Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Dec 1947

Vol. 109 No. 6

Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1947—Report Stage (Recommittal) and Final Stages.

Ordered: That the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of the amendments.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 4, paragraph (a), line 3, to delete "and any urban district" and in paragraph (d), to delete "the commissioners of such town" in lines 10 and 11, and to substitute "except as respects Sections 14, 19, 20, 21 and 41 of this Act, the commissioners of such town, and, as respects the said sections, the council of the county in which such town is situate".

This amendment is in part a drafting amendment designed to clarify the relative positions of the county councils and the town commissioners as housing authorities for the purpose of the Bill. The town commissioners will in effect exercise control over demolitions and so forth of habitable houses, and will if the necessary powers are extended to them by Order, regulate tenements or "multiple buildings". They will also exercise all other powers vested in "housing authorities" by the Bill, except those reserved to county councils by this amendment.

Mr. Sheldon

In as far as Section 14 is removed from the jurisdiction of the town commissioners I presume that that they will not in any case let houses which are affected by Section 14.

Mr. MacEntee

Section 14 here is for the purpose of securing information from tenants of local authority cottages and houses. They do not.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 5, line 51, and in page 6, line 4, to delete "tenement house" and substitute "multiple dwelling" and to insert immediately after "situate" in line 55 "and such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld."

Mr. Dillon

This is interesting. But, Sir, it is not an amendment at all.

An Ceann Comhairle

What happened in the amendment was that, when they were drafting it, there was only a copy of the Bill as it had gone through here available. It has been reprinted since and that has upset things. I am correcting it now. There are, I think, a few of them in which the numbers are wrong. This is one of them. At any rate, when the Minister refers to this substitution of "multiple dwelling" for tenement house it will be quite clear. It was discussed.

Major de Valera

Do I understand this amendment to mean that the Minister is just starting into Section 11 introducing "multiple dwelling" instead of tenement house?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is so.

Mr. MacEntee

If I were allowed to explain, I could clear the matter up.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Minister rose that would be the simplest thing.

Mr. MacEntee

There are a number of Deputies here who seem to want to conduct the business of this House, despite the Minister or anybody else.

Mr. Dillon

Now, who are you talking about? Is it Deputy de Valera—or who is affected?

Mr. MacEntee

Are you keeping order in this House, Sir, or is it Deputy Dillon?

Mr. Dillon

I am trying to curb your rudeness.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not propose to speak or to try to conduct the business of this House if Deputies are not kept in order.

Mr. Dillon

I do not care a hair whether you speak or whether you do not.

An Ceann Comhairle

I certainly did not see the Minister rise. The Minister should be in first.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not referring to the conduct of Deputy de Valera. I am referring to the continuously disgraceful conduct of Deputy Dillon.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

On a point of order, we have in front of us an amendment which is perfectly unintelligible. You have attempted to clarify it, but it is still not clear. Certainly I have not grasped the import of the amendment.

Mr. Sheldon

On a point of order, if I might attempt an explanation, it merely means that in Section 11 instead of the words "tenement house" read "multiple dwelling". I think that is all.

Mr. MacEntee

I am preparing to inform the House as to this amendment as soon as I am certain that I shall have an opportunity of being heard without interruption.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has that opportunity now.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, paeans of praise for his kindness.

Mr. MacEntee

This amendment, Sir, is in two parts. The first part deals with a question raised by Deputy Dockrell on the Committee Stage of this Bill in which he raised the point that objection might be taken by some people in possession of a certain type of property to have that property described as a tenement house. The purpose of this amendment is to substitute for the phrase "tenement house" the phrase "multiple dwelling". I should have thought that would have been intelligible, even to some of the Deputies who have spoken here.

Mr. Dillon

It would be more so——

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. MacEntee

Particularly in view of the fact, Sir, that it was at their instance the amendment was made. The next amendment is designed to meet the point made by Deputy de Valera on the Committee Stage and to convey to local authorities a statutory admonition that their permission is not to be unreasonably withheld.

Major de Valera

On that point again, purely as a matter of draftsmanship, a "multiple dwelling" in Section 11 is being substituted for "tenement house". That is to meet an objection made by Deputy Dockrell. Now, a tenement house is already defined in sub-section (3). Do I understand that multiple dwelling will also be substituted instead of tenement in subsection (3)? It would be a consequential amendment, but is it provided for?

Mr. MacEntee

It is provided for, as you will discover if you look at amendment No. 2.

Major de Valera

Now, which amendment is it? I am still in a difficulty in trying to co-relate these amendments. If "multiple dwelling" is substituted in Section 11 a consequential amendment is necessary in sub-section (3). I have not examined the Act to see whether any other consequential amendment is necessary.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

In other words, what is the definition of "multiple dwelling"?

Major de Valera

I presume it is the same as "tenement house" in the original.

Mr. Dillon

This, as I have already said, on the Committee Stage, is a perfect "Marie Antoinette" approach to housing. First of all, it is laid down specifically that people must not set their houses in tenements and that the local authorities, in certain circumstances, may tell them that they are not to do so, quite oblivious of the fact that the only reason the house is a tenement house is because the unfortunate people who are living in the sordid rooms available have nowhere else to live. This point having been taken by our modern "Marie Antoinette", his contribution is: "Very well"—if they have to live in a loathsome tenement at the foot of Dominick Street let us mitigate their suffering by calling it not a tenement but a "multiple dwelling". That will greatly relieve the stress of their circumstances. So long as we do not mention tenements, we do not have to worry about them. Are we not travelling in this House along a most extraordinary road? These two sections are designed to prevent the spread of tenement conditions into new parts of the city.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not dealing with sections, Deputy. We are dealing with an amendment to substitute "multiple dwelling" for "tenement house".

Mr. Dillon

Certainly, Sir. But we must at least know the necessity for this legislative euphemism. Picture Marie Antoinette——

Mr. Briscoe

Must we listen to so much "blah-blah"? Can we not get on with the business.

Major de Valera

"Marie Antoinette" rhymes with "Marionette" which has a close affinity with something else!

Mr. Dillon

Picture these champions of the poor. They are so distressed at the thought of people having to live in tenements that, like their prototype, they lift their skirts so as to avoid the contaminating mud of "tenement" and reassure the public that the poor in this city are not living in tenements; they are living in "multiple dwellings". Hypocrisy is a disgusting vice.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is not an election platform.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, Sir. "Multiple dwelling" is hypocrisy, if ever there was such a thing.

Major de Valera

I suggest the Deputy talks to Deputy Dockrell about it, then.

Mr. Dillon

Let us call a spade a spade. "Multiple dwelling"—let us all commit those words to memory. Let us go down to the foot of Dominick Street and stand in front of the tenements there——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is quite out of order in discoursing upon Dominick Street.

Mr. Dillon

I am objecting, Sir, to the insertion of the words "multiple dwelling" in this Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

One does not require to go down to Dominick Street in order to do that.

Mr. Dillon

In my respectful submission, I know what a tenement is. Most people in the City of Dublin know what a tenement is. How many people know what a "multiple dwelling" is? The Fianna Fáil Party seem to consider that, if you go to a stinking tenement and change its name, you change its nature. I am suggesting that they should go down to some of these tenements, stand in front of them and tell them they are not tenement houses any longer, that they are "multiple dwellings", and see would it make any difference to the smell or the dirt or the dereliction. I am tired of listening in this House to supporters of the present Government——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is irrelevant.

