This Bill is recommitted for the consideration of Sections 6, 11, and 12.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL, 1926 (RECOMMITTED).
CATHAOIRLEACH
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I move:
"To reinsert in the section, sub-section (5), which sub-section was deleted in Committee."
This proposal follows from an amendment which Senator Linehan induced the Seanad, and quite justifiably, to pass the other day. Since then we have all considered this matter. We have had the advantage of a very full exposition of the situation from the Minister for Local Government, and the conclusion I, and probably many other members of the Seanad, have come to is that in agreeing to Senator Linehan's proposal we made a mistake. Probably Senator Linehan himself will agree now that his proposal would not carry out what he wanted. The sub-sections that I move to reinstate propose to alter the mechanical process by which the agricultural grant is now directed to its proper purposes. The original proposal in the Bill was for the purpose of improving and amending the technical process by which this was done. There was no intention, I am quite certain, to make a change in the destination of the grant. All these matters of local rating are complicated, and if I went into them in detail a too voluminous explanation would be required. But I would like to give the Seanad a very short sketch as to how the thing is arrived at. The process that has been in operation in county councils heretofore, and which is not really interfered with in principle by this Bill, is as follows: The secretary and the chairman of the county council come together, make up their budget and decide upon the probable expenditure of the county. The next step is to apportion that expenditure on the valuation of the county between the land that is available for the agricultural grant and the other hereditaments. Then the full amount of the grant or grants for the county is deducted from the expenditure.
What is left us then is the net charge on agricultural land. When the rate in the pound is worked out each farmer knows the amount he pays on his land. There are rates on agricultural land and on other hereditaments. As the section originally stood only one rate would be made on all hereditaments and every occupier of agricultural land would receive his full abatement in respect of the agricultural grant. The change proposed in the section is really one of procedure. It does not affect the incidence or the amount of the agricultural grant, or the revision of the various agricultural holdings in the smallest degree whatever.
Sub-section (4) of the section now stands because Senator Linehan's second amendment was defeated with the sub-section provided for the raising of one rate on all hereditaments, lands or otherwise. Then we deleted the following sub-sections which secured the relief to holders of agricultural land, and we have succeeded in defeating our own purpose. What is wanted is to secure to the agricultural holders their right to the full amount of their agricultural grants. The effect of sub-section (4) with sub-sections (5) and (6) would be that in future the grant would be treated as any other receipt of the county and its benefits would be spread over all the hereditaments included—that is, which are not agricultural land; so that in our endeavour to secure the agricultural grant to agricultural land, we have succeeded in doing exactly the opposite. Sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) are the only parts of the section that make any change in existing law and the amount of that change is merely this: Senator Linehan told us his object was quite different from what we have succeeded in accomplishing. In his view the amount of the agricultural grant allotted to each union in 1898 in relieving expenditure should be for ever stereotyped. Since the original Local Government Act several others have been passed. We passed two in this House and we rearranged our whole structure of local administration. We cannot go back to the arrangements made to carry out the original Act.
Members of the Seanad who are interested in local administration read that interesting proposal submitted to us some months ago, by the Minister for Local Government in relation to the apportionment of the rates and I think, possibly, that if that arrangement had been borne in mind we would never have agreed to make the change Senator Linehan proposed the other day. This new arrangement, approved of in this Bill, was the result of collaboration between officials of the Local Government Ministry and the secretaries of the various county councils. They hit upon this scheme of making a new system which would ensure that the agricultural grant, to its last penny, was devoted to the purpose for which it was intended, and which would make for a considerable diminution in book-keeping and the cost of administration of local affairs. Senators are probably aware how the thing is worked out. Every holding in a county, with its description, valuation and the name of the occupier, is entered in a book called the rate book. The amount payable out of each holding is calculated by the officers of the county council and entered in their book in another column and the result of these deliberations in book-keeping are copied out in the demand notes. You can quite imagine that this process takes a good deal of time and costs a considerable amount of money because every single entry that is made, the result of which appears in the demand note, has to be checked and certified so that there shall be no mistake about it. The object of the change, which is approved of in this case, is to reduce the number of calculations. There are separate applotments on each holding and each of these applotments is made on a different valuation. First there is a general rate on the valuation of the other hereditaments. Then you have the general rate on agricultural land and further rates for separate charges; all these things are very intricate. Under the proposed method the rates are made on the total valuation of the holding and can be added together. Then you calculate the abatement for the agricultural grant and the result of that is that you have exactly the amount a man has to pay.
The maximum number of separate calculations under the new programme will only be two. That makes a tremendous difference, and in the new rate books prepared for that purpose according to Section 6 there will be only 19 columns, whereas in the old days there used to be 29. That reduction of ten columns means a considerable improvement and also a saving in expenses. Under the new system you can show a single rate for each holding, and, as you get experience as to how this system works, you may be able to reduce very much the cost of collection of rates and the cost of book-keeping to the county councils. I would remind the Seanad that these new proposals which Senator Linehan succeeded in knocking on the head are the result of consultations between the Local Government Ministry and the representative officials of the county councils throughout the country. There is no doubt that they would help in the administration of local affairs and would reduce expenditure, and to that extent they would be a considerable boon to ratepayers. We are all anxious to reduce the cost of local administration, and this is a very good opportunity of doing so in a very appreciable degree. It is not as if we were slurring things over and making things easy for bad accountancy. We are, as a matter of fact, assisting efficiency. There is no reason why you should have all those small items printed over and over again in the rate books, thus making it difficult for the ratepayers to understand. After all, the Local Government Auditor is your sheet anchor in this respect and he will see that these accounts are properly kept. I therefore move the reinstatement of sub-section (5) in the section.
It is quite clear that the majority of the Seanad when they voted for Senator Linehan's amendment the other day did not quite understand the effect of what they were doing. The matter is complicated, but it is not nearly so complicated as it sounds. Before the Local Government Act of 1923 there were three different kinds of rating authorities in each county. There was the county council, the rural district council and the union, each of which had to deal with charges which were charges on its own area. The county council dealt with charges on the county at large. The rural district council dealt with purely rural district charges, and the union with purely union charges. The agricultural grant, which was made for the relief of agricultural land, gave relief in each of these areas under a system which worked all right so long as these areas were separate. Sometimes it worked curiously, but it is not necessary to go into that now. By the Act of 1923 the union was abolished, and the charges which had formerly been union charges became county charges.
