Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 18 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 13

LETTERKENNY URBAN DISTRICT ELECTRIC LIGHTING ORDER, 1926. - HOUSING BILL, 1926.—THIRD STAGE.

The Dáil went into Committee.

Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 put and agreed to.

Mr. HEWAT

There is an amendment standing in the name of Deputy Good which reads:—

Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—

Part I of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act shall have effect and be construed as if the words "erected by any persons" together with the figures "£45,""£60," and "£75" had been omitted, and the word "person" had been inserted before the word "local authority" in the second paragraph, also that the figures "£60,""£80" and "£100" had been deleted and the figures "£75,""£75,""£75," substituted therefor.

I imagine that the purport of the new section will be more familiar to the President than it is to me. But obviously it is in furtherance of the claim that Deputy Good has always made for more consideration for small houses and to express the greater need of small houses in connection with this Bill than there is for five-roomed houses or four-roomed houses. I think he has already expressed himself fully and his views are familiar to the Deputies, and no doubt the President will say whether he is prepared to accept or otherwise.

The PRESIDENT

Deputy Hewat is right in saying that Deputy Good has consistently supported the case for the provision of three-roomed houses—I do not know that it would be right to say as against—but as a better means perhaps of solving the housing problem. That view is not accepted, I think, generally. Within the last 15 years a considerable advance has been made in the standard of houses provided under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. I think about 15 years ago in the case of one local authority, perhaps the most advanced in connection with the provision of housing, there was a general understanding that they would not depart from the standard of three-roomed houses for the future. I believe that in one case they did, but it was only in a small number of dwellings. The amendment really provides a premium for the erection of three-roomed houses. If carried, it would mean that a subsidy by the Government and the local authority in connection with the provision of houses would be limited to a sum of £75 in respect of five-roomed houses. The case for this amendment has been made on many occasions by Deputy Good, and on fairly safe grounds and on fairly sound foundations. That is that we cannot afford to provide four and five-roomed houses. I think that is really the basis of his contention and I think the Oireachtas would certainly suffer very considerable criticism if it were to say that we were satisfied with a three-roomed house or that it was all that we considered desirable. We would not exactly go that far but very near it. Now from the moral standpoint practically every person qualified to speak has laid it down that no house should be provided through the agency of public funds containing less than three rooms. That means that in a family in which there are boys and girls there is separate accommodation in separate rooms for the sexes, and the parents then have to sleep in the living room. The living room is the room most used in all these small houses, and it is at that point that all persons interested in sanitation come in and they object to having the living room used as a sleeping apartment, that it is not healthy. We are driven then to the four-roomed house, where the living-room need not be used as a sleeping apartment, and there are separate bedrooms for the parents and the children of both sexes.

The next point to be considered is, what house is the most economic to build from the point of view of the money spent? Recently a rather important local authority received tenders at the following rates for the erection of houses: Three-roomed house, £358; four-roomed house, £426; five-roomed house, £550. In the case of the five-roomed house I believe a bath was to be provided. Deducting the maximum subsidy provided, it will be seen that in the case of the three-roomed house the cost was approximately £100 per room; in the case of the four-roomed house, £86 10s., and in the case of the five-roomed house about £90. From that it would appear that the three-roomed house is an expensive house to build. The cost per room is a vital consideration, and taking that along with the objections from the point of view of morality and sanitation, I think there is a good case for the provision of the four-roomed and the five-roomed house.

If we go a step further and take the difference between the cost of the three-roomed and the four-roomed house—I think it is about £68—allowing for the subsidy, it will be found that it runs to about £50 per house. Assessing that £50 at 8 per cent., which I think is looked upon as the normal outgoing in respect of building, it will be found that something like 1/7 per week would pay the rent of the additional room. Having regard to that fact, I think there is a very good case for the four-roomed house. I think there are very few people at present living in a three-roomed house who would not be willing to pay 1/7 per week more in order to get a four-roomed house. The difference between a four-roomed and a five-roomed house would be much the same. The five-roomed house has the advantage that a little parlour is provided, and it has been represented to the Local Government Department and to various local authorities that the provision of such an apartment is a decided advantage. If there was no competition for the occupation of five-roomed houses, or if a big effort had to be made by people occupying them to meet the rent or to acquire them on the instalment system, there might be a case for considering this amendment. But, on the whole, I would not like to take the responsibility of accepting it.