Mr. Dillon

I am talking about "multiple dwellings".

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not.

Mr. R. Walsh

If the Deputy can make any sort of speech he likes at any time, the Ceann Comhairle had better leave the Chair.

Mr. Briscoe

He offended the dwellers in these houses by calling them stinking, smelling people.

Mr. Dillon

I say that the tenement houses of this city are stinking, loathsome abominations.

An Ceann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with this amendment.

Mr. Dillon

We propose to relieve that condition by changing their name.

Major de Valera

That is a complete misrepresentation. The name was in this Bill initially. The Minister had "tenement house" in the Bill first. Deputy Dockrell pointed out a certain objection he had. The Minister tries to meet him and you try crookedly to capitalise on that. It is positively dishonest. Let us get down to this Bill as a Bill and not play the histrionic politics you are playing. You did not come in here to address yourself seriously to the business of this House in Committee.

Mr. Dillon

Is this in order? This silly man, intoxicated by the fact that he bears his father's name, imagines that he can shout down the members of this House. Dismiss that idea from your mind. No one is going to shout me down. No one is going to prevent me——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy must deal with this amendment.

Mr. Dillon

I am dealing with the question of the substitution of the words "multiple dwelling" for "tenement house"—amendment No. 2. The sole and only purpose of that amendment is to substitute "multiple dwelling" for "tenement house". Surely I can dwell on that procedure. That is the amendment. There is nothing more in it. I have a right to speak in this House, at my discretion, on that particular problem.

An Ceann Comhairle

Within the rules of order.

Mr. Dillon

Within the rules of order. I am bound to assume that the Minister put this down mainly for the purpose of literal clarification. I am entitled to submit that it is put down in a Marie Antoinette way——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may not repeat himself. We have had that four times.

Mr. Dillon

——which characterises almost everything the Minister does. To still the conscience of people who would be perenially solicitous so long as tenements survive——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is again repeating himself.

Mr. Dillon

——but who may be made agreeable to their survival if we strip them of their familiar, detestable description we begin to describe them, for the first time in my lifetime at any rate, as "multiple dwellings". What merit does the Minister allege attaches to the adoption of a legislative euphemism of this kind? If people intend to allow their house property to be employed for the purposes that we have always associated with tenement ownership in this city, why should we, by law, give them the right to free themselves from the title of tenement owners and adopt, by statute, a description of proprietors of multiple dwellings? Let those who want to live out of the rents of rotten tenements——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is rambling again.

Mr. Dillon

I submit——

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not submit. I am stating what I believe to be a fact.

Mr. Dillon

Does this create a new description for a tenement owner?

An Ceann Comhairle

I am not here to answer questions or to be crossexamined.

Mr. Dillon

I submit that this amendment will create a new title for tenement owners. Heretofore, there has existed a class of people whom we have known as tenement owners and, with very few exceptions, such persons have not had a very favourable reputation amongst their neighbours. This is a proposal to give them a new and unrecognisable title. What merit does the Minister allege for that?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is again repeating himself.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to ask the Minister if he has any argument for this amendment beyond saying that it gives effect to a proposal made by Deputy Dockrell. Surely the Minister must defend it on its own merits. I want to hear what the Minister has to say, not what his tempestuous echo on the back benches thinks he ought to say.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

I should like, first of all, to raise a point of order. Here is an amendment on the Report Stage which, as it stands, is meaningless. Of course, we can all understand what is intended. I think the Minister will have to bring in an amendment to this amendment. I leave that in your hands, Sir. I want to get down to the meat of the amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order. I am not responsible for the wording of amendments.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

I am pointing out to you, Sir, that this amendment is meaningless as it is here and when read in connection with the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

I gave the House the correct figures and lines, because there were mistakes made in four amendments, as nothing but the unrevised Bill was before the officials when they were putting in the amendments. I gave the correct lines here in the House and I shall give them again if the Deputy desires to have them.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

Perhaps that is a small point. I shall proceed to the substance of the remarks I wish to make. I am obliged to the Minister for having, in response to my remarks, substituted the words "multiple dwelling" for "tenement house". But that really was not the substance of my objection, which was that, under the description "tenement houses", two utterly and distinct classes of dwellings come in and can be classified as similar. We all know what a tenement house is and what a flat is.

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order, surely the Deputy is proposing now to discuss the general purpose of the section?

An Ceann Comhairle

The section does not arise. The question is whether such a building is to be called a multiple house or a tenement house.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

I am trying to point out to the Minister that while I appreciate the apparent gesture he has made in response to my remarks in Committee, he has missed the obvious distinction which I made.

Mr. MacEntee

Again on a point of order, it was made quite clear—I am putting a point of order and I should be obliged if the Deputy would allow me to submit it—in the debate on the section, that this section was intended not merely to apply to what are known as tenement dwellings but also to houses let as unfurnished flats. That was made quite clear and I submit it has been already decided on the section. Therefore, if Deputy Dockrell intends to proceed on the lines he is now following and to argue that flats as such should be excluded from the amendment, he is out of order.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

If the Minister would have patience to listen to what I am going to say, he would be better able to appreciate the point I am endeavouring to make.

An Ceann Comhairle

If relevant to this amendment.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

Quite.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is what I want to hear but the section is not open to discussion.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

I have said that whether the description be "tenement house" or "multiple dwelling", whichever you like to call them, the two classes of dwellings were included under the one heading and the ordinary person has no difficulty in differentiating between these two classes of houses, namely, tenement houses and houses let in flats. That is the sum and substance of what I am getting at. The Minister is going to a great deal of trouble and is putting local authorities to a great deal of trouble and annoyance in differentiating between certain flats that are no more tenement houses than this House is. The Minister invited the other evening some definition which would distinguish the two classes but I should like to remind the Minister that a tenement house occurs like a disease. It seems just to become a tenement house. Nobody christened it, changed the name, altered the structure or did anything like that; it just became a tenement house. As I have said, no one in this House would have the slightest difficulty in differentiating between a tenement house and a flat. I should like to suggest to the Minister that a flat is a place that has a closed hall door.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear. That is the classic difference.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

Wait a bit until I proceed a little further. The next question is: would the occupants possess a lock and key?

An Ceann Comhairle

The point is that the amendment before us is whether you are going to have the words "tenement house" or "multiple dwelling". I have not heard the Deputy argue that matter.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

I am trying to point out to the Minister that he has made a distinction without a difference.

Mr. MacEntee

It is not intended to make any difference. The House has already decided that this section will apply equally to flats and tenement houses.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

I do not know if the House did decide that.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, the House decided that yesterday and there is no amendment to it.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

Perhaps they were right. I suppose the Oireachtas has no right to do wrong, but it does seem as if local authorities all over the country will be burdened with the task of differentiating between certain classes of dwellings. In my opinion if the definition here were more precise and better clarified, it would enable them to reduce their work and possibly obviate a certain amount of annoyance to people who are not tenement dwellers and who do not live in tenement houses. That is the substance of my objection to the Minister's amendment as introduced. He says: "I do not care whether they are flats or tenement houses; they will have to be registered and I shall call them `multiple dwellings'. You have got to trot down to the City Hall every year and register your house."

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise on this amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

It would be quite possible for me to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. Briscoe

In view of the wrong construction of Deputy Dillon——

Mr. MacEntee

And of Deputy Dockrell.

Mr. Briscoe

——and the hypocrisy of Deputy Dillon's suggestion——

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, order.

