Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Mar 1929

Vol. 28 No. 13

Housing Bill, 1929—Second Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the question:

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Briscoe

The housing problem is admitted by everybody to be one which is having a serious reaction on the country generally. Appeals are being made that the matter should be looked at from a national standpoint. There are some of us who have given this matter consideration in our own way. The President, speaking on this Bill, yesterday, indicated clearly the difficulties that the Government were confronted with. The President did stress chiefly that house building would be gone on with, in the first instance, if the operatives and master builders could be got to bring down the cost of building and increase output. That is to say, that on the one hand there would be increased output by the operatives so as to lessen the cost of production and that the master builders would agree to a smaller profit on the other hand. I have been discussing this matter from various aspects and in one particular case I discussed the matter from the operatives' point of view. I wonder does the President realise that the tradesmen in the building trades suffer from one great difficulty, and it is this—that they have no security of continuity of work. The operatives are faced with a scheme. A number of houses are being put up in a certain area. These men are employed and they see so many months' work ahead for them. They start with a will and they give a proper output. But I was told, anyway, that it is possible to be quite human in the matter, and that when the men are near the completion of the work and see nothing else before them but unemployment they cannot be expected to have the same interest in the construction schemes as if there were a series of building schemes going on where they would have security of work for five years. If the master builders get, on the one hand, a satisfactory output in exchange for the wages paid, and, on the other hand, get materials at reasonable prices this would warrant houses being put up that could be let or sold at economic rates. The President states that there is a difficulty and asks what can we do; he asks what is our solution in the matter? I consider that it is the Government's duty to bring about a solution of the matter. I wonder if they ever consider the people who are suffering as a result of the houses not being built? Evidently a deadlock has been reached. Meanwhile, everybody sits down and the people living in these broken-down old houses, these ramshackle buildings in the slums sit down and wait and the difficulties that arise out of that situation go on developing.

I would like to suggest this: I do not know whether the Minister has considered this point that I am going to put before the House. I believe his Department is anxious to help in this problem of housing. Have they ever considered using the Combined Purchasing Board for the purpose of getting materials for the smaller master builders at competitive prices or at prices cheaper than they can get them to-day? I would think that instead of giving a monetary grant of forty or fifty pounds, if they gave instead materials which cost them that amount they would be helping in the matter of the building of these houses much more than by the giving of a grant in the ordinary way. I do not say that I am sure that this is possible. I do not say it is impossible, but I was wondering if it had ever been considered.

I know of a group of people in Dublin anxious to build artisans' dwellings in the suburbs. The great difficulty they experienced was the tremendous cost they would be faced with in connection with sanitary arrangements. We have in Dublin, not very far from the centre of the city, groups of cottages with oldfashioned sanitary arrangements. I am told that in England at present a new idea has been adopted in connection with sanitary arrangements which does away with all the expense of putting in sewerage. I indicated that on one occasion to the Department. I was asked if I could give any further information, but I do not happen to be an expert in the matter. I had heard about this new arrangement, and I thought it might solve the situation for people anxious to build in the suburbs. The President laughs at any suggestion made. I take this matter quite seriously. The President does not happen to get requests, as I do, to visit the tenements in the slums and see the conditions there. He can very well laugh when he is away from these particular conditions. I do not feel like laughing, because I feel just as responsible as anybody else for not being able to do something that will solve the problem. I have not at my disposal the expert staff that the President has, and I cannot get all the information I should like to have.

The President

I acquired all the information I have about housing before I met any of these officials, and I know more about tenement conditions in Dublin than the Deputy and some of his friends do.

Mr. Cooney

Did you use your knowledge to the best advantage?

The President

Certainly, to the advantage of the people and I can show something for it.

Mr. Lemass

It has got a lot worse since then.

Mr. Briscoe

I quite agree that the President knows more about it than I do. I have not, nor have Deputies on this side, access to the different departments for the discussion of these matters in order to put up a solution for this problem. The President on one occasion said that the housing problem was a baby that the Government were not going to carry. It was suggested by Deputy O'Kelly that as we had reached a deadlock and nothing was being done a housing board should be set up to consider the matter, and the President's reply was: "You do not want the baby. You want to hand it over to a housing board." We have not the baby at all—it is the Government's baby, and they have got to do something. It is all very well to say to us: "What is your solution? Let us have your suggestions." We cannot put forward a suggestion unless the Government means business in the matter. The President also told us about the cost of building houses seven years ago. He said that the cost of building had fallen as much as seven per cent. in the last seven years.

The President

Nine years.

Mr. Briscoe

I stand corrected. The President indicated that when the cost of house building fell to a figure which would make it an economic proposition to build houses then they would go on building houses. As against that, I say that as soon as houses can be built for sale or letting at an economic figure the people will not wait for the Government to do it; they will do it themselves. The difficulty is that it cannot be done now on that basis; there is no hope of it being done in the near future on that basis, and, therefore, it is a national problem.

Mr. Good

It would not be a national problem if it were an economic proposition.

Mr. Briscoe

Exactly. It would not be an unsolved problem then. The people whose business it is to build houses would build them at a rapid rate, because people would buy or rent them at an economic figure. The difficulty we are confronted with now is that it does not pay builders to build houses, because they cannot sell them at an economic price.

The President

There was a time, previous to the local authorities taking up this matter of housing, when it was an economic proposition, and it was not solved then by the builders.

Mr. Corish

We had not our own Government then.

Mr. Briscoe

The President indicated yesterday that a time would come when the problem could be solved. I say that when that time comes the Government will not have to solve it, because it will be solved by the people themselves. The master builders will be able to build houses that can be set at an economic rent, out of which they can make a profit. It will be the same as an investment to them. As long as there is no hope that that situation will arise in the near future, I say that it is a Government problem; it is a difficulty that they will have to face and find some solution for. This Bill may, to a certain extent, remove some of the difficulties. Half a loaf is better than no bread, but certainly it is going away from where we were. In introducing this Bill, the Minister quoted certain figures which meant nothing to anybody in this House. We were told that a scheme cost so much on a particular occasion and that another scheme cost so much less; therefore the cost of building had fallen by so much. Before I could give any opinion as to whether the cost had fallen, I should like to have more details. I should like to know, for instance, whether wages were reduced. The scheme the Minister had in mind might be one undertaken by the Dublin Commissioners where a wage of 30/- per week was paid to operatives. I do not know.

General Mulcahy

No. When I quoted cases showing a reduction in building costs in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, and Tuam, these cases were comparable. The biggest reduction took place in Cork. There was no reduction in wages.

Mr. Briscoe

All things being equal otherwise?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Mr. Briscoe

It was the same contractor doing the same work?

General Mulcahy

If I took cases that would not be comparable I would be misleading the House, and I have not been misleading the House. I considered the cases very carefully and saw that the different schemes were comparable, and I think I quoted the number of houses in each particular case.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

Then wages were not the crux?

The President

We never said they were.

Mr. O'Connell

Not you, but others.

Mr. Briscoe

I am quite prepared to accept that from the Minister without any hesitation or doubt. It indicates, as Deputy O'Connell pointed out, that certainly it is not wages. In spite of what the master builders say, that they have got their end down to the limit, it is proved by the Minister that the main reductions are made elsewhere without reducing wages.

Deputy Rice's Committee indicated that the operatives would not meet in this way and the master builders in the other way. If it is not a question of wages then it is that the operatives are suffering from lack of continuity of work as borne out by the Committee. They say in one paragraph if a scheme was undertaken which would last for five years something could be done on the basis of getting nearer to the point of meeting each other. Now it may seem a small and peculiar point to talk about the effect of the non-continuity of work upon the individual. I understand that in housing schemes undertaken in the Dublin area you have got a certain number of bricklayers and a certain number of plasterers, but not enough of either to suit a gigantic scheme or a scheme where everyone of them would be sure to be employed at the same time.