Under the Act of 1925 the rural district councils were abolished and the charges which were formerly raised and expended by rural councils were made county charges. Therefore, since the Act of 1923 all these charges have become county charges. All the expenditure is done by the county council, and it is only right and equitable that the relief given by the agricultural grant should be spread over the whole area now charged with these services. That is what is being done under this Bill. It is perfectly equitable. The charges are all county charges, and relief is given to everybody according to rating, and it is only right that persons should get relief from the agricultural grant in the same way as they have to pay for expenditure. This is more than equitable; it is economic. Often things which are equitable are not economic. This is economic. All that it does is to provide that the present method of applotting rates and working out of relief on agricultural land shall cease to operate, and that this new system, which will mean a saving of something like £30,000 a year to the country, shall operate. I would seriously ask the Seanad not to adhere to the opinion expressed the other day that Senator Linehan's amendment was a proper one.
I wish to emphasise the fact that the decision of the Seanad to delete this sub-section on the last day was come to on arguments put forward by me, and I contend that they have been fully borne out. My contention was, and it is not denied, that a serious change was made in the agricultural grant allotted to each rural district by making the grant a county-at-large grant. The Minister admits that when he says, in effect, that the changes that have taken place recently in local government legislation have given to districts which have been deprived of portion of their agricultural grant other benefits which equalised the position. I think that fairly meets the point at issue here. Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde stated that there was no change in the distribution or in the amount of the grant. I do not think that the ratepayers who find their agricultural grant reduced will agree with that statement.
It is also contended that the saving that will be effected in the making out of the rates will be sufficient compensation for the ratepayers whose grant has been reduced. The Minister has estimated the amount of the saving at £30,000. I should like to know how that was made up. In my opinion, the agricultural grant should not be touched. When those other changes were being made in the Local Government Act of 1925 was the time to come forward with any proposal to alter the incidence of the agricultural grant. That was not done. Instead of that the Minister has made an Order, which I am informed has the force of law, distributing the agricultural grant in the same manner as he proposes to do by these two sections that it is now proposed to reinsert in the Bill. If the Minister has already power to do what he wants in that regard, what is the necessity of bringing forward these two sections? In my opinion, he wants to get the approval of the Seanad to his action in dealing as he has with the agricultural grant during the past two years.
As I said on the last occasion, the agricultural grant and the rates in force in the standard year have formed the basis of the judicial rents that were subsequently fixed. I will read the section which bears out my contention— Section 55 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898:
"A fair rent in a rural district shall be fixed under the Land Law (Ireland) Acts on the assumption that there has been no decrease or increase of the rate in the pound of poor rate as compared with the total rate in the pound to which the standard rates for poor rate and county cess as certified under this Act, when added together, amount, and that the tenant is to have any benefit from the agricultural grant given in repect of the county cess, and that the landlord is to have any benefit from the agricultural grant given in respect of the poor rate; and where after the appointed day any such fair rent is fixed there shall be recorded in the Schedule specified in Section 1 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, the standard amount as defined in the preceding section both for poor rate and county cess, and the benefit in respect of the holding received by the landlord and tenant respectively out of the agricultural grant."
There is a note by Vanston, the author of this book, to that section which says:
"This section is intended to permanently secure the benefit of the agricultural grant to the landlord as regards poor rate, and to the tenant as regards county cess."
Senator Brown alluded to the fact that union charges are now county-at-large charges. That is so, but he referred to the rural district charges being also county-at-large charges. That is only so to a very small extent. The water schemes, sewage schemes, labourers' cottage charges, and the lighting of villages and towns are still borne by the different rural districts. The main roads were always county-at-large charges, as were the cost of the asylums and contributions to hospitals. The only change recently made was with regard to county roads and to the general public health charges which would, generally speaking, be the salaries of the sanitary officers in the different districts. In the statement sent to Senators by the Minister he has made a comparison in connection with one of the districts I referred to that has had a considerable reduction made in its agricultural grant. He has compared the rate levied by the guardians in 1914 and the rate levied last year for the expenditure of the board of health. I do not know whether last year was the year in which the different county councils borrowed a very large sum of money and thereby were enabled to strike a very low rate. Assuming it was not so, there is shown here a reduction in the rate for the Castletown district from 3/9¾ to 2/7. When they were paying 3/9¾ in that district they had a workhouse and a hospital in the district. Now they have neither of these, and the nearest county home is sixty miles away. If the rates are reduced, so also are the services furnished there. In the later portion of the statement the Minister says:
"It would be better to postpone the benefits of the Bill for a year than to introduce a change in the method of apportionment of such rate as has been proposed."
I think that is a very good suggestion —that the Bill should be postponed for a year, because we really have not had time to go into the different figures in this very elaborate document. The document was only supplied to us a few days ago and we want to check the figures given.
No additional arguments have been put forward to induce the Seanad to stultify themselves and change the opinion expressed on the previous occasion. The Minister has done by an Order what he is asking the Seanad now to sanction, and I think the Seanad will be wise in keeping themselves free from any approval of this section which seeks to reduce the agricultural grant, which was so solemnly fixed as portion of the relief to agricultural land in the year 1898. I hold that the agricultural grant is attached to the land and the amount was fixed in that year. There was no need for fresh calculations. It was the same amount year after year until the Minister made the alteration. For that reason I hope the Seanad will maintain the position they have already taken up. The Minister's Order is still in force and in the meantime we will have time to consider and examine the figures and the statements he has now put before us and those of the proposer of the amendment.
I should like to ask the Minister a question arising out of what Senator Linehan has stated. I understand that there is no alteration in the amount of the agricultural grant in a particular county and that what is proposed is merely that there is to be a possible, but not inevitable, redistribution of this grant. From what Senator Linehan has just stated one would rather gather that there was a possible reduction in the grant to the county at large. I should like the Minister to answer that.
I did not say that.
He shook his head rather to indicate that the Senator was not correct in stating that the agricultural grant was reduced.
The agricultural grant was not decreased.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Linehan, himself, said that the total grant remains the same but that the distribution is altered.
Then his objection is to the redistribution and not to the reduction of the grant?
On the original amendment on which I voted I think I was rather mistaken in my reading of the particular section. I had a grave fear from the wording of the section as originally drafted, that there was a danger that the complete allocation was to be spread over the county at large irrespective of whether the rateable premises was agricultural land or other hereditaments. That, to my mind, has been made perfectly clear by the paper which has been circulated, from every point of view. I think, on the whole, the proposed method of dealing with the allocation whereby a great deal of applotment work is avoided is the better. I think after mature deliberation that is an advantage and I do not think, on the whole, that the loss to any particular district from a variation of the system, whereby it was allocated two years ago, is serious enough to continue one in opposition to the clause as it originally stood in the Bill. On these grounds I think it will be my duty to vote in favour of the amendment.