Mr. Briscoe

I suggest that the Minister should withdraw it.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

I do not know whether the hypocrisy of Deputy Dillon is to be visited on Deputy Dockrell——

Mr. Briscoe

Why not repudiate it?

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

It is like visiting the sins of the father on the children. I have made my point. Apparently I am quite wrong in thinking that the Minister was endeavouring to put the owners of flats outside the scope of this Bill. That is the point I intended really to make. If there is no substance in that, let the Minister state that openly and clearly, namely that dwellers' flats will have to be registered just the same as tenement houses and the local authority will have the trouble of going through whole streets composed of houses let in flats. That is the substance of my objection.

Major de Valera

Deputy Dockrell is probably aware of what led to the introduction of this term but it does not arise and he cannot reopen it. We are strictly confined to the question of tenement houses. The important point in regard to the insertion of the phrase arises really in the definition sub-section, sub-section (3) in the light of which the amendment in sub-section (1) must be read. Clearly whatever type of house or dwelling the provisions of sub-section (1) are to apply to, it is a premises let in parts to form two or more dwellings. After that it is a question of the name you call it. The Minister in the original draft inserted the words "tenement house" which in my submission and in my view would most nearly accord with the ordinary legal phraseology and from the purely legal draftsmanship point of view, was probably the best way. It was pointed out to the Minister in Committee—I think Deputy Dillon was not here at the time.

Mr. Dillon

Troth, I was.

Major de Valera

It was pointed out that there was some difference, that Deputy Dockrell wished to draw a distinction between flats and tenement houses. In that way attention was drawn to the fact that "tenement house" has a more localised popular meaning. It is obviously intended that both types—in other words, any type of premises let in parts like that—have to be captured by the provisions of this section. Therefore, if you are to keep the words "tenement house", used in the popular sense, and if you want to differentiate them from flats, a term will have to be sought to include both. I think it was better drafted as it stood but, if you want to embrace both, some phrase will have to be thought out. I believe "multiple dwelling" is as good as any other.

The essential point to be noted, the point of substance is that the section captures both the tenement house, as colloquially so-called, and the type of house with which we associate a tenement house together with flats; in other words, any house sub-divided between separate tenants and subtenants. Perhaps the amendment is preferable, but I do not see very much difference between them.

Mr. Dillon rose.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Dillon has spoken at length on this matter and I think it rests with the Chair to determine when a matter has been sufficiently discussed. In deference to the Chair, I moved that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of reconsidering certain amendments. It was not necessary to recommit the Bill to consider this particular amendment. I submit, therefore, that the Chair should exercise its powers to ensure that the Bill, having been recommitted, advantage will not be taken of the situation to abuse the privileges of this House.

Mr. Dillon

Imagine the little bumpkin!

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That expression is not quite parliamentary.

Mr. Dillon

Has the Chair heard the observation?

Mr. Briscoe

Everybody heard you.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Dillon is running true to form.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The House heard Deputy Dillon calling the Minister "a little bumpkin".

Mr. Briscoe

Do you deny you said it?

Mr. Dillon

At the request of the Chair I withdraw the remark. I desire to draw attention to the fact that in choosing a word for the purpose of this statute which will identify the most fashionable flats in Pembroke Road with a tenement house in Dominick Street, Lower Gardiner Street or Meath Street, we have lighted upon the delicious euphemism of "multiple dwellings". It has been suggested by the Minister that he might now withdraw this amendment and revert to the words "tenement house". I am all for the Minister withdrawing his amendment. I understood Deputy Dockrell to suggest the use of these words "multiple dwellings" under the impression that a distinction was being made between the luxury flat and the Dominick Street tenement room. The Minister is now emphatic that he does not want to make any distinction, that he never did want to make any distinction but that he thought the words "multiple dwelling" sounded more euphonious in the ear of Deputy Dockrell than "tenement house". Deputy Dockrell and I were both born in Dublin and we are familiar with tenements.

Mr. MacEntee

On a point of order, the Deputy is repeating remarks he has already made.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Dockrell and I have both been born in the City of Dublin and are familiar with the appearance, the aroma and the disgusting inadequacy of tenement houses as housing for the poor.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy is contributing anything new to the discussion. I do not think he is saying anything that he has not said before in the very same form.

Mr. Dillon

I assure you I am. The word "tenement" to us and to anyone who understands the city has always connoted something. The words "multiple dwelling" connote nothing. You do not change bread into cake by calling bread "cake"; you do not change tenement houses into flats by calling them "multiple dwellings". I exhort the Minister to eschew the role of Marie Antoinette, to be a realist for a little while and to withdraw this amendment and restore to its rightful place those words of evil omen, "tenement house", until such time as they cease to exist, not as a result of an obliterating statute but as a result of the provision of adequate houses for those who are festering in the tenement houses. When that is done, there will be no need for euphemisms like multiple dwellings; tenements will be no more than a memory and the flats will be something to which no one can take exception, for which no one ought to be compelled to register at the City Hall, and which the local authority ought not to have power to prohibit. Then the necessity for these sections will disappear and any diminution of the powers of the bureaucrat to regulate them is welcome. I want to see the day speeded when that diminution will take place. I do not want to see the day dawn when we can still our conscience in this House by changing the name to something the existence of which we are ashamed to admit.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 6, line 8, to delete "in their absolute discretion".

This amendment is consequent on the preceding amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 6, line 26, to delete "twelve months after that date" and substitute "such period (not exceeding three years) as the housing authority may determine".

This amendment meets the point raised in Committee by Deputy O'Connor that the annual revision of premises used as a multiple dwelling could be made a triennial revision and this empowers local authorities to give permission to the owners of such a house for three years.

Mr. Dillon

Does this provide that anyone who owns a tenement is excused from an annual examination of the premises which would ensure that it was kept in a reasonable state of repair? At the first flush, the Minister said that it was desirable, at least as far as tenement houses as we commonly understood them were concerned, to have an examination by public officials at annual intervals so as to ensure that the inhabitants would not be unduly exploited.

Mr. MacEntee

It provides nothing of the sort. As the Deputy claimed to be here during the discussion on this particular section he can refer to the report.

Mr. Dillon

If we are going to have impudence, we must resort to the classic method of imposing good behaviour on those who wish to be impudent.

Mr. Briscoe

Is this in order? Several times to-day, while we were discussing this amendment and previous amendments, Deputy Dillon seemed to suggest that any remark made by the Minister with which he did not agree was impudence and I would like to know is it in order for him to say that the Minister is giving impudence when in fact the position is reversed?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon asked the Minister whether certain things applied and the Minister replied that they did not.

Mr. Dillon

I am discussing this question and I intend to discuss it for a considerable time. I have watched carefully the attempts which have been made by means of a series of points of order to get the Chair to prevent me from speaking. It is a perfectly Parliamentary expression to describe the rejoinders of the Minister as impudent.

This amendment is designed to abolish an annual process and to substitute a triennial process. I think that any Deputy of this House on the occasion of such a proposal is entitled to ask the Minister for reassurance that the triennial operation will prove adequate. Prima facie, the fact that the Minister proposed that it should be an annual operation would suggest that when he and his experts examined this matter they made up their minds that an annual operation was necessary. We are entitled to assume that they did not do that for fun, that they did not do it for the pure joy of poking their noses into other people's business, but that they did it because they thought that some public benefit would be gained by making it an annual operation.

