HOUSING (BUILDING FACILITIES) BILL, 1924—(SECOND STAGE RESUMED).

Question again proposed: "That this Bill be read a Second Time."

Mr. JOHNSON

I regret that, notwithstanding the added day, it has not been possible for me to examine this Bill with the care that so important a project would require. Nevertheless, I find in it many matters that call for comment. I am not going to oppose the Second Reading, inasmuch as the Minister has faith that it will result in the building of houses. As he has more opportunities of knowing what are the possibilities in this matter, I should be glad to facilitate him in achieving that object. I am one of those who believe that every new house that is built does, to however small an extent, help to relieve the present congestion. Therefore, if houses are built, I am not going to be too careful as to the means taken to achieve that end. But I feel that this Bill is not going to do very much in that direction, and I am sorry, after all the expectations that were aroused by the President's promises, that we have so unpromising a proposition put to us as the Bill, which is the Government's attempt to solve the housing problem. I note, by the way, that the Bill is introduced by the President. One might have thought that it was within the province of the Minister for Local Government to introduce such a Bill. But I can quite understand his hesitancy. I imagine that he had not the hardihood to come to the Dáil to promote or to back the Bill, perhaps not even to support the Bill, in view of the attitude he is taking in regard to the payment of the people who may be expected to be occupiers of the houses which will be built under the scheme. I might come to that later.

I would have liked to have heard from the President some estimates of what the weekly charge upon the occupier would be for the various classes of houses to be built under the Bill. We have in Schedule (Part 1), certain figures as the maximum rent on weekly letting. I take these figures to be the indication of what is likely to be charged to tenants of houses built under the Bill, and what will, in fact, be the charge upon the occupiers of the majority of the houses which will be built under the scheme. What do we find? We find that the house of five rooms is estimated to be worth a weekly rent of 13s. 10d., and I think we may fairly assume that it is intended 13s. 10d. per week shall be charged to the occupier. The five-roomed house is presumably the house for the larger towns. That is one end of the scale. But we take the other end of the scale: the three-roomed house built in places where sewers and water mains are not available, and the weekly rent anticipated for such a house is 7s. 4½d. I ask the Minister for Local Government has he any anticipation of being able to extract a rent of 7s. 4½d. from a workman occupying a three-roomed house in the country, or a small town, whom he is employing at 25s. to 30s. per week? I am wrong in saying that he is employing; I should say whose wages will not be allowed to be above 25s. to 30s. weekly under an Order he issued.

I said on the earlier Stage that there was an obvious contradiction in the statement of the President in introducing the Bill. I went on to say that he was looking for lower wages for the workers generally, lower weekly earnings, and at the same time producing schemes which inevitably meant an increase in the charge for rent on these earnings. This rent, bear in mind, is irrespective of rates, and as the years go by the weekly charges will increase by virtue of the gradual increase in the rates to be paid. It may be said that more stress should be laid on the word maximum, and that in fact there may be rents charged for these houses below that maximum. I have made some calculations, as well as I could, with the information available since 8 o'clock last night, and I cannot see the possibility of going below 11s. 6d. for the larger house and 5s. for the smaller house.

If that is a fair estimate of the minimum, under the best possible circumstances, assuming that the State has paid its subsidy, and the local authority has paid out an equal subsidy, and, in addition to the subsidies, the local authorities have lent the maximum sum under the scheme, then I am afraid the chances of any large number of houses being built under this Bill are not very rosy. It may be said, and I admit at once that there is some possibility that congestion may be relieved to the extent of, perhaps, 3,000 houses in the year, even though the occupiers of these houses are not those mostly in need of them, but the better-off workman may be the occupier, and the very fact that a new house has been built helps to relieve the pressure on the least-able-to-pay workmen. That is something to the good, I admit, but it should be realised that this is not a Bill that is going to go very far in helping to re-house the poorer classes in the country. My feeling in this matter is that the Ministry have failed to rise to the occasion, and are doing what I will admit is quite a generous act regarding finance, but doing it in a mean, pettifogging way, and rather nibbling at a big problem and not facing it as it ought to be faced.

It has been made public that the problem before the country is to provide 60,000 houses, that there is at this time a shortage of not less than 60,000 houses, that there is steadily increasing deterioration and decay of those which at present exist, that that deterioration will increase and make the 60,000 quite a minimum of the numbers that have to be built to satisfy the housing needs of the country. Admittedly that is a very big and difficult problem to solve, but when we speak of 60,000 houses in the Saorstát it is a problem of 25,000 in the city of Dublin, or perhaps I would prefer to say a problem of re-housing the inhabitants of 25,000 houses in or around the city of Dublin. I would not like to think that the new 25,000 houses that will have to be built are all to be built inside the city boundary. I do not think a problem of that magnitude or of that urgency ought to be, or is adequately dealt with by the methods proposed in this Bill. Ministers are very careful, hesitating, doubtful, but it is hoped by them that they will interest private persons to apply for loans to the State; that they will conform to certain plans; receive loans from the State, and that the local authorities will come forward freely with an equal subsidy, and also help house building by loans chargeable on the rates.

Really, from all we have heard from the Minister himself and from Deputies, have we any reasonable grounds for expecting that the local authorities will be willing to grant these subsidies and make these loans within the next twelve months? I would like to know the grounds of the President's optimism in that respect. The Bill fails in other respects. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that houses will be built where they are most needed. There is the Department's, or, shall I say, the Minister's veto, but that is all. Again he may reply that no matter where they are built they will help to relieve congestion. I admit it, but, again, it is not doing very much to satisfy the demand for working-class houses. But there appears also to be an intention to remove any control which local authorities may have in the past intended over the layout of sites: that where something in the nature of a town plan was decided on by a local authority, it is now suggested that all those decisions shall be set aside, and that anyone will be allowed to build a house anywhere, in any fashion, subject to the final decision as to the design of the house by the Minister for Local Government. I think that is a defect, and I think that there ought to be, in the minds of Ministers, some general plans and that the policy of laissez faire in house-building should not be allowed to continue.

The Minister has laid some stress in his speech—but not much in the Bill— upon the provision which allows the Minister to purchase, manufacture and sell materials for house-building. There is, perhaps, a redeeming feature in that section, but, again, it is too timid and is only included in the Bill as something that may have to be applied if the public does not rise to the occasion. If the Minister would assure the Dáil that he is now ready to enter into this project, and if there is not a sufficient response to the requirements of the case within one month, say, after the passing of the Bill, that he is then ready to enter into the business of supplying materials, one might think that it had some real purpose behind it; but, inasmuch as there is no assurance of that kind, not much sign that that is the intention, that the Bill is only a one-year Bill, and that the clause only deals with local cases, local excess charges for materials, I think we can not take too much notice of that clause as being a serious intention to tackle the problem with resolution.

Unfortunately the trouble in regard to excessive prices for building materials is not a local trouble at all. It is not because a merchant in Athlone, or in Galway, or in Waterford charges too much for materials as compared with prices in other towns comparable. The trouble, unfortunately, is that it is a general excess of charges for building materials because of the fact that the controllers are very largely outside the jurisdiction of the Minister, and therefore that he is not able to deal effectively with overcharging for building materials, for he is only going to deal with it in a local manner. What is required is an authority capable of dealing with building materials in a wholesale way. In his speech on the Second Reading the Minister referred to propositions that had been put forward by the Labour Party as to the manner in which this housing problem should be dealt with, and I have not yet seen any criticism of the Labour Party's proposals in this matter to make me alter my opinion that the housing problem will have to be solved eventually, and can only be solved eventually by some such plan as we have proposed.

We think that the problem of providing houses for thousands of people that urgently require them is only likely to be solved, is only likely to be approached with a view to solution, if we think of it as we would think of a national emergency where the country is in danger. Bear in mind when you think that 60,000 houses are required now, and that by the ordinary processes it is estimated that you will only build about 3,000 houses in the year, you have, thereby, a twenty years' period before you are going to solve the present housing problem, and when you produce schemes which may, possibly, with the utmost success that one can imagine, build 3,000 houses within the year, as is proposed under this scheme, you are proposing a twenty years' waiting period before you have your present shortage of houses made up. I think that this problem ought to be solved on bigger lines with a more generous regard for the interests and a bigger faith in the capacity of the country.

We have suggested that there should be set up a national housing authority, representing the Government through its Chairman, the building trades on the operative side, the architects and the builders, and possibly the builders' providers, a small committee representing these elements, and give them instruction to build houses and powers to see that they are built. Such an authority would have, I think, to get powers to purchase for a ten years' programme; to go to Norway for timber wholesale; to take control, if necessary, of building plant in the country; if necessary to call upon all those engaged in the trade on the material side to place their plant at the disposal of the authority for the purpose of building houses; to treat the matter as a Commander-in-Chief of an army would treat a case of national defence; and, organise, on the operative side, every man from the architect down to the builders' labourer. I think that housing authority would require to see to the organisation of every man engaged in the business, as I say, from the architect down to the building trade employer, to the builders' labourer, and the boy that wets the tea.

