The question is: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."
DAIL RESUMES.
Bill reported with further amendments.
I understood that the President was to look into the Schedule. Am I in order in raising the point this time?
Yes, the whole Bill is before the Dáil.
When we had the footnote attached to the Schedule under consideration there was an amendment to alter 5 to 6, and when we were considering that, certain matters arose which the President undertook to look into. You remember the connection where the price was to be reduced by 50 per cent. when the local authority gives an equivalent grant to that of the Government.
I am afraid I have not been able to get any further on that point. The point, I took it, that Deputy Good was making was that he was in some doubt as to whether if the local authority gave that it would reduce the price of the house.
Reduce the selling price.
The benefit in that case was divided equally between the builder and the person purchasing. I have not been able to find a better method of dealing with it than that. I think on the last day Deputy Good misinterpreted the reading of the note, and that the advantage, although actually of the value of £100, is open to some discount, discount to this extent, that taking the virgin soil site the development of that would necessarily be more expensive than if a person had a frontage on which the development would be nil. We considered that the easiest way of meeting the whole case was estimating the value at a certain figure, and then allowing only 50 per cent. of that to the two persons concerned, the builder in the one case and the purchaser in the other.
What it practically amounts to is this: From the builder's point of view, this clause takes away from him a moiety of the Government grant, because whether you take it away by reason of a reduction in the selling price, or whether you take it away in only giving him half of the Government grant, it amounts to the same thing in the end. The builder only gets the equivalent of a moiety of the Government grant. That, as I pointed out to the President, takes away from the attractiveness of this measure, because it is quite obvious, as has been pointed out several times during the discussion on this Bill, that the local authority, in view of what it has to do, will find some difficulty in carrying out that work at a sum equivalent to the Government grant. Take the case of the three-roomed house. The Government grant is a grant of £60. It is quite obvious from the figures where the local authority has purchased the ground and laid out the site that it would find itself in some considerable difficulty to carry that out and keep within this particular clause of the Bill. We may take it for granted that practically in every case the local authority will have to spend a sum equivalent to the Government grant, and that that being so, the Government grant will practically be reduced by a moiety. That is the effect of this, because it reduces the selling price, and if it reduces the selling price it is exactly the same thing as taking half off the Government grant. That will affect the three-roomed house very seriously, much more so than the five-roomed house, because the price allowed for a five-roomed house is really larger. As the grant is on a room basis, as you reduce the number of rooms the expense increases. This grant may possibly cover the cost of carrying out the work for a five-roomed house, but it is fairly obvious that the three-roomed house will be handicapped under this proposal. The effect of that will be that we will encourage five-roomed houses, and that we will prevent three-roomed houses from being built. As far as I have been able to judge the mind of the President, it is exactly the opposite he has in mind. We are anxious that we should get the largest number of houses, and if we are anxious that we should get the largest number of houses, surely there ought to be an incentive to building the smaller houses rather than the big houses. The effect of this proposal, I am satisfied, will be to make three-roomed houses practically an impossibility.
Before you put the question, A Chinn Comhairle, I would like to ask the President could he possibly insert in the Bill some reduction in the rents charged in Part 1 of the Schedule. It is beyond the power of the ordinary people to pay the rents set out there. If the President cannot see his way to reduce the maximum rent, perhaps he would state the minimum, so that people will know exactly what they will be required to pay. Twelve and threepence halfpenny for a five-room house in the country is more than the people are able to pay. If the minimum were set out at 6s. it might be possible to find means to prevent landlords charging more than the minimum.
I think I misinterpreted what Deputy Good said. I take it now that what he means is, that taking a five-room house which is scheduled at £450, for sale, after getting the £100, the price that house ought to sell at would be £450, no matter what the local authority would grant. In other words, if the local authority gives £100 worth of value— either by way of site or money—as permitted by the Minister, I take it that Deputy Good's point is that with that and with the £100 we give, this house should be sold at £450. I see the point now; I did not see it before. My opinion is that it will be possible to get builders to construct a particular house which, taking into consideration the concession that will be given by the local authority, can be sold, with profit to the builder, at £400. The point in dispute between us, so far as I can see, is the saleable, commercial value of this particular property. On that, I am informed that it is a business proposition.