I do not think there is anything further that I can add on this matter. I dealt with it fairly fully on the last day, and in a brief way before that. I might say that before this amendment was moved in the Seanad I, and some of my officials also, did our best to convert Senator Linehan to my way of thinking without success. From the course the debate has taken I realise that he is obdurate on the point, but I do not think that any other Senator is under the same misapprehension at present. I think it is quite obvious once you make district charges county-at-large charges you must also equalise the agricultural grant for the whole county. That is the sole point at issue. Senator Linehan persists in looking at this from one angle—from the point of view of the agricultural grant—without looking at it from the point of view of the rate which is equalised all over the whole county. During the debate he reiterated the argument which he used here on the last occasion, and which I rebutted, namely, that all rural district charges have not been made county-at-large charges. That is not the case. With the exception of charges for labourers' cottages, all the rural district charges are county-at-large charges. There is absolutely no justification for continuing to allocate the agricultural grant on a district basis.
The Minister has not answered one question put by Senator Linehan. The Senator says that the new method of distribution has already been achieved and is in operation through the medium of two regulations issued by the Minister. If that is the case, what is the necessity for further statutory enactments through these two sections? What is the necessity for these two sub-sections? There is another point on which I would like to hear the Minister. In his memorandum the Minister says the passing of these sections will involve a saving of £30,000 to the ratepayers. He does not say in what way the saving will arise.
As regards the saving of £30,000 I think Senator Sir Thomas Esmonde has dealt with the two different kinds of procedure in the applotment of the rates. It is a saving in the calculation of the rates and in hiring special staffs to deal with this work which usually runs into a big amount every year. It will also simplify the forms and mean a saving of the money expended on printing and stationery.
I would like the Minister to be clear in his statement that rural district charges, except labourers' cottages, have become county-at-large charges. Where there are water supply and sewerage schemes in a rural district, is the cost of them to be levied over the district or over the county at large?
There was no allocation of the agricultural grant in respect of water or sewer schemes.
So all the rural district charges are not placed on the county.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move:—
"Section 6. To reinsert in the section, sub-section (6), which sub-section was deleted in Committee."
It is hard to understand what is meant by these two sub-sections. The agricultural grant is allocated over the whole county by one sub-section, and another one says that any deficiency that occurs in an area is to be taken from the agricultural grant. If the agricultural grant has been allocated, how is the deficiency to be got?
That was set out in the memorandum which was circulated.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Bennett says that the provisions of sub-section (5) provide for the distribution of the agricultural grant, but in sub-section (6) it apparently says that this exhausted grant is to be called upon to make good the deficiency in certain cases. The Senator points out that that is impossible if the agricultural grant is first distributed according to some rateable proportion. There will be nothing left to supply the deficiency. I am sure that there is an explanation, but up to the present I do not think we see it.
It is only a matter of drafting.
The matter is complicated. It seems that what is proposed is to make certain abatements in the poor rate. When balancing the books any deficiency is made good out of the agricultural grant.
But it is already allocated. Perhaps this matter might remain over till the next stage.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think it would be desirable, as I am sure there is an explanation.
It is a matter of drafting. If the full rate is not paid by the ratepayers there is a deficiency which has to be made up from the agricultural grant.
CATHAOIRLEACH
If you will pardon me saying so, I do not think it is clear. Sub-section (5) says the whole of the agricultural grant is to be divided in a certain way. Then sub-section (6) says that if there is a deficiency as a result of this process carried out under sub-section (5) it is to be met out of the agricultural grant.
It may be explained in this way: you budget in a certain way at the beginning of the year a certain amount for a certain purpose. Whether the amount is sufficient to meet that purpose is a question. You find at the end of the year a deficiency has arisen. Might it be that in the apportionment of the agricultural grant of the next year a deduction is first made for this deficiency and then the balance is allocated to the agricultural rate? That is quite feasible. You cannot make good a deficiency until it arises, and you will not know whether it will arise until the year has run its course. Then it would be a first charge on the agricultural grant.
I think that sub-section (6) is quite immaterial. The section could be omitted if it is so desired.
I would be satisfied with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
What exactly does the withdrawal of the amendment mean?
CATHAOIRLEACH
It means that sub-section (6) is gone. Sub-section (5) has been restored. Sub-section (6) which it was proposed to restore has, with the leave of the House, been withdrawn. What the result of that is no one can tell.
NEW SECTION.
I move:
Section 11. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—(9) Sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the Principal Act shall be amended by the deletion of the words "the Housing of the Working-Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1883-1919" and the sub-section as so amended shall apply as from the passing of this Act to any house erected under the aforesaid Acts.
There is no necessity for me to weary the House with a repetition of the statement I made with regard to this amendment on last Wednesday. On that occasion I think the House were practically unanimously of the opinion that the amendment I moved was eminently reasonable and ought to be adopted.
The effect of the proposed amendment is that for every house provided by a local authority under the Housing Acts since the 1st April, 1920, and before the 31st March next, there will be a remission of two-thirds of the rates for the next six years. This question of rates relief on houses provided by local authorities is somewhat involved. An elucidation of the matter involves the citation of several figures as to costs and rents. If any Senator considers he could not conveniently follow the details without noting such particulars I would be prepared, with the Chairman's permission, to place in his hands a copy of the statement which I have prepared.
In moving his amendment, Senator Farren was under the impression that Section 69 of the Local Government Act, 1925, imposed a hardship on the class occuping the local authorities' houses. He stated that what he sought to achieve was "that there shall be the same equity and justice to a similar class of people under similar circumstances." On a full consideration of the facts it will be abundantly clear that there has been no violation of this excellent principle.
Since 1920 strenuous efforts have been made both by the local authorities and by the Government to deal with the grave situation which had arisen from the shortage of dwellings and the rise in building costs. In present circumstances it is impossible to provide houses without serious loss to the public. Working men cannot pay the high rents or the sale prices, as the case may be, which would be necessitated were such to cover the total cost of the houses. Notwithstanding this position everyone realises that houses must be built, and much progress has been made during the past few years. The loss resulting from this activity has been very extensive, and has been met by the community generally by means of State subsidy or contributions by local authorities or by both together.