I hear that at one end, and at the same time the builders in charge of a scheme employ a number of bricklayers for one week, plasterers for another week; they employ one particular type of workers at one time and another for another space of time, so that the workers are migrating round about and then are idle for three or four or six months of the year. But tradesmen have got responsibilities in regard to their household affairs. They have wives and families and ordinary liabilities to meet, and if they have not that continuity of a certain amount of work over a period of years, clear enough to see ahead three, four or five years, how can we expect them to give the best on a job, after perhaps four months of idleness, and to work with the same amount of strength, energy and good-will as they had shown when they left off?

There is the human element in it and it should be taken into consideration. This Bill which is before the House will not guarantee continuity of work for the operatives. It will not help very much in the building of new houses. The Minister is just taking the saving, or a little bit more than the saving, that has been brought about in the last few years in the building of houses and, by doing that, he is going to stop again for a time any further building of houses. If the Government itself were serious in an endeavour to solve this problem, even if there was a reduction in building cost of ten or twenty or thirty per cent., instead of taking full advantage of that they would leave it for the benefit of the people for whom these houses will be built. I do not know whether Deputy Good will agree with that, but I do not see any more reason why the Government should take, by means of a reduced grant, the saving in cost from people who will ultimately get these houses than that the operatives should get it in increased wages or the master builders in increased profits. I say if you want to get houses built by the master builders and operatives working together, and if it be possible for both of them to benefit somewhat under the existing terms, then it is unfair for the Government to take advantage of the situation and rob them of the benefit they are bringing to the people who would ultimately get the houses.

The rates are reduced for five and seven roomed houses and you now have an all-round grant. Under present conditions the price is not going to give any impetus either to the operatives, on one hand, or to the master builders on the other. When speaking on this particular subject of housing on the last occasion, I said it was a matter that the Government should face on lines similar to those on which they faced the electricity scheme; that they should take it upon their own shoulders as a national matter and pay for it for the benefit of the community out of the taxpayers' money. Where does the Government get the money which it gives as a grant for housing? They get it from the people and now they will not give those people whom they tax any benefit in the shape of some return or service.

We are told the postal service is going to be reduced somewhat. As far as my constituency is concerned, and as far as the slums in the city are concerned, the most important social service is housing. I say that housing is the one thing that the Government of the future will have to take on its back and carry as a social and as an essential service. The housing of the people is something the people cannot do for themselves. The people in these areas in Dublin cannot build their own houses and the Government cannot afford to see them living as they are living now. And, therefore, I say it is a matter for solution by the Government. The Minister for Local Government and Public Health or the President has not told us one single thing as to the solution they may have in mind. They simply ask "What would you do if you were in our places; what is your solution?" That is not treating the matter in the manner it deserves.

This Bill no doubt will be passed because, as I said already, half a loaf is better than no bread. But I say this Bill does not go far enough. There are people in the country living in wretched houses and now there is no longer a grant for the reconstruction of such houses to make them habitable. I hope if this thing cannot be done now to hear that in the near future the Department and the Minister will be working out the problem and trying to find some solution—that they will be able to give to the House some indication that they are getting down to the point at which they will be able to solve the problem.

Deputy Fahy

took the Chair.

Mr. Briscoe

I am not concerned at all with people living in residential palaces. I am concerned with people living in the north and south side of the city in slum areas—in Gloucester Street and in the Coombe. These are the people for whom something must be done. I have had occasion to go to the Commissioners and try and get accommodation for people living in wretched houses. On one occasion I went on behalf of a man who had applied five years ago for housing accommodation. He was told his family was not sufficiently large. He had three children, and the cellar he was living in was condemned by the Commissioners' own medical officer as reeking with tuberculosis. I tried to get something done in other cases. We have all these difficulties individually and collectively, and they will continue so long as houses are not erected to keep pace with the demands. This particular Bill, instead of helping us, is going to lessen the pace at which this problem can be solved by a reduction of the grant, while the Government have taken the advantage of the savings so far in the cost of building which should really be given as an extra grant for the building of houses.

Seosamh O Mongáin

Ba mhaith liom-sa a fhiafruighe den Aire: an Bille é seo don tír ar fad no an bhfuil faoi Bille do thabhairt isteach a fheileas don Ghaeltacht, mar, im bharúil-se, ní haon chabhair dúinn an Bille seo. Bheadh sé chó maith aige gan dadamh do thabhairt dúinn le £45 do thabhairt dúinn. Thug sé freagra ar cheist sa Teach seo tá coícthighís o shoin go raibh faoi Bille do thabhairt isteach i gcóir tighthe na Gaeltachta. Tá a fhios agam go bhfuil Cumann na dTighthe ag féachaint isteach sa gceist seo, mar bhí mé féin rómpa lá amháin.

Na Billí a tugadh isteach le 4 no 5 de bhliantaí ní mórán den airgead sin a caitheadh sa nGaeltacht. Déarfaidh an tAire go raibh an dlí ann, agus is fiór sin. Tá daoine sa tír seo agus tá siopai i bhfad uatha agus is doiligh dobhtha slinnte agus eile d'fháil le tighthe do dhéanamh. B'fhéidir go bhfeileann an Bille seo na bailte móra agus na háit galánta agus na daoine móra agus na daoine galánta ach ní fheileann sé na daoine beaga no na daoine bochta sa tír seo againne. Tá na bailte móra ag fáil chuile short ach níl le fáil ag muinntir na Gaeltachta ach geallta. Deirim-se leis an Aire nach ndéanfaidh geallta feasta, go gcaithfear rud eicint d'fháil. Támuid a gcur ó lá go lá ach tá seanráidht ann "Go bhfuigheann na bá bás an fhaid is bhíonns an féar ag fás." Tá súil agam nach bhfuighidh na geallta atá faigte againne bás. Ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil muinighin agam as an gCumann atá ag breathnú isteach sa gceist seo agus go bhfuil súil agam go gcuirfear i dtor an rúd a mholfaidh siad.

Sa nGaeltacht do theastóchadh, ar a laighead, an deontas a bhí ag dul do na sean-tighthe, sé sin £60, agus na theannta sin, roinnt eile ar iasacht a d'fhéadfadh na daoine a íoc ar ais. Tá mé ag ceapadh nach bhfuil mé ag iarraidh mórán air agus bheith ag iarraidh an mhéid sin. Ní dhéarfaidh mé níos mó go gcloisfidh mé ce'n freagra a thúibharfas an tAire uaidh. Mara ndéanfaidh sé rud éicint don Ghealtacht cloisfidh sé mo ghlór-sa aris agus, leis, glór na Gaeltachta ar fad. Duine ar bith a bheadh ag éisteacht leis an méid cainnte a bhí ar siúl faoi'n Ghaeltacht annseo do cheapfadh sé go mbeadh an Ghaeltacht ag fáil chuile rud ach deirim gur chuid Phaidín den mheacan a bhí sé 'fháil —an t-iarballín caol.

Mr. Davin

One of the most disappointing features of the present proposal, in my opinion, is contained in the statement made here in the House yesterday, without justification, as far as I know, for the refusal of the Minister to make long-term loans available for local authorities. Deputy Lemass and other representatives of the City of Dublin have complained a good deal about the failure of the Dublin City Commissioners or, I suppose, in effect, the failure of the Department of Local Government to enable the Dublin City Commissioners to proceed at a quicker rate than they have been doing with housing schemes for the City of Dublin. Looking at the figures given to us by the Minister yesterday, we find that grants will be provided under the terms of this Bill up to 1st April for 10,717 houses to be built by private individuals. For the City of Dublin there will be 2,575, and for all the public bodies throughout the State there will only be 4,842 houses. These are the figures I have taken from the statement made by the Minister in the House yesterday. The Minister knows perfectly well, and other Deputies representing constituencies outside the City of Dublin know perfectly well, that the cause of the failure on the part of local authorities to make provision for the needs of the people in regard to housing is due to the fact that they are not prepared to build houses under the present loan conditions, that is, confining themselves to ten or fifteen years. The Minister has, in his Department, from my constituency and I know from other constituencies, demands from several local authorities and information to prove quite clearly and conclusively to him that these local authorities are determined to proceed if they will only get reasonable financial facilities to do so.