With regard to what Deputy Seán Lyons said, he might as well ask me could we, by Act of Parliament, reduce the interest on money. In other words, having got £10,000,000 by way of loan from the people, can we say, by Act of Parliament, that we will reduce the interest on that money from 5 per cent. to 3 per cent.? We cannot do it. It would be immoral. You entered into a contract with a man three or four months ago, and arranged a certain price, and you cannot reduce it. We would have to go further and pass an Act compelling builders to put up houses.
Why not do it?
I am afraid, whatever power there is in the State, that is a little beyond its power—even with the assistance of the National Army, the Civic Guard and the Deputy himself.
Question: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and declared carried.
FIFTH STAGE.
If there is no objection, I would ask to have the final stage taken now.
We passed a new Standing Order on this question yesterday.
I am sorry I was not present. If there is no objection, I move the suspension of the Standing Orders to take the final stage of this Bill.
Standing Orders suspended.
I move that the Bill do now pass.
I did not expect that we would have this stage of the Bill today, but I am not raising any objection. The Bill has been brought forward, on the responsibility of the Ministry, as their contribution to the solution of the housing problem. It has not been opposed from this side, and its failure, which I predict cannot be charged against any action on the part of the Dáil. I hope I shall be proved wrong in my prediction. But I have no expectation that the Bill will result in the building of the number of houses prescribed.
I want to raise the question of the housing of the common, working-class people now, and to ask the Ministry when they intend to bring in a measure having reference to the housing of the working classes? The Bill does not pretend to meet the case of the average wage-earner in the country who is short of a house. It proposes to assist in the building of houses, which in the towns may be let at: 8/3 for a three-room house, 11/1 for a four-room house, and 13/10 for a five-room house. In the country, where sewers and water mains are not available, the charges are to be: 7/4½ for a three-room house, 9/10 for a four-room house, and 12/3½ for a five-room house. The country worker, on a wage of from 28/- to 35/- per week, is being asked to provide for his family, and, if he has a three-room house, to pay 7/4½ for it; that out of a wage of 28/-! One-third of his income is to go in rent.
That obviously is not a proposition that is intended for the rehousing of the workers. If he has a larger family and requires a little more comfort and is in receipt of a little higher wage, and requires a five-roomed house in the country, he will be obliged to pay 12/3½ per week as rent. A 36/- or a 37/- a week wage-earner will again be required to pay 33 1-3 per cent. income of his wage as rent. That, again, is evidence that this Bill is not calculated to assist in the rehousing of the working classes or to provide houses for the workers in any way unless the few specially fortunate. For a town house of four and five rooms he has to pay a rent of 11/1 and 13/10 a week. Well, undoubtedly many people will be very glad to get such a house even at that charge. But it is not going very far towards satisfying the present demand for houses at the rate of wages that are ruling.
If this is the proposition that is to be put before the wage-earner as all he can expect, under the Government scheme, then it will follow that not reductions, but advances in wages will be demanded, and ought to be paid. So that in view of that evidence, I take it that this scheme is not intended to facilitate the housing of the wage-earner except indirectly. And it is because of this exception that I have acquiesced in the passing of this Bill, the exception being that for every new house that is built there is a little easing of the pressure, a little lessening of the demand. To that extent some good is obtained, but it is going to be so slow and so gentle an easement of the pressure, that nobody will feel it, and in practice, as far as the wage-earners are concerned, it may be said to be hardly worth while. Now, I would like to hear what the Minister's proposals are towards the solution of the housing problem. The housing problem is, in the main, the problem of the housing of the wage-earners. It is the problem which affects the city and the town and country. I said in an earlier discussion that we have had it on authority that 60,000 houses were required to supply the present demand, and to make up the present deficiency of decent housing accommodation that exists. Now to tackle that problem with anything like vigour and earnestness requires not to deal with it piecemeal, as this Bill proposes to do, but to look ahead for at least a period of ten years, and promote a scheme with a ten years' programme in view.