Now the Minister says that in deference to Deputy O'Connor's proposal he is bringing in an amendment to make it triennial. Why? Is the triennial proposal sufficient? If it is, why did he propose an annual examination? Surely the Minister has a duty upon him to justify himself if he wants to amend his own proposal. Surely it is not a justification to say that Deputy O'Connor suggested this and that, therefore, this is what we are going to do. Justification is what I am now asking and refusal to give it is impudent.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

I do not know how far we are conducting this discussion with any sense of reality. In regard to the second amendment——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has gone now.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

I know it has gone. I know it is, but the point is that it is boshed. Let us be frank. You have to read it in the light of previous Bills. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 have been passed. "In page 6, line 3"——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Line 8.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

We come down to amendment No. 4 now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has the Deputy got it correctly now?

Mr. Briscoe

Line 26.

Mr. Dillon

The paper says line 21.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is what was already corrected.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

With great respect, I submit that the Chair did not tell us that the rest was all wrong.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair did correct amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

The Chair only corrected amendment No. 2 as far as my theory——

Mr. MacEntee

The Chair is not responsible for the Deputy's theory.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

Leave it to the Minister. Let him hang himself.

Mr. Briscoe

Does the Deputy not know now that it is line 26?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Line 26, page 6 is in the amendment we are now discussing.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

Are there any further alterations?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with amendment No. 4 at the moment.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has brought in a proposal here——

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy has spoken already. I was waiting for Deputy Dockrell to finish to rise.

Mr. Dillon

Rise away.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Dillon thinks that there is no one in the House but himself. He is so used to listening to his own blah-blah.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

No personalities.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Dillon has been getting away with personalities. He has raised a row because on the Committee Stage the Minister for Local Government was considerate enough to listen to arguments against having an annual inspection and for having a triennial inspection. Because he takes notice of reasonable arguments put to him in the House and puts down an amendment, Deputy Dillon finds fault with him. He wants this House to be conducted as a dictatorship. Deputy Cogan asked had we heard of such a person as Hitler. This is a democracy and this is a democratic institution. A previous amendment was made to meet representations made in the House by Deputy Dockrell and this amendment was made to meet representations made by another Deputy, but now Deputy Dillon finds fault and says that he must have an answer. He argued that because an annual inspection was laid down in the Bill as it was originally drafted it should not be altered. I disagree entirely with this point of view and I hope that Ministers will continue to follow suit as the present Minister is doing in being prepared to make reasonable amendments to a Bill as a result of reasoned arguments made to support them.

Major de Valera

I think, perhaps, that I might be able to shed some light on this as I was actively involved in the discussion. The facts are very fully set out in the reports for such Deputies as were not present on the discussion on the amendment in Committee. I, among others, urged the Minister to have the licence in force sine die.

The Minister had his arguments for the section as it stood. Another Deputy suggested a compromise solution. The Minister, having listened very fully to arguments from both sides of the house — and both sides of the House took part in the discussion —said he would consider the matter. He now gives a very middle-way solution. I would still like to have pushed the matter as far as I was pushing it on the first Committee Stage but the Minister had his answers to my argument. He has now tried to meet the situation. From that point of view this amendment seems the most reasonable he could bring in to suit the case. For instance, my objection in connection with the annual licensing is largely answered by this amendment. It also preserves some of the points the Minister himself made in support of his own draft. No further explanation is necessary.

Mr. Sheldon

As the person responsible for handing in the original amendment perhaps I may be allowed to say a word. Deputy Dillon seems to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

He always does.

Mr. Sheldon

I feel it would be unduly harsh on the owners of flats or multiple dwellings to have to go for an annual revision. I suggest that a provision should be inserted to provide for discrimination where a dwelling would obviously not necessitate revision. I am satisfied the Minister has gone a considerable way to meet my point by inserting "such period not exceeding three years", which, of course, is a very different thing to "twelve months after that date". I presume that, in respect of what are strictly tenement houses, a regulation will be made demanding annual revision.

Mr. Dillon

Why do you presume so?

Mr. Sheldon

If Deputy Dillon will now wait until I develop my argument perhaps he will know what I am getting at. My only objection is that there is no provision in this section to enable the Minister to make regulations. I would suggest that the Minister should strengthen the operation of this sub-section, as it would be amended by this amendment, by inserting a new sub-section giving himself power to make regulations. I do not like the idea that it should be left entirely to the housing authority to decide which types of multiple dwellings shall be inspected annually and which trienially.

Mr. MacEntee

Am I concluding, Sir?

Mr. Dillon

No, it was recommitted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is so.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid, Sir, I shall have to ask you to consider the matter. At the request of the Chair and in order to facilitate the work of the House, I pointed out that there was a considerable number of these amendments which it would not be necessary to commit. The Chair suggested that it would be more convenient if we recommitted the Bill in respect of all the amendments so that we should not be moving in and out of Committee. I am sure the Chair will recognise that it might be necessary to go into Committee for the purpose of discussing certain amendments. In view of the fact that the Bill has been recommitted, at the wish of the Chair, and that the Chair has full discretion to bring the debate on any one of these amendments to a close, I am asking you, Sir, to exercise your discretion in that regard and not to permit the debate on these amendments to be unnecessarily prolonged by permitting Deputies to repeat themselves or speak more than once on any amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair, having made a decision to commit all the amendments, cannot at this moment change the procedure. As far as the discussion is concerned, Deputy Dillon has put a question to the Minister that needs to be answered to finish the discussion on this particular amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Dillon was not, I suppose, present during the debate on the Committee Stage of this section. He is definitely well aware, as he has indicated himself, of the circumstances which led to this amendment. I propose to address myself to the point which has been made by Deputy Sheldon.

I do not think it is necessary for me to take power to make regulations under this section. The section was introduced at the urgent request of the housing authorities in the larger boroughs, particularly in the City of Dublin. They wanted to have power to make the annual inspection and to give a yearly permission to allow the house to be let to more than one family, for use in parts as two or more dwellings—a yearly permission. I can meet the case which was made for the better-class flats where such an inspection would be considered by the housing authority to be unnecessary.

Mr. Dillon

We have now all become inflamed with a great solicitude for the flat provider. Poor darling, he is not to be upset by the necessity for an annual registration. You would imagine that these warriors were down-trodden struggling citizens — a gang we know to have bought up a multitude of houses in this city, very largely at scrap prices. They converted these houses into what they called flats and are now squeezing out of the unfortunate families that inhabit the flats immense wealth. That is one class of owner we are considering. The other class is our old friend the tenement owners. A difficulty has been created by the lumping together of these two classes of dwellings. The prior interest is unquestionably the most vulnerable people, and the tenement dwellers are desperately vulnerable. If it is the Minister's policy to lump the flats and the tenements together that is his business, but if they are to be lumped together, then on his head be the inconvenience caused to flat owners. I think the flat owner is getting quite enough out of his flats as it is without showing him any further special consideration.

What I am thinking of is the tenement dweller who is paying 5/- or 6/- per week for the two-pair back because he has no where else to go. The local authority comes in and licenses the tenement house on condition, under sub-section (2) paragraph (a), that the owner carries out repairs and reconditioning. Now, under the Bill as introduced by the Minister, the local authority had a right to go back at the end of the year and, when that tenement owner came for his re-registration, to say: "Show me that you carried out the repairs and the reconditioning that you undertook to carry out when we gave you the registration last January" and, if he has not carried them out, the local authority can proceed to withhold the permission to use the house as a tenement house for the profitable——

Mr. Sheldon

They can still do that.