The resources of local authorities have been so heavily burthened that care must be given to the possibility that if the strain be made too great further housing activities may be retarded or terminated. An essential factor in the preliminary calculations of a local authority of the cost of a housing scheme is the amount of rates to be expected from the houses. It cannot be disregarded, as it has a direct bearing on the rent or the purchase price, as the case may be. The amendment proposes to make nugatory the prudent calculations made before these recent housing schemes were put into operation, and it imposes on the local authorities a new burden, in addition to the heavy charge which they have already assumed for the sake of housing their poorer constituents.
Section 69 of the Act of 1925 has for its object the encouragement of builders and the provision of the employment which is so greatly needed. This amendment is no encouragement to local authorities to build since it penalises those authorities who have built and makes it more difficult for them to continue their work. Need I add that since the Act of 1925 became law no local authority has represented to me that the change Senator Farren advocates should be effected? In specifically excluding houses provided by local authorities under the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts from the operation of Section 69 of the Local Government Act, 1925, I have felt bound to take into consideration the fact that such houses were being disposed of by letting or by sale at prices considerably below the economic rents or the market value, as the case may be.
For five-roomed houses provided in Dublin City by private persons or public utility societies under the Housing Acts grants amounting to £200 per house were obtained by the builder. (£100 from State and a like amount from Borough Commissioners). In addition the houses benefit by the remission of rates provided for under the Acts. For the past twelve months the Borough Commissioners' scheme has been altered. The Commissioners have been constrained to offer to prospective builders either the remission of rates or the grant, but not both.
Senator Farren endeavoured to point to a distinction in favour of the person who built or purchased a new house through the medium of a public utility society and a relative disadvantage to a person who purchased one of the houses provided by, say, the Dublin Corporation at Marino. He made the proposition that while the first category got grants of £200 and rates remission, persons under the Corporation schemes did not get rates remission. It is evident that the Senator is under misapprehension of the facts as to the finances of the Corporation's Marino scheme. The houses built and at present being built at Marino and at Croydon Park are costing approximately £700 per house on an average, and are being sold at an average price of £420 per house, so that the purchaser gets in effect a bounty of £280.
As the Senator has explained, the motive of his amendment is to give to the occupiers of local authorities' houses a rates remission similar to that provided for private persons and public utility societies under the Housing (Building Facilities) Act, 1924, and the Housing Acts, 1925-1926. This would give to the occupiers of the Marino houses who, as already explained, have had the advantage of what is the equivalent of £280, the added advantage of the remission of rates. The capitalised advantage of such further benefit would, when calculated on present Dublin rates, amount to £63 10s. From this it follows that the tenant purchaser of a Marino house would get £80 more than the total assistance provided for under the Housing Acts for private persons and public utility societies. At present the Marino tenant gets £17 10s. more, namely £280, as against £200 plus £63 10s. Furthermore, the majority of houses being built in Dublin under the Housing Acts by parties other than the Corporation are being built by speculative builders, and in the sale of the house the State subsidy is divided between the builder and the purchasing occupier.
In the case of Marino the tenant-purchaser gets the full advantage of the £280 bounty. In the few cases where occupiers of grant houses have got the full advantage of the £200 subsidy and remission of rates by building the houses themselves, either as private persons or through the medium of small public utility societies, they have had to invest some capital in the undertaking and very often to borrow money at high rates of interest, and for short periods of repayment, so that in such cases the houses are a heavy annual charge on their incomes. The cost of the houses being built on a site at Marino by a public utility society referred to by the Senator is not less than £900. On the other hand, the Marino tenant purchasers had no personal capital outlay in respect of the provision or subsequent purchase of the houses, and have been given a period of 40 years in which to pay the agreed purchase money. In the case of the St. Barnabas Public Utility Society the Senator suggested that the tenants were better treated than were the Marino tenant-purchasers. In this he is mistaken, though I do not suggest that they are not well treated. The tenants of the St. Barnabas Public Utility Society pay an inclusive weekly rent of 15/- for a four-roomed house. While they continue to pay this rent they do not acquire other than an occupation interest. The tenant-purchasers at Marino pay between 15/- and 17/- weekly (inclusive) for their houses (which are five-roomed), and every week they acquire an additional saleable interest to be perfected in ownership after 40 years.
The houses built on other housing areas by the Dublin Corporation or Dublin Borough Commissioners have been sold to the occupiers at smaller prices than those referred to above, although in some instances they have cost more. In other urban areas in the Saorstát houses provided under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts have been sold at prices as low as 52½ per cent. of the cost, giving a financial advantage to the purchaser considerably greater than the benefits of the Housing Acts to ordinary private persons or public utility societies. The proceeds are, of course, in all cases applied to the building of further houses.
The amendment would also apply to houses built and let (not sold) under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts during the period. Where such houses have been let the rents average 8/6 per week for five-roomed houses which cost approximately £700. This weekly rent yields annually £22 2s. 0d. From this sum is expended annually on Insurance (1/6 per cent. on £500), 7/6; Maintenance (say), £3; Collection costs (5 per cent.), £1 2s. 0d.; total, £4 9s. 6d. leaving an annual sum of £17 12s. 6d. towards funding the capital expenditure of £700. If the house had been built out of money borrowed for the purpose by the local authority for, say, 50 years at 5 per cent. interest, the following would be the annual outgoings of the local authority in respect of the house:—Annuity to redeem loan of £700 in 50 years at 5 per cent., £38 6s. 6d.; Insurance, 7s. 6d.; Maintenance, £3; Collection costs (5 per cent.), £2 2s.; total annual outgoings, £43 16s. 0d., which, to be met in full by the tenant, would require a weekly rent (exclusive of rates) of about 17/-, or twice the rent at present charged. The loss on these houses has to fall on the ratepayer or, to the extent of the State grant, on the general body of taxpayers.
This shows what I stated earlier that the housing of the working classes is an uneconomic proposition, and, whether the deficit on a scheme is met by the local authority or by the State, the money is coming out of the pocket of the man in the street. The Senator's amendment, if accepted, would only result in placing an additional and unsupportable burden on the community. In Dublin alone the intended amendment would mean a loss to the Borough Commissioners of an additional sum of some £127,000 (present value) while by the inclusion of the other local authorities this figure would be very greatly enlarged.