It would be necessary to have a real national outlook and a purpose to utilise all the resources of the country, material and human, that may be required to supply this demand for houses. I believe that if there were some imagination brought to bear and a resolute purpose to make an attempt to deal with this problem on a big scale, with a view to remedying the evil, within ten years, if possible, I think it might be possible to double the supply of houses that we have contemplated in the Bill. If it were taken up on a national scale then you could prepare accordingly a supply of materials, you could prepare accordingly schemes in advance, and you could organise your labour supply for the very definite purpose of building houses. I believe that if these schemes were tackled you could enlist the support of all those for whom Deputy Good speaks as organisers of this industry, and we could enlist the support of all the operatives engaged in the industry for the purpose of building houses.
I maintain that it is quite wrong to proceed on the assumption that you can trust to the enterprise and activities of a thousand separate employers, and thousands of separate groups of workmen, each acting independently of the other and unrelated, without any general scheme of co-ordination or common supply. Unless you organise the whole scheme with a view to the utmost output for a long period you are not going to get the work done in as advantageous a manner or as speedily as you otherwise would. I think the plan of putting the whole undertaking of re-housing the people under a special housing authority, having power to utilise all these resources of labour and material, and make contracts ahead, to import what may be necessary on the very biggest scale that may be necessary; to prepare supplies ahead and to tackle the whole problem as one great national scheme, is the only way in which this problem can be dealt with, with any expectation of solving the problems within a reasonable time.
The plan proposed now in the Bill is, as I said before, peddling with the problem, and is very unlikely, in my opinion, to result in the benefit of the houses being built to the extent even calculated for in the Bill. I know the trouble is finance. I have a belief that if this scheme were tackled in a national way that you would find the means of raising the money to finance it outside the ordinary courses and at probably a considerably cheaper interest than the market rate.
You would probably have to look for the assistance of people who would be quite prepared to assist in the building of houses and supply money for the purpose without the expectation of getting the market rate of interest. People have been known to do things for a purpose of that kind on a big scale, and I can imagine that millions could be obtained, at least for a few years, at a very low rate of interest if there is any faith that the country will be secure and prosperous, and I believe there is that faith. I believe those people would assist in providing the monies necessary for a re-housing of the people at a rate which would allow very much cheaper houses. I believe an organised attempt could be made to meet the problem on the biggest and widest scale. Unless and until this problem is tackled with that idea, you are not going to make any big impression on the evil, and every year that passes in which so many thousands of people are born and bred and live under the conditions in which they now live, would be adding to the future problems of the country. There is economic loss as well as moral loss in these housing defects, and it is worth the country's while to run great risks for the purpose of getting as large a number of people as possible re-housed under decent conditions, so that the economic, material and moral losses which we might look for in the absence of that re-housing in ten, fifteen or thirty years' time, may be avoided. I am disappointed that this Bill, which some had hoped for and looked for with generous anticipation, is of so meagre a character and is so unhopeful in its provisions.
If the houses are built and some of the pressure is relieved, then I shall be very glad, but I hope the Ministry will set themselves to work so that the Bill that the Minister has promised for a year hence will be on a very much bigger scale and with a very much bigger prospect of doing something to solve this problem of housing in Ireland.
Private business should be taken at 2 o'clock— that is to say, the resumed debate on Deputy Corish's motion. Is it intended to make some other proposal in view of this debate?
Perhaps we could go on.
I shall be quite prepared to acquiesce in any suggestion for continuing this discussion.
I am quite agreeable to this discussion being continued.
Then we may take it that this debate continues.
I was sorry to hear from Deputy Johnson that he is afraid that this Bill will be a failure and will not achieve any very useful object. When this measure was introduced the President pointed out that he was satisfied this great difficulty of providing houses could only be achieved by the co-operation of all parties.
took the Chair.