25,000 people, nominally, are accredited to the building and constructional trades in the Saorstát. Half of them, probably, are engaged in repair work, but I believe that if it were the intention, on the material side and on the labour side, to mobilise all the effectives for house building, 15,000 men might be found available. It seems to me that we should proceed on the assumption that we have 15,000 men, their experience and their ability, and we want to use them for house building. How best are we going to use them? There is the task for the Chief of Staff. I would not be afraid, not for one moment, if it were proposed to organise an army of house builders and to set them to that task, giving them a five years' period of service. I have said several times in the Dáil, and I say again, that if you can say to a man, "Here we guarantee you, given good conduct, and ordinary, reasonable conduct in your work, five years or ten years' continuous employment," then you can go to those men and say,, "Give us of your best, remove any possible obstruction there may be owing to the necessities that have faced you in the past to prevent the evils arising out of unemployment in your trade; here you are guaranteed employment for five years or ten years; the need is there, it cannot be remedied within five or ten years, give us of your labour and we will guarantee you employment." Then I say you can talk to men, and ask them to suggest means and ways of increasing the supply of houses in the best possible fashion.

But when you come with a scheme of this kind, which contemplates a large number of employees, building one, two or three or a thousand houses within a year, without any knowledge that at the end of a year's time when the winter comes there will not be one, two, three or four weeks' unemployment, and that we do not know what is going to happen next year; with a prospect of that kind men would be foolish to lay down their weapons of defence which were found necessary in the past. Bear in mind that those practices and rules regarding demarcation, and the like, which give so much occasion for dispute, have all arisen because of the need for defence against encroachment upon one trade or another, because of the fear of unemployment. I want you to remove that fear, and say to these 15,000 men, "We guarantee you a five years' or a ten years' job in one place or another at house building," and then you can appeal to them, to their best instincts and their highest interests, to build houses in the best possible way.

I think there is no sign in the Bill of a real appreciation of the needs, and that the Bill does not reflect the consciousness that is in the minds of Ministers that that need exists. We know that they are as anxious as we are about it, but that they have feared to do the bold thing, and they produce a Bill which will not go any distance in laying the foundations even for a solution of the problem. You may get a thousand or two thousand houses within a year, and I doubt even whether you will get that number. There are too many conditions and too many hesitancies. The fact that you are engaged in driving down wages is going to make it difficult to get any body to respond to a proposition of this kind. For a man to tie himself to a house rent of 14s. a week until 1926, and then have the prospect of a removal of the Rent Restrictions Act so that rents will go still further— that does not harmonise with the prospect which the Minister holds out that the same man will have to be content with a very much smaller wage. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister for Local Government has to say when he reads Part I. of the Schedule, and how he will explain the prospect of paying from 7s. to 12s. a week in small country towns out of a wage of from 25s. to 35s. a week, and keep a family. I am sorry that the Bill has failed to fulfil, or go any way towards fulfilling, the expectations that the Ministerial statement seemed to foreshadow. Nevertheless, they may have evidence that there is a large number of people—shall I say three thousand people—waiting to live in houses on these terms. If he can, under this Bill, ensure that 3,000 houses will be built, nobody will be more pleased than I.

Mr. P. DOYLE

There are a few points I would wish to put to the President. The first question I would like to ask him is whether he will include within the scope of the Bill a clause to compel owners of derelict sites to build on such sites where possible, or give the local authorities such powers. I think it is well recognised that in urban districts—particularly in Dublin and some other cities—there are a considerable amount of derelict sites which are a serious menace to health and everything else, owing to the difficulty in forcing owners to put them in proper repair and to insist that they are kept in a proper state. It would, as well as being of considerable advantage in the way of providing houses, help to a large extent towards the cleanliness of the streets. I also desire to know if it would be advisable to include a clause regarding the provision of two-room houses with certain conditions.

The scheme adopted by the Dublin Corporation in which they included four or five-room houses was, I think, a good one. At the time of that decision they had also an idea that by a system of migratory tenants they would be able to transfer people who were not in a position to pay high rents. Rents are extremely high. I find in one instance—which may form an ilustration of what I want to come to—that in one of the areas in which the Dublin Corporation are working—namely, Donnelly's Orchard—there are 2,080 applicants for 85 houses, and on searching up these applications and finding out the people who are prepared to follow up their applications by accepting houses—if given to them—that about 400 of these applicants would not, on any consideration, undertake to pay the rents. The deplorable conditions under which the poorer class are living in the city are well known to everybody, and I do not think it is necessary to remind the President of them owing to his knowledge of such conditions. I believe his judgment will prove right in dealing with them. I think that some opportunity ought to be given where it is possible to provide two-room houses. I should also like to ask, if under the Act, private owners must submit their plans to local authorities for approval,

Mr. GOOD

We have listened to a very interesting speech on the subject of housing from Deputy Johnson, but I cannot say that it has been at all helpful to those who are anxious to provide houses for the very many in need of them. He has given a most interesting discourse on many economic questions in connection with the building industry. He has referred on this occasion, as on many others, to one of the difficulties in connection with output—that is the question of prevailing unemployment. He has said that the cause of that is the want of a guarantee on the part of employers to give these workmen constant employment for a period of something like fifteen years. If he were, or had been, in the building business for even three months, I am quite satisfied we would never have had that suggestion from Deputy Johnson. Anybody engaged in that business knows that it is a most variable one. It depends greatly on the conditions of trade in the city, because building in many cases is a luxury—whether you take it as regards private individuals or the extension of factories and shops —and it largely depends on the condition of trade. When trade is good building as a rule is good, and when it is bad building is bad. These principles will, I think, be generally agreed to. How is an employer in the building trade under such circumstances going to guarantee employment?

In one particular year there may be a large amount of money to be expended on works of construction, and employment will be good, but in the next year, or even in the next six months, employment may be bad, and how is any individual so situated in the trade going to guarantee employment? It is all very interesting for these Deputies to put forward propositions, which may seem attractive to those who do not understand the problem, but let some man who does understand it tell us how it is going to work out. I have been engaged in the trade for many years, and to me, and many more like me, such information would be most interesting. Let me say, however, that though I do not hold that this Bill does all that we would like to see it do, I would like to see on the part of labour, which is going to benefit more than any other section of the community from the improvement and development of housing, some greater desire than has yet been shown to help to solve this problem. It is of little use in saying you cannot do this thing and cannot do the other thing. That is a destructive mood. We should be told what we can do, and how far labour is prepared to go, for its part is a big one in this problem.

I have pointed out, on more than one occasion, in this Dáil that 50 per cent. of the cost of building is on labour. Consequently labour can do more to provide houses than any other section of the community. It is up to them seriously to consider what they can do to help those who are anxious to deal with the difficulty of providing houses. In this Bill that has been put forward by the President, I am afraid that he, like Deputy Johnson and some others, assumed that the getting of houses is an easy problem. I think that is the wrong spirit in which to look at this matter. It has been admitted generally that housing is an uneconomic proposal at the moment, and any uneconomic proposal is always difficult to deal with. One of the difficulties of the moment in this Bill is that after the Government has done practically all it can do, it has only got a move on housing. There are limitations to what the Government and the local authorities can do. They can only do a certain portion and then leave it to others to carry out the rest, but, as the President pointed out, he hoped this Bill, which showed an earnest desire on behalf of the Government to do what they could towards providing houses, would be met by an equal effort on the part of other sections engaged in that industry to try and provide those houses.

It is in that spirit that one would like to approach this measure. I am quite satisfied that unless it is approached in that spirit this Bill will make very little impression on this difficult problem. I cannot say that I like a great deal that is in this Bill. The President talked, on yesterday afternoon, about the question of the amount of bricks that are likely to be absorbed on the housing scheme, and said that possibly the estimate given on the first occasion was very much short of what it would be. As one who has some technical knowledge in this matter, I am more inclined to agree with the President in his first than in his second estimate. Possibly the President has in mind what cannot be accomplished without adding a considerable burden to this scheme: that is, that the houses will have to be built with bricks. It would be exceedingly unwise to confine the building of houses to any particular material under this Bill. If concrete is cheaper in any area let the houses be built with that material. If stone is cheaper in that area let the houses be built with that, and so on; but let us get the houses at the cheapest possible figure in whatever is the cheapest material. If you take that as your basis, the first estimate would be found better than the second one.

In connection with the local authority with which I happen to be identified, it is erecting something like sixty houses. I am glad to say they are small houses, because that is the right line on which to go. There is not a single brick used on those sixty houses. Not far from where those houses are being erected, a number of houses have been erected for ex-servicemen under another scheme, and no brick was used in them. Therefore, we have 120, odd, houses in which not a brick was used, because other material was cheaper. As well as allowing these builders under this scheme to build the houses of whatever material happens to be the cheapest at the moment, provided it is suitable material, we must also go a little further in this Bill. It has not gone in other directions as far as I would like it. In many cases, rules and regulations of local authorities cause great expense in erection of houses that might be avoided. When you are building one or two houses it does not make a lot of difference, but when building a lot of houses it increases the difficulty.