It is well known also, and Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies know this too, that speeches were made from platforms in the June and September elections of 1927, indicating, and by the President more than anyone else, that the Local Loans Fund would be made available if the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies were returned to enable local authorities to get the long-term loans that they were in the habit of getting when the British Government was in control here. We have the Minister for Local Government reported in the newspapers—I have no other evidence but the paper report of his speech—as saying: "There had been considerable demand that the local Boards should be given loans from the Local Loans Fund at nominal terms where shortage of houses existed." Will he give us some evidence in support of that to show that the demands from the local authorities were, to any great extent, for the provision of money at nominal terms.

General Mulcahy

I do not think I used the word.

Mr. Davin

I hope you will speak to the editor of the "Irish Independent."

Mr. Flinn

It is well that you should get it for once.

General Mulcahy

I am not blaming anyone, but I do not believe the records will show that I spoke of nominal terms in connection with the local loan funds.

Mr. Davin

I hope the Minister will acquit me of any intention to misrepresent him. He knows perfectly well that the official report will not be available until Wednesday morning. I am glad he is withdrawing the statement that that is not the position.

General Mulcahy

I do not know what nominal terms mean; therefore I cannot imagine myself using the word.

Mr. Davin

The reason I ask is because I did not understand it myself and I wanted to find out from the Minister, if he made that statement, what it meant. Anyway he says now that it was not proposed to open the Local Loan Fund to give assistance to local bodies in the way asked for, in spite of the fact that we had these plausible promises made from June to September all over the country and also made by Deputy Rice in the famous by-election held in the North City area and by those in the recent by-election. Probably we will have to wait until the next by-election or general election to have a repetition of promises already broken. I know, speaking from the knowledge I have of my own area, and other Deputies representing that area if they are in the House—if not, they should come into the House— can confirm or contradict me, but if they contradict me I will be glad if they will produce evidence in support of it, that local authorities throughout the counties of Leix and Offaly, particularly boards of health, are anxious to proceed but are unwilling to do it unless money is made available over a reasonable period; certainly 35 or 40 years.

Deputy Good, Deputy Rice, the President and the Minister also have been more or less insinuating that the cause of the failure of the Government to allocate money which they say is available, but which they will not give, is due to the fact that building costs must come down to a reasonable percentage over pre-war building costs in order to enable them to allocate the millions they say they have locked up somewhere but will not give to anybody. Insinuations are also made that they consider the operatives are responsible for the failure to bring down the cost of building. I am willing to invite the Minister or the President, if they hold that opinion, to publish the correspondence which has taken place by and on behalf of the building operatives with Mr. Rice, who was chairman of what is called the Unemployment Committee, and let the correspondence on the part of the workers associated with that conference, and also on the part of the master builders, be published and let the public judge. If the conference is supposed to have failed, I want to know who is the cause of the failure. The local authorities were looking for the money to enable them to carry out building schemes which were urgently needed. I am personally anxious that the correspondence should be published and let the public judge.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

The proposals.

Mr. Davin

I am referring to the proposals. All the evidence at the disposal of Deputy Rice, who was appointed by the Government as Chairman of Unemployment Committee, the proposals and evidence which have been passed, as far as I know, to the Ministry and are at present in their possession. Let them publish everything and let the public judge, and we shall see what contribution the master builders have made to the national housing scheme.

Mr. Good

Is the Deputy speaking of the Unemployment Committee or of the conference?

Mr. Davin

I am speaking of the conference which was presided over by Deputy Rice, and which was called together as a result of the report or recommendations made by the Unemployment Committee, and Deputy Good knows perfectly well what I am referring to. Deputy Good is not in favour of secrecy. I want him to say yes or no to this: is he in favour of the documents and evidence at present available to the Minister being published?

General Mulcahy

It is not available to the Minister.

Mr. Flinn

Is he in favour of it being made available?

Mr. Davin

The Minister for Local Government knows perfectly well what I am asking for.

General Mulcahy

I want to be quite clear that something which is being asked for is something that is within my procurement.

Mr. Davin

The Minister for Local Government is in possession of the proposal between the Dublin operatives and the master builders.

General Mulcahy

If the Deputy refers to a publication which appeared in a Labour journal I have seen it.

Mr. Davin

Does the Minister deny that he has a copy in his Department?

General Mulcahy

I have not, and I doubt if a copy would be in my Department without it being brought to my notice.

Mr. Good

They were confidential. It was quite understood that in this conference any proposals put before it would be treated as confidential. If they were treated as confidential how would they get into the hands of the Minister?

Mr. Corish

Then we will have more confidence than houses.

Mr. Flinn

Is it not time that the causes which are holding up house-building should cease to be confidential?

Mr. Good

Hear, hear! I am absolutely with the Deputy in that.

Mr. Davin

I think there is common agreement that all the evidence that can be made available from both sides should be published, so that the public can judge in this particular matter and make up their mind one way or the other. The public bodies in particular, who are much more deeply interested than individuals in this matter, should have at their disposal all the evidence to show who are the people who are holding up this national housing scheme.

Mr. Good

Hear, hear.

Mr. Davin

I am very glad to hear Deputy Good saying "hear, hear."

Mr. Flinn

Both sides are agreed. Why can not you get it done?

Mr. Good

We are.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Rice when speaking of the proposals put forward by the building trade operatives referred to them as the nationalisation of housing. I want to know what is the difference between the proposal put forward on behalf of the building trade operatives and which was put before the conference of which Deputy Vincent Rice was chairman and the present policy of the Dublin City Commissioners. There is no difference. You may transfer the financial liability from what is supposed to be the municipality to the State. I do not see any difference between nationalisation and municipalisation, and Deputy Rice, I am sure, knows that perfectly well. At any rate, if the Government is convinced that nothing is ever likely to come from the conference held as a result of the recommendations of the Unemployment Committee, then the Government is responsible and we should know from them, as the responsible Government of the country, whether they are prepared to leave things as they are until some conference of some other kind comes to some agreement. The Government have responsibility, apart altogether from the proposals of either the master builders or the building trade operatives. Very often we are told at election times what their policy is, but it is very hard to force them to put that policy into operation when the elections are over. Elections have been fought and won on false promises.

Mr. Good

May I clear up another point? The Deputy spoke about proposals. There were no proposals from the Labour Party before the conference. The statement he referred to as being issued by the Labour Party was issued two months after the meeting of the conference. The only proposals before the conference were the proposals from the master builders.

Mr. Davin

Does Deputy Good deny that the proposals to which I refer were sent to the chairman of the master builders' representatives who were at that conference?

Mr. Good

I do not want to enter into a discussion across the floor, but these proposals were not made until two months after the last meeting of the conference. The first I heard of these proposals was a reference to them in this House.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

How could the Government be blamed in view of that fact?

Mr. Davin

I understand that the proposals made on behalf of the building trade operatives were passed on to the chairman of the representatives of the master builders.

Mr. Good

Not that I know of. The first I saw of them was in the Press, and the first I heard of them was in this House.

Mr. Davin

At any rate, I would like to hear from the Minister on the question of the demand for long-term loans for the provision of houses by local authorities, whether he could see his way to call together representatives of the local authorities who can produce evidence that they are willing to come forward with house-building schemes if the money is made available on reasonable terms. I would be glad if he could see his way to bring representatives of these authorities into conference, and to get from them their view as to what contribution they are prepared to make in regard to the demand which has come from various parts of the country for the provision of houses for people who so badly need them.

Mr. de Valera

It is pretty evident from the speeches that have been made that Deputies on this side and the Government Party approach this question from two very different points of view. It would appear from the statements coming from the other side that they regard this question as an ordinary industrial question. To us it is quite a different matter. We regard it as being in the same plane—as already indicated by some members here— as education, old age pensions, or any other social service, and when we were dealing with these social services we were convinced that they were necessary for the general good. We have to make up our minds that we cannot get a definite money return that we can calculate.

An Ceann Comhairle

took the Chair.