Mr. Briscoe

It is done by inspection, Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

For the profitable purpose it is intended. What is the object of the triennial inspection? Are not the flat owners, God knows, well enough off as it is? Will it not be an added safeguard to the poor living in tenement houses to have an annual inspection and to have on the 1st January that threat hanging over every tenement owner?

Mr. Sheldon

There is nothing to prevent that.

Mr. Dillon

There is nothing to prevent that, but I want to make it mandatory. If you had lived long enough in this city you would know that the tenement owners of this city pull no little weight. It has been a struggle for the past 50 years—oh, for much longer than that. I remember hearing them talked about when I was a boy. I was born and reared in the city. The Deputy was not. I have heard the problem of how to grapple with the tenement owners discussed long ago. When you tracked the tenement owners down how often did you discover to your amazement who they were? They were quite influential people. If there were an option given to the local authority to examine them only once every three years, or once every year, considering some of the boys I know who own tenement property in this city, it would be a "bould" city manager who would refuse to exercise his discretion and give them a triennial examination instead of an annual one.

Major de Valera

Is this a fair attack on the city manager?

Mr. Briscoe

I am sure the Deputy does not know what he is talking about. He does not know anything about the tenement situation in Dublin.

Mr. Dillon

It makes me laugh, Sir, to look at some of the "tulips" who are lecturing me about tenements in this city. I have forgotten more about the tenement problem in this city than the Deputy ever knew.

Mr. Briscoe

We are attending to it every day of our lives trying to get rid of the slumdom we inherited from the friends of other people.

Mr. Dillon

And one of our methods is to call tenements "multiple dwellings". Over-night the whole problem has disappeared. They are now multiple dwellings.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has already been accepted, Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

I prefer the proposal made by the Minister when he introduced the Bill; that is, that there should be a mandatory annual inspection as a condition of the renewal of the licence. The Minister alleges that he has given way on that to accommodate the flat proprietors. The flat proprietors—what section of this community has grown richer more rapidly than the flat proprietors? Is it not notorious that they have doubled and trebled and quadrupled their incomes in the last few years? Why are we all so solicitous for fear the flat proprietors would be inconvenienced, upset or disturbed? If, in defence of the tenement dweller, we made it mandatory on the licensing of property to have an annual examination I would have been very well prepared to have a distinction made in regard to what is commonly known as flats in one category, on the ground that the tenants of flats are usually fairly prosperous people well able to look after themselves, whereas the tenants of tenement rooms are usually poor people, habitually exploited and peculiarly defenceless.

If that had been practicable I would have been prepared to consent to a triennial examination of flats provided there is an annual examination of the tenement rooms. But, if I am to choose between equating the tenement room to the flat and stipulating for the tenement rooms a mandatory annual inspection because of its aristocratic association in this Bill, and inconveniencing the poor, harassed, distressed flatowner in this city, then I elect for inconveniencing the poor, distressful flat-owner, in order to ensure that the tenement owner will be harassed, disciplined, inspected and compelled to carry out the conditions provided for in his licence; and that we shall continue to harass, control and compel him until such time as we can take appropriate measures to banish his kind for ever from our midst. I exhort the Minister to revert to his own proposal. The House ought to know that the Minister came in here fortified with the advice of people who have been studying the housing problem in this city from the point of view of the exploited tenements. Their preference, born of their experience, was for mandatory annual inspection.

Mr. Briscoe

There is nothing to prevent it at all, and they have it.

Mr. Dillon

There is no power under this Bill to provide for a mandatory annual inspection. There is a permission to have an annual inspection but there is no compulsion to have it. As the Bill first came before us it was a mandatory provision that there should be an annual inspection. Do any Deputies in this House stop to ask themselves why the Minister's advisers stipulated for that? Was it for fun? Was it because their experience of the tenement problem lead them to believe it was necessary? Of course it was because their experience of the tenement problem lead them to believe it was necessary. I do not give a fiddle-de-dee for the flats. Let the people who live in flats look after their own interests. What concern is it of ours? Why should we interfere in their business? I do not give a fiddle-de-dee for flat owners. What business is it of ours? They are well able to look after themselves. My concern is for the tenement dweller and it is the only category of persons provided for in this euphemistic multiple dwelling which ought to concern this House. We have no right to go round as busy-bodies poking our noses into the business of flat holders and flat renters. Let them look after their own business.

Mr. Sheldon

Do you want it every year instead of every three years?

Mr. Dillon

No, I do not. My sole concern is for the tenement room dweller. I do not care a hoot what happens in the flat.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think you are going outside the amendment. It is a very simple one.

Mr. Dillon

The amendment is to substitute a triennial examination for an annual one. I want an annual examination of tenement rooms.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is not that a very simple issue?

Mr. Dillon

God knows, it is; but it throws the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party into hysterics and shrieking rage in order to prevent me saying it. I do not care what device you invent to achieve this end, but you ought to put back the proviso that was in this Bill. I believe that if Deputy O'Connor was responsible for moving the Minister to this change he ought to search his conscience. A change of this kind may be justified in regard to flats, but does Deputy O'Connor honestly say to me that he believes a change of this kind is desirable or good in respect of tenement houses, as he and I understand that term? Does he not agree with me that it would be an immense boon and blessing that every tenement owner in this city should be fixed with notice that, if he wanted to go into that business, he would be faced with the knowledge that he would remain in it only so long as he retained his licence to operate the house as a tenement house, which would be renewable annually and only after inspection? I challenge Deputy O'Connor to say that he does not think that would be a good arrangement. If he does, will he join with me in telling the Minister so?

Deputy O'Connor rose.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment has been discussed sufficiently.

Mr. O'Connor

With regard to the personal insinuations of Deputy Dillon——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think there was anything personal in them.

Mr. Dillon

I assure Deputy O'Connor that I insinuated nothing.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 6, Section 12, after sub-section (5), to insert the following new sub-section:—

(6) A person aggrieved by the refusal of a housing authority to grant permission under sub-section (1) of this section or by a condition attached to the permission may appeal to the Circuit Court, within one month after he has received notice from the housing authority of such refusal or of such condition (as the case may be), or such further time as the court may allow, and the court may—

(a) in the case of an appeal from a refusal to grant permission— dismiss the appeal or order the housing authority to grant permission;

(b) in the case of an appeal relating to a condition attached to the permission—dismiss the appeal or order the housing authority to modify or annul the condition.

This gives the right of appeal to the Circuit Court by a person who feels aggrieved by the refusal of the housing authority to grant permission under sub-section (1) of this section.

Mr. Sheldon

On amendment No. 3 I thought the Minister said it was consequential on something that went before. Do not amendments Nos. 3 and 5 hang together? Is it not rather that No. 5 is consequential on No. 3?

Mr. MacEntee

No. No. 5 is an entirely new provision giving the right of appeal. No. 3 was to delete the words "in their absolute discretion."

Mr. Sheldon

I thought it had some connection with the right of appeal.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I think this amendment was brought in to meet a point raised by Deputy de Valera. The Minister, I think, in his defence of the existing conditions, that the appeal would be to him, mentioned that a person could appeal to him with very little cost. I think that appealing to the court in this case is liable to cost a good deal.

I do not wish in any way to say anything about the Circuit Courts. I am sure they would deal with the matter very fairly, but they would not have the knowledge that the Local Government Department have in dealing with these matters. I would prefer it as it was originally.