I would like to see some clause empowering the local authority to withdraw in some cases these stringent regulations. Of course, any withdrawal of that kind would have to have the full approval of the Ministry, and such a clause would have to be inserted in the Bill to give the local authority that power. Furthermore, if houses are to be obtained at the rates mentioned in this Bill, we must recollect that the figures here are very interesting figures. A three-room house under this scheme is to be produced at the maximum of £290, that is, including the grant. £240 is the maximum price it is to be sold at. The three-room house must be produced on less than £290, and that must include the profit for the man who produced it. If houses are to be produced at these interesting figures, every effort would have to be made by those engaged in the industry, and consequently it would be necessary that the local authority would have the powers I mention. It may, I think, be taken for granted, that the local authority will have to provide the sites, roadways, sewers, water-mains, and the other requisites of that kind in connection with housing.

I do not think it is proposed that these figures here—at least I hope not—include these costs, because I may say that it is impossible for these figures to include such items, and these items are not usually included in what is known as builders' estimates.

Now, another item, in connection with this Bill, which has been possibly overlooked by the President, in his desire to get these houses built quickly, is the question of time. It is expected that these houses, and, in fact, it is necessary under the Bill, should be produced in twelve months. To my mind, that is impossible in connection with this scheme. In the first place, this scheme implies a certain amount of negotiation between the private interests and the builders, or between the builder and the owner, and certain negotiations must take place between the private individual and the local authorities. Anybody with any experience of local authorities knows that they do not move quickly. These negotiations will take a little time. It is also the experience of local authorities at the moment that even to acquire sites compulsorily it takes approximately six months, sometimes more and sometimes less, but that is the approximate time. So that the sites would not be available for the builder to put a house on for at least six months. The local authority would have to lay down roadways, pathways and drains, and until that work is accomplished, and only then, would it be possible for the builder to enter upon the site, so that I am satisfied, taking these circumstances into account, that the time given, namely, twelve months, is impossible, and that will have to be reconsidered.

There are a great many other items that I would like to deal with, but we will have an opportunity of going into them in Committee, and it is not necessary to take up the time of the Dáil now with them on Second Reading. But there is an important principle embodied in the Bill, which was never embodied in a Housing Bill previously, and that is the provision of money for the purpose of repairing houses. I think that is a very desirable and necessary provision, but I think it does not go far enough. If these small houses have fallen into dilapidation I admit that it is a good and sound policy to spend money putting them into a state of repair. But taking a city like Dublin—owing to the movement of the population and other changes which have taken place—we have in our square and other older portions of Dublin a great many fine houses, untenanted in many cases at the moment, and in other cases let in tenements. Now I think this scheme for the repair of houses might go a little further and apply to the adaptation of houses, because I think that many of these very fine houses might be adapted for the purpose of being occupied by those other people who are so badly housed at the moment. It would be an awful pity that any scheme should be brought into our city that would have for its object the leaving aside, the passing over, and letting go derelict of these houses, and I think we ought to consider that portion of the city's interest in connection with what might be called a city scheme and apply monies for improving and adapting these houses to the new requirements. I think it would be well-spent money, and in the interests of the city I think it would be very usefully-spent money.

There is another clause in connection with the Bill that I must candidly confess I do not like. That is Clause 8, which deals with the right of the Government to go into the premises of any supplier of building material, make an enquiry, and fix the rates if they are satisfied that the rates at which this material is sold are higher than they should be, to fix the rates for the future, or compel him to sell under a penalty. That, to my mind, is a most drastic and far-reaching clause. I am not aware that such a clause has ever appeared in any Housing Act previously, and I am not aware, further, that there has ever been evidence anywhere, and I have yet to learn if there has been, of any profiteering in connection with building material. Now, this clause, in the absence of any prima facie evidence of profiteering, gives power to the Government to come in and fix prices. We are anxious in this Free State to encourage the development of industry, both in the building trade and in a great many other departments of trade and commerce. Does anybody think for a moment that those connected with the manufacture of some of the items in connection with building material are going to start industries in this country, in the face of a clause of this kind, giving the Government power to walk in and fix the rates at which they are going to sell their products? Does anyone, for a moment, imagine that capitalists—I suppose they would be called that by some of our friends of the Labour Benches—are going to start any industry in this country under such conditions? I think, even if Deputies in the Labour benches were considering as to whether they would buy shares in some of these companies knowing this clause was in this particular Act, they would hesitate about investing in a Company supplying building material.—I am quite satisfied they would. Therefore, while this clause may be put in with the object of achieving some temporary benefit, let us look at this question from the bigger point of view. What result is a clause of this kind likely to have in the development of industry in this country? I think people who are considering investing money in this country will say if the Government puts in such a proposal in connection with housing and building material, the Government will not hesitate to apply the same clause to other departments of commerce. In such circumstances, what is going to be the ultimate effect of that upon the development of trade and commerce and industry in the Free State? Let us have evidence of profitteering before the accusation is made. I have been connected with this industry for years. I have had a great deal to do with it on the other side and on this side, and I have yet to get evidence of profiteering in the building trade, and I say in all fairness, that evidence of that kind is absolutely necessary before a clause of this sort is brought forward in connection with an industry in which an allegation of that kind never was made. I leave that clause with the observations that I have made at the moment.

I come now to the Schedule. I do not know whether I have misunderstood the Schedule, but I certainly cannot follow it at the moment, and I will not take up the time of the Dáil in dealing with it now, because this again is a matter that can be elucidated in Committee. In part one of the Schedule where sewers and water mains are not available, the houses are to be sold at a figure of £240. Where sewers and water mains are available, the houses are to cost £30 more. I do not follow that. One would imagine that the houses ought to be less where sewers and water mains are available. However, as I say, as far as I am concerned. I think these figures should not include either sewers or water mains. These ought to be put in by the local authorities, and the figures here stated are merely to apply to houses and the construction of houses and, of course, to the small connections that might be necessary. Now, these are the few points that I want to refer to at the moment. On the larger question of housing, we have been asking why houses are not being built, and the simple answer is that houses are too expensive to build.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Deputy say why they were not built pre-war?

Mr. GOOD

Houses were built to a much greater extent in pre-war days than they have ever been since. We have had housing campaigns and intensive campaigns on the other side, and we never approached yet to the number of houses that were built in pre-war days, and it may further be of interest to Deputy Johnson to know that the local authorities and the municipalities on the other side have been harnessing up, if one may use the simile, in the production of houses for some years past. State funds have been available for that particular purpose but, notwithstanding this, the efforts in the direction that is outlined, they have not obtained in any one year as many houses as were produced by private enterprise in pre-war days, and as will be produced by private enterprise. I am quite satisfied that is true because I think private enterprise is the only solution. The question has been raised as to whether people who can only build two or three houses were to come in under this scheme. I think this scheme ought to be framed so as to encourage everybody anxious to build, to do so. It is only by interesting the many that we will ever get this problem dealt with, but that brings me to the real point and the big point and that is the difficulty—I do not care from what point of view you face it—the difficulty in connection with housing and the cost of housing, and I say again the high cost of housing in Ireland is brought about by high wages. The cost of materials is increased by the wages that have to be paid in the production of materials so that a reduction in the cost of wages will mean a proportionate reduction in the cost of material, and a reduction in the cost of wages will mean a material reduction in the cost of housing, so that I say to Deputy Johnson, and the Labour Party, that they have more to do with the number of houses that will be put up under this scheme or under any other scheme than any other section of the community.

Mr. SEAN LYONS

This Bill, to my mind, is one that is going to do a certain amount of good to men like Deputy Good and his class. If the workers of the Saorstát were to offer to be what I suppose would be called genuine patriots, and work for nothing and get the houses built without any cost for labour, I wonder would he and his class be content with a reasonable rent for these houses. I do not think they would. There is one clause here concerning reconstruction that I want to touch upon for a few moments. That is paragraph (f) of section 3—"In the case of the reconstruction of an existing house, that existing house shall have been in a ruinous or defective condition at the passing of this Act and shall, before the reconstruction is begun, be certified by an appointed officer to be capable of reconstruction as a house fulfilling the foregoing conditions."

I wonder would the landlord—I am speaking now for the country, more or less, and I do not intend to touch upon the city landlords at all—who is assisted in doing this reconstruction be allowed to charge the 10 per cent. on the rent allowed under the repair sections in previous Acts. In the country many small contractors are also landlords, and if they get this grant of 25 per cent., or 30 per cent., or 40 per cent. for reconstruction will they be allowed then to charge an increased percentage on the rent? If the contractors are also house owners and they get a grant for the purpose of reconstruction of houses will they be entitled to increase the rents by 10 per cent. for repairs which they carry out as they have such a privilege under the Rent Restriction Act. Every Deputy who has spoken touched upon Part 1 of the Schedule, and some Deputies talked about building a three-roomed house for £240, and a four-roomed house for £320, and a five-roomed house for £400. There is nothing to indicate in any portion of the schedule the actual amount for which these houses will be built, and the amount of profit which the builder will secure upon the transaction. Presumably, the £240 house can be built for £150. A house such as I referred to could be built in any country town or district for £150, and the person who would get the grant would be making £100 profit. What I want to know is this, that in houses of that kind will the tenant, when he comes into occupation, get any benefit by a reduction in his rent?

For reconstruction the minimum grant is £33; it goes up to £66 13s. 4d. in the city. If the amount of money allocated for that purpose—£50,000— was trebled it would mean the housing of a large number of people more quickly than if new houses were built. In many instances the tenants paid their rents and rates promptly; their houses, through bad landlordism, were allowed to get into such a state of disorder that they are an eyesore.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the chair at this stage.