Mr. de Valera

Take the question of education. We are all satisfied that it is necessary for the community to arrange for that social service, and we do not ask whether or not it is an economic proposition, in the ordinary understanding of it as an economic proposition. We say it has to be done, and what we are anxious about is the return that we should get for the money spent upon it. It seems to me that that is the line on which we should approach this whole question of housing.

The Minister who introduced this Bill was, I think, at one time the proposer of a certain declaration which said that it was the duty of the Republic to take measures to safeguard the health of the people and ensure the physical as well as the moral well-being of the nation. If he meant what he said on that occasion, I think he ought to be on our side and approach this question from our point of view. We approach it as a question with which it is necessary to deal if we are going to safeguard the health and ensure the physical and moral well-being of the people. The need for attacking that problem has been pointed out by a number of speakers who gave us figures. It may be no harm to remind the Dáil of the figures that appeared in the last Census. In Dublin we have 78,934 persons living in single rooms. If that is so, what is the use of a large part of the education which we are giving them? Think of the money that is being spent on education, and realise that it is very little use to have educational systems in the schools if the effects of education are going to be undone owing to the conditions under which children are living at home. Thus anybody who believes in the social services, in maintaining infirmaries, in dealing with education and with any of the public health services, must be on our side when we say that this question ought to be approached as a social service and not from the point of view in which it has been approached, namely, as if it were a simple industrial matter.

The fundamental question seems to me to be, what proportion of his wages is a workman able to pay in rent? I have not been able to get at the moment the figure used in calculating the cost of living, for example, but I think about one-sixth would not be far out. If the rent payable by the worker is much more than about one-sixth it becomes a burden which is too heavy for him. Therefore the State, or the community, has to step in and deal with the remainder. It has been pointed out that if we are to bring down the costs to give a rent approaching that figure, and to have the amount to be bridged as small as possible, there are two things that must be done.

First of all, we must provide loans for a long period so that the cost of the sinking fund to replace them will not be too heavy. Secondly, the cost of building must be reduced. Deputy Lemass, I think, quoted from an article that appeared in "The Irishman" of December 8th, indicating the lines upon which a proper national organisation to secure a reduction in the cost of building could be brought about. There is the question, of course, of the possibility of buying in large quantities, standardisation, and so on. I need not repeat them. As I have mentioned this particular article, I should say that I think it was a great pity that the Government did not take advantage of the proposals put forward by the building trades unions to deal with this whole question. I think it is on some such lines as those that it will have to be dealt with. I see no other way in which you are going to reduce the cost of building and make the gap that has to be bridged between the rent which a workman can pay and that which would be called an economic rent as small as possible except the way that has been indicated. It is necessary to tackle the problem as a national enterprise. Whether you can use the local authorities or make use of the present contractors is a matter of detail, but there should be one authority responsible for carrying out the work and defining a definite programme for a definite time. We have heard it stated that there are something, like 30,000 or 40,000 houses required. Suppose we made up our minds to have an expanding scheme over a number of years, averaging 5,000 houses per year, we could not at first reach that figure. I have not the figures at my disposal. It is possible that we could not within the first year or two organise ourselves to build that number, but I believe we could at a later period make up the shortage in average that would occur at the beginning. That is our point of view definitely on the question of the reduction in costs.

Now as to the question of the provision of money. I notice that the proposal in the Bill, as in previous Bills of the same kind, is to give definite money grants in lump sums. That has proved in practice not to be sufficiently attractive to local bodies and I think the reason for it has been pointed out here, namely, that local bodies cannot get loans for sufficiently long periods and, therefore, the amount of the sinking fund in proportion to the amount of interest is very high. Take, for instance, the grant of £60. You are going to give the local authorities in this Bill a grant of £60. £60 at 5 per cent. would produce a perpetual annuity of £3. 60 years is a sufficiently long period to leave out the question of the present value of £60. Let us take it at £3. What you are giving is something about £3 at five per cent. If the Government undertakes the responsibility for borrowing itself and if it borrows money at 5 per cent., lends it as required to the local bodies, and if it made up its mind to have a sinking fund over a period of, say, 40 years—that is regarded roughly as the life of the average type of house that might be built though it might run to 60—I calculate that the sinking fund that would be necessary to pay off a £300 house would be slightly less than £2 10s. 0d. It we adopt that as a way of financing housing for local bodies it would be less expensive to the State and would, I think, be accepted far more readily by local bodies.

The question is, can the Government borrow money for that purpose? I see no reason why it cannot. I believe that the Government can issue stock, issue a loan, for housing purposes, and get it at about 5 per cent. The advantage of borrowing would be that if the rates change you could take powers in issuing the loan for redemption at par after a certain period, say, ten years. If the rate materially altered that would give the Government an opportunity of taking up the bonds issued for that stock. It seems to me that the two difficulties in cutting down as much as possible the amount to be met by the State —on the one hand, the reduction in building costs, and on the other, the question of the provision of money— can be met by the two ways which have been definitely stated. From the statements made by the representatives of the Government and of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, I certainly thought that they had in mind some such scheme. It has been pretty well worked out for them already. The bodies who have been interested in that have been working at it for a number of years. The Labour Party and others have indicated the lines upon which this question should be tackled—that is, if there is any real seriousness on the part of the Government to end the present intolerable position. As I have said, the two difficulties are, first, a reduction in the building costs and getting a national authority which will take charge, and secondly, that the money should be found by national borrowing. The Government apparently has made up its mind to wait and sit on the fence until it has forced, on the one hand, labour to work at lower terms, or, on the other hand, forced the master builders to come to some agreement with them.

Mr. Davin

Cut their profits.

Mr. de Valera

If you like to put it that way. I have not sufficiently examined the question as to what the extent of their profits is.

Mr. Good

They are very hard to find sometimes.

Mr. Flinn

Let them have a sworn inquiry.

Mr. Lemass

They only appear for the purposes of super-tax.

Mr. de Valera

It seems to me that the Government ought not to sit on the fence. Neither ought they to say that money is too dear at the present moment. It may be at this particular instant, but it seems to me that we have no guarantee that we are going to get lower terms very soon, and are people to still continue— 78,000 of them, roughly one-fourth of the population of Dublin—living in single rooms? It seems to me that simply waiting for something to turn up is not the attitude the Government ought to adopt in respect of this particular problem. Another matter is the size of the houses. I was listening to Deputy Good talking about beauty, or something of that kind, in respect of houses. I think it was a most inappropriate remark in regard to the question whether a house should be three-roomed or four-roomed. That is a matter of ordinary necessity. If the State is going to build houses, it ought to build them so that families can live in them in decent comfort. It is obvious that a mixed family of fairly grown children cannot comfortably exist in less than four rooms. You want to have at least three bedrooms and a sitting-room or kitchen. With a grown family you cannot do with less. I suppose it would be easy enough to find a number of families who could be accommodated in a three-roomed house—we will say some older people, whose children have gone away and with, perhaps, only one of the older children living with them. You will also probably get a young married couple who for some years can live in a three-roomed house, so that there is a definite proportion of the people who may not require more than a three-roomed house, but we should be careful not to exceed that proportion. A four-roomed house is the minimum, I think, for the average family, and a National Housing Scheme ought to consist of houses of at least four rooms, except for a small proportion which would be suitable for certain families. As has been said, we have got to support this Bill, but I doubt if I ever voted for anything with less satisfaction than I will vote for this, because we had thought that after all the spade work, that had been done on this problem for a number of years, the Government would be prepared to set out on a decent programme and bring it to a finish.