While saying that, I admit at once that the time may come when the State and the local authorities may not be able to afford to provide the larger houses, even for large families, but having regard to the great success which has attended the working of the Housing Acts, I think we would not be justified in withdrawing from the four-roomed and five-roomed houses the advantages that they received under the Acts of 1924 and 1925. I have not been able to get the number of three-roomed, four-roomed and five-roomed houses constructed up to date, but I have the figures in one case, where 2,306 houses were provided. Of these, 1,945 were five-roomed; 174 four-roomed; 124 three-roomed, and 67 two-roomed. I will finish by saying that if I had any responsibility for providing houses I would not provide two-roomed houses.

Mr. HEWAT

I am sorry Deputy Good is not here to fight his own battle, but in his absence I must endeavour to speak for him as well as I can, knowing as I do his views on the matter. The President, naturally, dealt with this amendment largely from the economic point of view—that it is certainly very desirable from the point of view of those building houses, whether private investors or local authorities, to get the best possible house built. He is undoubtedly right in saying that is a sound, economic proposition; but, on the other hand, we have to consider what the position is to-day. I am told on good authority that the Artisans' Dwellings Company, who build two-roomed, three-roomed, and four roomed houses, have at present a thousand applications on their books for two-roomed or three-roomed houses. The essence of the housing problem is to provide the greatest possible number of houses to suit the greatest number of people. The great question to be considered is whether the people can pay an economic rent for the houses erected. Therefore, while we should proceed up to a certain point with the provision of five-roomed houses, it has been demonstrated clearly that in many cases the incentive to a person to take a five-roomed house is not to get a five-roomed house for himself, but to get accommodation for himself and, by sub-letting, bring down the cost of the house to himself. That is a growing evil and must be recognised. So far the effort has not been in the direction of providing the greatest number of houses.

The President says the State should not take the responsibility of providing three-roomed houses. Is that right? We are moving in the direction of decontrol. We are coming to the time when men with money to invest in housing and with an inclination to build must be enabled to build houses and provide for the wants of the people. Is it fair to ask such persons to provide three-roomed houses which the local authorities and the Government say should not be erected because they are not an economic proposition? I say it is not. The burden that is borne to-day by the local authorities and the State in this matter cannot very well be carried by the private individual. I think the State and the local authorities should aim at providing the man who cannot afford a five-roomed house with a house which he can afford, and let those who can afford a five-roomed house depend more on the initiative of private builders to provide houses for them.

I controvert the view held by the President in this matter. Deputy Good's amendment indicates that while three-room houses should not be built to an unlimited extent, they would be better for the people than one-room tenements and better than five-room houses with three of the rooms sub-let. They would also be better for people who are least able to provide houses for themselves, and who are not able to pay the rents asked for five-room houses. That class has a greater claim for reasonable assistance than those in more or less fashionable localities where five-room houses are erected.

I had the pleasure of an interview recently with a prominent member of the Drogheda Corporation and he informed me that the housing programme there had come to a halt owing to the short periods for which money could be borrowed. At the same time he said they were not providing houses for those who really needed them. While the President was right in what he said, from the æsthetic point of view, I think from the economic point of view he was wrong. Taking the position as we find it to-day, I think it is wrong to persist in giving the same bonus for the erection of a five-room house as is given for smaller houses.

Dr. HENNESSY

While I appreciate the motives that actuated Deputy Good in putting down this amendment I must say that I take the President's view. The three-room house is a poor remedy for the situation that exists. I agree that it brings a house within the means of the people, but from the public health point of view it is unwise and a danger. There is also the question of the proper division of the sexes. That cannot be provided in a three-room house. Wherever the money is to be found an effort should be made to provide four-room houses. Otherwise there will be no proper segregation of the sexes. I believe that these four-room houses are most wanted in the cities and in the large urban areas. The rural areas have been pretty well provided for, so that any money that is to be raised should be spent on providing houses for those poor people who, I think, were described by Deputy Good as the casual labourer class. I appreciate the hesitancy of the President in accepting any proposal to erect three-room houses as I think they would be too dear at any price.