Mr. LYONS

In nearly every street houses are decaying because the landlords will not spend any money in repairs. Under this Bill it might be possible to get them to repair those houses so as to make them fit for habitation.

Deputy Johnson mentioned, and rightly so, that a three-roomed house at a rent of 7/4½ per week in the country is a very poor house for a worker and his family.

In connection with the work to be done under the different councils throughout the Saorstát, especially in the portion of the Saorstát I represent, for the purposes of relieving unemployment, the wages specified are 30/- per week. I would like the President to follow me, and I think I will be able to show that the rent specified in the schedule of the Bill might be reduced by at least 200 per cent.——

The PRESIDENT

Does the Deputy mean, in that case, that we should present the gentleman who is getting a house with £1 5s. per week along with the house?

Mr. LYONS

Yes; I suggest you should if you are compelling him to work for 30/- a week. Take the rent of a house at 7/4½ per week; it leaves the man £1 2s. 7½d. If you allow him 2/7½ for fuel, he has £1 per week left for the purpose of feeding himself, his wife and two children. Take it that each of these people eats three meals a day, that would be 12 meals per day, or 84 per week. It would mean that they would have about 2½d. each for a meal. Take a five-roomed house. The rent would be 12/3½ per week. In the case of a man who had 30/- a week, 17/8½ would be left, after paying the rent. Allowing 2/8½ for fuel, the amount left would be 15/- to feed four children and two adults, which is, I hold, the size of the average workers' family. Take it that each member of this family eats three meals per day, it would mean 18 meals per day, or 126 meals per week. That would leave something about 1¼d. a meal for each person. There is nothing left for clothing, education, or any little luxuries that might be necessary for a worker. That is why I suggested that this rent should be reduced by 200 per cent., in order to give the worker something to live on, and so that he could rear his family in a proper manner. If you invited a Deputy to a meal that would cost 1½d., I would like to know what he would say. I wonder what class of form he would be in for an all-night sitting after such a meal.

I would like to bring to the notice of the President, and the Minister for Local Government, that there are a large number of workhouses idle throughout the country. They are going to ruin through want of habitation. If those houses were reconstructed they would provide housing for numerous families who at the present time are living under very deplorable conditions, and it would go a long way towards easing the housing problems in many towns.

At the present time, in the towns of Athlone and Mullingar, 12 or 13 dwellinghouses are being built, under a recent grant, by the local Councils. The houses are not completely finished yet, but there are over 200 applicants for these 12 or 13 houses. If the workhouse in Athlone could be reconstructed to serve as dwellings, it would house at least 50 families. The same thing applies to the town of Granard, where a beautiful building could be put into a state of repair, at an outlay of a few hundred pounds, to house the people of the locality, who are living under very poor conditions.

I hope the Government will not think seriously of the suggestion made by, I think, Deputy Doyle, regarding the erection of two-roomed houses. Does the Deputy mean that because a family is poor it is to be housed under conditions that are altogether inadequate? I hope the Deputies, if that suggestion comes forward by way of amendment on the next reading of the Bill, will vote against it. I would like to see the Deputy, if he is married, living with his wife and six or seven of a family in a two-roomed house.

The President mentioned, on the First Reading, that a particular family with £17 per week coming in to them, were unable to give any portion of the purchase money of their house—£50 I think he mentioned was the key money— while a family with about a quarter of that income was able either to purchase or to give the instalment required. The former must be spendthrifts and the latter must be living under very economic conditions. I wonder would the former have a large family and the latter none at all. If the worker's wages were in one case £17 and in the other case £3 10s., probably in the former case there would be a family of 12 or 13 and in the other case there would be no children. Under existing conditions, the man with the smaller salary could save more money, and I would not call the man with the big salary a spendthrift.

There is another point I would wish to make. There is nothing in this Bill that would in any way encourage the tenant who may be the first to go into occupation to look after the house in a proper manner or in the manner he should if the house were some time to become his own property.

It matters little what Deputies may say about high wages or about asking labour to make sacrifices. The workers of Ireland are harder hit to-day than they were in 1910. The reduction in the cost of living is only paper talk. It has never become a reality. We hear a great deal about the worker who is not able to afford to pay his rent and rates being evicted. If the worker got an opportunity of earning a good wage, you would find that there would be no honester citizen in the Saorstát. When you give him 30/- a week and ask him to pay 12/4½ in rent out of that, how is that man to have any energy or willpower, and how is he to cultivate his own brain or educate his children? I quite agree that wages should come down as soon as the cost of living comes down—or at least a short time afterwards. I do not agree with Deputy Good that the lack of development in Irish industry is due to high wages. If a man had £1 4s. per week in 1910, he has £2 2s. now. That is 18/- more. One of these three-room houses could be built in 1910 at from £75 to £85. The present cost we find is £230. If the employer was paying out in 1910 £5,000 in wages per annum, I challenge contradiction that that man is paying any more now—perhaps not even half as much.

I have had experience of a certain County Council where the estimates for the maintenance of roads amounted to £36,000. At that time the wages in the county were 30s. a week. Since then the wages have been increased to 45s. a week, and yet the present estimate for the up-keep of the roads is £36,000. There is a lot of red-tapeism and jobbery going on, and that should be put an end to. When it is, the worker will be able to prove that he was not primarily responsible for the high cost of living. The scanty wages that he is receiving are not capable of keeping himself, not to mind his unfortunate wife and family. Now we are asked to pay, under this housing scheme, 7s. 4½d. rent for a three or four-roomed house, and 12s. 3½d. for a five-roomed house. On the First Reading the President mentioned that some Councils were seeking to have baths provided in the houses. Fancy, it has been suggested, the idea of baths for workers! We are told that the worker is not entitled to have cleanliness, and that he should get no facilities, seemingly, for any luxury.

The PRESIDENT

Oh, yes.

Mr. LYONS

Yes, if they can afford it on 30s. a week. The worker, it is suggested, must not be allowed a bathroom. I know that the President and the other members of the Government realise fully—perhaps more so than any labour advocate in the Saorstát— that if bathrooms were provided and if general cleanliness prevailed, it would be much better in the interests of the nation as a whole. Cleanliness in the worker's home tends to give him heart; to see his home clean and tidy, and his children neat and clean, encourages him to do better. He would put more energy into his work, he will do better work, and that surely will all be in the interest of the nation. I suggest earnestly that the worker should get an opportunity under this Bill, by means of an arranged system of paying rent, of having his house ultimately becoming his own property. There is no use in introducing a housing scheme on the same lines as a scheme introduced two or three hundred years ago. For hundreds of years families have occupied certain houses, in respect of which rent is still being paid. Under the present Rent Restriction Act, if an employee rents a house from his employer, and if he leaves or happens to be dismissed, the employer has the right to put him out irrespective of what period his ancestors may have occupied the place, and for that matter they might have been living there from St. Patrick's time, the original occupier, perhaps, being a friend of St. Patrick's. When St. Patrick came to Ireland it was amongst the workers he went, and he did not go amongst the aristocrats.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Possibly there was none left.

Mr. LYONS

A period of 15 years should be quite long enough to enable a man to become the owner of the house he rents. In the fixing of the rent for the houses contemplated under this Bill, I suggest that it should be made a very low one. Personally, I know what I myself can afford to pay, and I am sure the workers I represent would be content to pay the same amount. For a house with three rooms in a town, a reasonable rent would be 2/- a week; for a house with four rooms, the rent should be 3/10; and for a house of five rooms, the rent should be fixed at 4/6. I am sure those rents would meet with the approval of the workers. I can assure the President and the Dáil that the average worker in the country cannot afford to pay the rent asked for under this Bill. If the rent suggested in the Bill were taken off the present semi-starvation wage the workers are receiving, that would clinch the nail that goes into the worker's coffin, and would wipe him out of existence completely.

If the rents I have suggested were brought forward on the next Reading of the Bill, I am sure they would meet with approval amongst the workers, for whom the houses are meant to be erected. With such rents the workers would be in a better position to rear their families, and they would be in a better position to keep the home and to purchase school books for the purpose of educating their children. Let me emphasise that the rent I have mentioned is as much as the average worker can afford to pay. If the worker realises that at some time the house is to become his own property, there will not exist half as many grievances between tenant and landlord as we have been accustomed to heretofore. If a man gets a house and understands that at the end of 15 years it will become his property, he will look after it much better than if he is merely paying rent from week to week without having any hope of becoming the owner. He will take more interest in it, and such a system would definitely put an end to a lot of the unnecessary trouble that arises between tenants and landlords because of rack rents imposed upon people who cannot afford to pay.

Mr. A. BYRNE

The remarks that I have to make in regard to this Bill would, perhaps, be more suitable for a Housing Committee if given in the nature of evidence in relation to small buildings. However, I take this opportunity of congratulating the President in his sincere desire to provide houses for the citizens of the country generally. I find that the Bill does not provide for those who are herded in tenement houses in Dublin City in deplorable circumstances. I regret I have to come to the conclusion that the Bill is surrounded with so many restrictions, so many conditions, and so much red tape in every Clause, that it will prevent the small builder or the private individual from coming forward and availing of the invitation that is here issued by way of a subsidy. I was one of the strongest advocates of a solution of the housing question that recommended building by private enterprise. Private enterprise,, in my opinion, is the only solution. I notice that in one Clause there is a time fixed—probably 12 months after the passing of the Bill —in which houses are to be completed. I suggest to the President that the time specified is too short.