Mr. T. Sheehy (Cork)

I rise with great pleasure to support the Bill. I consider the last sentence that Deputy de Valera used, when he announced his intention of supporting the Bill, very cheering and a very good gesture. I sincerely hope that he will continue, when the Government are endeavouring to do good work in the Saorstát, that policy. I heard Deputy Briscoe say a while ago that the Government were not sincere in their work with regard to housing. Since the present Government took office seven years ago they have expended £2,000,000 on housing, and they were instrumental in erecting 21,000 houses. The sum of £200,000 which they are going to make available by this Bill will come to the assistance of the poorest of the poor. I felt it my duty some months ago to bring down an inspector of the Local Government Board to Myross Bridge in my constituency, and his report is at present in Dublin. He stated that the houses in which the poor fishermen there lived were unfit for human habitation and that they were unfit to house pigs in them. That condition cannot remain as it is, and as a member of the West Cork Board of Health it will be my duty to promote a scheme that will come to the rescue of those poor people—those honest, hard-working, industrious fishermen who, when we are all in our beds, are out on the deep trying to bring home a little fish to the people. At the West Cork Board of Health I will also have promoted the building of nineteen labourers' cottages that were granted to the labourers nineteen years ago in that district. They held their little plots, but there were no houses built up to the present. This £200,000 may look a very small sum to Deputy O'Kelly, who spoke about £12,000,000. Where can he find £12,000,000? If he can find that amount he will be supported unanimously by every section of the Dáil. When he said that, I took it as a mere platitude and I knew there was not sincerity in it, because, according to the President, Deputy O'Kelly had a great opportunity to build cheap houses in Dublin some years ago and they were not built.

Now it is up to the city of Dublin, and the present Commissioners are doing their utmost, to remove the difficulties. They built more houses in Dublin for the last five years than were built for 37 years previously. Who can say that the Government or the Commissioners are neglecting their duty? One thing with which I thoroughly agree is that this housing question should be treated as a national question and be supported by every shade of opinion. We ought all put our heads together as to the best manner in which we can house every single family in the Twenty-Six Counties who are now badly housed. The Government all along the line since I came here have endeavoured, within their limited resources, to come to the rescue of those who were without houses. I am certain that if Deputy de Valera and his Party are sincere, and if they are anxious to help in this housing question, they will drop other portions of their programme and will show the people that, as far as they are concerned, their one great anxiety for the future will be to house properly the Irish race at home. They talk about emigration and hunting people out of the country. What is hunting people out of the country is the fact that we are disunited, that some of us want to upset the State, and pull up the foundations of the State and the Treaty. It is propaganda of that kind which has made people with money keep a fast hold of it in their pockets. If Deputy de Valera now proclaims to-day in the Dáil that he is prepared for the next five years to devote himself to this question, the pressing question of housing in towns, we will all be in agreement with him. Let him, in the name of God, devote himself to that and co-operate with General Mulcahy. If they come together in the matter this question will be settled in a few short years.

Mr. J. Broderick

I hope that in the remaining stages of this Bill and in Committee especially, the Minister will give more consideration to the question of rural housing. The Bill, as it stands, and as Deputy Anthony stated last night, is mostly confined to three-roomed houses. In the constituency from which I come we built, under the last two Acts, between 600 and 700 houses. At least, 75 per cent. of these were five-roomed houses. Now five-roomed houses meet the needs of the ordinary farmer. I am speaking in this matter not for the local bodies, but for the farmer who builds a five-roomed house and builds the house on a new site. The advantage of building it on a new site is that the house is taken completely away from the insanitary site on which he lived for years. Now I fear what will happen under this Bill is that with the grant of £45, he will build the three-roomed house adjacent to the existing building. The result will be that his housing accommodation will still be left in an insanitary condition.

In giving the figures yesterday, the Minister said that there was a reduction in the building cost. Well, I think he can see one instance in my own constituency, in Tuam, in which the building costs for 1927 and 1928 have been reduced in or about 10½d. per foot. That is, on a scheme of houses the cost can be reduced, because when one is building a number of houses together, one can get the materials certainly much cheaper than the ordinary individual can who is building a house for himself in the country. For that reason, I do not think it is fair to apply the same rule to the individual builder who is building one house for his own accommodation, as might be applied to a local authority. I welcome the statements made by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. One of the statements which we most welcomed was that the £75 grant would be available to persons starting building operations before the 1st April. That is most welcome, because a number of people who were on the point of starting building operations had their prospects of getting the grant cancelled, but now they will be able to qualify for these grants. The next point in the Minister's statement that I welcome is that the remission of rates is to be mandatory on the local authorities. That is a very necessary provision. Under the last few Housing Acts, great trouble arose where the local authorities refused to give a remission of rates. These bodies apparently were not inclined to give any consideration to the increased valuation of their area consequent on the increased building that had been carried through. As regards the reconstruction section, I might say that I have never been in favour of its application to rural areas, and for the reason that I found in several places, as the Minister admitted yesterday, that very little in that direction was ever done.

General Mulcahy

It never did apply.

Mr. J. Broderick

In certain areas where an effort was made to apply it, the existing buildings did not adapt themselves for reconstruction. I am in favour of the section with regard to reconstruction being abolished in this Bill. When we reach the Committee Stage of the Bill, I will ask the Minister to give better consideration to the rural areas. I know that we can get a better class of house if we continue building the four and five-roomed houses in preference to the three-roomed houses.

Mr. Carey

I wish to say that as far as this Bill is concerned, for a certain section of the people, it caters all right but it will not be of much benefit to us in the urban districts inasmuch as it gives no facilities to the local authorities for carrying out schemes of housing. Local authorities are prepared to shoulder their own burden in the way of building houses for ordinary working men if they get long term loans at a lower rate of interest. If that can be done it is the one and only way that will give local authorities any chance of carrying out building schemes in the urban districts. In the different towns and urban districts in East Cork, the local bodies have purchased sites for the building of houses. In some of these towns, only a few houses have been built on these sites. A good deal of the sites have not been built on. The authorities would be fully satisfied to complete these schemes if there was a possibility of borrowing money on long term loans either from the banks or from the Government. We approached the banks on different occasions. We could borrow the money for a term of fifteen years at, I think, 6¼ per cent. or at any rate ½ per cent. underneath the usual rate of interest. We found, in calculating the rent to be charged per week for the houses, that the ordinary labourer would have to pay a rent that he could not possibly afford to pay. The houses built at present in the urban districts cannot be let at a rent under 10/- a week. Now as far as the urban districts are concerned, the wages paid there would not permit of a man paying a rent of 10/- a week for a house. The Government I know have to cater for the rural worker. The rural worker is as entitled to a habitable house as is the urban worker. In cities, the question is a different one altogether because the cities are over-populated. That is because from time to time, the country people flock into the cities for employment and that of course naturally brings about a scarcity of houses. That scarcity is more in the cities than in the towns.

In Midleton, the town I come from, we have a very fine site on which a number of cottages can be built. Already the sewerage scheme and the waterworks have been seen to, and everything is complete, with the exception of raising the money for building. I would appeal to the Minister to give us a chance of borrowing this money through the medium of long term loans. If that is done, there would be no necessity for giving a grant. We, in Midleton, are fully prepared to shoulder the burden of building houses ourselves if we can borrow the money on a long-term loan. I would go further and say that at no time were those houses that were built for the class of workers for which they were originally intended let at a profit. We have had four or five schemes of houses and we have never made a profit, because the rents charged really only met the cost of repairs of the cottages. The rent we get is more or less line-ball with the cost of repairs. Of course later on in the years to come those houses will be an asset to the ratepayers of the district. Some time ago the Minister promised that he would fund the Labourers Acts of 1906 and 1908 for the building of rural dwellings. I am sure that the time will come when he will do it. I believe that. I do say this with all earnestness, that at the rate at which money can be at present borrowed on short-term loans, the building of houses on borrowed money is not a sound financial proposition. I say that as a business man. Who will be mulcted in the repayment of this money? If you build houses at present for workers who will have to pay to finance the building of those houses? It will be those occupying the houses. You cannot let those houses at less than 10/- a week, and at present there is no labourer paid a sufficient wage to allow him to pay 10/- per week rent for a house. I am speaking of rural Ireland. The rural workers will have to be taken into consideration as well as the urban workers. Anyone who is connected with the Boards of Health knows that when a cottage is vacant in a rural district there are at least fourteen or fifteen applicants. I know people myself who would never emigrate if they were given an opportunity of settling down in the country and getting married. I am speaking with all earnestness. I know people who have gone to England after having got married, and they went there purely and solely because they had no house in which to live here.

