I move: "That the Housing (Building Facilities) (Amendment) Bill, 1924, be received for final consideration." On the Committee Stage of this Bill, I think that Deputy Good asked a question in regard to our policy concerning the floor area of houses. Under the principal Act we have practically no control with regard to deciding whether the houses should be five, four, or three-roomed houses. All the houses were constructed by private builders. In this Bill we will have a certain amount of control, in so far as the houses will be constructed by local authorities. Heretofore there was a tendency in my Department, which I think was a world-wide one after the war, to try and secure a very high standard of houses. That was responsible for the tendency to insist on the building of three, four, or five-roomed houses. Subsequent events, the difficulties of erecting houses, and the very serious state of affairs that has arisen as a result of the lack of houses, have made us change our attitutde more or less in regard to that. At present we have no objection to building three-roomed houses, and if the local authorities under this Bill wish to construct three-roomed houses we will have no objection. Deputy Good also required information as to the number of houses that were erected under the principal Act. Here is a list to date. The number of three-roomed houses which have been built is 50, the number of four-roomed is 399, and the number of five-roomed is 977.
HOUSING (BUILDING FACILITIES) (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1924—REPORT.
The information which the Minister has given us reveals exactly what I was afraid was happening. He tells us that 977 five-roomed houses have been erected, as compared with only 50 three-roomed houses. When we were discussing the original Bill an anxiety was expressed, in fact, I think the view was generally expressed through the Dáil, that the policy should be, and I think the President agreed, to encourage the building of three-roomed houses, so that we might get the largest number of houses possible erected with the limited means at our disposal. Now, what has happened? Under the Bill the five-roomed house gets practically double the financial assistance given to the three-roomed house—£100 as against £60—consequently we only get half the number of the larger-sized houses. That is unfortunate, particularly from the point of view of what is happening with regard to sub-letting these houses. The President pointed out the other day that people were sub-letting rooms in those houses and were living rent free. That we should give State subsidies to that sort of thing is very undesirable, and I would like to see, in view of these figures which have just been given, a firm stand taken by the Government to stop this scandal of sub-letting. What is happening is this, that instead of improving the housing situation by the erection of new houses, we are practically moving in the opposite direction, because, owing to sub-letting, the number of occupants in some of these new houses is almost appalling. I was told the other day that in one new house of a comparatively small size there are twenty-seven children belonging to the different families lodging there. That is bringing about even a worse condition of things than we had before, bad as the old regime was.
I would ask the President, in view of these facts, of which he is fully aware, to take some steps towards encouraging the erection of three-roomed houses and I will not say towards actually stopping the erection of the larger houses, but as far as possible, not to encourage their erection. The Minister has told us, as some of us knew already, that in his Department there was a desire up to a recent period to encourage the erection of the larger-sized houses. I hope both the Minister and his Department have seen the error of their ways from the unfortunate results that have accrued from their policy. I trust that their efforts will now be entirely in the other direction.
I would ask the President who, as we all know, takes a particularly deep interest in the housing question, in view of the positively alarming figures which have been given by the Minister for Local Government, to have something done to turn the movement regarding the building of houses in the other direction, and in that way we would be doing work of national importance.
took the Chair at this stage.
May I ask what it the difference in cost between a three-roomed and a five-roomed house, and if the difference would be worth while?
It is given in the Act. It is stated there what the prices are that the houses can be sold for. I explained on another occasion that it is rather difficult to get at the mean size of a house which, if reduced, is expensive, and if increased is also expensive. Deputy Good knows better than anybody else what I mean. The figures given by the Minister are instructive—50 three - roomed, 399 four-roomed, and 977 five-roomed houses. I do not think it would be a good plan for the Ministry as a policy to favour the erection of three-roomed houses in large numbers, as such houses will accommodate only families in which there would be only boys or only girls. The churches are, I think, very insistent on four-roomed houses. It would be a matter though for serious consideration by the Minister, when introducing next year another Housing Bill, as to whether he might not vary the sums given for the three-roomed, four-roomed, and five-roomed houses, so as to meet in some way the case put up by Deputy Good. That is the only way it can be done satisfactorily. Deputy Good's real case is that the new houses are actually becoming slums. Examination will show that we are not keeping pace in the construction of new houses with the deterioration of the old houses. That is really the problem. I think the Deputy himself, in a pamphlet issued some time ago, gives the cause, which is that the number of people engaged in the building trade is being gradually reduced, that is the number of bricklayers and other operatives is, unfortunately, on the decrease; and at the same time the number of houses going into decay is increasing. We are coming to a point where we will require to experiment with some quicker method of building houses, and of meeting not only the increased demand for houses, but the demands of those who have to leave houses by reason of deterioration or insanitary conditions. A satisfactory feature about the Act is that 1,400 houses have been built, or are in course of erection, although the amount given towards their erection by no means compares with the huge sums given under the million pounds housing grant. We are getting towards this condition which Deputy Johnson says we will never reach—a more or less normal condition. The local authorities in two years have put up something like 2,000 houses. There will be criticism of the Department with regard to the delay in these proceedings, but I think the Department is thoroughly justified in seeing that the expenditure of such huge sums of public money should be justified. In some of the cases there is no justification for the class of scheme put up. One thing is evident on the figures mentioned by the Minister, and that is that there is apparently a considerable number of people who have got this £100 to build a five-roomed house. Ordinarily, one would be inclined to say that if you can pay £400 for a house, at a pinch you might pay £500. It would be interesting to examine how many three-roomed houses had been constructed by private individuals in the preceding twelve months. I do not suppose they would amount to 77. One might say that without this subsidy one thousand houses would not have been erected.