No small man, with a small capital, will venture to build houses under such circumstances. I was one who availed some years ago of the British Government Grant of £260 per house. I think there were only two other persons in the city of Dublin who availed of the opportunity to get that grant of £260 from the British Government. When I tell the Minister that that £260 was granted unconditionally—the only conditions were that you build a decent house—I ask how does he expect that with that grant of £260, reduced now to £100, and surrounded with conditions about the sale price of the house and rent, that this Bill will effectively solve the problem? If the house is being built by a private speculator, for rent purposes, I say it is right that in housing subsidies by the Government a rent should be fixed, but I cannot understand how the Minister hopes to induce the small builders who build two houses, to compete with the Masters' Federation of Builders, for whom Deputy Good speaks? How does he expect a small builder to come along and avail of this Bill if he is compelled to sell that house at a certain price? I might give an instance of a five-roomed house being built. Because of the particular position—two of seven houses in which I was personally interested, two of seven houses which I built under this grant were sold for £850. Two others almost adjoining them, just on account of the position in which they were, were sold for £100 apiece less, just because of the position and not because of the value of the house. If it were not for the opportunity of being able to build those two on a good frontage and getting a reasonable price for the two higher priced houses the other two could not have been built or sold for the price at which they were sold. Therefore, I would suggest to the Minister that that condition should be reviewed, and that the question of the area in which the houses are built, and that the question of the cost of the land for the purpose of building the houses should be taken into consideration. I come now to a point which was mentioned some time ago. It was mentioned some time ago that there were various building societies in this country that would put up certain prices and put a certain valuation on houses as a result of their experience. Now I think that those building societies who have members paying in on house building policies should be allowed to build houses and get the Government grant on those houses, regardless of the condition of the price fixed at £400. Some of those building societies, and some of those big insurance societies who have housing policies, will give a certain amount of money towards the purchase of that house. But a £450 house, surrounded with these conditions which are here, will not be regarded as security to the societies concerned. I think also, in regard to the point put to the Minister by Deputy Peadar Doyle, that is the question of sites in the city of Dublin going into decay, and becoming a matter of ruins, the owners, although there is no power vested in any local authority, should be compelled either to clear the sites or to build on the sites. I think when a site or building is condemned by the local authority that the original owner should get a certain amount of time to clear the site and to rebuild or hand over the site at a proper valuation to the Council, or to any other person, for the purpose of building. I say that, because, unfortunately, we have too many of these derelict sites in the city of Dublin.

Now, I come to the point raised by Deputy Good, and that is the point in which he spoke to the Minister and made an effort to induce him to withdraw that clause dealing with the providing of materials. I hope the Minister will not withdraw that clause. I hope the Minister will see that when a grant is given to provide money for the purpose of the building of houses that he will see the the builders' providers will not immediately put up by 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. the price of the goods they have for sale. Because I will state here, and I will give Deputy Good an instance of it if he requires it, that amongst the builders' providers there was profiteering. The moment the British Government gave a £260 grant, every class of goods required for the building of houses went up at once 20 per cent. The builders' providers stated that they might as well have their whack out of it as anybody else. All the money should not go into wages. I want to say that I am speaking from experience. I went to a builders' providers in the City of Dublin to purchase a certain class of small parlour fire grate. They quoted me £12 10s. for a fire grate that was £3 in pre-war days. The builder who accompanied me said: "We will go over and interview so-and-so, who are builders' providers and ask for their prices for the same class of grate." The salesman in the firm who was showing us this grate said: "You need not go over, because if they are known to sell this fire-grate at a cheaper price than the price fixed in England they will not be supplied with any more grates."

That applied also where baths had to be put into the houses. In pre-war days the baths were sold for £3, but the price charged to us was £12 17s. We could not get a bath of the same class at a lower price, because the price appeared to be a standard one with every builders' provider in the city of Dublin. If Deputy Good wishes to have proof of that statement, I can give it to him, and I can tell him that these classes of goods were four times, and in one or two cases, five times, the prices they were in pre-war days. The builders' providers got a handsome increased profit on their goods as a result of the Government grant. The same efforts may be made under this Bill by builders' providers to put up the cost of their goods by 12 per cent. or 15 per cent. I hope that, while I am not in favour of going in and examining the books of any trader in the country—because I think that is a rather drastic step to take—still I hope the Minister may be able to find out the cost of the manufacture of these goods in Ireland or in England, and also what profit the retailer is demanding in Dublin. If the Minister is able to do that, he will be able to do a good deal for, say, the small man who proposes to build 20 or 30 small houses. He may be able to put that small man in the position of saying that he will order the goods either wholesale from the builders' providers or from the manufacturer, and that amount of money so saved can be put into the house and not into a middleman's pocket. I say the curse of this country is that we have too many middlemen.

I come now to Part 1. of the Schedule, in which I observe there are three notes. I see that in Note No. 1 it is stated that where the erection or reconstruction of a house is not completed within twelve months from the passing of this Act, and that the time for such completion has to be extended, the grant made will be reduced by one-tenth for every month beyond the expiration of the date and the actual completion, whether it be the erection or the reconstruction of a house. I say it is too harsh to stop one-tenth of the grant regardless of asking the builder whether he has any reasonable explanation to offer as to why the delay took place. I think it would be unfair to fine him by a reduction of one-tenth of the grant for not having the house completed within the specified time. I could give an instance that I know of where a condition very like that was imposed under a grant given by the British Government. I personally had to delay for six or seven months over the time allowed for the erection of houses, and if I were fined this one-tenth on the total grant given, it would have meant a considerable loss to me on the building of six or seven houses, but I was able to satisfy the Minister and also to satisfy the Minister's Secretary, who is at present in the House, that there was a reasonable explanation for the delay. I was able to give him a reasonable explanation that the cause of the delay was not mine, and that my desire was to build the houses up to time. When we got to the roofing of the houses the military promptly came along and fired on the man who was doing the slating. They fired from Mountjoy, and the result was that I had to take the slater off the house until more normal conditions obtained to enable me to continue the roofing. If this note in the Schedule that I am referring to is strictly enforced it will mean that a reasonable explanation such as I am now giving would not be accepted.

I hope that the Minister will make some effort to deal with the class, that unfortunate class that I have already mentioned, which is herded in tenements under conditions which any country in the world would be ashamed of. I know of cases where there are sixteen, seventeen, and even eighteen families in one house, in which there is also only one lavatory. The only water supply is situated down in the yard, so that a person living on the top floor, if he wants water, has to go down and climb back again a house that is five storeys high. That is a great hardship on people who have to go down these dark stairs and drag up water for washing purposes. I think the day is coming when we will have to make a serious effort to house that class of person.

The present Bill is intended to assist a very deserving class who, through their energy or their efforts, and through having good employment, will be able to purchase a house and pay a good rent for it. I am satisfied that the Bill will do some good, but I am sorry that it is surrounded with so many conditions, and that the Government did not do the big thing. They are giving the Corporation of Dublin £500 towards the building of a five-roomed house, that is to say, a house that will cost about £800. That is to say, the Government is providing two-thirds of the cost. I am sorry that the Government did not come along and say that they would give £40 per room to any person building a house in the city of Dublin, whether it was a four, five, or six-roomed house. That would enable people to build a good class of house, and would encourage the small man to go in for building. The provision of such houses would also enable a certain class of person to move out of what are commonly called now flats, in which, say, an unfortunate clerk with a salary of £4 10s. a week, has to pay 30/- a week for two rooms. I am satisfied that that class of person is being provided for in this Bill, and that when provision is made for that class it will make room for others. I think it is time that the councils through the country should be aided by the Government and through this Bill to make provision for the tenement class. Even the Dublin Corporation, of which I am a member, are not at present providing for what are commonly known as the working classes. The Corporation have built houses for which they charge a rent of 15/- a week on a house purchase scheme. There are many hundreds, and perhaps thousands, in the city of Dublin willing to pay a rent of 15/-, and I should say there are treble the number who are able to pay a rent of 10/- a week. But neither the Corporation, nor the Government under this Bill, is providing for the 10/- a week rent payer. I hope that the Government will consider the suggestions that I have made, and that something will be done to provide houses for tenement dwellers. I now come to the last paragraph in the Schedule. It is one that I heartily approve of. I am satisfied that the Government have made great strides and have given great encouragement to small builders and to others, who are in a position to do so, to build their own houses. I support the Bill, and I would ask the Minister to consider the points I have made.