I met a man in Dublin City the other night caricaturing on the street, and he told me that every night he would make about three shillings. I asked him where he was living, and he said he lived in a room with his wife and two children and he was paying ten shillings a week for it. We will have to get away from that state of things in this country. We will have to get a better way of housing the workers. We will have to make adequate provision, even at the expense of the country, because, after all, every man you keep in the country is an asset. A scheme must be formulated under which local authorities can get money on long-term loans at a low rate of interest.

Tomás O Maoláin

Nil mórán agam le rá ar an mBille seo tar éis a bhfuil ráite agam cheana. Ach tá cúpla poinnt agam le chur ós cómhair na Dála.

This Housing Bill reminds me very much of a theme that was expressed in a song which we used to have in one of his Majesty's hotels in this country, the hospitality of which I enjoyed under the Government of Saorstát Eireann a few years ago. It was a very nice song, and it seemed to express the sentiments embodied in this Bill. There was one verse with which Deputies at least on this side of the House are familiar, and the end of it ran something as follows:

Work and pray, live on hay,

You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

It seems to be the considered opinion of the Government that if the people who are looking for facilities to build houses pray enough and wait long enough, some day in the Utopian state which the Minister expects will come about some time before the end of the world, they will be able to secure a decent house. But before then nobody knows what may happen, because the chief conditions that bring about unrest, turmoil, discontent and eventually social revolution are the conditions created by bad housing. Those conditions exist to a great extent in this country to-day, and no attempt is being made under this Bill to remedy them, especially in the rural areas. This is merely tinkering at the problem.

The suggestion put forward by Deputy O'Kelly with regard to a national board or housing authority seems to have been treated more or less with ridicule from the Government Benches. In my opinion there is no other way in which the question can be adequately tackled so as to bring it to a successful conclusion by providing the number of houses the people need. When we are confronted with a Bill of this nature, which postpones, or at least delays, the final Governmental proposals with regard to housing, and when we are told that this Bill is a sensible, honest attempt to solve the problem, we can only conclude that the Government are lacking in ability or courage to tackle the problem which has been before them since the inception of the State.

One point strikes me forcibly, and that is in connection with a question I asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health two weeks ago with regard to recommendation 55 of the Gaeltacht Commission Report. I hoped that some proposals with regard to that recommendation would be embodied in this Bill. Probably the Minister will give us an assurance when he is winding up the debate that a separate Bill will be introduced to deal with housing in the congested districts and the Gaeltacht areas. If he does not, there is no doubt the statement made by Deputy Sheehy is absolutely not founded on fact. That statement is that the fishermen and people in the rural areas in his constituency would be in a position to build houses under this Bill. They will not be in that position. I am sure the same applies to other coastal areas in the Free State. Anybody who knows those areas will realise that under this Bill, far from being able to provide houses, the fishermen will be faced with even a more hopeless position than before. The Government grant is only £45.

Mr. T. Sheehy (Cork):

There is £60 granted to public bodies in respect of each house.

Mr. Mullins

The people will not be able to build houses with such a small grant as that coming from the Government, and the desirable situation that Deputy Sheehy visualises will not come about under this Bill. I am sorry no provision has been made for housing in the Gaeltacht. Bad housing is the chief difficulty there, and unless the Minister can assure us that he intends to embody proposals for the implementation of recommendation 55 of the Gaeltacht Commission Report in a separate Bill, I am afraid every hard thing said about the Bill by Deputy Tubridy, and the doubts expressed by Deputy Mongan, are certainly founded on fact and are well deserved.

References have been made to the absence from the Bill of a reconstruction clause. In Section 1 the wording is: "erection does not include reconstruction and the words erecting and other cognate words shall be construed accordingly." We had hopes that some provision would be made for reconstruction. Anybody associated with a local authority, especially in Co. Cork— whether it would seem they are more anxious to improve their living conditions than the people in any other part of the country, I do not know—and Deputy Carey will be able to bear me out in this—is aware that during the last couple of years the Cork County Council were faced with hundreds of applications for reconstruction grants. They were compelled to turn them down because there was no provision made for them. We hoped some provision would be made, but unfortunately there is none, and the people who need such grants have as large a grievance as before.

The Minister stated local authorities were not prepared to give the full co-operation in the building of houses which is desirable. As far as bodies with which I am connected are concerned, that statement would not stand the light when examined. Kinsale Urban Council, for instance, found themselves faced with very grave housing difficulties. Something like 85 to 90 houses were condemned by the Medical Officer of Health as unsuitable for human habitation. Adjacent to the town is a splendid military barracks, the site of which would be given by the Department of Defence if a housing scheme were embarked upon. The members of the Council hoped that under the Government's housing proposals some endeavour would be made to extend the credit facilities given to local councils. We now find that the Minister does not propose to extend the Local Loans Fund, and local authorities must rely on the present short-term credits, which are absolutely useless. Nothing less than loans extending over 45 to 50 years would be any good under the present conditions in order to enable local authorities to embark upon a housing scheme.

Needless to say, those of us connected with local authorities, who would be quite prepared and would wholeheartedly endeavour to embark upon any sort of decent housing scheme if credit facilities were given, are very disappointed that the Bill does not contain something of that nature. The Minister for Local Government said yesterday that local authorities were more inclined to pay higher wages for work under the grants than for work under the rates. The actual fact is that the condition under which Government grants were given laid it down that the maximum wage to be paid for road work was 29/- per week, while from the rates we are able to pay something like 35/-, so that the statement of the Minister is not founded upon fact as far as Cork county is concerned. I have nothing further to say with regard to the Bill, except to express disappointment that it does not embody the proposals which we had hoped it would embody, especially with regard to the Gaeltacht and congested areas. I trust that the Minister will give some indication of the Government policy with regard to these areas.

Mr. Daly

I have been requested by several small farmers in Cork to ask that a reconstruction clause should be inserted in this Bill. These small farmers were neglected in the good old days when labourers cottages were being built. Those of us who took an interest in the labourers at that time promoted schemes of cottages in our area, but there was no law passed then to improve the dwellings of the unfortunate small farmers, who are now reduced to a lower level even than the labourers. Some days ago, five or six of these small farmers from different districts asked me to stress that point, and for that reason I asked the Minister, and I know I am knocking at an open door, to take note of what I have said. He knows that I always state the truth. There is another point. Houses for labourers are becoming scarcer every day, because many farmers, in order to avoid paying rates on workingmen's houses on their farms, have taken the roofs off these houses.

Mr. Everett

And these are the men you are making the appeal for!

Mr. Daly

I am appealing for everyone of them—I have no choice any more than you have when you go down to Wicklow. All I want is fair play all round. In my district, everywhere I go I can see the skeletons of these houses which were once inhabited by workmen. For that reason, I should like the Minister to give the power to the boards of health that rural councils enjoyed before 1914. If that were done there would be plenty of cottages built under the supervision of the Minister's Department. No house could be built until a sworn enquiry had been held; and, if these houses were built, it would remedy a want that exists not alone in my county, but all over the country.

Mr. Everett

I was rather surprised at the statement of the Minister in reference to the attitude of public bodies and the reasons he gave for not extending long-term loans to these bodies. If I might interpret his statement, it meant that if long-term loans were given to public bodies, these bodies would take such advantage of the loans that the housing problem might soon be solved, but he feared that if the public bodies took advantage of the loans to that extent the contractors would charge exorbitant prices for the houses. That is not so. He stated that the public bodies would, in consequence, be saddled with a pile of debt, and the houses would be dearer. His point was that the public bodies would avail of the loans to such an extent to enable them to solve the problem that the contractors would take advantage of the fact that such a large number of houses were being built to look for more profit than they are getting at present. The Minister alone has the power to sanction loans. No public body can obtain a loan without the sanction and approval of the Minister. No contract for a house can be given without the sanction of the engineers in the housing department. Public bodies are only too anxious to proceed with the building of houses if long-term loans are given to them. I disagree with Deputy Carey when he states that public bodies do not require a free grant. They will require it.

Mr. Carey

We always did without it.