Contracts to which members of the local authorities have given anxious deliberation should not be varied without substantial and meritorious reasons. Under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts the sale of any house provided requires the Minister's consent. In the existing cases which are affected by this amendment I have already expressed my approval, after full consideration of the bargains proposed, to the terms of purchase submitted to me by the contracting parties, and now the effect of the Senator's amendment will be to vary these terms in the absence of any signification of assent by one of the parties, namely, the vendors. I do not think, when this is realised by Senators, that they will be disposed to pass legislation which will disappoint those who have given much thought to the housing question, and which will, in effect, defeat the hopes as to the provision of houses which Senator Farren and all of us share.
The statement made by the Minister would be much more important if he had told us how he arrived at his figures. We would like to get some authority for the figures he quoted. He told us in regard to these houses at Marino which I seek to bring in under my amendment that they cost £700 each to erect. I have figures here in connection with their erection which I propose to quote for the information of Senators, and I suggest they will show that the position taken up by the Minister on this matter is really a hopeless one. Of course, I have often heard it said that a clever person dealing with figures could make them explain anything. Certainly we have had a demonstration of that today from the Minister in the way he dealt with figures relating to the erection of these houses, telling us that they cost £700 each to build. I am now going to put before the Seanad the contractors' estimates for these houses. These estimates prove quite clearly that the average cost of the erection of the houses ran from £509 to £620 at the very outside. The Minister tells us that they cost £700. If that is so, there are a few hundred pounds missing somewhere. Therefore let us try and discover the missing sums. I have before me the contract figures of Messrs. Crampton for the erection of 220 houses in the Croydon Park area. The contract figure is £119,996 15s. 6d., and this gives you an average of £545 per house. Another contract for 96 houses worked out at £570 per house. The first contract given to the German firm, Messrs. Kossel, for the erection of houses worked out at £524 per house, and the second contract at £533 per house.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Does that include the internal fittings?
It is the average price per house and includes the erection of the entire structure, drains, boundary walls, preparation of site, etc., but not the purchase of the site, because the tenant has to pay £3 per year ground rent. Because of that he has not to pay for the purchase of the site, and, of course, rightly so. If he had to pay for the purchase of the site then naturally he should have the place as a freehold. You could not expect a man to pay ground rent and purchase the site as well. I do not think many farmers would do that. I have before me an actual agreement with regard to the purchase of one of these houses. The agreement provides that the cash price of the house is £460. That is the selling price by the Corporation to the tenant.
The Senator was asked if the prices that he has been quoting included the internal fittings of the houses, such as the plumbing work, drainage, etc.
Yes, they do. A house is built at £530 and is sold to the tenant at £460. I want to know where that tenant is getting the benefit of the £280 subsidy that the Minister has been talking about. The man who signed the agreement to purchase this house for £450 to which I am referring, is buying it out by paying an annuity of £24 12s. 4d., this being the amount of the principal and compound interest at the rate of 5¼ per cent. In addition, he has to pay rates on the full valuation as well as £1 a year for the collection of the rent, £3 ground rent, and £4 9s. 0d. for the preparation of the lease. If the Minister's figures are right then there is something wrong somewhere, or otherwise I am wrong. I, however, have given to the House the actual cost of erection of these houses. I have quoted the contractors' price, and I want to say that on the strength of the figures I have given, these tenants, leaving out the question of the remission of rates, are not getting the advantages that other people are getting from the Government subsidy of £200. That is the case that I want to make, and I submit to the House that we ought to deal out equity and justice all round. I am pleading the case of the poorest class in the community. I am dealing with their case not with a view to saving them a shilling or two shillings in the week. I said last week that I was bringing this matter forward in the interests of all concerned, and I say that it is a physical impossibility for the ordinary working man on the present rates of wages to pay 17s. 8d. a week. He may have a family of six or seven, some of his children being eight or nine years of age. He has to feed and clothe them, and in addition to pay a rent of 17s. 8d. a week. Unless the Seanad does something to help these people, then the result will be that this beautiful area will be turned into a slum again. As it is, they are being compelled to let rooms and to turn these little houses into tenements in order that they may be able to pay this rent of 17s. 8d. a week.
What are the valuations?
The valuations vary. Some are £11 and more £12. I have particulars here of a second type of house that is being sold to the tenants at £440. The payment of principal and compound interest at 5¼ per cent. on that sum means that the purchasing tenant has to pay 10/11 per week. In addition, the tenant has to pay 6/2 for rates, ground rent and collection charges. The whole thing works out like this, that the tenant who has purchased the house for £440 has to pay a rent of 17/1 per week. As I said before, I want fair play all round. There is no use in the Minister getting up and saying that you are going to retard house building if you give so much to the tenants of these particular houses. If the House decides to give what I am asking in my amendment it will not cost a fraction of what the remission of rates on newly-erected houses is costing the State at present. I think that we should give help to the people I am pleading for—the people who need help most. It is only when we get down to helping the poorest class of the community that we hear a lot of talk about finance and the last straw. This cry did not go up when the Government introduced a section into the Act of 1925 giving a substantial remission of rates to anyone who erected a new building. It is only when we try to give a little help to those who really need it that this cry about finance and the last straw goes up. I hope I have convinced the House of the justice of the claim that I am making on behalf of these people. I can stand over the figures that I have quoted and, with regard to those figures, I may say that I went to the fountain-head myself to get them and I defy contradiction of them. The Minister told us that they get the benefit of £280. I ask him to show where this comes in. The house is sold at £460 to the tenant, and we are told that it cost £700 to build. Where did he get the £280? I have given the figures, which are from £509 to £620. As a matter of fact, I know about the biggest figures, because I was a member of the Housing Committee at the time that the large contract for building was given out at the dearest period. The cost has been coming down since then and numbers of houses have been built at a much lesser figure. For these reasons I say that the Minister has made no case. His statement about £200 subsidy is a fallacy. They did not get it, and on the figures that I quoted they could not possibly have got it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The House is now in a very difficult position. We have received the Minister's statement that these houses cost £700, and we have heard Senator Farren.
Perhaps I may be able to clear up the difference. We have been treated here to one of the cleverest debating exhibitions that I witnessed for a considerable time. Senator Farren is an old member of the Corporation, and he went to the Corporation, the fountain head, for the figures. He got certain figures, and he now uses these to prove that the figures I gave are not correct. Knowing something of the working of the Dublin Corporation, I have been to the fountain head also, and I have got an exact copy of the statement sent to Senator Farren. The Senator's figures are correct as far as they go, but the Senator did not give the full statement. There is the little addendum at the bottom of the note which he got with these figures, which makes all the difference in the world. The addendum says: "To the above figures must be added the cost of the acquisition of site, development, electric wiring, etc., so that the all-in cost for each house would average about £700." That is the figure I gave. That is the figure Senator Farren has refused to give, and that is the figure which he got when going to the fountain head.
