Deputy Molloy gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Questions Nos. 10 and 11 which appeared on today's Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate: Building Materials Standard.
Questions Nos. 10 and 11 which I had down to the Minister for Local Government today were as follows:
10. To ask the Minister for Local Government the schemes in the guaranteed order project in which structural defects are alleged to have occurred; and in respect of each scheme if he will give (a) particulars of the defects (b) the date on which the final account was settled and (c) whether the defects were remedied before settlement of the final account.
11. To ask the Minister for Local Government if he will give particulars of directions issued to the effect that cheap materials or inferior standards of construction were to be used in the building of any local authority dwellings.
The Minister for Local Government has repeated on numerous occasions over the past 18 months allegations that instructions were issued by me, while Minister for Local Government, that cheap materials and inferior standards of construction were to be used in the building of local authority houses under the guaranteed order project and executed by the National Building Agency. My questions today were placed on the Order Paper for the sole purpose of exposing this falsehood once and for all. This I have succeeded in doing as, in the Minister's lengthy reply—containing, as it does, so much "bull"—the truth shines out bright and clear in the very last line of his reply which stated:
...no specific directions were given about the use of any particular cheap materials, or any specific inferior standards of construction.
Attached to the reply is a list of schemes and details of minor defects, all of which have been attended to within the maintenance period order or are being attended to. The list is a familiar one to any person ever associated with the construction of houses, and their rectification is guaranteed through the use of the retention of the money clause in the contracts.
Those who have ever had the responsibility of spending the public's money have a duty also to see that they get good value for it. On this question of value for money I want to nail down one falsehood which the Minister has been propagating. He has alleged that the primary object of the guaranteed order project was to pare down housing costs to a minimum by reducing housing standards of construction and accommodation. For detailed information about these objectives and the standards of accommodation provided, I would refer Deputies to the annual reports issued by the National Building Agency, which body was responsible for carrying out the project. In pages 11 and 12 of the 1972 report one finds the agency's general evaluation of the project, and I quote:
Apart from cost savings in high cost areas, the objectives of the Minister for Local Government in setting up the Project included greater general efficiency in the use of capital resources, better organisation and wider distribution of overheads in the building industry, guaranteed output and greater stability for firms and workers. The Project was also designed to encourage an open-minded attitude to new materials, techniques and new forms of construction generally and to secure a high standard of finished dwellings, the elimination of delays in the planning and execution of housing schemes and the development of an overall flexible method of housebuilding which can readily respond to periodical demands that may arise for a greater volume of production either nationally or locally.
In general, proposals accepted under the Project are based on housing standards equal to or better than existing local authority standards and contain many different forms of construction ranging from traditional type of dwellings to a variety of forms of prefabrication. The project is an ongoing one and new names are added to the firms short-listed by the Department of Local Government according as their negotiations result in acceptable proposals. Proposals for the use of new designs, materials or building methods which offer prospects of economies in cost combined with structural acceptability are welcomed at all times by the Department.
The agency has developed a specialised service to carry our work under the Project, and for this purpose has engaged the services of highly qualified architectural staff and teams of consultants who have special experience of local authority housing design and construction problems. It is this special service which has enabled such a large programme to be mounted, and the first houses under it completed, in a remarkably short time.
Accepting that in any new programme, problems are bound to arise, the Agency is confident that its special service under the Project will help to overcome such problems and give a fast and efficient service to housing authorities. The quality of the design resources available to the Agency should ensure also that their schemes are of the highest design standards.
That report and its evaluation of the guaranteed order project speaks for itself. There is very little I need add to it. Let me add that that report was not written by me. That report was presented to me by the chairman and directors of the National Building Agency—Mr. Shane O'Hanlon, chairman, also assistant secretary in the Department of Local Government in charge of housing; Mr. J. B. Mckenna, then and still a director, as is Mr. O'Hanlon, Mr. H. B. Clerkin, then the technical director in the National Building Agency and since appointed managing director of the National Building Agency, by the Minister for Local Government, with substantial remuneration.
On the question of accommodation, I would refer Deputies to pages 11 and 17 of the 1971 report which contains plans of the house designs provided by four of the major contractors engaged in the project. The plans are there for any Deputy who wants to check them out—for five different types of 3-bedroomed houses, for two types of 4-bedroomed houses and one for old persons, all of which are illustrated. The accommodation in the 3-bedroomed houses measures 765, 819, 843, 852 and 855 square feet and, in the four-bedroomed houses, 892 and 940 square feet.
