I move that the Housing Bill, 1926, do now pass.
HOUSING BILL, 1926.—FIFTH STAGE.
I want to take advantage of this, the last stage of the Housing Bill, to enter my protest against the fact that the President, who brought in the Bill, or any member of his party, has not seen fit to introduce an amendment for the purpose of extending the provisions for the reconstruction of houses in rural districts. I introduced an amendment last year, and I think on the previous year, for the purpose of having the Bill apply to the reconstruction of houses in rural districts, but the amendment was defeated by a vote of the House.
At the time of the introduction of this Bill the President did not state what he has stated since, that the main object of the reconstruction section in the Bill was in order that reconstruction work might be done in regard to certain barracks in the country. I refer in particular to the military barracks in Tipperary and Clonmel. Even if this was the original intention in not applying the reconstruction section of the Act to the houses in rural districts, I think that is not a justification of the action of the Government in that regard. The Act as it stands is granting from Government funds a subsidy to the builders of houses in towns and also in rural districts, and a subsidy for the reconstruction of houses in the urban districts which does not apply to the rural districts.
If advantage has not been taken of the reconstruction section in regard to towns and urban centres, the only conclusion I can come to is that the necessity is not there for reconstruction and that the conditions which exist are not such as to lend themselves to the purpose of reconstruction.
From my experience of the working of the Act in the rural districts—that is, in the real country—I do not refer to towns or villages with a population of under 500 but to the actual country districts—I say that the real demand is in those districts for grants for the reconstruction of houses.
Will the Deputy develop that point? What does he mean by reconstruction?
I regard this Bill in its present state as a differentiation against dwellers in the rural districts. Practically any applicants that have come to me for advice with regard to the grant which they might obtain under this Act are in the main those who desire to reconstruct.
Reconstruct what?
Reconstruct houses.
Will the Deputy develop that?
I am trying to do it. If the Ceann Comhairle will ask the President to allow me to develop it, I will try to develop it. The conditions are that there are farmers both small and large who are living in very inferior houses. Emphasis has been laid on the conditions of the houses in slum areas in the city. I am quite aware of the conditions in the slums and I am not saying one word against the advisability of meeting that state of affairs by means of housing grants, though it may be doubted what effect housing grants will have on these dwellers in the slums. But that does not alter the fact that many houses in the rural districts are as bad if not worse than the houses in the urban districts that are described as slums. What the people want to do in these cases is to reconstruct. They want to use the old walls. They may live in portion of the house while rebuilding the other portion. Very few of them are prepared to start building houses from the ground on a new foundation. They want to make use of existing walls and portions of old buildings. Very often they are able to do some of the work themselves and very often they are able to get men who are not members of trade unions, who are more or less handy-men, and can do more than one kind of work. They wish to make use of portions of the old buildings and to build what would be practically a new house on the old foundation and walls which already exist. Under the Act as it stands, they cannot do so; they have to build from the ground up. People in the cities and towns can.
No.
They can reconstruct.
Reconstruct what?
Flats.
That is more like it.
Barracks have been reconstructed in my own county for the purpose of dwellings.
That is right.
So have jails.
Farmers cannot reconstruct—they have to build from the ground up. Perhaps the President is going to try and overcome my argument by some technicality.
No.
The fact remains, so far as I can see, that people in the rural districts cannot make use of the reconstruction clauses because they do not apply to any place except a town or a city with a population of 500 and upwards.
Not even there.
Perhaps I am wrong then. Anyhow, they do not apply to the rural districts. Even if there were no reconstruction clauses with regard to the towns, I maintain that in order to meet the requirements of the country districts a grant should be made for reconstruction purposes, because that is what is required most in these districts. It is as much in the interest of the State to have sanitary, healthy dwellings in the country as it is in the city. Even in the country districts there are slums. The conditions are not quite so bad as in the cities, as the people are able to take more advantage of the open air than they are in the cities, and for that reason do not suffer quite so much from the disadvantages of bad housing. At the same time, I regret that the President has not dealt with this matter in a more comprehensive manner in regard to the rural districts and that he did not apply the reconstruction clauses to those districts. I take this opportunity of making that protest. I do not want to make capital out of this, but perhaps the President would deal with it in some other way, if necessary by introducing another Bill which would give the people in the country districts the advantage of a grant for the purpose of reconstructing and making use of their present premises for that purpose.
As the President has been so generous in extending the Housing Acts, he might go a little further and have some amendment inserted in the Seanad to enable reconstruction to be undertaken in the rural districts. Deputy Johnson and the President told Deputy Heffernan that the reconstruction clauses do not apply even to towns of 500 population. I think that any person living in a town who wishes to build an additional room to his dwelling-house or to raise the roof by some feet is entitled to a grant under the Act—at least some persons have received it. I do not see why the same thing should not apply to rural districts. I do not agree with Deputy Heffernan when he says that in the country districts they might be able to get non-trade unionists to work for practically anything they liked to offer in order to build houses cheaply. I think a grant should not be given to any person who intends to employ sweated labour.
On a point of explanation, I did not say that—I did not intend to convey that. I said that occasionally they can get men to work who will do more than one particular class of work. A man will often do both carpentry and mason work, and probably he would get as high wages as the trade unionist.