The PRESIDENT

So that there may be no misunderstanding I should say that the Schedule as it stands provides for a subsidy of £60 for three-room houses erected by a local authority or by a public utility society; £80 for a four-room house, and £100 for a house with not less than 5 rooms. For private persons a subsidy of £45 is provided for a three-room house; £60 for a four-room house, and £75 for a five-room house. The amendment proposes to insert £75 as the subsidy for a three-room house, £75 for a four-room house, and £75 as a subsidy for a five-room house, making the sum equal in the case of a private person and a local authority. As far as the difference in the two proposals is concerned, it means that £15 of an additional subsidy would be given in the case of a three-room house. Already a large number of three-room houses have been constructed, and a considerable number of four-room houses.

I think it is due to the Local Government Department to say that the houses in Drogheda mentioned by Deputy Hewat were built to a plan furnished by the housing section of the Department. They were four-room houses and cost, approximately, £270, £70 being given as a subsidy. These four-room houses cost, approximately, £200 and are fairly good value. I agree that more three-room houses are required, and I am satisfied that a fair subsidy is provided under the Bill for such houses. The difference between the proposal in the Bill and the amendment that Deputy Good has put down, is that where we propose to give a £20 subsidy per room, Deputy Good would give £25 in a three-room house; where we gave £20 per room in a four-room house he would give £18 15s., and where we give £20 per room for a five-room house he would give only £15. I am satisfied if Deputy Good were here he would not get the Dáil to agree that the proposal he makes is one that could be accepted.

Mr. JOHNSON

I have already made known my views respecting the proposition that preference should be given to the building of three-room houses as against houses with four or five rooms. Deputy Good's amendment is clearly intended to give preference to the building of three-room houses as against four or five-room houses. Of course the effect would be that only three-room houses would be built, because the subsidy is proportionately so much greater per £ expended.

Mr. HEWAT

Is Deputy Johnson right in that?

Mr. JOHNSON

Well, we have had certain figures given to us by the President as to the relative costs, and if the same amount is to be paid per house for the three-roomed house as for the five-roomed house, knowing that the three-roomed house costs considerably less than the five-roomed house, it is obvious that the subsidy is greater proportionately per £100 for the smaller house than for the larger. That is a clear advantage to the builder, and an encouragement for that class of building from the point of view of the builder. It is right and necessary that regard should be had to the economic effects, but we must, as the President said, give very great consideration to the social and moral effects of the several propositions, and I think that the judgment upon this matter will depend upon how much weight one is giving to the mere economic proposition from the point of view of whoever is building, whether a private person or a public authority, or the weight that you will give to the social consequences—not merely the immediate social consequences, but the consequences affecting the family and the neighbourhood at any time until that house is razed to the ground, and even after that. You have got to look twenty years ahead in this matter, and if we go deliberately out of our way and encourage three-roomed houses to be built in the city and surroundings, as opposed to four and five-roomed houses, then we, as I think, will be disregarding the social consequences and disregarding the moral values. As I said the other day, we have to think not merely of the newly-married couple taking a house, but we have to consider the possibilities of family life in ten or fifteen years' time, and that to me is so great a consideration that I am glad to hear the President say that he does not look with favour upon this amendment. I would be better pleased if I felt confident that he would not in the near future accede to a proposition of this kind. I think that the President is not definitely strong enough on the matter. Nevertheless I appreciate the position that he takes in regard to this amendment. I hope that the House will agree with him and will not agree to give a preferential subsidy to the three-roomed house as against the four-roomed house and the five-roomed house.

Mr. BRODERICK

I am pleased to see that the President has no intention of accepting this amendment. To local authorities the grants for three, four and five-roomed houses are £60, £80 and £100, and it is proposed that a local authority which is prepared to build a good class house, the usual four-roomed house, is to be deprived of £5 of the subsidy. I think it would be most unfair to local authorities to deprive them of part of the subsidy if they are prepared to build this good class of house. It also applies to rural areas, because it mentions "any person." In rural areas you would have everyone building three-roomed houses and getting the £75 grant, and you would find in a short time after the grant is paid every kind of annex put on to these houses. That, I think, would not be a benefit. If the amendment were accepted you would not be improving housing conditions in any way while you would still be paying out State money.