If the Minister is refuting the statement in the agency's report that these standards are equal to or better than existing local authority standards, perhaps he would give details of the standards of accommodation generally provided in local authority houses. The allegation that the objective of the project was to achieve economies by reducing standards of construction is a flat contradiction of the statement which I have just quoted from the agency's report—that the project was designed to secure a high standard of finished dwellings and that, in general, proposals accepted under the project are based on housing standards equal to or better than existing local authority standards. I leave Deputies to decide for themselves which version is correct.
Perhaps I may quote from The Sunday Press of April 21st, 1974 in an article entitled “That NBA Housing Row”, subtitled “Low Cost Problems”, where it said:
Mr. Shane O'Hanlon, NBA chairman, and assistant secretary of the Department of Local Government, explained last week that these were the Department's minimum acceptable standards—i.e., the standards below which local authorities were directed not to go. He added that these minimum standards are above the normal standards in many European countries, even in private housing.
That was Mr. O'Hanlon's opinion. He presented the report to me at that time on the work of the National Building Agency. He has been reappointed as chairman of the National Building Agency by the Minister who, by so doing, endorses confidence in the work Mr. O'Hanlon had done before that time.
I have inspected schemes of houses provided by the principal contractors under the project at Galway, Clondalkin, Finglas Valley and I have spoken to a large number of tenants in those schemes. From what I saw and from my talks with the tenants I am satisfied that not only is the Minister uttering falsehoods about the objectives of the project but that he is uttering even greater falsehoods about the finished scheme.
No Member may impute deliberate falsehoods to another in this House. If that is what the Deputy is doing he must withdraw his remarks.
I am saying that the Minister's statements have not been true. It is not my fault if he persists in malicious propaganda and in disgracing himself by making wild and unsupportable statements about the work of the builders, the designers and the supervisors of this project. My job is to tell the truth and anybody else who wishes to make a liar of himself is welcome to do so. As every Deputy knows, all public works are carried out in accordance with plans and specifications which form the contract documents and it is within the legal responsibility of the architect to ensure that contracts are carried out in accordance with the contract documents. Without producing the slightest evidence the Minister is alleging that the specifications for schemes in this project provide for the use of inferior materials and for the acceptance of sub-standard work leading to structural defects. This is a deliberate untruth and a gross reflection on the work of everybody concerned in the project, particularly the professional officers.
The Deputy is aware that it is disorderly to attitude a deliberate untruth to a Member of the House. That must be withdrawn.
It is an untruth and is a deliberate attempt to cast reflection——
Is the Deputy seeking to defy the ruling of the Chair?
I am saying that what the Minister said was untrue. If the Chair wishes to use my 20 minutes——
The Chair is ruling on a disorderly remark which has been repeated on a number of occasions. It is disorderly to attribute a falsehood to a Member of this House or to state that a Member was a liar or was telling an untruth.
If I am not allowed to say that in my opinion the Minister is uttering an untruth, it is not possible for me to stand up here and speak with an honest mind. Not only is the Minister doing that but he is casting a gross reflection on the work of everybody concerned in this project, particularly the professional officers. It used be the position that civil servants avoided public discussion about ministerial policies, past or present. If statements had to be issued about matters of current interest, they were issued usually by anonymous spokesmen. This arrangement had obvious advantages for both sides. Apparently, this procedure has changed now and some civil servants in the Department of Local Government who, also, are directors of the NBA——
I am not prepared to allow the Deputy attack further civil servants in my Department.
Statements have been made and quoted in the newspapers and on radio as emanating from spokesmen for the NBA who are civil servants in the Minister's Department.
The Minister will accept responsibility. The Deputy knows well that he should not reflect on civil servants. He cannot be allowed to do so in this House.
If I am not allowed to answer allegations that have been made by civil servants——
In a situation of privilege the Deputy may not attack persons who are outside this House and who are unable to defend themselves.
If that is to be the attitude of the Chair I shall conclude by handing the remainder of my speech to the representatives of the Press in this House. I have no wish to tackle anyone on unfair grounds.
Let the Deputy be careful lest he be guilty of a breach of privilege.
I consider this to be an interference with my right to stand up here where each Member is answerable primarily for the work he did, whether in a Department as Minister or as an elected Deputy. This is the fairest place for me to defend the work I did during my time in the Department but if, in the opinion of the Chair I cannot do so and if I am restricted in my comments because of certain persons not having the right to reply here, I shall conclude at this point and hand the remainder of my statement to the Press.