I am glad the Deputy made that clear, as I do not like to see wages being reduced. The President should at least give the same facilities to those residing in the rural districts as are given to those in the urban districts. If the President would earmark, say, £15,000 out of the £300,000 for the purpose of grants for reconstructing houses in the rural districts it would be a great help. Very few houses have been erected in Westmeath and Longford, and if grants were given for this purpose there would be hundreds of applicants. I know many houses in the rural districts where a husband and wife and six or eight children have to live in two rooms, with boys and girls up to the age of 14 and 15 occupying the same room. The conditions in such cases are as bad as in the slums of Dublin. It is absolutely necessary that some assistance should be given in these districts to enable additional rooms to be built so as to provide suitable accommodation for large families. These people cannot afford to erect houses, but if they got £30 or £40 as a grant they would probably be able to add one or two rooms and thus provide suitable accommodation for themselves and their children. In former years it has been represented to the Government that these facilities should be extended to the rural districts, but without result. The Government certainly deserve to be congratulated on the assistance they have extended to enable the people to build houses. They should go a little further and apply the reconstruction clauses to the rural districts so that people can make their homes comfortable with the aid of a grant. I appeal to the President to have an amendment inserted in the Seanad earmarking £15,000 for reconstruction purposes in the rural areas, where improved housing accommodation is very necessary.
This point has been very much stressed and I should like to emphasise it. On a former occasion I asked that the reconstruction clauses should be extended to the country districts. I should like to ask the President whether he has any statistics available as to the number of houses in rural districts which might be condemned as unsuitable for dwelling-houses. If he has any such statistics he might consider this matter and see how many of those houses would lend themselves to reconstruction. I want to emphasise the fact that a good many houses would lend themselves to reconstruction. Country life is at the best drab and dreary without having to live in insanitary houses many of which it is almost a penance to live in. I do not know what difficulties stand in the way of extending these clauses, and I should like to know from the President what they are. I am sure it is a matter the Government ought to give some attention to.
I observe in the report of Friday's proceedings in the Press that the figures given as to the cost of building three-roomed and five-roomed houses are correct. The cost of building the four-roomed house, however, was given as £456. Unless I made a mistake, the figure I intended to give was £426. Now, coming to the question of reconstruction, I think the objection from Deputy Heffernan is in very bad taste, having regard to the fact that his constituency has benefited very considerably from this reconstruction clause. Forty-four dwellings have been constructed out of barracks in Clonmel and thirty-six flats have been constructed in Tipperary, so he has no cause for complaint there. If he made a study of what is meant by reconstruction he would realise he has made a foolish statement with regard to the matter. The rural districts, as a whole, have done remarkably well out of these measures, much better than they have ever anticipated. A note has just come in from a rural district and it states:
"Kindly let me know whether the time for completion of 1925 grants extends beyond 18th October, 1926. A large number of my clients have stones. Lime, timber, slates, etc., ready to start building, but masons and other tradesmen are so scarce they cannot go ahead.
"This is due to the large and unusual amount of building resulting from the grants."
Reconstruction would be best described as re-adaptation. It does not mean repairing a house, and that is, I think, what the Deputy has in his mind.
No.
He certainly did not lead us to believe he had anything else in his mind than that. I asked him to develop the question. He got as far as barracks and then stopped.
I did not mean repairs and the President knows that well. I said they could make a house very often on old walls.
Old walls of what?
Of existing dwellings.
The house they are living in?
The house they are living in.
That is not the purpose of this Bill. Reconstruction advances have not been made in respect of such dwellings in towns and it is not intended that they will be made. That is not the purpose of it. If the Deputy thinks we are going to make, under the term "reconstruction," repair advances to people he is mistaken. There was never such an intention.
Not repairs.
What, then, does it mean if not repairs? We pointed out definitely here that there were some large houses in towns capable of being reconstructed into flats, and that one large house which formerly was occupied by a person of wealth was now being made available for four or five families.
What the Deputy wants us to do is that if a house is in bad repair in a country district, advantage can be taken of this Act towards meeting the expenses of those repairs. That is not done in the cities and towns, and when he asks for that he is asking for something which the cities and towns have not got.
There is nothing wrong in asking it.
Only a waste of time. That is all. Twenty-two thousand pounds, roughly, has been spent under the reconstruction clauses. Eleven thousand pounds for private persons, who reconstructed houses and provided flats for two or three families where there was only residence for one before, and £11,000 for re-adaptation or reconstruction of barracks and other such institutions.
I have no particulars regarding Deputy Hogan's question, unless he takes from me particulars which were compiled in 1909, when an effort was being made to get a further million grant for labourers' cottages. I recollect that the figures then given for the whole of the country, including Northern Ireland, were to the effect that something like 78,000 persons were living in rural districts in insanitary dwellings. At that time the same information was available for the City of Dublin alone. Something over 78,000 persons were living in what would be described by a not too fastidious medical officer of health as insanitary dwellings in Dublin. To meet that something like a million pounds was granted at that time under the Labourers Acts, and that made some impression on that problem. Whatever problem is to be solved in rural areas can only be compared to that of a city something like the size of Limerick.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
I should like to say, in connection with the debate that has taken place on the Fifth Stage of this Bill, taken in conjunction with the debate yesterday on the Fifth Stage of the Local Authorities (Officers and Employees) Bill, that the practice of advocating amendments to a Bill on the Fifth Stage is plainly not one to be followed. The debate we have had on this was more in the nature of a Second Reading than the debate on the question: "That the Bill do now pass." On the Fifth Stage we are considering what is in the Bill, and it is obviously too late to recommend amendments and too late to re-argue amendments which have already been argued and decided upon. I think if Deputies devoted some thought to the various stages they would see that the kind of debate we have had on this Fifth Stage is by no means the kind of debate we ought normally to have on a Fifth Stage.