Mr. GOREY

My object in rising in connection with this Bill is to draw attention not to what it contains, but to what it omits. There is only one Section in the Bill — Section 6, I think it is —which comes anyway near the idea that I have in mind, and even that Section does not come near enough to the mark as regards the class of people I speak for. Houses have been provided under various housing schemes by rural district councils in every rural district in Ireland, and the result is— I am speaking now for my own county, Kilkenny—that practically every labourer is provided with a labourer's cottage. In many cases labourers occupying small portions of land from an acre to four or five acres, because of their ownership of this land, were excluded from the benefits of every Act passed up to now, except on the condition that they handed over the land they occupied to the local authority. I believe that in a few cases, where they handed over the land and sold their right in it to the local authority, that houses were built for them, but it was only in these cases that the people I am referring to could have benefited under previous Acts. In my own county this aspect of the housing difficulty is not very acute, but there are other counties in Ireland, particularly in the west, where labourers and small farmers engaged in agriculture have failed to reap any benefit from previous Acts. I do not think that Section 6 in this Bill includes the class of people that I speak of. If that is not so, I will be very glad to be corrected by the Minister, and no one would be more glad than I would if I have made a wrong assumption.

The class of house occupied by the small farmer and the labourer who have been deprived of the benefits of previous Acts is of a much worse description than anything that has been described here by Deputy Byrne or by any Deputy who has spoken on this Bill. This statement of mine can be borne out by Deputy O'Connell, or by any of the Deputies who come from the West, from Kerry, or even from some of the midland counties. For some time past the Board of Works has discontinued advancing loans to small people to enable them to build houses, and the reason for the refusal of the Board of Works was because of the absence of security for any advances given. Even if the Board of Works were functioning the majority of these small people would not be able to give the security which would enable them to get advances for building. There is no class of people in the community who suffer from such bad housing conditions as the class that I am now speaking of. I have travelled through Galway and through Kerry, and anyone who has seen these thatched mud hovels in which the vast majority of the people live must be struck by the inhuman conditions under which they exist. I make the assertion here that houses can be built in the country at less than fifty per cent. of what they would cost in the city of Dublin or in most of the towns.

I know what I am talking about, and I make that assertion in all sincerity. The houses that have been built in the rural districts of the country are a standing proof of my assertion. If the houses were built on a loan system under proper supervision, according to plan and specification, with the families of the people providing the labour, it would cost very little, indeed, to give these people decent houses, and a very small annuity in payment of the amount expended on the building would have to be charged either by the Board of Works or otherwise for these holdings. Now that the nation as a whole is contributing this £300,000, one section of the nation deserves as much consideration as the other. The nation is contributing this £300,000, and the nation as a whole, and the people for whom I speak ought, not as a matter of favour but as a matter of right, get their share. Is that asking too much? Are they asking anything out of their turn? I want the Minister to remember that these people never got anything from the State, they have had to eke out an existence, but they had also to contribute their share to the cost of the nation, and they got nothing at all in return—no facilities—and they have been excluded from everything under the Acts passed in this country. We ask for facilities whereby money may be made available for these people to be expended under proper supervision and direction and under approved plans. That can be easily arranged. We can see the way and we will have the will to come to a better method and plan of supervision whereby the State will get full value for its money. We do not ask for grants or doles, but simply for an advance to enable the people to meet the difficulties they are in. Anybody who knows anything about building knows the cost of pro-about building knows that the cost of procuring material and attendance on tradesmen building houses can easily be got over in the rural areas. It is largely the technical part of the labour and material that needs to be procured. You will have all this labour, and coupled with the labour you will have, as I said before, as great an interest and as great, if not a greater, right on the part of those people for such assistance than any other section of the community. I think I can promise you, from my experience of the country and my experience of the building of houses in the rural areas, that every effort will be made by the rural population in this matter; that they will, so to speak, put their backs into it. You will have their very full and most loyal co-operation.

Now, with regard to the 12 months limit, I think that the experience of public bodies, as most Deputies must be aware, where contracts for housing schemes for labourers cottages in rural areas have been given, shows that that period must be extended. There is no use talking about a 12 months limit at all! There are many preliminaries to be gone through, and things will have to be done of necessity, and all these cannot be done within 12 months from the passing of the Act. The President had better think of making the period two years instead of 12 months.

I say, as one who has had practical experience of schemes of this kind, and as one who has lived amongst the people all my life, that in the absence of an assurance by the Ministry or those advising them, I think my contention is right that the possessor of an acre or two, three, five or ten acres of land is absolutely excluded from the operations of this Bill. I will be very glad to be corrected if I am wrong, and I will ask on the Committee Stage that some clear provision be made in the Bill whereby these people will get facilities which are promised to the rest of the community. I do not expect to be told that this class of people will be excluded from the provisions of the Bill, and if they are, I expect that some Bill will be introduced in the immediate future to deal with the question as it affects them. In some of the areas that I know, very little has been done to provide housing for the actual labourer who has no land, and in other areas of the country nothing at all has been done. Travelling through these areas, by car or otherwise, you see very little either in the midlands or in the west of labourers cottages that you see in the counties that I know of. In others you do not see them at all; in fact, they are remarkable by their absence.

I suggest that either the labourers were not there or that the district councils did not do their duty, which is impossible to imagine. Or, perhaps, men were excluded from the provisions of the Acts through having small pieces of land. I ask the Minister to devote as much attention to this aspect of the case as he has very generously devoted to the other.

Mr. ALTON

I only want to stress the point that has been incidentally mentioned by Deputy Good, and I think it is one to which Deputy Byrne referred. To me, as to every member of the Dáil, this Bill is a very welcome one. In the opinion of any person who has a first-hand acquaintance with the conditions under which the poorest of our fellow citizens live in Dublin this Bill will do more to ameliorate the social evils from which the city suffers than any Bill that has been introduced so far in this House. It will not do as much, certainly, as we would like it to do. I do not know how many dwelling houses are needed in Dublin to-day. I do know that twelve years ago it was estimated that we wanted 18,000 additional working class houses. I should say that the number desired to-day, in spite of the efforts of the Dublin Corporation, is about the same. I am speaking about Dublin, being the only city with which I have a first-hand acquaintance. I should think that this Bill is the first step in the direction of ameliorating the social conditions of our poorest fellow citizens. I would like to remark, incidentally, that this question of congestion is one that should be considered not merely in connection with housing but with the whole question of the increase of population. If the population increases naturally, as Deputy Lyons pointed out, it also increases artificially by immigration. The very richest countries in recent years have taken measures to control immigration into their capital cities. I would suggest that the Ministry should consider this question seriously, if they have not done so, for no doubt the migrants into Dublin, within the last five years, have been very numerous.

This Bill will provide a certain number of dwelling houses, but I do not think it will provide the houses that are desired for the very poorest class of workers in Dublin. The rents, I think, are too high. I agree with Deputy Byrne in that. As far as I understand the Bill—perhaps I am wrong — I do not think that the benefits that accrue to those who reconstruct houses cover the tenement holder. For a number of years, even supposing this Bill is re-enacted for the next fifty years, we will have a large percentage of our working population living in tenements. I know from practical experience that something could be done to make the tenements more habitable and more human. At present the conditions of life that some of the tenement owners force upon their tenants are almost unspeakable. The drudgery, for instance, of fetching water from the basement or yard up to the top of one of these old houses in Dublin is very considerable. The unlit condition of the staircases, the broken bannisters, the plaster, layers for all sorts of vermin, could be attended to. A little money could put the tenement houses into some reasonable state of repair and make them much more habitable. I earnestly suggest to the President that if the Bill does not contemplate in the houses to be reconstructed the tenements of our cities, that he should take measures to word the clause so that it would. I have little more to say, except that I was wondering in this connection whether under section 4, sub-clause (1) "a person" includes a corporation, such as societies in Dublin that are trying to reconstruct tenements.

Mr. CORISH

As one deeply interested in housing, to some extent I think the Government deserves to be congratulated upon taking this step. At the same time, like Deputy Johnson and some other speakers, I am inclined to think that they have not gone very far in trying to solve this huge problem. In the first instance, to my mind, there should have been some discrimination as between the city of Dublin and the country areas. A man may be able to pay a rent in Dublin that could not be expected to be paid in a country area. I do not suggest for a moment that the average worker in the country could pay the sum suggested here, that is 13/10 per week. I cannot understand why the Government do not allow the local authorities to take part in this scheme, because, after all, the local authorities represent the people in the different areas, and they know the needs of the people.

The President has suggested here, on more than one occasion, that the reason that prompted him to take this matter out of the hands of the local authorities was that the houses would cost too much money if they were built under their jurisdiction. I do not know whether that argument is correct or not. I do not believe it is correct, because I do not see why the local authorities, whose members represent the people, would squander money to the extent suggested by the President. The only inference to be drawn from the President's statement is that the money would be squandered. I have yet to learn that any private builder will take as much interest in the working classes as a local authority. I do not think the President is going to accomplish what he proposes to set himself to do under this Act, by handing over the building of houses entirely to private builders. This, to my mind, is an invitation to private people to become speculators, without due regard to the fact that these houses are wanted for the housing of the working classes. All over the country to-day there is a need for houses. In every town and parish in Ireland there is a need for housing. The Government, as I said at the beginning, have taken notice of that need, but not to the extent that the position warrants it should be taken notice of.

I am wondering what is to become of towns where the local authorities have acquired a certain amount of land under a Town Planning Scheme. In the principal town of my constituency we have acquired during the past two years a plot of about ten acres. The local council have set that out with a view to providing houses for the working classes. They paid a good amount of money for that land, and are ready at the moment to erect houses, which should be within the reach of the working classes. It is rather a set-back to them that the Government do not in this Bill propose to advance money to local authorities to enable them to build houses.