Mr. Everett

I do not think the cottages would cost ten shillings a week. Co. Wicklow, up to a couple of years ago, took advantage of all the grants available from the Government for building houses. The Minister has now ordered that a whole-time medical officer be appointed in the county. I have supported that appointment. This medical officer is to look after the health of the people. No matter what the medical branch of the Local Government Department may say, tuberculosis committees know that that disease is on the increase. Provision is being made for the treatment of tubercular patients by whole-time medical officers, but after these people are treated in hospitals or homes they are sent back to live in hovels and houses which have been condemned by the public health officials. In that way the money is wasted. Thousands of pounds are spent in trying to cure these persons of the disease, and after they are treated they are sent back to these hovels to spread the disease.

I agree with Deputy Corish that a grant should be given for the clearing of sites and in order to enable public bodies to provide sewerage, so that houses may be erected. The Minister stated that public bodies do not co-operate in this matter and that they have refused to strike rates. As far as I know, the public bodies, where there is a majority of labour representatives on them, look upon the building of houses for the urban workers as a business proposition. They are not prepared to strike a rate and borrow money for a period of ten years only to build houses, when the people for whom they are intended cannot afford to live in them owing to the policy of the Government in fixing wages at 30/- per week, as they did in connection with the Shannon scheme. The rates have to be considered. The Government know that the rates are too high and that the people are unable to pay them. The proof of that is that the Minister for Finance has said he is considering the question of de-rating or giving some consideration to the farmers, who seem never to be satisfied, and who are putting pressure on the Government in order to get relief through de-rating.

General Mulcahy

Do not let us look for excuses for the non-payment of rates in Wicklow?

Mr. Everett

There is very little non-payment of rates in Wicklow.

Mr. Corry

What about those who cannot pay rates?

Mr. Everett

On the question of reconstruction I appeal to the Minister to give consideration to the case of people in the urban areas who submitted plans in February and who had been notified that grants were not available, although the Act was extended to the 1st April. They complied with the Act and put in their claim before the prescribed day only to be notified that there would be no grant available. Under this Bill the Minister should give some facilities to those people who attempted to comply with the Act. The President stated money is too dear; that you cannot ask banks to-day to do this and that. Then he asks public bodies are they prepared to make sacriflces as other people are prepared to make sacrifices. I want to know will the banks be asked to contribute their share, or are they going to get their pound of flesh without doing anything in return.

Mr. Carey

Then the people will be paying twice.

Mr. Everett

The people would not be paying twice.

Mr. Carey

It is the people's money that is in the banks.

Mr. Everett

Deputy Good said it was not the contractors that were at fault. Of course the contractors build merely for the sake of helping the people, and do not look for any profits for themselves.

Mr. Good

I do not know that I said that.

Mr. Corish

It is not what you said, but what you would like.

Mr. Everett

I am aware of a man who was going to build a four-roomed house on the bungalow style. The facts and figures were submitted to the Housing Department, but he could not agree with the contractor, luckily for himself, and he built a four-roomed house on bungalow principle for £300. The contractor's price for the house was double that. He built his house with direct labour, paid the trade union rate of wages, and as a result has the house for half the contractor's price. So much for the generosity and support of the master builders, who are coming in to try and solve this problem. Public bodies are anxious, not only in urban areas, but Boards of Health are also anxious to build houses for the working classes. The Board of Health is a subsidiary body to the County Council, and a rate must be struck by the County Council to enable the building of houses for agricultural labourers. If the Minister would extend the long-term loans even in the area where houses have been taken away by coast erosion and where a number of houses have been destroyed, we could put into operation a scheme started in 1914 by the British Government for the housing of the working classes in Greystones and Rathdown area. We have been unable, owing to the high rate in Wicklow and the high rent we would have to charge, to build these cottages. But with a free grant and a long-term loan we would be able to solve the problem as far as the Co. Wicklow is concerned. I make a special appeal to the Minister to continue the reconstruction clause in connection with those people, at least, who made application previous to the expiration of the Act.

Mr. B. O'Connor

I have listened to this debate with much interest. It is indeed a pleasure to realise that every party in the House has approached this question of housing in a fairly good spirit. It requires the co-operation not only of Deputies in this House, but of the taxpayers and ratepayers if the question is to be solved. I cannot agree with some of the proposals I heard coming from the Fianna Fáil side of the House as to a Housing Board or that a Housing Board is the best means of solving the problem. As a practical builder, I do not think that it is so at all. A little while ago in the Dublin Corporation the idea got abroad that builders and contractors were making huge profits, and that it would be much better to set up a Building Department in the Corporation. Therefore it was decided to set up what was known as the Stanley Street workshop. We know that that cost the ratepayers a great deal and that in the end it was a failure and had to be abolished. I do not think a Housing Board is the best means of solving this problem.

Mr. Davin

Would the Deputy explain to the House what Stanley Street workshop had to do with the building of houses in the City?

Mr. O'Connor

In this way: it is like the remarks we hear that the builders are making huge profits and that the workers themselves could do it more cheaply. When these houses are put up for contract there is very keen competition.

Mr. O'Kelly

Would the Deputy tell us if he knows how many houses the Stanley Street workshop built, or whether they built one at all?

Mr. O'Connor

It is not all a matter of building of houses I am speaking of, but on the principle of the Housing Board—the principle of getting somebody else other than the builders to do the work by direct labour. I may be wrong, but it is my candid opinion that that is not the right way to approach it. Great play is made of the fact that Deputy Rice did not make a great success of the Committee of which he was Chairman. We must be very lenient to Deputy Rice, because he had an almost impossible job of settling a dispute between labourers and employers.

Mr. O'Connell

Not settling a dispute.

Mr. O'Connor

At least he referred the matter back to the builders and the workers to see if they could come to a settlement amongst themselves. We know it is almost impossible. The cost of building is very high at the moment, and the reason is simply that wages are three times what they were pre-war—that is, every person employed in the building of a house, whether plasterer, bricklayer, carpenter or hod-carrier, gets exactly three times what he was getting pre-war.

Mr. O'Connell

Tell us what the exact wages are.

Mr. O'Connor

Do you want to know in detail? I say three times; is not that exact enough for you?

Mr. O'Connell

A man with 10/- or £1 pre-war getting three times that now would not be getting an exorbitant wage.

Mr. O'Connor

A carpenter was paid 8d. per hour pre-war. He now gets 2/-. A bricklayer worked at 8½d. per hour pre-war. To-day he gets 1/10½. Is that exact enough?

Mr. Corish

It is not exact; it is not three times.

Mr. Davin

The cost of materials.

Mr. O'Connor

Materials at the very lowest are twice what they were pre-war and a great many are three times what they were. Slates are three times what they were pre-war. Those are the things which go to make houses dear, and as a result of these facts and by reason of this——

Mr. Everett

What are bricks?

Mr. O'Connor

Bricks are more than twice what they were pre-war. Therefore how can you bring down the cost of building a house except you tackle some one of those propositions? You have got either to reduce the price of materials or reduce wages.

Mr. Corish

Or reduce profits.

Mr. O'Connell

Or eliminate waste, the most important of all.

Mr. O'Connor

I am out for anything in reason. I am out for co-operation. There is no other way in which you are going to solve this problem except by friendly co-operation. There is no need for labourers looking on their employers as their enemy. They are not. But whatever spirit has got abroad for the past ten years or thereabouts, the feeling has permeated through the mind of the worker that the employer is his oppressor. He looks on his employer as a capitalist, someone who is out to crush him. That was not the spirit in the old days, and things will not be any better, and if we get back to the old feeling between the worker and his employers we will be nearer to solving our troubles.