I would appeal to the Dáil to pass the Final Stage of this Bill to-day. Local authorities have been pressing for it for a long time. It is unreasonable, I know, to ask this, particularly as permission has been refused in reference to another Bill, but if it were passed to-day it might be possible to get the Seanad to meet next week to pass the Bill finally.
I am not much enamoured of three-roomed houses. I do not think that the provision of them would really be the help it appears on the surface. Only within the last ten or fifteen years have three-roomed houses even come to be provided in considerable numbers. When I was a member of the Dublin Corporation I remember a case being made for the provision of two-roomed houses for old men or old women. The children are the principal consideration now, and my view is that while the Ministry might not stand in the way of the provision of three-roomed houses, they ought certainly aim at the construction of houses of not less than four rooms.
I want to call the attention of the President and the Minister for Local Government to an indication which was given, that they would consider the question of allowing this grant to be applied to the reconstruction of houses in rural districts. This is a matter which I brought up when the original Bill was introduced. I also sent in an amendment dealing with the matter for this Bill, but the Ceann Comhairle ruled it out of order. It is, I think, a very debatable matter whether it was out of order, but I submit to his ruling. I think that the President has not given the matter full consideration. If he did, I think he would realise the necessity in the rural districts for a grant for reconstruction of houses. The Minister's mind has been taken up largely with the conditions which exist in the cities—with the slums. I approve of his ideas in that respect. But the fact remains that houses to relieve the slum populations are not being built. The greater number of the houses being built are five-roomed houses. We also find that grants are being given to such men as civil servants to build houses.
I never could understand why grants were not allowed to be given for the re-construction of houses in the rural districts. In many rural districts there are conditions existing in regard to housing, which amount almost to slum conditions. I know cases of farmers whose families are sleeping in barns. Deputies who are conversant with the conditions existing in the rural districts, must know that far the greater part of the building which is done in connection with farmhouses is of a reconstructive nature.
Deputies have been approached over and over again with regard to this matter, and I believe if the grant were extended to the rural districts, it would be very largely availed of. I know it cannot be done in this Bill now. The President, however, has promised that a new Bill will be brought in next year, and I would be satisfied if he would give a promise that in that Bill the reconstruction provisions will apply to rural districts.
A point raised by Deputy Good seems to me to require some explanation. I understood him to say that a number of the houses built under the Housing Act of this year are not being occupied by the persons for whom they were built, but are being sub-let at a much higher rent than is provided for.
I think the Deputy's case was that a good many houses which had been built by local authorities with the aid of Government money, had been sub-let.
Possibly that was the alternative interpretation. Under the principal Act there was intended to be a prohibition against charging more than a certain weekly rent. On reading it now, I am a little doubtful whether the Act effectively prohibits sub-letting.
It does not.
I do not think it does. That matter was before our minds, but it is obvious that proof in those cases is almost an impossibility. If my recollection is correct, I consulted the Deputy, or some members of his party, or some members of the Seanad, on it. We realised that to prove excessive rent-charging in the case of sub-letting, was absolutely impossible.
Although local authorities have a provision in their agreements that there was to be no sub-letting, what the President says prevails.
That is probably true in respect of the sub-letting of parts of houses, but I think the Deputy spoke of first tenants living somewhere else and sub-letting the house.
No.
Then I misunderstood him.
I do not very often find myself in agreement with Deputy Good on the housing question. I am afraid I must disagree with him again on the matter of the three-roomed house. It is obvious from the figures read out by the Minister that the people who can afford to build houses at all are not the class of people that will build three-roomed houses. A person who would live in a three-roomed house cannot find as much money, even with the subsidy, as would build a three-roomed house. People who have £300 or £400 want a better class of house, and, with the subsidy, will be able to get it. As far as three-roomed houses are concerned, a very large number of those houses would not, in my opinion, be good for the future of the country. In order to preserve the decencies of life, the least you can provide is a four-roomed house. From my experience in the matter, I favour the erection of four-roomed houses, especially in urban districts. We have a considerable number of these houses up and down the country, and I think it is the experience of everybody that every decent workingman wants at least a four-roomed house. There are occasions, of course, when a man must take any house that offers. Hence the difficulty we have as far as the sub-letting of these houses is concerned. The shortage of houses is so acute that it is impossible to prevent sub-letting. In Dundalk, although our agreements are drawn up very strictly, and provide that the tenant is not to sub-let, we have to wink at that clause in the agreement in order that people may get shelter. That will continue for a considerable time until the Government are in a position to place, perhaps, some millions of money at the disposal of the authorities or the public for the purpose of building more houses.