Mr. GOOD

I am sorry that I had to be in another place when this discussion started. One of the points that influenced me in trying to get an equal grant for all houses, whether three, four or five-roomed, is that the principle advocated in the amendment is exactly the principle adopted on the other side, where the subsidy is identical, whether the house is a three, four or five-roomed one. The result is that private individuals and local authorities are in a position to build whatever class of house suits the locality. There may be cases where the five-roomed house is, in the opinion of the people of the locality, the proper house for that locality. In such a case under this amendment they are placed at no disadvantage whatever. If in other areas it is thought that a four-roomed house is the proper one, they are at no disadvantage.

The PRESIDENT

Five pounds per house.

Mr. GOOD

No, not under my amendment, which would mean £75 for each of them. I mean that if the amendment were adopted we would be on all fours with the position in Great Britain to-day where there is no priority, and individuals are free, and that is exactly what we want. The Government will agree that there are cases where it is highly desirable to have three-roomed houses. Deputy Johnson caters for nobody except the aristocrat of labour with a large family. That may appear a strong statement, but can you show me an unskilled labourer to-day who is able to afford a rent of anything from 15/- to 20/- a week for a five-roomed house? It is only the well-to-do tradesman who can afford it, and that is the class of man you are catering for. The result is that the other unfortunate man, who should have as good a claim on the State as the well-to-do man, is not catered for at all. In other words, Deputy Johnson is advocating legislation for a class. That is what his point amounts to in substance. He will himself admit that only the well-to-do man can afford to pay the rent of a five-roomed house. Is it fair that those who form the larger proportion of the population should remain untouched and uncatered for by a measure of this kind? All I ask is that where the local authority is satisfied that it is desirable to erect a number of three-roomed houses they should not thereby be in any worse position, that there should not be this argument: "We will get a larger subsidy for a five-roomed house and therefore we will only erect five-roomed houses." What is the position to-day? You may divide the people concerned into three classes, people who are anxious to get married, a widow, possibly, with a couple of daughters, and a married man with a large family. These are the three principal sub-divisions of the classes of tenants as we find them to-day. If the local authority is confined to a five-roomed house—because that is practically what this Bill means—it is only catering for one of these three sections. The newly married man does not want a five-roomed house. It is an incubus. It puts a burden on him that in many cases is highly undesirable. It produces sub-letting, because in order to get accommodation he is forced to take more accommodation than he wants.

I do not know whether the President in his opening statement gave us the figures he promised to give us in regard to Dublin for the last four or five years. He was to give the number of three-roomed, four-roomed and five-roomed houses that had been erected by the local authority, but I am quite satisfied from what I know of these figures that they will show that a very much higher proportion of five-roomed houses were built than any other class.

The PRESIDENT

There was a total of 2,306 houses built, made up of 1,940 five-roomed houses, 175 four-roomed houses, 124 three-roomed and 67 two-roomed.

Mr. GOOD

That is what I thought; practically all the houses erected in recent years are five-roomed houses. Having done so much for one class of the community, it is highly desirable that something should be done for other sections of the community. As I say, the Bill as it stands gives a decided preference and a decided leaning in favour of the larger house as against the smaller house. The idea underlying this amendment is that the local authority should be quite free to erect the particular type of house that it finds most suitable for the applicants. It gives no priority to one particular type of house over any other type of house.

Having said so much on that point, there is just one other aspect of the question that I would like to touch upon very briefly. In this amendment, it is proposed to do away with the first part of the Schedule. The first part of the Schedule deals with private individuals. Why a private individual who erects a house or a series of houses should get less encouragement from the State than the local authority is a conundrum I have never been able to solve. It does not exist on the other side, except in certain areas known as agricultural areas, which are not touched by this Bill at all. From the point of view of the State, if we are anxious to get houses, why handicap, because really that is what it amounts to, the private individual? We want houses. It is a matter of indifference as to whether they are erected by private individuals or local authorities. That is what I aimed at in this amendment—to put them exactly on the same lines. Under this proposal the private individual will get exactly the same as the local authority. That, as I said, would be a decided advantage, because from the figures I gave the other day, evidently private individuals here are not doing as much at all as they are on the other side.