Dealing with the rents under the Schedule, the Government suggest that the maximum rent to be charged for a five-room house should be 13s. 10d. per week. Everybody knows that when the Government suggest that the maximum rent of a house is to be 13s. 10d., it is going to be 13s. 10d. That is going to be the maximum and the minimum. I am wondering how the Government makes its calculation. How does it arrive at 13s. 10d. per week? If you capitalise the money, you cannot, to my mind, arrive at the figure suggested in the Schedule. I am, as I said before, of opinion that local authorities should be allowed to participate in the benefits —if you call them so—of this Act, that we should revert to the old system of borrowing money for a long term. After all, if there was justification for borrowing money for a long term of years in pre-war days, a better case can be made for it now, when it is absolutely impossible to build houses at an economic rent. Alderman Hadden of Wexford, in a letter to the papers, suggested a system whereby a five-room house could be let at 8s. 6d. per week. To my mind that is a sufficiently high rent to charge any working-man at the moment. He suggests that local authorities or public utility societies should be allowed to take advantage of this Act, and that some arrangement should be made by the Government to enable them to borrow money for fifty years on the annuity principle. If the Government are prepared to accept that, whoever builds will be in a position to let these houses at the sum of 8s. 6d. per week. Although that rent would be rather high in some areas, it is, I suppose, as much as we could expect under present conditions in this country.

I understand it is suggested that the five-room house could be built for £500. The Government are prepared to give twenty per cent. of that—£100. The other £400 has to be found between the builder and the local authority. The Bill distinctly states that the local authority "may" give a certain amount of money. The point is: will all local authorities be prepared to advance this money? In other words, are they prepared to pay the piper if they are not allowed to call the tune. I am rather doubtful of some local authorities being prepared to advance this money to private people to build houses. Supposing they do, and borrow the money for fifteen years on the annuity principle, and supposing that the man who is going to build the houses has to borrow the remainder of the money on the annuity principle—because, after all, there are very few builders in small towns who would be prepared to sink their own capital in a project of this sort at present—on my calculation, if the money has to be borrowed for fifteen years on the annuity principle, the five-room house is going to cost 18s. per week. I think if the President goes into the figures he will find that is correct.

If the benefits of the Act are made available to local authorities and they are enabled to borrow on the terms suggested by Alderman Hadden, or even for a shorter number of years, these houses will be brought more within the reach of the working man in the country areas. If the local authorities were allowed to take advantage of the benefits of the Act and borrow money for thirty years on the annuity principle, they could let these houses at 10/- per week, and if they borrow for twenty years they could let them at 12/6 per week. The difference in years may appear very small, but all those things count with the working man. What I would like to know, at this stage, is, if there is an area where a private speculator is not prepared, or is not in a position, to take advantage of this Act, what is going to happen in that area? Are the people of that area to be kept outside the scope of this Bill, simply because there is nobody in the area with sufficient public spirit to come forward and build houses for the working classes. I think that is a point the President should throw some light upon. According to Deputy Good's statement——

Mr. MORRISSEY

A Leas-Chinn Chomhairle, I would like to point out that you have not a House.

Mr. A. BYRNE

Before you come to a decision, A Leas-Chinn Chomhairle, might I draw attention to the fact that some time ago I think we entered into an agreement that on Fridays before three o'clock nobody would draw attention to the fact that there was not a quorum. We come here at twelve, we have to get lunch, and I am satisfied that there is a quorum either outside or down in the luncheon room. If that is not the agreement, then I think the matter ought to be considered by the Standing Orders Committee with a view to having it arranged for the future.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I might point out to Deputy Byrne that it is after three o'clock now, and that very seldom during the course of this debate has there been a House.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Some Deputies have just come in and there is a House now.

Mr. CORISH

I think I would be right in drawing the inference from the statement made by Deputy Good that he is of opinion that this five-room house could be built for £500.

Mr. GOOD

With the co-operation of all parties.

Mr. CORISH

I agree. If I remember aright, this same house about two years ago cost on an average about £750. Deputy Good says this can be done by the co-operation of all parties. I take it that he means by that statement that we should have a reduction in wages. Deputy Good suggests, on the one hand—I think I am right in assuming that that is what he means— that there should be a reduction in wages.

I am in a position to know that at the present moment the master-builders of Dublin are seeking to bring about a reduction of 4d. an hour in their employees' wages, and an increase in hours. The suggested reduction would be something between ten and eleven per cent., and the reduction in the cost of this particular house is thirty-three one-third per cent. I am beginning to wonder, and every Deputy should start wondering, who were the profiteers?

Mr. GOOD

What about an increase in output?

Mr. CORISH

It would not come to that. Deputy Good takes exception to Clause 8, in which the Government suggest that they should control the price of material. It is all very well for Deputy Good to lecture labour about their responsibility in this matter, but does he suggest that he is going to give us an entirely unselfish view himself? Is he not prompted by his interest in the building trade in this matter? Personally I believe he is, and it would be only natural to expect that. There is profiteering in the building trades in some areas. I am not in a position to speak for Dublin, but I do know, and I challenge contradiction on the matter, that there is absolute profiteering going on in the County Wexford. I do know that it is cheaper for a builder in Wexford to buy material in Waterford, and have it railed to Wexford, than it would be to buy it from a local provider. This is an instance in which the Government could step in and stop profiteering. Deputy Good suggests that there should be co-operation, but the only co-operation he appears to be interested in is a reduction of the wages of the workers. The moment the Government comes along and suggests that material should be controlled, he says: "Hands off; the Bill is not as good as I expected it would be." That is the position in a nutshell. We are asked to co-operate regardless of consequences, but the moment there is a suggestion of examining the case for the other side the Government are told to take their hands off. The method of living, the wages, and the position of the worker are as an open book before the whole State, but we are not to know to what extent, if any, there is profiteering in the building industry.

Deputy Good suggests that there is no profiteering. Then why, in Heaven's name, should he object to the Government examining his position to find out whether or not there is profiteering. If there is not, the people in whose interest he speaks are not going to suffer from Government action. I have not very much more to say in this connection. A lot of discussion has taken place in connection with the matter, and I would again urge upon the President the necessity for having the benefits of this Bill made applicable to local authorities, and have the Bill taken advantage of by local authorities. I do not see that there is anything to fear if he takes that particular action. I could understand his reluctance if the Government beforehand had not fixed a maximum price for which the particular class of house could be built; but if he fixes a maximum which is thirty-three and one-third at least below the price of the same house built within the last two or three years, I do not think the local authority can go far wrong. I do not wonder at the people in the country not paying their rates, because, from the head of the Government down, we are hearing nothing but criticism of the local bodies from one year's end to another. I for one would not expect people to pay their rates to local authorities that are abused for doing nothing, but who are doing the best, in their opinion, for the people they represent.

Prof. THRIFT

I wish to make a very brief contribution to this discussion. I welcome this Bill. I think it will do good, but I doubt if it will do very much to relieve the tenement difficulty in Dublin or improve the wretched conditions under which so many people live in tenements. I think it may be possible to extend the operation of the Building Committee so as to increase to some extent the effort to meet with that difficulty. I have in mind societies that are more or less— in fact almost entirely—philanthropic in their nature and their object is to ameliorate those conditions that I have referred to. There are such societies in Dublin. I have been personally connected with one for many years, and I know the extreme difficulty experienced in keeping tenement houses habitable under present conditions, except on a purely philanthropic basis. The Public Utility Societies in England did come under the benefits of an Act in 1919, and those benefits were extended to Irish Public Utility Societies; but naturally the increased benefits under the 1923 Act did not apply to Ireland, and I merely rise to draw the attention of the Government to these Public Utility Societies, and the advantage of encouraging their formation and work with a view to seeing whether it is possible to bring their action under the scope of this Bill.

The PRESIDENT

This Bill appears to me to resemble the little stranger that everybody is willing to welcome but nobody considers is going to be of much use to anybody. Having listened to the whole of the debate, I do not know that anybody would be impressed with the fact that it was going to be any use at all. Everybody seemed satisfied that we had gone too far in one direction, not gone far enough in another, and although we were making a great gesture of generosity, we were making no real attempt whatever to deal with this problem. If I deal with the last speaker first, Deputy Thrift, I should say there is nothing in the Bill that I can see that would prevent Public Utility Societies from utilising it to the fullest possible extent. While dealing with the question of Public Utility Societies and philanthropic bodies generally, I think it would be only right and fair that I should register my very keen appreciation of the work which some of these bodies have done in the city of Dublin. The Artizans Dwellings Company, during many years, have performed a great public service at a very fair price to their tenants, and have left themselves, I think, a very fair margin of profit, but nothing unreasonable. Their business was well managed and they performed great public service to the city of Dublin. I only wish that by means of this Bill, or any other Bill, we could again persuade any such bodies to take up work once more where they left off at a time when building costs became rather high, and when they did not seem to think they would be justified in proceeding with their work.