I will deal with that in a minute.
That is given as the figure, and I stand over the statement I made as to the average cost of building the houses under these Acts. I also stand over the statement that the average amount of the grant from the local authority or the Government—in this particular case of Marino, the grant from the Dublin Corporation—was £280. If we wait long enough Senator Farren will get some more figures with which he can juggle in the same way.
When it comes to a question of juggling, we will examine into that matter. I got these figures to-day at 1 o'clock, and, apparently, the Minister was not very long in getting the same statement. The secret service must have been watching Senator Farren, I think. Apparently he was tracked.
He would want to be.
Someone else would want to be tracked also. The Minister mentioned the question of the acquisition of the site.
It has to be paid for.
The tenant is paying for it at the rate of £3 a year in ground rent. I believe there were 1,500 houses budgeted for at Marino—whoever was paid for the sites at the outset must have got a tidy sum. If the tenants are charged a ground rent how that sum should be put against the cost of the house seems to me to be the last word in juggling. I do not profess to be a man of figures, I am merely an artisan, but I claim to be a man of commonsense and to have sufficient sense and education to see through the Minister when he merely produces a figure of £700 and gives no details. He says that the footnote was at the end of the information that I asked for. I did not ask for the footnote, I had all the figures before. I went there simply to verify my figures and to see that they were correct. I was so anxious not to deceive the House that, at the last moment, I went to the Corporation to see whether my figures were correct, not to ask for these figures. The Minister was not long in getting aware of that. This question of the cost of the acquisition of the ground is all moonshine. If you put the cost of the acquisition of the site against the cost of the house, and you give it as a freehold I am satisfied, but you cannot have it both ways. Give them a freehold and I will accept that. You are not giving them a freehold. You are charging ground rent, and yet the Minister puts in the acquisition of the site. Did any responsible Minister ever before try to hoodwink a body of intelligent people by methods like this? It will not work. I have given the figures for the cost of erection and I stand over them. The Minister does not deny that they are correct. He has a copy of a statement supplied to him, but he does not give any details. I say no more about that, and I leave it to the commonsense of the House to decide between the Minister and me, as to the equity and justice of the case I am making.
I do not think very much more could be said with regard to these figures from the point of view of helping us to decide the exact position. It seems to me that the position we have to consider is something like this: It is clearly undesirable to exclude from special provisions working-class houses unless a very clear case is made why these working-class houses should be excluded. If I understand the Minister's case it is that these working-class houses have obtained in the form of reduction of cost from the ratepayers or the community something which is better in proportion than another person would obtain under this Act. I think that is the case made.
If his case is complete I do not think we should vote for the amendment, and where the question of these figures comes into consideration is not as to the exact amount of the figures, but as to whether the figures show that the owners of these houses have obtained substantial equipment from the ratepayers and at the expense of the ratepayers. I think these figures have been most unsatisfactory, and I think that the Minister's statement with regard to this round figure of £700, when he had a detailed statement in his hand, was not really the way to convince the House.
I had not these figures at the time I made that statement.
Then I entirely withdraw. I was under the impression that the Minister had them in his hand. I would not have made the statement if I had been aware of that. I do not know where the footnote came from. I was not aware that Senator Farren had the footnote and did not give it.
I think I stated quite specifically that at about one o'clock to-day I went to the Corporation and asked for figures to ascertain if the figures I had myself prepared were correct, and to confirm these figures with regard to the contract price for the erection of these houses. I got these figures, and at the bottom was the footnote, and after one o'clock a copy was sent to the Minister, who had been there before me.
My point is simply this: certain figures were given by Senator Farren. There was a footnote to the effect that electric wiring and certain other things were not included, including the cost of acquisition. Personally, I do not think that the cost of acquisition has anything to do with the question when a ground rent is paid. I am just trying to ascertain the position, and am making a statement in order to see whether my understanding of the matter is correct. That would mean that you deduct, roughly, about £60 from the £700. I would be surprised if the cost of electric wiring and the other things mentioned made up the balance and brought the average up to £700. I do not think that that statement has really been sufficiently detailed. My feeling about the whole matter is this, that we ought to agree with the substance of Senator Farren's amendment unless we are perfectly satisfied that there has been a very large advantage given at the expense of the ratepayers, and as the matter stands at present I am not convinced, and I am inclined to vote for Senator Farren's amendment, because I do feel that the difference, as disclosed, and taking away the cost of the acquisition of the site, which I do not think should be taken into consideration, is not sufficient and unless it is made clear I think I shall vote for the amendment.
One could scarcely hope to digest the very long statement of the Minister, who was very prolix, but gathering from it two or three salient facts, we are to compare these particular houses and the utility houses. He says in one case a bounty of £280 was given, and that in the other case only £110. But from the peculiar manner in which the figures were given to us I am perfectly satisfied from them that if the selling price to the tenant is £460 the £240 difference between the £460 and the £700 does not arise. It has not been contradicted that the tenants are paying ground rent. If they are, the capitalised value of the ground rent should be charged. Then we are told about the electric wiring. Such a sum could not possibly be spent for wiring——
A SENATOR
It depends on the contractor.
Yes, it would depend on the contractor. I think it is reasonable to assume that the selling price of £460 cannot be a diminution of more than £100 or £140—say £600, and comparing that with the amount given to the utility builders I think that the working-class dwellings are left at a decided disadvantage, and, I think, it should be rectified. For that reason I will support the amendment.
I gather that the £700 could reasonably be reached on the basis of £620 for the house, plus about £20 for electric light and £60 for acquisition.
The Senator is taking an outside figure.
I simply mention this because certain statements of mine might seem to be extremely strong. If that is the case it still leaves me of the same opinion, and I agree with Senator Farren.
