met the difficulty in a much wider way and I am quite satisfied.

Acceptance of amendment No. 35 involves the deletion of Section 40.

Section 40 deleted accordingly.

Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.
Section 41 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

We propose to amend the First Schedule on the Report Stage, providing for the repeal of Section 12 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1906. The proposed repeal is consequential on the removal of the rating limit in the Bill.

Question agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 38:—

In page 18, second column, to delete the heading "Where Sewers and Water Mains are not available" and substitute "Where sewerage and piped water supply are not available" and in the third column to delete the heading "Where Sewers and Water Mains are available" and substitute "Where sewerage and piped water supply are available".

This amendment is to meet the point raised by Deputy Sheldon and a number of other Deputies and to clarify the ambiguity that was thought to exist in the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule, as amended, be the Second Schedule to the Bill."

I want to call attention to the fact that all of these allowances to the utility societies are very properly made to meet rising costs. The Minister, no doubt, is well aware that apparently there is no suggestion of a builder being able to earn these grants. I do not know what the Minister has in mind, but I think the House is entitled to learn what is the reason for this omission. A builder is a person who for years has carried on his trade of building houses for sale. He has carried that on in good and bad times. I suggest that if it were not for this class of individual, the housing position in this country would be very much worse. Not only has the speculative builder provided houses steadily for a number of years, but he has also, during the difficult times through which we have passed, been the only rallying ground for the nucleus of skilled tradesmen who were kept employed in the building industry during the war period.

The Minister may possibly say that previous Governments helped to do away with the landlord who built property and let it for a profit. Now the Minister is anxious to bring back that class of person who can invest money in building houses for the working classes. I suggest that by cutting the builder out of these grants the Minister may think he is making a saving but he is really making the saving at the expense of keeping the industry going on regular grounds. People have called attention to the fact that this Bill does not furnish any extra recruitment of labour; it does not bring in any extra supply of materials. Its only purpose is to try to remedy the terrible cost to which building materials of all sorts have gone.

I appeal to the Minister to consider the builder. He is trying to do away with professional people engaged in the industry who for years have carried on their trade here. I suppose if they are driven out they could carry it to other parts of the world with profit and advantage to the places in which they would settle. What is the reason for the extraordinary omission, cutting out of this Bill the builder who is building a house to sell? It has been his industry and possibly the industry of his father before him.

I am afraid that the purpose of this Bill is misunderstood by Deputy Dockrell. These grants are not given for the sake of putting money in people's pockets. If it were contended that the speculative builder, the builder building for sale, was selling at a loss, I suppose something might be said for mulcting the general taxpayer in order to subsidise him but, as everybody knows, the contrary is quite the case—the ordinary speculative builder is making very substantial profits, some people would say exorbitant profits, and even that he was profiteering. I do not say that. I do not know; I have not been able to investigate building costs. I have not the same familiarity with the financial structure of the building industry as Deputy Dockrell has. I am only going on what the people say, and surely in these circumstances there is no justification whatever for taxing people who can scarcely afford to pay their own rents or to buy houses for themselves in order to subsidise one of the classes which are certainly doing well out of the present housing shortage. That is what Deputy Dockrell asked me to do —or rather what he asked the State to do as I cannot do.

The purpose of the Bill is to help people who have to find houses for themselves to pay the prices now being asked and I do not think under the present circumstances we can give any subsidies. Nobody is going to suggest in the circumstances of the present day when there is such a pronounced shortage of houses, that we are going to drive people out of the building industry. The contrary is the case. Quite a number of people are becoming very interested in the building industry. Many cases come before me of people who want to use sites, some of them suitable and some unsuitable, and these people have not had very great experience of building. That indicates that, far from putting people out of the industry, it has become so attractive that people are anxious to try their hand at it. Let us look the facts in the face, and can anybody see any justification whatever for subsiding such an industry which is already so profitable that people are attracted to its ranks every day?

I would like to say something in reply to this explanation of the Minister. The grants given to the building industry before were given in order to encourage building and I think that they have that effect. They were not given in order to encourage the individual builders engaged in the industry. The effect of this measure which we are discussing here to-night will be that the builder, unless he builds for a special order, will not be able to build a house in competition with one which is built subject to these grants. That will mean either of two things. Either that some way round the provisions of this Bill will be found or that the building industry will be slowed up, if the builder will have to wait until he gets an individual order.

I would remind the Minister that vast areas of the suburbs of the City of Dublin were built on these lines by builders between the two wars. I see no reason why the Minister, with the whole resources of his Department and the legal section of the Government, could not have found some way of making the builder the channel through which this subsidy went to the individual, thereby ensuring that the builder, with his specialised knowledge of the work and with his trained personnel, would not be subject to the periodic stoppages which will be the effect of this schedule under this Bill. I think that the Minister, if he had applied himself a little more closely to the problem, could have found a way to do what he wishes to do and to ensure that the trade went through the builder. To think that individuals, through private means or by virtue of an individual order, can substantially affect the present shortage of houses is something that just cannot be. I am afraid that we will not see the speedy resolution of the housing shortage which we would like to see carried out through the provisions of this Bill.