If it were possible with the limited amount of money at the disposal of the local authorities at the present time to build within six or twelve months 1,000 or 2,000 houses it would alleviate to some extent the distress caused by the housing shortage. However, it would only get to the fringe of the problem, as a great many people have to be provided with houses. If the money is provided I would ask the Government not to favour the building of a large number of three-roomed houses, because we are only going to create a new class of slum, a class of slum that will cause a good deal of trouble, and give the people who come after us in 10 or 12 years' time a similar problem to that which we have. For that reason I hope that the Ministry in any further scheme they may put forward will favour the erection of houses with at least four rooms. The three-roomed house is only suitable for a man and his wife.
There is one point I wanted to raise.
The Deputy cannot make a second speech.
I want to support the point of view expressed by Deputy Heffernan. There is general complaint that the rural population does not, in matters like this, get the consideration that town or city dwellers receive. The conditions in many parts of Ireland are, beyond doubt, as bad in the rural districts as they are in the cities. I would suggest to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that he should ask for a report from the engineers who have gone through the country inspecting sites for new houses, so that he could see what their views are on this question. It is my experience that there are districts in the country where the housing conditions could not possibly be worse. It is true that we have some facilities for building houses, but very many small farmers would be unable to face the proposition of building a new house. A farmer might be given £100 grant, but nothing less than a five-roomed house would be of any use to him. He has got to have a kitchen, and the rooms would be for the use of his family. Many men would not be able to find, even if given the £100, sufficient money to build a new house. It is that class of people are worst off. There ought to be consideration for that type of citizen in the country districts. If the Minister is unable to do anything for them under this Bill, it would be an encouragement if he could say that any further measure dealing with housing will apply equally to country districts as well as to the cities and towns.
I agree with what Deputy Hughes said about sub-letting. We all agree that sub-letting is very undesirable, but owing to the acute shortage of houses at present it is impossible for public bodies to insist on the regulations they make with tenants being carried out. Deputy Johnson referred to the question of the rent charged to people who are compelled to take a room or two from persons in occupation of artisans' dwellings. I think the Ministry should take effective steps to deal with what might be called profiteering in this connection. We know that there are people who are agitating to get into houses at cheap rents, and the moment they get possession they sub-let part of them, sometimes at a figure twice or three times what they themselves are paying for the houses. That is certainly a great scandal, and should not be tolerated. I think the Ministry should take effective measures to deal with it, and that we should have a statement from the Ministerial Benches, pointing out what a bad practice it is. A circular should be sent out to local authorities telling them to deal with that state of affairs. I would like to ask the Minister to say if that rent, which is a rack rent, is recoverable in law?
In the rural district of Fermoy 250 cottages were passed for building in 1919. The preliminary expenses were incurred, doctors visited the old houses, engineers prepared plans for the Local Government Board of that time, and the rents were fixed. When the new District Council came into office they neglected the matter. I am ashamed to say that they threw out the scheme. I wonder if there is any chance of that scheme being revived again, as some of the people for whom the cottages were intended are living in houses out of which consumptives have gone either to the grave, the sanatorium or the County Home. Through necessity the people have to live in these houses. I think that if the Local Government Department could sanction that scheme of cottages now they would be doing not only a good turn for the district of Fermoy, but for the whole country.
I would like to emphasise the point made by Deputy Heffernan regarding the want of consideration for the needs of the rural areas. We seem to have a knack here of legislating for cities and urban districts. Anyone who is acquainted with rural life in Ireland at present knows that it is dull and drab enough without having the people living in ill-ventilated and drab houses. A good many of the houses in the country districts lend themselves to reconstruction. It would be well if the Ministry would consider the position, as very often people in the country are infinitely worse housed than those living in urban districts. There is an amount of physical and mental deterioration in the country because of the want of bright surroundings. If we are to face social problems as well as other problems we will have to consider this, and try to make life in the country a little brighter and more cheerful than it is. One of the ways to do that is to help the people to make their houses pleasant, healthy and agreeable to live in.