Mr. MacEntee

It is rather a pity that Deputy Dockrell and those who take objection to this amendment did not make their objections on the Committee Stage, because, as reported in column 494 of the Official Report, I said the position might be met if we inserted a proviso "that the permission should not be unreasonably refused, and if we were to give to a person who felt that the permission had been unreasonably refused a right of appeal to either the District Court or the Circuit Court. In present circumstances that is as far as we could go to meet the objections raised by Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy de Valera."

Major de Valera

I think the Minister has very fairly met us on that point.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 6:—

In page 6, line 42, to delete "tenement house" and substitute "multiple dwelling".

This is consequential on the amendment which Deputy de Valera thought it might be necessary to make in view of the amendment we were making to Section 11.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 7:—

In page 7, line 10, immediately after "whatsoever" to add, "excluding temporary allowances from any charitable organisation".

This is to meet Deputy Sheldon's point.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. Dillon

On amendment No. 7——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 7 has been agreed to unanimously. There was no objection to it.

Mr. Dillon

I assure you I object.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 8.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 7, Part II, after Section 14, line 27, to insert the following new section:

15.—A housing authority shall have the like powers of making and enforcing by-laws respecting houses containing not more than two rooms and intended or used for occupation by members of the working classes which are occupied by not more than one family as are conferred, under Section 20 of the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, on the local authority of an urban district or town in the case of houses intended or used for occupation by members of the working classes which are let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family and the provisions of the said Section 20 shall have effect as if such by-laws were made under that section.

The object of the amendment is to enable the housing authority to make by-laws with respect to one-roomed or two-roomed houses occupied by single families.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Minister inform us why he deemed it desirable to introduce this provision by way of a new section on the Report Stage rather than on the original Bill? Has something transpired since the original Bill was drafted which made this desirable?

Mr. MacEntee

There was an amendment down for the Committee Stage in the name of Deputy Doyle which this amendment is proposed to meet.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 9:—

In page 7, after Section 15, to insert the following new section:—

16.—(1) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, and subject to regulations made under this section make, out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas, to any person or public utility society erecting one or more than one house, a grant not exceeding the appropriate sum specified in the Third Schedule to this Act if—

(a) erection commenced on or after the 1st day of November, 1945, and is completed on or before the 1st day of April, 1950;

(b) such house or houses complies or comply with the rules set out in the First Schedule to the Act of 1932;

(c) such house or houses was or were not occupied on or before the 1st day of November, 1947;

(d) such house or houses is or are occupied when completed by

(i) in case such house or houses is or are erected by a public utility society—a member of that society,

(ii) in any other case—the person who erected such house.

(2) A grant under this section together with a grant under Section 5 of the Act of 1932 as amended by any subsequent enactment (including this Act) shall not exceed the appropriate sum specified in the Third Schedule to this Act.

(3) The Minister shall not make a grant under this section in respect of a house in respect of which he is prohibited from making a grant under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act of 1932 as amended by Section 4 of the Act of 1937.

(4) The Minister may make regulations for the purposes of this section.

On the Second Reading of the Bill and on the Committee Stage a strong appeal was made from all quarters of the House for making the new housing grant retrospective. This amendment provides that the grants payable to persons and public utility societies for owner occupation will apply to houses commenced on or after 1st November, 1945, but not occupied on 1st November, 1947. I indicated that I would bring in an amendment more or less on these lines but that, in view of the great variety of cases which might have to be covered, I would not propose to give the full amount of the grants originally provided for in the Bill. This amendment accordingly proposes to give grants equivalent to 70 per cent. of the grants originally proposed.

Mr. Cogan

I was one of those who appealed to the Minister to make this grant retrospective. I do not know what the Official Report will convey, but I am not aware that the Minister said that he would give a lesser grant than was provided in the original Bill. There is one point to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention. There appears to be no provision for any improvement of the reconstruction grant.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid that the Deputy has not read the list of amendments.

Mr. Dillon

This is a provision for the payment of moneys for houses built before this Bill is passed. I know it is a very popular position for all sides of the House, but nevertheless I am bound to say that I consider retrospective provisos of that kind to introduce an extremely dangerous principle. If you are going to authorise the whole community to anticipate legislation of this House and to build houses without inspection, authorisation or anything else and then, when a Housing Act is brought in, clamour sufficiently loudly to get the provisions of the Housing Act although they have not manifestly complied with the conditions, you are introducing a principle the end of which I think is extremely hard to foresee. Has it ever happened before? Has this House ever passed a Housing Act which imposed certain preliminary duties on grantees before qualifying for a grant and then inserted a paragraph providing that those who anticipated the Bill and complied with none of the conditions shall get their grant retrospectively in part?

Subject to that note of warning I want to renew to the Minister for Local Government a representation which I made on the Second Stage of the Bill. If we are going to hand out public money to public utility societies, as you are going to do under this amendment, you should be certain that the public utility societies are genuine and that they will honestly serve the individuals whom they purport to serve. I therefore suggest that the Minister should at some stage for the purposes of his Bill and of the housing code generally, declare that the words "public utility societies" will mean societies to be scheduled by him annually as public utility societies in good standing. I know at the present time the surveillance of public societies is the responsibility of another Minister altogether, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I venture to suggest that the approach of that Department to the public utility society problem is entirely remote from what the approach of the Minister for Local Government would be. So far as public utility societies under the sphere of interest of the Minister for Local Government are concerned, they would be mainly of the building society character, which would exist primarily to assist people who require assistance.

The well-established public utility societies of this country, I believe, would regard themselves as trustees with all the liabilities of trustees, morally at least, for their members. But there are societies down the country which to my knowledge have acted with grave impropriety and from which to this day grantees find an interminable difficulty in getting money. I do not want to abolish good work. There may be some good societies in rural Ireland. What I want is that the Minister would conduct an annual survey of the different utility societies and strike out of the annual schedules only such ones as he believes are not performing their duties faithfully. I think that is a reasonable request. I do not believe that there is a Deputy in this House who does not know that is a necessary precaution that should be taken for the protection of the grantees of housing grants down the country. I suggest to the Minister that if he does that, he will do someing really useful to restore confidence in the minds of many people who have at present legitimate grounds for serious apprehension.

Mr. MacEntee

I have nothing further to say except to correct one or two misapprehensions under which Deputy Dillon seems to labour. First of all this is not creating a new precedent so far as housing finance is concerned. It does, in fact, follow the example of the 1924 Act in giving retrospective effect to certain of its provisions in relation to grants. It is giving retrospective recognition to the fact that a great number of people who began to build houses after the 1st November, 1945, met with unexpected difficulties in trying to complete their undertakings. I shall accept Deputy Cogan's statement that I did not precisely state how I was going to deal with the situation but I think if the Deputy reads the statement I made on the matter, as reported in column 570, he will certainly see there that I mentioned a number of considerations, including the fact that building costs in 1945 and 1946 did not show any very great increase over building costs in earlier years. It was only, in fact, in the spring of 1947 that a sharp upward trend in building costs began to manifest itself. No doubt my amendment was meant to be a comprehensive one to deal with the situation but it had to be designed to deal with the general average situation and not with particular cases of extreme hardship. That was quite clear when I said that I would bring in an amendment which I thought would go far to meet that particular situation. I added "at least it will go as far as I am able to go." It seems to me that that was a clear indication of the fact that I was not prepared to go the whole hog and to give everybody who began to build a house after the year 1945, whether he began to build in the beginning of 1945 or in the beginning of 1946, the same consideration as was given in the Bill to those who began to build in November of this year when, in fact, the rise in building costs was substantial and undeniable.