We have been told that this is a great advantage being given to the labourer's cottage of £280 as compared with the remission of rates, but that does not appear in the difference between the £700 and the £460. As regards any acquisition of sites, some of these companies lately formed to build garden cities charge £8 a year for one-fifth of an acre. That is equivalent to a price of £100 an acre, and you are not even given the choice of the building contractor. That is in the garden cities. They have the advantage of whatever the building contractor gets, and I think it is more or less 100 per cent. on the cost. I built a house in the country and the walls are two and a half feet thick. Of course, it is not the class of house let to people in Fairview, which people I do not think will be there in forty years' time—neither the tenants nor the houses—because it is a most lamentable thing that the town planning of this city has not been dealt with, and that they have selected very unhealthy slum areas to increase the slum population in cement slums. I should have thought that they would have taken advantage of the fact that motors were going as far as Killester, and nobody should have been allowed to build in Fairview. Rubbish is dumped there every night, no tar is put on it; and when the weather is not wet and the wind blows anything dumped there blows across into the receptacles for the children's milk, and houses are still being erected on land which no civilised community would allow to be built on at all. Senator Farren's contention largely amounts to whether value was given for the difference between £700 and £460. I do not think these houses should have cost even £300, because they have iron windows, which only cost £2 10s. each, and they have very bad walls. The latest method of construction is the Swedish method, and by that method the walls are more substantial, though only half as thick as the walls in Fairview. The only way to correct that would be to put in a dictator, who would see that the houses built about the city are built on convenient and healthy sites, and who would be cognisant of the fact that if this were done the tenants would no longer have to walk home. In different parts of Dublin there are many healthy sites, practically under heather and gorse, up about Ticknock, and along the road that runs from Rathfarnham to Dundrum. But they select a place where there is an ancient slobland, covered with tin cans and every kind of rotten rubbish, and in front of that they build houses in which people are supposed to live healthily. Then the expenditure falls back on the hospitals, and there again you have lowered the rateable value of semi-private hospitals because they are for the poor.
Has this any relation to the motion before the House?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Not much.
I think it has every relation. We are discussing houses. I am talking of the bad quality of the houses that are causing the rates to go up in one place as they are taken off in another, and I am questioning Senator Farren's figures very much because of the addendum that he did not produce to show that he could easily account for a couple of hundred pounds.
Explain it yourself, then.
I tried to show that even where one had an option, without even being driven by any regulations, people who are free agents were paying £1,100 as the price of an acre. Therefore it is easily conceivable that whatever small area is under each house would have made away with a large proportion of that £200, as the deficit that Senator Farren tried to explain, though, as I say, he suppressed the addendum. I would like to know the source of his figures and the reason for the suppression of the figures that might have explained the difference between the rates. It is a lamentable thing that when the £280 was there these houses were not built. If they had been there would be no question about a difference now.
I am in favour of Senator Farren's proposal, because I am in favour of any proposal that will encourage and assist individuals, utility societies and local authorities to provide houses. What I would like to point out is the dreadful condition of the houses in Dublin. If I had an opportunity I would like to do so.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You will have that opportunity on the Final Stage of the Bill. But it would not be in order now to go into the general condition of the Dublin houses. I feel in an awkward position about this matter. I do not mean in an awkward position as to the voting, because I have no responsibility in voting upon it. But I think the House should see that this thing is cleared up in some way. We have here figures that were given, quite accurately I thought, by Senator Farren, and the only thing he did not state in those figures is this addendum which I will now read for you: "To the above figures must be added the cost of acquisition, development, electric wiring, etc., so that the all-in cost per house will average about £700." Well now the Senator very properly says that the cost of acquisition is represented by the ground rent. That may not necessarily represent the total cost of acquisition, but it certainly seems to be a substantial contribution towards it. There is the question of the development. That was one of the reasons that I asked if the roads had been made after the houses were erected on this land, because there would be a substantial addition for pathways and railings. But they are included in the contract. Therefore the extra cost cannot result from development in that sense, and we are only left then with the "wiring, etc.," and that is not satisfactory, because it would take a lot of "wiring, etc.," to make up the difference between £460 and £700. I only mention that to show why we should perhaps have a further opportunity of getting further particulars——
Is that a certified statement by anybody?
CATHAOIRLEACH
The figures were supplied by the Corporation official. He supplied both the Minister and Senator Farren.
It is an official document, presumably?
CATHAOIRLEACH
It is.
So that would enable the Corporation to justify the charge. Is it on that that all this £200 is settled? Were these the figures that were before the Corporation when they decided as to the amount that they were going to lose, and that the rates that these houses should pay should be a certain thing; because it looks as if when the Corporation settled the price, that they wanted some excuse for forcing up the price. The whole thing is very hazy, and it does bear that interpretation. It looks as if a man built a £500 house and he wanted to sell it by way of appearing to give a big remission and by saying that it cost him £700 to build. It looks as if that note was made by someone who was advising the Corporation and who said, "What is the most you can say you spent on this site?" That is the way the whole discussion appears to me on which this codicil, or whatever you wish to call it, was made. That looks very much like the position, and it is an excuse which the Corporation has for saying they did a thing much better than they actually did it.
There is a certain amount of development that might be charged against the houses. I think that Senator Farren is right in thinking that the contract included the path to the houses, the railings and all that sort of thing, but it may not have included the making of the roads through the building estate, which would have added considerably to the cost.
These roads are developed for private builders, too. There is no getting away from that point. They are developed for other people just the same. There is a new road from Malahide Road to Drumcondra, 100 feet wide.
There would not be anything for development then?
No.
Amendment put and agreed to.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Seanad will remember that Clause 12 was also recommitted for consideration, and to that there have been two amendments, of which notice has been given by Senator Douglas. The question is that Section 12 stand part of the Bill.
I beg to move:—
In sub-section (2) of Section 12, to delete paragraph (b).
That is an amendment that Senator Brown and I considered was consequential on Senator Farren's amendment if it passed, and as it has passed I think it is necessary in Section 12 to delete sub-section (2) (b), which deals with exactly the same question.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
"In Section 12, sub-section (3), to insert in the first line of the sub-section, after the word ‘apply' the words ‘as from the passing of this Act.'"
This is also a logical sequence of Senator Farren's amendment. The object of both these amendments—and they must be read together—is to give the benefit of the relief given by this section to persons who have erected or improved buildings which owing to their not being finished before the 1st April, 1927, are outside Section 69 of the Act of 1925. The benefit of Section 69 of the Act of 1925 is only given to people building and improving before the 1st April, 1927. There are a certain number of houses which are being erected at present and which may be finished before the 1st April, 1927, and, on the other hand, there are houses which have been commenced now and which will be finished in the interval between the passing of this Bill and the 1st October, 1930. It is a perfectly logical result of Senator Farren's amendment to give these people the same kind of relief that they get under this amendment.