After all the discussions that we have heard during the time this Bill has been under consideration, I am satisfied that that original idea is the real and the correct one. Except all parties are prepared to co-operate with the real desire of providing houses for those who need them, I am afraid, with Deputy Johnson, that we shall not have the houses. I think Deputy Johnson—I am speaking now from memory—was of that view when we started the consideration of the Bill. He was of the view that it should have the co-operation of all parties. If that is so, might I ask Deputy Johnson what has been the co-operation shown by him, and those associated with him, as representing those people who will benefit almost entirely by the housing measure? What has been that co-operation and what part has he taken? It is all very well to protest, criticise, and say so-and-so, but except we are prepared to do something practical in this matter, it is quite obvious we shall not get the houses. What has Deputy Johnson and those associated with him done towards helping a solution of this matter? Building to-day in Ireland is not in the condition in which we would like to see it, and the reason for that is that it is not an economic proposition. Why does building, particularly the building of houses, seem to be a more difficult problem in Dublin and in Southern Ireland——
Where?
——Than what it appears to be in other countries?
Will the Deputy tell us what he means by the words "Southern Ireland"? I am not trying to pick the Deputy up unfairly, but I think it is undesirable that in the Dáil at any rate, whatever may be done elsewhere, that we should adopt that phraseology of referring to the Saorstát as "Southern Ireland."
I have no objection if it will satisfy Deputy Johnson, to substitute the "Free State" for "Southern Ireland." Why, I ask, has this difficulty that I have been referring to, arisen? We have been discussing it here as regards the city of Dublin, and why, I ask, is the difficulty so much greater in getting houses in the city of Dublin than appears to be the case in adjoining counties? The answer to the question is a simple one. The wages paid to tradesmen in the building industry in the city of Dublin to-day are the highest wages paid in Europe. We are a poor country, and can we afford to pay for house-building the highest rate of wages paid in Europe to-day? I do not want to magnify this, because we will never get over our difficulties by magnifying them. I want, on the other hand, to co-operate with those whom Deputy Johnson represents, and get them to see what are the real difficulties underlying this problem, and having pointed out what these difficulties are to them, to try and find out what way they can be solved. I am satisfied that that is the only way this difficulty can be met.
As soon as we make up our mind to co-operate and meet it in that way, the sooner we shall make some advance in dealing with this difficult problem. I agree with Deputy Johnson that these rents are too high. How are we going to get down the cost of living while the rent, which is a very essential and considerable part of the cost of living, stands at a high figure? This is one of the difficulties that seems to rise up against us everywhere, this difficulty of housing, and until, as I have said, we can meet together and consider the problem in all its aspects, and try and put forward some practical proposals for dealing with that difficulty, I am satisfied that until that time arrives we will have this difficulty with us. As I said, I do not want to magnify the difficulty.
Let me explain to Deputy Johnson that even when you get into the arena of building material you are up against this same question of bricks. The Deputy has quoted several times the question of bricks. Let me tell him, as one who has some knowledge of that particular subject, that labour costs over 40 per cent. in the manufacture of bricks. Consequently, if you have to pay labour a high rate of wages, it means that the cost of that commodity is increased, and also the cost of the particular object to which that commodity is to be applied. So that the ramifications of this question are exceedingly wide.
The President said there were three parties concerned in the erection of houses, but he has only taken one of these parties into consideration under the Bill. That, I have protested all through, is exceedingly unfair. If the three parties had been taken in and dealt with under the Bill, as far as I am concerned, I would have had no objection to that. But I have a decided and a strong objection to taking in one section, when there has been no proof whatever of any excess charges in the case of that section, and to include that section and leave out the others is unfair. That, to my mind, is not the form that legislation should take. Legislation should not be of a party or partisan character. If it is of that character we will object to it, but if it is of a broad and fair character, as far as I am concerned. I will not object to it. But when it takes this individual character, as it does here, I certainly will object to it as strongly as I possibly can. What would have been a fair and a right course to adopt in connection with this matter was this: to have had an inquiry into the high cost of building, when you could have had all the different aspects of the question examined. If as a result of that inquiry it was found that legislation was necessary, even legislation of what I might call an individual character, even then I would not object to it; but to take up and single out one individual interest and trade for special treatment, in the absence of any such evidence, is to my mind casting a slur upon that particular industry which is not justified.