As I said, one-third of the houses erected on the other side last year were erected by private individuals without any State subsidy of any kind. We want to encourage private individuals —this amendment, which is a two-fold amendment, has that as one of its objects—to come forward and do more than they have done. The 1925 Act does not do that. Under Schedule No. 2 of the 1925 Act, the subsidy given to private individuals on the three different classes of houses is approximately 25 per cent. less than given to local authorities. Why that should be, I could never understand. Possibly the President can explain it, but seeing what has been done on the other side, I would be strongly in favour of giving more encouragement to private individuals to come forward and to take their part in this burden of providing houses. As I said, this is the object I had in putting down the amendment—first of all to give no priority in favour of the three-room, four-room or five-room house. Let the individual or the local authority build whichever is most needed. I think the amendment would achieve that. I hope the amendment will achieve something also in the way of encouraging private individuals to do more in the future than they have done in the past, and that it will not put them in a worse position than the local authority.

Professor MAGENNIS

The Housing Act of 1925 was the principal Act, and the present amending Bill is, in the best sense of the term, an amending Bill, because it develops the excellences of the principal Act. There are two elements constituting the amendment of Deputy Good. One is that he regards this proposal of his as giving no priority. Those of us who supported the last measure, to which this is an amending Bill, advocated the five-room house as against the smaller house that Deputy Good contended for. The figures we have got show that the public were wise and that quite a small, an insignificant, number of two-room houses was built—only 67—whereas close on 2,000 five-room houses were built.

Mr. GOOD

What have the public to do with that?

Mr. JOHNSON

Unfortunately, nothing.

Professor MAGENNIS

When I say "the public" I suppose I must be meticulously exact and I must speak by the card. It is those who took advantage of and put into operation the Housing Act. It is very much better for the public and very much better for the nation to have assets of greater value provided out of the moneys which are subsidies to building. Deputy Good contends that equalising the subsidy so as to read £75 in all three cases, would give no priority. Surely a moment's reflection would convince him that it would. This is a proposal that gives priority to one type of house, because the cost of construction for the five-room house is ever so much larger. There is more enterprise and more courage in investment required to go into a five-room house on a large scale of production, and consequently the inducement in that case ought to be more.

Mr. GOOD

The cost, in proportion, is higher in the case of the smaller house than in that of the larger house.

Professor MAGENNIS

No doubt it is. I am not alleging that there are greater profits to be made. It is no part of my case, but the broad fact remains that the actual amount of money to be invested in any particular case is considerably larger for the construction of five-roomed houses and, therefore, the inducement to go into them ought to be larger.

Mr. HEWAT

Would the Deputy say if the demand is in favour of the five-roomed house as against the three-roomed house?

Professor MAGENNIS

I assume from the figures given by the President that these houses were built in response to a known demand. I take it that both the private builder and the local authority are not blind to the facts. As regards the second part of Deputy Good's amendment, I am with him. I believe that better results would accrue through helping private enterprise to put up houses. The work would be done more expeditiously. However, the fact remains that the main purpose for which Deputy Good recommends the equalisation of subsidies is not a purpose that it is desirable to serve, and in any case it does not serve his intended purpose. If the State could have afforded them, which I know it could not, I am quite sure that the subsidies would have been much larger. There is this much to the credit of the State, that it has done more, considerably more, in the solution of the housing problem than any other State, and very much more proportionately in relation to its own resources. Deputy Good, it seems to me, has made no case at all for the alteration of the different grades of subsidy with regard to the different types of houses.

Mr. A. BYRNE

There is one point I wish to have explained, and that is why there should be any difference in the subsidy paid to private people and to public authorities. In the case of a five-roomed house, a private individual who desires to build one is offered £25 less than the public authority; for a four-roomed house he is offered £20 less, and for a three-roomed house £15 less. I am satisfied that if private individuals got the same amount of subsidy as the public authorities you would have very many more four-roomed houses built. There is a great demand for that class of house, and I see no reason why the subsidy should not be the same in both cases. If it were you would have many private individuals making arrangements to build their own houses.