The Deputy knows that it is a long standing convention of this House that outsiders are not attacked. The Deputy may blame the Minister but not the Minister's officials.
I have nothing further to add other than to say that the reply given here today by the Minister was a disgrace, that there was an implication in it but the truth shone in the last line and the Minister could not avoid putting in that line because whatever else may have been attempted, the truth could not be denied.
I have been listening to Deputy Molloy acting the fool in this House and attempting to distort facts. We have now been subjected to a further exhibition of the bad manners of the Deputy who not only has been contemptuous of the Chair but has done something which nobody with any decency would attempt to do, that is, attack the civil servants who, unfortunately, worked with him during his period as Minister. That is something that must not be allowed in this House under any circumstances and on any occasion on which it is attempted I shall do my best to defend the officials concerned. These are decent public officials who, at all times, carried out their work in what they considered to be the best interests of the country. It is outrageous that this attack should have been made on them. It is obvious that Deputy Molloy had no case and, realising that, he decided to walk out.
Hear, hear.
The position is that I gave a reply to the Deputy today to a number of questions he had tabled. The questions related to whether the low-cost housing scheme introduced during his term as Minister required numerous repairs. I listed both the schemes and the repairs that were required. Tenants of these schemes and, indeed, the tenants of some of the schemes completed before the ones in question, will confirm that the schemes were badly built as a result of instructions given by the then Minister for Local Government and that is something from which Deputy Molloy cannot get away.
At the opening of a scheme of 50 Dublin Corporation flats, at Upper Dorset Street, on 27th August, 1970, the then Minister said:
I am prepared to consider proposals for dwellings which might have a shorter life than those provided by traditional methods.
The attitude was that since only working class people would be living in the houses, the standard could be reduced. At the opening of the D. O'Malley Park and Kincora Park housing schemes at Limerick on the 7th September, 1970, Deputy Molloy spoke of an examination that was being carried out into the methods of building by the use of rationalised components in traditional building and he said:
This examination will include an investigation of the possibility of using dwellings having a shorter life than our traditional dwellings. Substantial savings on current building costs must be made. The country simply cannot afford houses at their present prices nor can families in urgent need of housing wait until the country can afford such prices.
That was the considered opinion of the then Minister for Local Government in 1970. At the opening of 153 houses at Dundalk on 27th January, 1971, Deputy Molloy said:
This is why I am paying particular attention in the new project which I have initiated in my Department for low cost housing to the environment....
and he spoke of the concept of securing significant cost economies.
In the Estimates debate in the Dáil on 27th May, 1971, the then Minister said at column 433, volume 254:
In inviting building interests to put before me proposals for low-cost housing I had hoped that some radical new ideas might be forthcoming. As I mentioned, one of my aims in launching the project was to encourage proposals for buildings with a probable life span shorter than that accepted for traditional housing, provided that proportional savings in cost could be anticipated. The response in this respect has been disappointing, possibly because a reduction in the probable life span of building seems, in the eyes of builders, to imply an undue lowering of standards and increased difficulties, first in obtaining a satisfactory finish to houses and subsequently in remedying any defects arising.
How right were the builders. They knew their job. They knew that what the Fianna Fáil Government and their Minister for Local Government wanted was a house that could be built cheaply for people who were only working class.
During an inspection of work in progress on schemes at Clondalkin, Tallaght and Lucan on 23rd November, 1971, the then Minister said:
The new procedures entailed by the project have certain disabilities and I have no intention of glossing over these. Some people, for example, have been worried by the term "low-cost" ...Some local authorities have assumed that the idea was to produce cheap and substandard dwellings.
Of course, the local authorities were right in so assuming.
At the annual dinner of the Master Builders Association on 24th November, 1971, Deputy Molloy said:
The response to my invitation did not produce satisfactory proposals for low-cost housing dwelling units having a shorter life expectancy than that normally acceptable for dwellings but which can be built cheaply and quickly.
In a circular from the Department to county managers dated 31st July, 1970, it was stated that:
The Minister has asked that the investigation should include an examination of the possibility of using, within the housing programme, dwelling units which would have a shorter life than traditional dwellings being erected by local authorities at the present time, due regard being had to the maintenance factor.
Further in that circular there is the comment and I quote:
These economies have not, however, made a sufficient impact on the rising costs of building local authority dwellings. He thinks, therefore that a more radical approach must be tried to see whether significant economies can be achieved in the manner now proposed.