Deputy Johnson has pointed out that this question should be dealt with on a much larger basis than the Government has proposed. I am quite satisfied that that is impossible at the moment. If a commodity is uneconomic, and the State has to subsidise it to a large extent, I think it is exceedingly unwise to suggest that the State should subsidise that particular commodity at a time when that commodity is at an exceedingly high figure. That is the position at the moment. One of the reasons why so much building is kept back at the moment is that everybody expects that, in the natural course of events, building must get cheaper than it is to-day. It is quite obvious that it must get cheaper by and by, and to urge that the nation should embark on a huge expenditure and to maintain these conditions for a period of ten years, is not a practical proposition. And at the end of ten years the State will have parted with a very large sum of money, and I do not think the problem will be very much improved. The experience of those who have dealt with housing on the other side on these particular lines has been anything at all but a satisfactory one. They have come to the conclusion that there is only one way in which this housing difficulty can be solved, and that is by private enterprise. That is the line they are taking now on the other side, and it is the line that the President here has decided on in view of his experiences in this country.
Those who have studied the subject are quite satisfied that that is the only line that we can look to as being likely to produce the houses. If that is so, it is quite obvious, as I have said, that we must try and make building an economic proposition. That is the first task to be undertaken, and I think it is to that task that possibly more attention might have been devoted than has been devoted to it, because, as I said at the start, it is only by the co-operation of all parties connected with the industry that we can achieve anything. It is only right to say here, in connection with the high cost of wages in Dublin, that an effort has been made recently to get these wages reduced. The reply received was that in view of the volume of work that is to be carried out, they could not see—this is the reply from Labour—any necessity for reducing wages. I do not want to say anything now that would aggravate the situation. The line I have taken is rather the opposite one, but is it reasonable, in view of the fact that we here require houses, for those who produce the houses to sit down and say that "in view of the volume of work that is before us, we do not see that the occasion calls for a reduction in wages." That means, in substance, taking advantage of a situation in order to maintain a high wage. That, I think, is particularly unfortunate at the present time.
We, on the Farmers' benches, have paid very little attention to this Bill, because we regard it as a Bill intended almost exclusively for the advantage of urban dwellers. On the Second Reading I said I did not believe that this Bill would be of any great use to those who are in most urgent need of houses, and I agree with Deputy Johnson in his remarks in that regard. I believe that the economic rents which must be charged for these houses will make it an impossible proposition as far as the ordinary worker is concerned. Of course, I also see the point of view of the Government in introducing the Bill, and of their intention to relieve one class of the people. They believe that by doing so they will eventually make a certain amount of room for the poorer class of people, to get the houses vacated by the first class. I believe there was no intention whatever when this Bill was drafted, or when it was introduced, to make it apply to those who dwell in the rural districts, and I believe it will not be availed of even to the smallest extent, by those dwelling in such districts. I was very sorry that the President did not see his way on the Committee Stage to accept my amendment, which dealt with the reconstruction of houses, and with the making of grants for the purpose of having the reconstruction of houses carried out. The President allowed Sub-section (2) of Section 3 to stand in the Bill, and under this Sub-section dwellers in rural districts are not entitled to get any grant for the reconstruction of a house.
Since that discussion took place I met one of my constituents, a small farmer, a progressive farmer, who came to me and asked if it were possible for him to get any grant for the purpose of reconstructing his house. He was in a situation that would have fitted exactly into this Bill, if the Section I referred to had not been included. I had to tell him that he could not gain any advantage under the Bill, as the Section I am speaking of provided that the grant would not apply to a rural dweller. I was sorry to have to tell him so, because if that Section had not been introduced into the Bill, the Section dealing with the reconstruction of houses would have been of use to the class of persons of which this man was a representative, living in the rural districts of the country. Seeing that the Bill, as it stands, is of no use to the farmers or to rural dwellers, I would ask the President to give serious consideration to the introduction of a Bill at a future date which will deal with the housing problem as it applies to rural districts, because there is a definite housing problem to be solved in rural Ireland, and the problem is getting more acute day by day. I have listened to Deputy Good and to Deputy Johnson discussing the devilments and other things connected with this problem as it affects urban areas. The builders appear to be placing the blame on the workers, and the workers place the blame on the builders. As far as we in the rural districts are concerned, we are caught between the upper and the neither millstone, between the profiteering merchant and the builders' providers on the one hand and between the profiteering artisan on the other. As between the two I leave it to the House to decide which is the more to blame, or if the two are not equally to blame. But between the two the position is becoming financially impossible for us, and it is quite impossible for any house to be built in the country as things stand at present.