I think that is a matter that the President might give some consideration to. When I raised this matter last year I was told that if four or five persons formed themselves into a public utility society they could get the same amount of subsidy as is given to the public authorities. Deputies would be surprised if they knew how difficult it is to get three people together to agree in the case of building houses with their own money. It is almost impossible to get five people to join in forming one of these societies. I made an effort to do it, and I succeeded in getting two people to meet. They secured a third person to join them, but we could not get a fourth or fifth, even if we were to go to the extent of offering a reward to them to join in the enterprise. The three people who came originally together would undertake the building of their own houses if the Government gave them the same subsidy that is given to the public authorities. I hope this is a point that will be considered sympathetically by the President. I am satisfied that, if the suggestion I make were agreed to, there would be many more individual applications for grants for house building purposes than the Government is receiving at the present time. On the question of three-roomed houses, if I got my choice I certainly would prefer a four or five-roomed house, but in Dublin to-day there is an extraordinary demand for three-roomed houses. Proof of that is to be found in the fact that speculators are buying large houses in good class neighbourhoods in the city and converting them into three-roomed flats. Very decent people, earning good wages, are going into those flats which are let at an average of 30/- a week. Some of those people were with me asking how they would go about getting a house. They told me they would much prefer a three-roomed cottage to one of these three-roomed flats.

Mr. JOHNSON

Did they say anything about the size of the rooms?

Mr. A. BYRNE

I was in one of these flats. In one of the rooms containing a double bed you could no more than turn about. The other two rooms were fairly decent. It was a top flat in one of the principal thoroughfares in the city. From that class of people you would have an exceedingly big demand for four-roomed houses. Then you have the tenement dweller. This is a class that is more numerous in my constituency than, I suppose, in the constituency of any other Deputy for the City of Dublin. They are a numerous class in Gloucester Street, Gardiner Street and Grenville Street. They pay 6/- and 7/- a week for single rooms. Some of these people would almost give their eyes to get a three-roomed cottage. Most of them have families, and because they cannot get a three-roomed cottage they have to live in tenements. There is no other accommodation for them. Then you have the married man with a wife and two children. That man is willing and anxious to pay a rent for a three-roomed house, but he cannot get it. The five-roomed houses that are being built and let at a rent of 15/- and 16/- a week are beyond him. This class of house is only suitable for the man in constant employment and who, perhaps, has two sons and two daughters working. We are making no effort to deal with the tenement dwellers who are compelled to live in single rooms. I know the Government is anxious to help them, and that the President at all times has displayed the greatest activity and interest in the housing of the working classes. I know what his desires are in this direction, and I would make a special appeal to him on behalf of these people. I think on inquiry he will find that there is an extremely large demand from amongst the men with small wages and small families for three and four-roomed houses. In Seville Place we have an Artisans' Dwellings Company. The company has erected avenues of two, three, four and five-roomed houses. Some of the people in these two-roomed houses have reared very large and very decent families. When the families grow up they apply for a transfer to a three-roomed house, and then from a three to a four-roomed house and so on. That, I think, will help to bring home to the Government that there is in the City of Dublin a very big demand indeed for three and four-roomed houses.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is there a demand for two-roomed houses?

Mr. A. BYRNE

Under present conditions I am sorry to say that there is. I know that when one of these two-roomed houses becomes vacant the company has at least 1,000 people on its waiting list for it. Because of the conditions that prevail people are compelled to apply for two-roomed houses. I urge on the President that private individuals who are ready and anxious to build three and four-roomed houses should get the same consideration as regards the subsidy that is given to the public authorities.

Mr. JOHNSON

I asked the Deputy that question because I realised the importance that is attached to the existence of a demand. Of course there is a demand for two-roomed houses, and for three-roomed houses, but are we to take it that because of a demand for two-roomed houses we by a deliberate act should give a preference by means of a subsidy to the building of two-roomed houses? Nobody claims that you should give a subsidy for the building of two-roomed houses. I apply the same reasoning to the three-roomed houses the building of which it is proposed to encourage by a subsidy, because there is a demand for them. Are we satisfied that in the City of Dublin that is a desirable system of housing not merely for this year, not merely for the immediate future? It is not the existence of a demand which should determine our action here, though it does determine the builder if he is not restricted. The builder will build a two-roomed house if he thinks he can let it or sell it at a profit. If we are going to say that the insistence of a demand is the factor that is to determine our action we would be doing all sorts of undesirable things, for people demand all sorts of things that are not good, simply because of the circumstances that are driving them. The very circumstances that create that demand are the circumstances we must take into account in deciding what should be the housing policy that should be encouraged having regard to the future welfare of the people.