It was a question of building the houses as cheaply as possible, using the cheapest materials in an effort to keep prices down. The attitude was that Fianna Fáil wanted houses; they would be out of office in any event by the time all the houses were built.
The Minister sent a memo to the Government in March, 1971, in which he said:
Arising out of discussions between the Ministers for Finance and Local Government about the need for introducing capital cost economies in the housing programme, the Minister for Local Government, in August 1970, invited manufacturers and contractors to submit for his consideration proposals for dwellings of acceptable standard which would offer significant savings on the basis of substantial guaranteed orders over a period of three to five years.
So was born the guaranteed order project which guaranteed certain builders an enormous number of these cheap houses. The former Minister for Finance stated that he had seen when he was in Industry and Commerce various proposals for non-traditional houses, some of which were of the type which could be packed in boxes and erected in a very short time and he thought they should be used. The houses looked just like the boxes in which Deputy Colley saw them packed and now he can see them all over the place. I do not want to bore the House with a continuation of this but all the time it was a question of trying to have cheaper houses built.
Deputy Molloy referred to the size of the houses. He seems to have forgotten he issued specific instructions to the county managers that the houses should be smaller, that the height of the ceiling should be reduced to eight feet and that the windows should be smaller. Later on he came forward with his gem that there should be no fireplaces and he put in central heating. I do not know where it would have finished if the people had not put Fianna Fáil out of office. They would be building dog kennels, trying to persuade unfortunate people they were lucky to get such houses.
While this was going on the cost of the houses to the tenants was being increased. Because of the direct intervention of Ministers on the instruction of their Government houses were built in the cheapest possible way. The phraseology used in a number of circulars was, "the biggest number of houses within the amount of money available". Apparently it was decided by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government that too much money was being spent in working-class houses.
The instruction was that cheaper houses should be built. There were to be no back entrances; the houses were to be built in terraces; there were to be no side entrances; no front walls, or if they had to be built they were to be as low as possible. People who badly need houses are glad to get new houses; it is only when they get possession that they realise what is wrong. As a result of the policy of the Minister, a bag of coal or a barrow of manure had to be delivered to the front door because there were no back entrances.
Perhaps Deputy Molloy, who was in such a rush out of here tonight, has never had the pleasure of living in a local authority house. People who live in these houses are very decent people and are extremely houseproud. When they get a house they paper the walls and the hall and they put carpets on the floor. It is too bad to ask them to accept that they must have the bag of coal carried through the house on a wet day when it may spill on the floor or rub against the walls or have the barrow of manure wheeled over their carpet. This is what Deputy Molloy's Government wanted to do and it is what we stopped.
There will be no more such houses. The houses built now are decent ones. They have fireplaces, they have back entrances or side entrances. There is no question of houses being built without a wall in front of the garden. If Deputy Molloy has spare time perhaps he would walk round some of the new housing schemes being built by this Government. Maybe I should not have allowed it to happen but because a number of schemes had been planned and had been started when I came into office I had to allow them to be finished in the condition in which they were. I am sorry now I did not stop some of them because when one sees them completed one realises it is unfair to ask people to rear families in them. They are not proper houses.
There is a list of matters in the reply I gave Deputy Molloy today which shows what can happen when substandard houses are built. I agree the builders are being asked to repair them. In most cases, because the builders want to stay in business, they will carry out certain repairs but the houses will never be suitable. Even before all this started, there were also the houses that caused all the trouble to tenants in Cork, one scheme in Drogheda and schemes around this city. These houses are a disgrace to any Government responsible for their erection.
Yet Deputy Molloy has the audacity to come in here and accuse me of telling lies. If we want to know who is telling lies and who is telling the truth the records will show the facts. Anyone who wants to find out the situation before the change of Government and since I got control of the Department of Local Government can see who wanted the bad housing schemes and was prepared to stand over them. They need not go any further than reading the records.
I am appalled that a former Minister should come in here and, not for the first time, attempt to belittle the officials of the Department of Local Government. When I was in Opposition, and now in Government, I always defended the employees of the State. I believe the officials of the Department of Local Government are the finest officials in the country. I believe that civil servants here have a higher standard than in any other country I know. It ill befits a former Minister to try to belittle them. What they did when he was Minister was what he told them to do. What they are doing now is what I tell them to do. I am proud of what they are doing; it is rather a pity Deputy Molloy cannot be as proud of what they did in his time.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 31st October, 1974.