Deputy Johnson has stated that it is essential to have a big, bold effort to deal with the housing problem, and I must say that in a sense I partly agree with him, but we have not got big, bold material upon which to operate in order to do anything on a big, bold basis. Two years ago the Provisional Government set apart a million pounds to deal with the housing problem. Now, after two years, something like 2,000 houses have been constructed, or in the course of construction, under that Bill. That was a Bill which was operated by the local authorities, and the Government contribution in the case of it was £2 for every £1 put up by the local authority. I am not prepared, in the case of any service of that sort, to make any proposal of the same kind to Parliament again. It is too much, and it cannot be afforded, and even if it could be afforded it is not a good headline to adopt in which you have got to give £2 for every £1 put up by another person.
No response whatever was received from twenty out of ninety local authorities in connection with the working of that Act. In other words, they wanted more. It is more than possible that they would even want us to go down and build the houses for them, and then that we should graciously ask them to dispose of them. I submit that the experience during that time was not a very happy experience, and certainly was not one which sounded like any reasonable attempt at co-operation by anybody concerned, and did not mark any advance on solving the housing problem. In two years, as I say, 2,000 houses have not been put up. Now, we are coming forward with a measure which certainly is not so extravagant and which calls for greater co-operation still than the other measure, and the assumption is that its operation will have the effect of putting up something like 3,000 houses in one year. That is an optimistic prognostication, as Deputy Seán Lyons would say.
At any rate, there is room for plenty of work. The proposal, examined minutely by its most advanced critic, discloses this fact, that in the case of a five-roomed house where the maximum advantage is to be put up by the local authority, in other words, the equivalent to the Government grant, namely £100, a man who builds a house gets for £400, six hundred pounds' worth of property, with a considerable reduction in the amount of rates that he would have to pay, extending over a period of twenty years. We are giving him even more than one-third of the price of the house that he is going to occupy. That is, what this miserable unnamed child of a Bill is going to give a man, and everybody on looking on it and speaking of it says it is miserable, and unworthy of baptism, and that they do not think it will live. As Deputy Good said on one occasion, it is dead already.
What are we asked to do? Are we to give more than one-third of the price of the house? Are we to make the house to be free of rates for ever, or what is the proposition? A big, bold effort! It is a big, bold effort; it is a brave effort. If I know anything, it suffers from one infirmity, and that is it is too generous. If it was less generous people would appreciate it more. Whatever is cheap they say, is not of much use. It must be expensive in order to be attractive. Unless housing be made a commercial proposition, it does not appear to me to be at all likely that we will make any real effort towards solving the problem.