Mr. GOOD

Must we not be guided in our policy by the requirements of the people we intend to house? If that is so, will the Deputy tell me how the requirements, say, of young married people are met in a five-roomed house that are not met in a three-roomed house?

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Deputy by any means guarantee that three-roomed houses are to be occupied only by newly-married people, and that as families come they will inevitably find new houses of a larger type?

Mr. GOOD

Is not that a matter for the housing committee? As has been pointed out by Deputy Byrne, that does happen. I know that that is the practice with regard to the Artisans' Dwellings Company. As a member of a housing committee I know they are anxious that should be the practice, but if by legislation you cater for only one class of the community, how is a housing committee to meet the demands of the other classes?

Mr. JOHNSON

I deny that you are legislating for only one class of the people. Concurrent with this proposition of Deputy Good is the policy of selling houses.

Mr. GOOD

I do not want to get into that.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Deputy says he does not want to get into that, but it is an important consideration. The local authorities or private individuals build houses, but the person who enters into occupation of the house expects to become the owner of that house. Now you talk of removing them to larger houses when the opportunity comes, but they are the owners of their houses and are tied. Deputy Good makes the point—perhaps it is not of much importance—that my proposal is to cater only for the artisan who is in regular employment and that I am prepared to leave the unskilled labourer in his tenement room. My belief in this matter is that we ought not by a deliberate act to say to the unskilled labourers: "In our opinion it is right and desirable that you should be on a lower cale permanently than the artisan."

Mr. GOOD

That is what you are doing.

Mr. JOHNSON

No, sir. My desire, so far as we can effect it, is that they should live in houses just as good as the artisans'. The Deputy's contention is that because he is an unskilled labourer we should consign him permanently to the three-room level. I oppose that proposition altogether.

Mr. GOOD

It appears to me that in substance what Deputy Johnson aims at is that we should put people into houses we would like to see them in rather than into houses they can afford. Now, if any of us were to carry out that doctrine ourselves where would we find ourselves? We would all probably like to live in a better position than we can afford.

Mr. WILSON

The Viceregal Lodge.

Mr. GOOD

We will not say anything about that.

Mr. JOHNSON

We might make tenements of the Viceregal Lodge.

Mr. GOOD

I think it is a proposition with which there would be general agreement, that we would all like to live in houses better than we can afford, but would it be wise for us to do it? If it is unwise for us, should we not consider that is what we are endeavouring to do to-day for these poor people? We say: "We are not going to build a small house for you. We are going to build a larger house, and no matter where you get the money that is the house you will get." That is exactly what our legislation means to do. In order that that may be more thoroughly carried out the Schedule attached to our Housing Bill of 1925 allows £80 for a four-roomed house and £60 for a three-roomed house. Naturally the local authority will build a house for which it can get the largest subsidy, because the house with the largest number of rooms is the cheapest to construct. In proportion, it is much cheaper to construct a five-roomed house than a three-roomed house. If you take that into account this means that you are going to get five-roomed houses, and you are actually getting them. That is against the policy on the other side. They have a larger experience of these problems than we have. They give no preference to one size of a house as against another. They lay down that your house shall not be of less floor-space or greater floor-space than so-and-so. We want no further figures. Leave it to the local authority and let them provide the house they will find the greatest demand for. If there is a demand for a certain size of house we should do nothing to prevent that house being provided for that particular class of people.

Some little while ago, in the local authority I happen to belong to, we had a deputation representing tenants and people who are anxious to become tenants. The proposition they put before us is: "We want three-roomed houses." If that proposal is put before the local authority I do not want the local authority to be in any worse position if it provides three or four-roomed houses than it would be for five-roomed houses. You are not meeting that demand when you give them five-roomed houses. Legislating for a five-roomed house is class legislation, because just as you and I find there is a certain type of house we would like to be in but which we cannot afford, so there is a certain type of house they like to be in but cannot afford. Let us give them the house they like and take them out of their horrible surroundings.