In addition, there was the Housing Association known as the Housing of the Very Poor, with which Sir Lambert Ormsby, a distinguished man, was connected. Then the Railway Companies, the Tramway Company, Guinness's, Watkins' and some other names were also associated with housing schemes. I saw a list of these names in the evidence before the Departmental Committee which inquired into housing in the city of Dublin ten years ago. I wish to say that it will be desirable, if we are to make any progress with this problem, that bodies such as these should again busy themselves with this question, and endeavour to give some assistance now that it is much more needed than when the Artisans' Dwellings' Company first started its work somewhere about 45 years ago.

I would like, also, to correct the impression, which is left in my mind by Deputy Corish, that we were criticising local authorities. If we were criticising them we were not belittling them. I wish to point out that they were necessarily handicapped by reason of the charges which were inseparable from their conduct of public affairs. I explained, at some length, that the ordinary man in business would not have the expenses which a local authority could not possibly escape in dealing with this problem. And I said that it is, to some extent, a waste to have them dealing with it. I take it that it is realised now not alone in this sphere but in every other sphere of Government and business in this country, that there is no advantage in having waste. We must cut out any unnecessary service which does not give fair value for the money invested in it. Only to that extent did I ever criticise local authorities. I criticised them to the extent that it could not be reasonably anticipated that their administration of any such service as housing could be anything else but expensive.

Deputy Lyons seemed to say to us: "How is this going to solve the problem, and how are agricultural labourers or road workers going to pay this rental that you are proposing to charge in this schedule of this Bill." I would like to put another question to him, and it is: "How are we going to borrow at the same rate at which money was borrowed during the years when the labourers cottages were built from one end of the country to the other, when building costs were much smaller and the general expenses in the administration of the services were much less?" The actual result was not a business proposition. Even with those advantages, the rents were not, I suppose, collected to a greater extent than 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. If questions are going to be put to us by Deputies, questions which have no real useful purpose, then criticism of this part of the housing problem lends itself to a return of questions on our part to people to know how this is to be done. It is not by endeavouring to score off each other that this problem can be solved. I do not see how it is possible to associate local authorities with this particular Bill.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

at this stage resumed the chair.

The PRESIDENT

We did associate local authorities for the last two years in connection with the provision of housing, and I must say when I first approached the Provisional Government with an application for £1,000,000 for housing, I did so, confident that there would be a real earnest attempt made at using that money within twelve months. Now, at the end of two years, or almost two years, it is regrettable to have to confess that only about 700 houses have been completed; 1,000 are in process of being built, and 300 have not yet been commenced. That was during a period when we offered £500 for every house that was constructed. I would like Deputies to take notice that there was a real maximum effort on our part and we were actually paying people for the love of all the necessary issues involved, to take up this thing, and after two years we could only boast of 700 houses being completed. There is no real purpose achieved in saying "only the local authorities can solve this problem." There is no discriminating between the city of Dublin and either Wexford or Kilkenny. Every tenant farmer in Kilkenny who wishes to build a house will get the benefit of this scheme, and every part of the country has the same advantage. That would not solve the housing problem if it were to be confined to tenant farmers. But they have rights and we cannot take them from them under this Bill. They have rights, every one of them. It is not possible to deal with the people who suffer most in the city of Dublin under this Bill. We made no pretence at any time that it would be so. This Bill will serve a useful purpose if it shakes the extraordinary prices that are prevailing in the provision of houses. That is what we mean to bring down. We are not benefiting the man who could afford to build houses at £700 or £800. He can complain that we are doing nothing for him, and that he is paying twice or three times as much as he did pay 10 years ago. We say—"You will suffer very severely, but you can only grin and bear it, until we approach the time when we can get value for money in the building of houses." We are not helping the people underneath — I think it was Jack London who called them "The Submerged Tenth." We have never made any pretence that we could do it. It is too big a problem at the moment, and we must endeavour to get to a time when there will be better value received, both for the monies of the local authorities, and the national monies, before we can deal with that matter. The times have gone against us in attempting to deal with matters of that sort. We are now at a time when public money is at five per cent. or over it, and when prices are twice, as much as they were. We must hope that the price of money will come down, and that the price of materials will come down, and that the cost of the provision of houses will be a lesser burden.

I do draw attention to this fact that for two years we have been endeavouring to make a scheme successful which took no account of the extravagance of building; and there is the result that after two years you have only 700 houses finished, 1,000 in course of erection, and 300 not begun yet. I have stated that we are not in a position at present to deal with the tenements, and that the real purpose of this Bill is to shake that uneconomic cost, or to shake what might be termed the uneconomics of building at the present moment. Now we propose to do that by bringing home to everybody concerned the trouble of this thing. We admit we cannot touch a man beyond £500, we can give him no relief. We admit we cannot touch the man below £240. We can give him no relief. But that middle order that is there, capable of spending anywhere from £340 to £400 or £450 — that man has to realise now what his duty is to himself, to his family, and to the State, and when it is brought home to him that even with Government assistance he is only able to get this particular class of house, he in turn will bring it home to builders, to speculators and to all persons engaged in this particular industry that some reduction must be made in the case of these services.

There is no room in this case then for allowing a free market in these houses, such as was suggested by Deputy Alfred Byrne. There was a free market where £260 was paid as a subsidy, but we cannot afford a free market in this by reason, first, that people ought not be allowed to make a profit out of what one might call a poverty situation, and, secondly, that in bringing home to all persons concerned that a big effort must be made, we cannot allow any ground for making the complaint that any one of the persons concerned is going to make undue profit. The case was made some years ago that one of the difficulties and one of the reasons for the enormous increase in the cost of building was the colossal profits the builders were making. I was one of those who suggested to the Dublin Corporation the idea of having a guild to take the matter up. A guild did take the matter up, and the contract was entered into at the same time, and from recollection I should say that the difference between the two in favour of the guild was something like 7½ per cent. I myself made an examination of that, and from it I came to the conclusion that there were no colossal profits, as was alleged in these cases. Now it is alleged that some of the operatives in this particular work are getting colossal profits out of it, to this extent that the output is not an economic output. On the other hand, it is claimed by the operatives that the cost of the building material is prohibited. We are keeping an eye on them both; we have spoken to one and we are going into an examination of the others, and in that way it is hoped that some real advantage will be derived at the end of the period when this act expires.

Deputy Lyons put a question to me whether or not the advantage of ten per cent. on the rent shall be allowed on the rent where reconstruction takes place. I should say, on the face of it, it would be unreasonable to ask the man to expend £100 on the reconstruction of a house of which we give him portion, and that he is not to get any extra rent to repay him for his expenditure.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the extra percentage on the rent be confined to his own expenditure and not to the Government assistance given him?

The PRESIDENT

I would say he should not get an extra return upon our portion of the contribution. It is not intended to confine the construction of these houses to bricks—they can use mortar or concrete or stone—but in my estimate of £17,000 it was bricks that entered into the consideration, but perhaps not so much as Deputy Good suggests, though if we are to box up the estimate that he has in mind—that is the one I stated on the last day—there is still a large number of bricks required, and there is still reason to anticipate that there will be a big demand made upon the brick works, and that they can get busy in production.

Mr. ALFRED BYRNE

There is profiteering there on bricks.

The PRESIDENT

I am sorry to hear that.

Mr. GOOD

Can the Deputy prove it? The shares can be bought to-day at 7s.

The PRESIDENT

If one takes the shares of the Brick Company and considers them, I think one would be inclined to put one's money on Deputy Good. The reason why there is a difference in the amount allotted for houses where there are no water mains or sewers is that there would be less plumbing necessitated in that class of house as compared with the other.

The question of derelict sites referred to by Deputy Doyle does not come in under this question. That would be a matter for a Local Government Act. I am not particularly disposed to make subsidies for two-roomed houses, which serve no useful purpose except for the bachelor or the maid, and while there are others in the community to be provided for I do not know that it is necessary for us to give special consideration to that class. I was never much enamoured of two-roomed houses. They are better, of course, than one-roomed houses. Apart from that, I do not think that they are an economic proposition as such. That is my recollection of it in the matter when dealing with the Dublin Corporation, that as between two-roomed houses and three-roomed houses one got much better value for the money expended on three-roomed houses than on two-roomed houses. So I do not think that two-roomed houses is a wise proposition. There is just one further matter that I would like to mention, and it is with regard to the plans of houses. The Department proposes to have available at a small price something like thirty different designs of houses. They will be in accordance with the requirements of the Bill, and may be adapted to suit the circumstances of the localities in which the houses are to be provided. Great care has been taken in the planning of the various types, resulting in designs being made available which conform to the highest modern standard of work-class dwellings. The price of these plans will be moderate, and they can be obtained through the Government Stationery Office, and specifications providing for every kind of structure, whether in brick or concrete, will also be available.

Mr. GOOD

Will these designs be compulsory?

The PRESIDENT

No, but they will be available for the parties to facilitate them. They will be optional. I think that exhausts the criticisms of the Bill, and it would be better to leave over any detail matters until we come to the Committee stage, and I propose to take the Committee stage on this day week.

Question:—"That this Bill be now read a second time"—put and agreed to.

Third Stage (Committee) ordered for Friday, 1st February.

The Dáil adjourned to Wednesday, 30th January, 1924.

Dáil Éireann debate - Friday, 25 Jan 1924

HOUSING (BUILDING FACILITIES) BILL, 1924—(SECOND STAGE RESUMED).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 25 Jan 1924