Major de Valera

Before I get involved in this debate I would like the Chairman to say whether the matter is in order. These schedules are simply monetary schedules to sections which have already been discussed, and can we make them an opportunity for a Second Reading? I am asking that before I jump into the breach because I think I would be out of order.

I do not think that it is out of order.

Major de Valera

I can discuss the whole principle of the Bill, then, by reopening Sections 16 and 17?

No; they have already been accepted.

Major de Valera

That is what my friends on the other side of the House have done. My submission is, Sir, that the discussion should be confined to the contents of the schedule, but this debate has now become a whole Second Reading.

If that was so we could not discuss the thing at all.

Major de Valera

They should be discussed when the sections were discussed.

We would have been told then to wait until we came to the grants.

The discussion is in order.

Major de Valera

I am glad to accept your ruling. I think that the financial provisions of this Bill are designed to facilitate building; that has been explained at length. Getting down to the basis of these schedules, certain sums of money have been provided and I take it that the Minister has provided the maximum amount of money which he can find available under these headings. These are going to be a substantial benefit to the community. They are going to provide houses and they are going to encourage the provision of houses. The increase in the provision of houses will also mean increased expenditure. We are about to enter the phase of the year when we deal with Estimates and this Bill will have to be paid for. It has been passed through this House without one little bit of criticism on its financial provision and I would like that to be on record. I would like it to be on record when the question of expenditure is criticised at a later date and when the Government is criticised, for Deputies cannot have it both ways. This Bill which will do a good job for housing will cost money and the money involved will have to be found on other stages. I think that the Government has struck a nice balance in doing what it can do within its resources.

Question put and agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Third Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."

For information only and not wishing to reopen the debate, is the Minister satisfied that the agricultural labourer referred to in Section 16 is now defined in Section 29? Is it intended that the new definition shall apply, and if so, is it completely clear that it does define, as there is a definition in another part of the Bill? I thought that it might be held by a court that it did not apply. Section 16, to which the Third Schedule applies, refers to an agricultural labourer. Later on in the Bill, in Part V, the definition of an agricultural labourer is widened.

Is it completely clear that that applies to agricultural labourers in Section 16?

Yes, it is a general definition. The only part to which it is restricted in its new form is in regard to a cottage purchase scheme under the Labourers Act, 1936.

Does the Minister say "only".

The only part.

Then it does not apply to Section 17?

Is this a widening?

The only part to which it is restricted is in relation to a cottage purchase scheme under the Labourers Act of 1936.

So long as the Minister is satisfied.

Question agreed to.

Fourth Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.

When is it intended to take the Report Stage?

I think we will take it to-morrow. In case I may not have given notice of all the amendments which I intend to bring in on the Report Stage I should like to do so now. I have given notice of most of them but perhaps I should give notice of others of them by reason of the fact that the sections have been disposed of. It is proposed to amend Section 2 in Part I of the Bill so as to clarify the position of town commissioners as housing authorities under the Bill. It is proposed to amend Section 11 in Part II of the Bill to provide that the permission of a housing authority to the multiple letting of a premises may not be unreasonably withheld.

I should also mention that I propose on Section 11 to bring in an amendment, to meet the point raised by Deputy Dockrell, to apply the designation "multiple dwelling" to houses let in flats as the expression "tenement house" might be misleading. I have already given notice that Section 12 will be amended by the deletion of the words "in their absolute discretion". That section will also be amended to provide for a revision of permissions at three yearly intervals instead of yearly as proposed in the Bill. I mentioned that on the debate in Committee.

I will also deal with the point which was raised, I think, with Deputy Sheldon relating to the disclosure of allowances from charitable organisations. I propose to exclude temporary allowances from charitable organisations.

Section 16 will be amended to meet Deputy de Valera's point that a landlord, while prevented from selling the house to an occupier, should nevertheless be permitted to sell his interest

I think it will also be necessary to in the house. amend Section 13 by the substitution of a new expression "multiple dwelling" for "tenement house".

I thought the Minister was going to alter the date in Section 15.

I have already given notice of that.

I am merely making sure that I have given notice of everything.

I put in an amendment for Report Stage this morning. Do I have to give notice now?

No, not yet. Was it only one amendment, Deputy?

Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 11th December, 1947.

Could I ask the Minister a question now? Line 40 of page 7, Financial Provisions, reads "in any other case — the person who erected or reconstructed such house." If a builder builds to the order of a private person which of them will get the benefit — the builder or the private person?

I am afraid the Deputy will have to ask that question to-morrow.

The Deputy will have a chance to-morrow.

I merely wanted to give notice of it.

Barr
Roinn