The PRESIDENT

The only point I am called on to answer is the difference between the sum of money given to a private person and that given to a local authority or public utility society. Before answering that question, on the face of it that looks a bad case, but in practice it turned out that under the 1924 Act, where the sums were equal we had practically the same response as we had under the Act of last year. But that is not the reason why the alteration was made last year. The reason of it was that there is a distinction between two persons, one of whom alters a house or gets a house built himself and the other who occupies a house which is constructed by the local authority. The local authority has to deal with a class who cannot, I think, be expected to build for themselves. The person who constructs or alters a house is a one-hundred-percent. person; the person who looks to the local authority to provide it is a seventy-five-per-cent. person, and the local authority requires something more than the private individual who is in a position to build his own house. The local authority has to meet certain expenses which the private person has not got to meet. I think that the cost of collection and the inspections that have to be made place a considerable burden on the local authority. In the first place, the local authority has to pay a higher standard of wage than is paid by the ordinary individual.

Mr. GOOD

That is not so.

The PRESIDENT

I should like to know whether persons who own houses and collect rents, or employ people to collect them, do or do not spend as much as the local authority. I refer Deputy Good to the Departmental Housing Inquiry of 1913 and to the report, from which it will be seen that whereas the average cost for repairs to dwellings by, I think it was, the Artisans' Dwelling Company, was £1 5s., the cost to the Corporation was £2 12s. If a local authority has a person collecting rents I think that person is drawing a twenty-five per cent. bigger salary than the person collecting them for a private individual, and generally speaking, the cost to the local authority is greater than that of the private individual.

Mr. GOOD

The subsidy here is for private people.

The PRESIDENT

Looked upon in that light, it is a capital sum, and the capital costs bear a relation to the other costs. We compensate the local authority by giving them a larger subsidy. In the same way a public utility society is regarded as a local authority. The public utility society makes practically no money out of it. I think they are mainly philanthropic societies. Some extra help was needed to enable them to carry out this work. That is the reason for the difference between the two. In one case the person looked to the local authority for help and in the other case the private individual is in a position to help himself. In addition to a subsidy a private individual can get what is possible from the local authority, and in Dublin I think they give the same amount as is given by the Government. In that connection I should like to point out that if we could accept the figure mentioned here to-day for a three-roomed house and take £120 off that, it leaves the outgoings £238, a reasonable sum. Deputy Good was not in the House when I contrasted the prices which I gave: £358 for a three-roomed house, £426 for a four-roomed house, and £550 for a five-roomed house.

Mr. ALFRED BYRNE

Are these contracts in big numbers?

The PRESIDENT

Not in very large numbers. These are for the City of Cork. In Dublin the price of a five-roomed house would be between five hundred and £535. Deputy Good will accept a sum of eight per cent. as the only outgoing in respect of the house. Allowing the subsidy of £60 off the £358, the sum is reduced to £298. Eight per cent of £298 is practically £24. Let us take a four-roomed house at £426 and deduct the subsidy, that is £346. Eight per cent. of that is £27 13s. 4d. The difference between the two is £3 13s. 4d., somewhere about 1/6 a week. I put it to Deputy Hewat, before Deputy Good came in, that there are very few people at present taxing themselves to their utmost to pay the rent of a three-roomed house who would not be satisfied to pay an extra one and sixpence to get a four-roomed house.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question—"That Section 5 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Title stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Bill reported.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

When will the next stage be taken?

Mr. GOOD

Would the President consider between this and the Report Stage whether something could not be done at all events to make the difference between the grant to an individual and that to a local authority a lesser amount than 25 per cent.? At present you give to an individual only 75 per cent. of that which you give to a local authority by way of subsidy. I want to get a larger private interest developed in housing than we have at present.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I would make the same appeal to the President, as I know half a dozen cases in which a private individual is anxious to build his own house. I could lodge three applications to-day.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not think that the President's answer to the case made by Deputy Good and Deputy Byrne is conclusive or satisfying. I cannot see why a larger differentiation should be made against the private builder in respect of four-roomed and five-roomed houses. I would hope that he would make the obstacle greater in respect of three-roomed houses than in respect of four-roomed and five-roomed houses. I agree that there is no good reason shown why the differentiation against the private builders should be persisted in.

The PRESIDENT

The figures show that it has been accepted and they are very decisive.

Mr. HEWAT

Would the President say anything further at this stage?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This is not the stage for the President to say anything further on this matter, as this should have been mentioned at the end of the Committee Stage. We are now considering the date for which the Report Stage is to be fixed.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 22nd inst.