I do not want to follow Deputy Dillon into the question of public utility societies. There is no reason to believe that public utility societies in general are dishonest——

Mr. Dillon

Agreed.

Mr. MacEntee

——or are maladministered.

Mr. Dillon

Agreed.

Mr. MacEntee

——nor were they brought into existence by the Housing Act, 1932, nor was recognition first given to them as house-building agencies in the Act of 1932. There were specific grants for public utility societies in the Act of 1925, and there was no closer supervision exercised over public societies in the year 1925 or in the year 1931 than in the year 1932. There is perhaps closer supervision over them now than ever there was under the régime of our predecessors. In any event, what we have to recognise is that they have performed a very useful function in providing houses for the people. Under the Act of 1932 public utility societies, between them, have built about 16,000 dwellings, and the great majority of them have given satisfaction. Of course, there may have been a few societies which were inefficiently managed, a few societies which were poorly administered, but I have not yet had brought to my notice, by Deputy Dillon or anybody else, a public utility society the officers of which have been guilty of fraud or any criminal misconduct.

Mr. Dillon

I can tell you of one or two in County Louth.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy has that information, he certainly has withheld it from the responsible Minister.

Mr. Dillon

Nonsense, it was dealt with ten years ago.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy has withheld the information from the responsible Minister.

Mr. Dillon

It was dealt with.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy knows of public utility societies, during the period of my tenure of office as Minister for Local Government, which have been badly administered or dishonestly administered, or the officers of which have been guilty of dishonest conduct, all I can say is that he has withheld that information from me.

Mr. Dillon

It was none of your business; it was the business of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. MacEntee

If it was none of my business, the Deputy has made it my business, because there has not been a debate on a Housing Bill over the period during which I have been Minister that the Deputy has not risen to attack the Government by implying that political supporters of the Government have formed themselves into public utility societies, have been facilitated by the Government in doing so, and that in administering these societies they have been guilty of malversation or the criminal conversion of public funds. That has been the common statement of the Deputy upon every Housing Bill that I have handled. Now the Deputy has to admit that he has never brought to my notice any information which he may have in his possession which would enable me to investigate his statement and prove for myself and the House whether it was founded or unfounded.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Is it not a fact that public utility societies, by law, have every year to submit an audited account to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, an account audited by a chartered accountant, and is not that a sufficient check on any irregularities that may arise? So far as I know, public utility societies have performed a very useful function in districts that I know in County Limerick and I resent very strongly any reflections being cast on decent, honourable, upright men by Deputy Dillon, as far as Limerick is concerned. I do not know anything about any other county.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister knows perfectly well that it is no part of the functions of his Department at the present time to supervise or control public utility societies. They come under the control of the Department of Industry and Commerce. My suggestion is a perfectly simple one and it is not made in a vindictive spirit. I do not withdraw one scintilla of what I said about Fianna Fáil clubs being turned into public utility societies.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

It is false.

Mr. Dillon

It is widely done, but this is a matter which I am not interested to pursue at the present moment.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

Why not name them?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

He has not the pluck to do that.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

The Deputy has the shelter of the House if he wishes to do it.

Mr. Dillon

I am dealing with the precautions necessary to ensure that the funds distributed under this Bill will reach the intended beneficiaries.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Chair has been lax in allowing public utility societies to be discussed.

Mr. Dillon

I am not discussing them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The object of this amendment is to define the conditions under which these associations or persons get certain advances.

Mr. Dillon

Surely I am entitled to ask the Minister to take the necessary precautions to ensure that this new section, which deals with grants to persons and public utility societies, will be operated in such a way that the grants will reach the intended beneficiaries? There is no need for Deputies to get hot under their collars. My proposal is that the Minister should schedule the public utility societies.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Why did you not put down an amendment?

Mr. Dillon

I did.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Where is it?

Mr. Dillon

I could not tell you, but it was not passed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The amendment was not discussed.

Mr. Dillon

It was not, and the Deputy knows that quite well. I want the Minister to put the accolade of his approval on it by saying that these societies are well run and are trustworthy bodies. That is all I want him to do and there is no need for Deputies to get vexed. There are a few survivors that are not being properly run and the people who get their grants through them are suffering. I want to see nothing functioning but a well run society and I want the Minister to arrogate to himself this, saying: "The Minister for Industry and Commerce has his own machinery and I do not want to interfere there at all. I want to see that the funds for which I am responsible will be distributed only to public utility societies that I am satisfied are functioning the way I want them to function; that is, for the benefit of their members." Is there anything provocative or criminal in that proposal?

Donnchadh Ó Briain

You have changed your tune.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no amendment to the effect that the Minister should supervise these societies or take power to do so; they are under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Dillon

That is the trouble. I am putting it to the Minister for Local Government that, answering to this House for these moneys, he should take some power to enable him to certify that any money he passes out reaches the people meant to get it. There is no Deputy on the Government Benches who does not know it is necessary, yet for some obscure reason they will not admit that.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I think the Minister has gone a long way to meet the House in this amendment. When the matter was discussed before it was supported from all parts of the House. I do not think Deputy Dillon was present at the time.

Mr. Dillon

Troth I was, and I never thought you would get it.

Mr. T. O'Sullivan

I am satisfied with this amendment, with the exception of one point, and that is paragraph (c), which sets out—"such house or houses was or were not occupied on or before the 1st day of November, 1947." As I mentioned on another occasion, many people, through dire necessity, were compelled to build and even to occupy houses before they were completed. If it is at all possible, and as the Minister has gone so far, I would like him to consider paragraph (c) and see if he could do anything better, though I must admit that he has done very well in regard to houses occupied before they are completed. That is the one point which I would like him to consider.

Mr. Byrne

I would like the Minister to give consideration and add to Section 16:—

"The Minister may with the consent of the Minister for Finance and subject to regulations made under this section, make, out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas, to any person."

I would ask to stop at the word "person". I have an inquiry from a young man which I cannot answer. A young man put down £500 a couple of months ago and entered into a contract with a builder to build a house at a fixed price. This young man, according to his inquiry, is worried whether, under the Minister's powers, the person to get the grant is the young man who ordered the house, but who did not erect it. It says here "erect" and I would like to insert the words "or ordered" after the word "erect". This young man is not a builder, so he will not erect, but he puts his money down and ordered a house through a builder. He is worried whether the builder erecting the house will get the grant rather than himself. I would like to have the matter cleared up. Judging the paragraph as it reads might lead to a legal decision, if the Minister did not say which he means to get the grant.

Mr. MacEntee

He is erecting it, for the purpose of the section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 10:—

In page 7, after Section 15 to insert the following new section:—

"A grant payable, under paragraph (h) of subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Act of 1932, to a person reconstructing a house may be increased to £60 where—

(a) the person applied for the grant before the 1st day of November, 1947, and

(b) the reconstruction of the house was commenced but not completed before the 1st day of November, 1947."

This deals with reconstructions and gives an increased grant for houses where reconstruction was begun subsequent to the 1st of November and not yet completed.

Amendment agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is Deputy Sheldon moving his amendment?