It is proposed to put it back how many years?
Not to put it back, simply to carry on, to provide for the case of the house that is commenced now and will not be finished before the end of March. It does not come under the present Bill. It is to carry that benefit on.
It does not make it retrospective?
No. It does not make it retrospective at all.
I know a case of a house that was commenced the other day. That would be a house that was commenced before the passing of this Act. It is clearly desirable that it should come under this and not under the provisions of Section 69.
Could we get any estimate of what it would cost the ratepayers? If this is to add an additional form of tenement that would be exempt we would like to know what it would roughly cost, and whether it will come under the present year's estimate. It seems to open a very large field if you are going to change non-exemptible property into exemptible property by making an addition. It is merely a matter of expenditure.
It must be a very small number of houses, but they ought to be included.
They will have to be changed before they come under this section.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You must be seeking to bring in a certain class of house that is not in already.
It is a house the chronology of which is different.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Senator wants to know if he can get any idea as to what it amounts to in the year.
It affects a comparatively small number of houses.
If a man claims to have made an addition he wants an exemption. If we put in a bay window where there is an ordinary window would it fall on the rates?
Not unless it increases the valuation.
This amendment was handed in late, and the point has been raised as to the cost.
I suggest the cost must be small in comparison with the relief that you are getting.
I think the position is, roughly, this: Before this amendment of Senator Brown's was moved houses built now would come either under the other Act or this Act. The wording of this was re-drafted. When some of us examined it we found that certain houses might fail to get the relief, and the intention of this amendment is to provide that houses, which are at present being built or being altered, will come under this section instead of Section 69.
CATHAOIRLEACH
We shall ask the Minister is he satisfied with this amendment.
I think this is a case where I should enter a protest. This amendment was only handed in at 2.30 and I did not get it until a quarter to three. Someone has asked what the cost of it would be. I cannot say, and I had no opportunity of going into it with the people who could inform me. With regard to Section 12, I consulted with the Commissioners of the City of Dublin and other people interested and I found how much of a burden was placed on them. With regard to that particular section I thought the matter was disposed of. This Bill was re-committed in respect of two proposals—in respect of Senator Linehan's amendment with regard to the agricultural grant, and Senator Farren's amendment applying this Act to houses built under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. I think it is not treating us fairly to rush an important amendment through like this which is bound to put a heavy burden on local authorities.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I think Senator Brown should withdraw those two amendments. There is tremendous force in the protest of the Minister. Section 12 was accepted by him after his officials had gone into it and conferred with Senator Brown. It certainly is a strong thing to ask him to accept a further extension in two respects, on a notice which he only got when he came into the Seanad.
Of course this was not considered when we were settling the original amendment; it really did not occur to us until we saw this class of house which was going to be left out of the section. It is not a large class of house and we only discovered the defect at the last moment.
Can those amendments be brought forward on Report?
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is a matter you will have to consider. It is usual when a Bill has been re-committed, having regard to the fact that it was in Committee and considered on Report, in England to pass it right away. In view of the question that has been raised now it seems we are leading up to another Report Stage.
The position of this amendment is something that should be considered on the Report Stage.
Might I ask the Minister if, as a result of this, there will be any change with regard to the estimates which are drawn now? If this Bill is delayed there must be a revision of the estimates.
If this Bill is not passed our whole arrangement with regard to this new system of applotments will go by the board.
CATHAOIRLEACH
What is the date at which it should be available?
Probably by the 21st of this month, but if we get it within a couple of weeks after that it will do. I do not think I can accept either four or five and I am practically sure if I went to the Dáil that I would have to ask them not to accept them.
I ask leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 5.—Section 12, sub-section (3). To delete in the last line of the sub-section the words "passing of this Act" and substitute therefor the words "1st day of April, 1920."—not moved.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That concludes the Stage, and perhaps as this is the second time it is in Committee we might take the final stages now.
I move the suspension of Standing Orders to enable the final stages to be taken.
I second.
Question proposed—"That the Bill be received for final consideration and do now pass."
I would like to draw attention to the fact that the provisions of this Bill do not touch the urgent necessity for better houses for the very poor. We have been familiar for the last quarter of a century with the housing conditions under which the very poor in Dublin live, and we know that one-third of the population live in single-room dwellings. It is not easy to realise the conditions under which these poor people live in single rooms, without water supply or any sanitary arrangements. Within the last week I visited some of these dwellings. In one room there were a father, a mother and seven children. The room was about fourteen feet by nine. The mother had been in a sanatorium and is now attending a tuberculosis dispensary. One of the children is in a sanatorium. What hope is there for people living in such conditions, and what hope is there for the children living in adjoining rooms? The room was filthy dirty. I visited another dwelling, a cellar kitchen, in which the top of the window was slightly above the level of the back yard. There was practically no ventilation and it was damp and filthy. There were living there a father, a mother and nine children.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Is it your object to show that this Bill will not adequately settle that situation?
Yes.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Then, I am afraid that is altogether wide of the subject. You are not attacking the principle of the Bill?
CATHAOIRLEACH
We have nothing else to do except to consider the principle of the Bill. If you think that this legislation does not go far enough there is a splendid opportunity for you to bring in a Bill of your own to extend the scope of this measure.
I think that the same facilities which are given in this Bill to build certain classes of houses should be given for the erection of houses for the working classes. The dwellings to which I refer are really hotbeds of disease. We are spending £35,000 in Dublin annually to deal with tuberculosis, yet these conditions are allowed to breed more tuberculosis. I will give just one or two further instances. In another one-room dwelling there were a father, a mother and nine children. One child which was formerly in Crooksling sanatorium is now attending school. Another child is now in a sanatorium. The eldest girl living in that room is twenty years of age and there is another girl of nineteen, as well as a boy of seventeen and several young children. What kind of morality and what kind of sanitation can you expect to find there?
CATHAOIRLEACH
Apart from going to the necessity of introducing a Bill, it will be open to you to put down a motion to call attention to the needs in the direction of which you speak, and you can have a full-dress debate upon it. I think in this instance you are travelling wide of our particular motion.
The reason I raised the matter now was that I thought I might not have another opportunity of doing so.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You can provide the opportunity for yourself. It is a very big and important question, and I think your experience would be very valuable upon it. It is open to you to put down a notice of motion and raise the whole question.
Question put and agreed to.