With regard to Deputy Corish's question, and Deputy Johnson's suggestion, and also in reference to the remarks of Deputy Good, I am thoroughly in accord with the views they have expressed. However, it is very easy to recommend the Minister to take effective measures to prevent re-letting. I think if the Dáil asked Deputy Corish to outline what kind of measures we should take, he would find it very difficult to do so. In cases of sub-letting, it is likely the person who rents the house from the original tenant is bound by some agreement of secrecy not to disclose the rent he pays. If he makes that known he will probably be dispossessed and left without any house at all. As long as you have a housing shortage you will be met with that difficulty. I think it will be extremely difficult to deal with that point. At the same time, I think the Deputy's suggestion to circularise local authorities and get them to bring whatever pressure they can on people who indulge in this particularly contemptible form of profiteering, is a good one, and we will act on it as soon as possible.
Could the Minister say now, or could he get advice, as to whether such rack-rents are enforceable? If they are not, could the Minister make it known in every town that such rent over the normal rent is not enforceable?
I could not state that at the moment.
I should say such rents are not enforceable.
It would be very difficult to find out what the rents actually were.
I quite realise that, but it would be a discouragement. Perhaps that is the most it would be.
Yes.
It would give the sub-tenants a feeling of security and defence.
That is my object. I wonder if there is any clause in the Act dealing with the scandal of sub-letting that I have referred to? Would the rack-rent be recoverable?
I think the Act touches on that matter.
With regard to the rural houses, I am familiar with the situation that Deputies Heffernan, Baxter, and Hogan have dealt with. I realise that in rural areas many of those houses are in a very bad condition from a sanitary and a health point of view. It would be desirable if facilities were given for the reconstruction of these houses. Under the present Bill only £50,000 is allocated for that purpose. Any Deputy who weighs the matter fairly in his mind will realise that the case for the town dweller is very much stronger than the case for the country dweller. In a matter of this kind one of the great difficulties the town builder is faced with is the difficulty of finding a site.
The only difficulty?
I said that one of the difficulties was the finding of a site. It is considered desirable that he should be allowed to reconstruct in this way in order to avoid that difficulty. The countryman, in the ordinary course of events, has very little difficulty in getting a site, and, as a general rule, he can acquire it at a moderate price. It must, however, be borne in mind that under the Act the farmers have availed of the facilities provided to the extent of sixty per cent. If we were to enable them to reconstruct houses in this way I think we would require a grant of something like £1,000,000 for reconstruction alone. I think the fact that dwellers in the rural districts are responsible for building sixty per cent. of the houses under this Act throws some light on the figures that I have quoted, and do not make them quite so alarming as Deputy Good alleges. The farmer in the ordinary course of events is not inclined to build a house of less than five rooms. If we inquire into the figures we will find that a great number of the five-roomed houses that have been built were built in the country. The difficulty that Deputy Good is so much afraid of will not occur to the same extent as he imagines.
Will not the increasing of the superficial area, as is proposed in the Bill, aggravate the point that the Minister tries to avoid?
The Minister refers to houses which have been already built, or are in course of construction, and not new houses.
Sub-section (a) refers to a superficial area of 1,400 square feet, and sub-section (b), which touches on erection and re-construction, is quite a different matter. I understood that there was an increase to an area of 1,400 square feet.
They are all bound together. That is a sub-clause.
Yes, they are all bound up together.
That is a point that ought to be made clear. As far as I could read it, I understood that it extends the 1,000 feet mentioned in the original Act, to 1,400.
Deputy Good has made a good point, and a great many people are under the same impression as he is. Neither this particular Bill, nor the other Act, is applicable to any house of more than 1,000 square feet unless a house which had been commenced before the passing of the Act, and the area of which was 1,400 square feet.
If that is the intention it is very badly expressed.
Do you remember that when the number of houses was raised, we were told it was something under 40?
The number mentioned was 30 or 40, and only those are concerned.
I take it that all those houses which still comply with those conditions have already been notified to the Ministry? When we speak of the number 40, we have the right to assume that every house, which complies with the conditions of Section 5, has been notified to the Ministry. I suggest when this Bill becomes an Act it will be found that quite a number of other houses have been started under those conditions.
They would be different. In the future, as from to-day, houses in excess of 1,000 square feet will not be entitled to get this particular subsidy. In the case of houses to the number of 30 or 40—possibly there may be more, because they have a peculiar way of cropping up— subsidies will be granted. That is the number we have at the moment. If there are any other such houses there is no earthly chance of their getting the subsidy.
Would the President alter Clause 5 to apply to 50 houses? That would simplify the matter.
I am afraid I could not concede that. We are trying to apply the Bill as from this on.
An alteration of the clause in the way I suggest would simplify matters very much. I am afraid you will get more than fifty.
Would the Dáil be agreeable to put the Bill through its remaining stages?
I would require notice of that.
We must first have the motion that the Bill be received for final consideration.
I move that the Bill be received for final consideration.
In view of Deputy Johnson's objection, I am satisfied to leave the remaining stage over until Tuesday, November 18th.