Mr. Sheldon

No.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 8, lines 14 to 17, to delete paragraph (c) and substitute the following:—

(c) the person erecting the house undertakes with the housing authority that, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by regulations made under this section, he will not sell the house and that he will let the house subject to such conditions as may be so prescribed.

This is to meet the case of a person who owns a house which is let and to let him dispose of his interests without converting the house into an owneroccupied house.

Mr. Sheldon

Would the Minister reassure me that in covering that he is covering the point which I was attempting to make by inserting "without the permission of the Minister and the housing authority"? I put that down on Committee and I was not here to move it. I think that it would more or less cover any cases of hardship which might arise. The difficulty would be that where there is an absolute prohibition to sell, cases of hardship might arise and even the Minister, with the best will in the world, could do nothing about it. I think that the hardship that might arise if there was absolute prohibition to sell could be got round.

Mr. MacEntee

I think that we could frame a regulation under this section as now amended to cover cases of hardship, but I wish to make this quite clear: we desire to exclude any possibility of a house which was let to a tenant being converted into an owner-occupied house.

I am quite prepared to allow a landlord to sell his interest in a house provided that the house remains a tenanted house and the main object of the regulations is to enable that to be done. I do not say that we could not frame a regulation to deal with cases of hardship; I would like to hear further argument on the question out I am not prepared to do it on this Bill. I think that there is something to be said for the point of view that Deputy Sheldon has put and it might encourage people to build houses if they felt that they could get rid of them if the necessity arose. On the other hand, we are not anxious to do anything which might reduce the pool of houses for letting.

Mr. Sheldon

I agree with the Minister and that is why I suggest that the permission of both the Minister and the housing authority would have to be obtained. I thought that would be a pretty sufficient safeguard and I could not imagine anyone codding both the housing authority and the Minister. I think that when the Minister looks into it he could frame a regulation to cover cases of severe hardship.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not prepared to say that I could not.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 13:—

In page 9, after Section 17, to insert the following new section:

(1) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, and subject to regulations made under this section make, out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachas, to any public utility society erecting one or more than one house for occupation by a person of the working classes or an agricultural labourer, a grant not exceeding the appropriate sum specified in the Sixth Schedule to this Act, if—

(a) erection commenced on or after the 1st day of November, 1945, and is completed on or before the 1st day of April, 1950; and,

(b) such house or houses complies or comply with the rules set forth in the First Schedule to the Act of 1932; and

(c) such house or houses was or were not occupied before the 1st day of November, 1947; and

(d) such public utility society undertakes with the Minister that such society will not sell such house or houses and will let such house or houses only at such rent and subject to such conditions as may be approved by the Minister.

(2) A housing authority shall, subject to regulations made under this section, make, to any public utility society erecting one or more than one house in respect of which a grant is made by the Minister under sub-section (1) of this section a grant in money not exceeding the appropriate sum specified in the Sixth Schedule to this Act.

(3) For the purpose of making a grant under sub-section (2) of this section a housing authority shall have the like powers of borrowing money as if the houses in respect of which the grants are made were erected by them under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts or the Labourers Acts.

(4) The Minister may make regulations for the purposes of this section.

Mr. Byrne

While I agree with the spirit of this, I would like a little matter cleared up for the benefit of public utility societies. Would not the Minister think it advisable to put in a period of years, 21 years if he likes? Suppose that the finances of a public utility society went a little wrong, as they have done on one or two occasions, and they wanted to raise a mortgage on the houses in order to continue their activities. I would ask the Minister to consider how this amendment will affect the finances of public utility societies if they want to enlarge on their operations or want to raise money through a bank with the house as a security.

Then you have a subscriber living in a house for a number of years who wishes to pay off what is due. Will the Minister consider allowing him to do this if he improves his position and wishes to have his house a little cheaper for his growing family?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not propose to relax the terms of this section in any way. If a public utility society wants to raise additional sums I suppose that they could get the bank to lend to them on the security of the houses even if the houses were let. If a public utility society wants to build houses for sale they can do so and get a grant under another section but not under this section.

Mr. Byrne

Would it debar them from raising money on property in hand?

Mr. MacEntee

There is nothing to debar them if they can get anybody to give it to them.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

They could raise it on the rent.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 13A:—

In page 10, line 13, to delete "four" and to substitute therefor "five".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 14:—

In page 10, to delete lines 14 to 19, and substitute the following:—

(1) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make out of moneys to be provided by the Oireachtas grants to a housing authority providing houses for occupation by persons of a class specified in regulations made under paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of section 25 of this Act, but no such grant shall exceed £250 in respect of each separate dwelling (whether a house or part of a house) so provided.

The object of this amendment is to meet a point raised by Deputy Doyle that local authorities should have power to provide reserved flats, as well as reserved houses, for recently married couples or persons about to marry.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 14A:—

In page 10, lines 21 and 22, to delete "two hundred and seventy-five" and to substitute therefor "three hundred and forty-five".

This amendment is consequential on the amendment in Section 26 which was passed in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 15:—

In page 14, to delete Section 35, lines 15 to 19, and substitute the following:—

(1) Sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Act of 1899, is hereby amended by the substitution for the words "and not reimbursed by the receipts under this Act" of the following—"because of the default of persons, to whom advances have been made, to repay instalments of principal or interest on such advances."

(2) Sub-section (1) of this section shall have and be deemed to have had effect as on and from the 1st day of January, 1942.

This amendment modifies the meaning of the term "expenses" in sub-section (4) of Section 9 of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, 1899. The term will now mean in effect, arrears of principal and interest due by borrowers from local authorities under the Acts. The amendment is essential in order to make the Acts operative again.

Mr. Byrne

Have we passed Section 19?

An Ceann Comhairle

We do not deal with sections, Deputy. They are passed.

Mr. Byrne

The amendment—are we on Section 19 now?

An Ceann Comhairle

We are on amendment No. 16, but we are not on any section.

Mr. Byrne

It is on Section 19?

An Ceann Comhairle

No section. It is not committee therefore we do not deal with sections.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 16:—

In page 18, First Schedule, third column, at the reference to "The Labourers Act, 1906", to insert "12" immediately after "10".

This amendment is necessary in view of the proposed removal of the rating limits for rural housing purposes imposed by the Labourers Act of 1883 as amended by the Housing Act of 1931.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 17:—

In page 19, after the Second Schedule, to insert the following new Schedule:—

THIRD SCHEDULE.

GRANTS TO BE MADE BY THE MINISTER IN CERTAIN CASES——

Person to whom grants will be made by the Minister	Where sewerage and piped water supply are not available	Where sewerage and piped water supply are available
	Number of rooms in house	Number of rooms in house
	3	4	5	3	4	5
			or more			or more
	£	£	£	£	£	£
Person erecting house for own occupation	87.10	122.10	157.10	122.10	157.10	192.10
Public utility society building house for occupation by member	94.10	129.10	164.10	129.10	164.10	199.10

This sets out the maximum grants payable under the new Section 16.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 18:—

In page 19 to add at the end the following new Schedule:—

SIXTH SCHEDULE.

GRANTS TO BE MADE BY THE MINISTER AND BY HOUSING AUTHORITIES IN CERTAIN CASES——

Type of House	Maximum grant by Minister	Maximum grant by Housing Authority
	£	£
House with three rooms	105	52.10
House with four rooms	149	70
House with five or more rooms	175	87.10

This sets out the maximum grants payable under the new Section 17, which provides for retrospective operation of the grants to public utility societies building houses for letting.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill reported, with amendments.

Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.