Coming to the point raised by the Deputy who spoke last from the Farmers' benches, £250,000 out of £300,000 is to be made available for the farmers as well as for any other section of the community. £50,000 only is being reserved for urban districts. Why? The people whom that £50,000 is intended to benefit in cities and towns are not persons who have a business to maintain them, as a rule. They are the working classes, the majority of whom have not got more than a week, in a great many cases a fortnight, in a lesser number of cases three weeks, in a still lesser number a month, and in some case two or three months, lease of a particular occupation. Whatever may be said about the disadvantages of agriculture, and I am sure they are many, it has had its cycle of prosperous years. It can scarcely be said for the working classes, for whom this particular measure was introduced, that they have had the same cycle of prosperous years, the same continuity of employment, or that if employment were bad that they had any reserves other than the thrift that might have been exercised during the more favourable years. The conditions under which those people live are deplorable. The £50,000 that we intended to use to make habitable certain houses, that some years ago would probably be condemned, is certainly a reserved service for towns and urban districts. It is not that we operated against the farming class, as such. If you analyse the position of persons for whom the Bill was intended, I think you will find that the smallest farmer who hoped to have some benefit out of that £50,000, would have an estate ten times the value of any person we intended to benefit by this particular Section. It is not a question of excluding them. It is a question of seeking to drag back from the abyss houses that were falling into it, at a time when congestion is, perhaps, more intense than ever it was in the experience of anybody who knows the City of Dublin, the City of Cork, the City of Waterford, and the City of Limerick, or any of those other places. It is an attempt to relieve that congestion by saving those houses from toppling over, or adapting other houses which would become tenement habitations to accommodate families in better conditions. We had not in mind the farmers when we introduced this Bill. We had in mind the class for whom a case has been made for years. No real attempt has been made to deal with the housing problem.
When it is put to us that there is just as much need for houses in rural districts as in the urban districts, we examine the records and we find that in 1913 the case that was put up by the rural districts for housing was that they had exactly the same number of persons living in insanitary conditions in insanitary dwellings, as the number who were living in single-roomed dwellings in the City of Dublin, according to the Census of the year 1911. The case that was made for £1,000,000 grant from the British Government by the rural districts disclose the fact that the numbers were 78,000 persons housed under insanitary conditions in the rural areas. The Census returns for the year 1911 disclose the fact that something like the same number of persons were living under practically insanitary conditions in Dublin, leaving out Cork, Limerick, Waterford, or any of the other towns or urban districts throughout the entire country.
Further, we find that over a period of something like 20 or 30 years, 50,000 cottages were constructed in the rural districts. Examining the case for towns we find that in something like 60 years only 10,000 houses were put up by local authorities in urban districts. Our proposal two years ago was to put up 2,000 houses in a year. We did not succeed. As a matter of fact, we have not 2,000 constructed after 2 years, but before the whole of the million pounds is exhausted I anticipate that there will be 2,000 houses. That is one-fifth of what was done in 50 or 60 years.
The proposals under this particular Bill are that 3,000 houses will be erected in one year. I admit, as Deputy Johnson has stated, that it is not a contribution towards a solution of the housing problem, as such, but I submit at the same time, that if people are waiting and expecting that the housing problem will be solved under the conditions we have at present, and at the present prices, there is no likelihood whatever of those hopes being realised. I suppose it is better for us to be honest about a statement of that sort. I do not admit that if any other order in the community occupied the positions that we occupy here, there could be a Royal, a Republican, or a Democratic solution better than the one we have put up. They may get better results in a short period, but the ultimate result will be still the same. It might be that with a huge amount of capital good results would be obtained for a year or two years, but I do say, taking the problem over a number of years, say 5 or 10, the result would not be more satisfactory than from this scheme.
I do certainly subscribe to what Deputy Johnson states; that is that we ought to try and get a big push from all sections to deal with this problem. I would be prepared to guarantee, as far as the life of this Government goes, if it has any lease of life at all, that we would undertake each year to make the same sort of proposal we have here, so that the people for whom he speaks would be guaranteed employment and so that insecurity of tenure of occupation would not be a continual bar to efficiency and output. I do say that as the problen becomes less expensive on the State and on the local authority the likelihood is that there would be more employment. I would like to see, and I am sure the Deputy would agree with me, this £300,000 producing twice the number of houses. We would be both equally satisfied with the result and I am sure Deputy Good would join with us in singing a thanksgiving hymn. That is all I have got to say. We could not continue the two-thirds cost which we put up last year and the year before. This year, by spreading the burden and getting in the local authority, we are giving more than one-third, and I could not, if I had any regard for a reputation as an honest man, ask the Dáil to give a bigger contribution than that towards the solution of even such an important problem as this.
Question:—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and declared carried.
A Message will be sent to the Seanad accordingly.