How we are going to reduce the cost of building is the serious problem which is before us. Sometimes when I think it over very seriously it almost looks hopeless, and I do not see how it is going to be done. Lately we find Civil Servants and people of that kind asked to accept a reduction in their salaries because the cost of living has come down. We know wages went up, rents went up, the cost of living, prices of food, etc., all went up. Wages were increased to meet that situation. When the cost of living is coming down and Civil Servants are asked to make a reduction, would it not be reasonable that tradesmen and workers in general should face the same thing? It is a very unpopular thing to say, and that is our great trouble, reduce wages. The President said yesterday that it is up to labour and contractors between themselves to come together and hammer out a job because money is dear, and there is no possible chance of solving the housing problem unless we approach it in a sensible way and a good spirit. Deputy O'Kelly remarked yesterday that owing to the great shortage of houses in Dublin we would require 1,000 houses per year to meet that demand. I would like to tell him that if a big housing scheme like that was contemplated and started and set going, you would not have tradesmen. There is a shortage to-day of plasterers, and you cannot get them. The different contractors are coaxing them from one another by offering them a higher rate of wages than the Trade Union rates.

Mr. Davin

Ha! ha!

Mr. O'Connor

It is not a laughing matter at all.

Mr. Davin

You are giving it away though.

Mr. O'Connor

I would make a suggestion to official Labour. There is a scarcity of plasterers because no apprentices are being taken on. You cannot become an apprentice to a plasterer unless you are the son of a plasterer.

Mr. Everett

It must be only in Dublin.

Mr. O'Connor

I am speaking of Dublin and of the trade union rules governing the City of Dublin. There is a shortage at the moment of certain tradesmen, and it is going to continue unless they say to Labour: "Open the door in some way and help to meet this demand." I think the Bill is a well-thought-out Bill. I am in favour of it, and in my belief we will solve the housing problem if we increase the grant, but I am not in favour of setting up a housing board to build houses, because I think it would be a failure.

Mr. Coburn

I welcome this Bill because it means that as a result some few thousand houses will be built in the Saorstát, but I hope and trust that in the near future the Government will think fit to introduce their comprehensive building scheme. I have listened very patiently to all the arguments for and against the Bill, and also to some of the reasons that have been advanced as to why house-building is not being carried on in the same manner as it had been carried on in pre-war days. There seems to be a good deal of fencing about the matter, playing for position, so to speak. To my mind, some of the principal reasons for the high cost of building are that in the erection of houses here in the Free State almost 80 per cent. of the materials used have got to be imported. That means so much is added to the cost of these materials owing to the cost of freight rates from England to the Free State on every article almost that is used in the erection of houses.

I often wondered why the Government has not taken the question of the establishment of a few brick yards on a national scale here into consideration, so as to provide this most necessary commodity for the erection of houses. I referred to this in the last Bill. Bricks have to be imported either from Northern Ireland or England, thereby adding to their cost. If the Government would undertake to set apart a certain sum of money for the establishment of a brick-yard to manufacture bricks it would be the means of supplying one of the most essential materials used in the construction of houses. Another reason advanced as to the high cost of building is wages. That has been advanced also in this House. As to the truth or otherwise of that assertion I am not going very deeply into the matter, but this thing I say, it is not a question of wages so much as output. I happen to be one who knows a little about the business and I think a good man is not too dear at any price. If the workmen of this country are trusted a little more I believe they will give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. At the same time, one cannot close his eyes to the fact that there has been a tendency in this country more or less to shirk a fair day's work. That has been the result of the great war when money could be got for nothing, so to speak, but those times are past and the time is at hand in this poor little country of ours when it is absolutely necessary that the workers should give of their best and in return the employers must give a fair remuneration to the workers.

It has been suggested by the President that the reason why the Government are not going on with a comprehensive building scheme is that if they were to place at the disposal of the public authorities of this country a sum of from ten to fifteen million pounds it would be the means of keeping wages up for a considerable period. I do not know that he is right in that, and I do not think it is fair that Deputy O'Connor should confine his remarks to the wages paid to the workers in the city of Dublin. I am not concerned about Dublin so much because I know that the rest of the Free State can live without Dublin, whereas Dublin cannot live without the rest of the Free State. It is not fair to put forward an argument here that because brick-layers are paid 1/10½ an hour in Dublin this comprehensive building scheme should be postponed.

Mr. O'Connor

I did not say that the building scheme should be postponed because of high wages.

Mr. Coburn

I meant to say that there is a sort of suspicion in the mind of the President that if this comprehensive scheme were introduced it would be the means, more or less, of standardising wages for the next five years. My argument is that Dublin should not rule the rest of the Free State. The scale of wages paid to the workers in the building trades in the provinces is from 1/6 to 1/8. In fairly big towns like Dundalk, Drogheda, Limerick and Waterford the average wage is about 1/8 an hour. The average wage paid to unskilled men engaged in the erection of houses would be about £2 a week. Their wages have been reduced during the past few years from 52/- to £2, so that I do not think it is fair to quote Dublin alone. Wages have been reduced considerably in every county in the Free State. Perhaps they have not been reduced in the city of Dublin. To my own knowledge, they were as high as 2/6 an hour.

Mr. Good

When were they reduced last?

Mr. Coburn

I do not know much about that.

Mr. Good

It is a long time ago.

Mr. Coburn

That is the business, I think, of the Master Builders and their workmen. The only reason I refer to the matter is because I think it has been responsible for keeping back this housing scheme. On the other hand, it has been argued here that the builders are making excessive profits out of the houses. I do not agree with that. I would like to be fair to all parties. My experience is that any money that the present builders have was made previous to the war, and perhaps during the war. I think any builder will tell you that he finds it very hard to make ends meet. In the past six or seven years a lot of small builders have started, and the fact that nine out of every ten of them have disappeared shows that builders are not making exorbitant profits, because, owing to the fact that business in the building trade is so scarce there is very keen competition amongst the builders, and, I think, all things taken into consideration, it must be agreed that the builders are not making the huge profits they are supposed to be making, and they are not responsible, as some people believe they are, to some extent, for the high cost of building in this country. I believe, with Deputy O'Connor, that this matter will require the co-operation of all parties concerned. It will require, above all, a less tendency on the part of the people not to observe the agreements they make. You cannot consider this question of house building without considering other things. At present we have different sections of the people more or less clearing the pitch for a battle in the future as regards the rents of houses. These are the landlords and the tenants. I believe, if these people were only honest and fair to one another, there would be no necessity for the wrangling and recrimination that exists at the moment. If landlords were fair to the tenants, and if, on the other hand, tenants were fair to the landlord, I think it would do much to give a fillip to house building in the Free State.

There is another element that has not been referred to in this discussion as being in some way responsible for the scarcity of houses. That is the private investor, the man who, say, has four or five hundred pounds and who would like to invest it in the building of a house. He is outside the question altogether as far as the builders and the builders' operatives are concerned. He goes to an architect and asks him to prepare a plan and specification. He tells him he has about £500 to invest in the building of a house, and when the architect produces his plan and specification and advertises for tenders he finds that the cost of the house will be somewhere in the vicinity of £700 or £800. The man has not got that money, and ultimately the erection of the house is abandoned as far as he is concerned. That is an element that has got to be brought into play again if house building is to make the progress we would all like to see it making. That can only be done when the cost of house building is reduced.

The cost, as far as wages are concerned, is a matter that depends also on the cost of living. All these things must be considered along with what is really the standard of of life that the people in this country can afford to maintain. In this connection in comparisons between wages here and in England we must not forget the fact that the difference between the cost of living in the Free State and in England is 10 per cent. That is a very material difference. To my mind, what is really wanted at the moment is the wholehearted support of the people in general in an endeavour to solve this very pressing problem. It cannot be solved, in my opinion, by any government unless it has the support of the people. All parties must help to solve this problem. I do hope that this Bill will be the forerunner of the big comprehensive Bill we are promised, which I hope will once and for all settle the question of housing in this country.

I appeal to the Government to make some provision in future Bills of this sort in regard to long-term loans. Nearly every Deputy has referred to that fact. It is impossible to build houses on loans extending over a period of ten or fifteen years. The British Government give loans for the erection of urban dwellings and labourers' cottages extending from forty to sixty years. I cannot see how, if the will is there, our own home Government would not be in a position to give loans extending over a period in the vicinity of twentyfive or thirty years. That is the only way that urban authorities can afford to let houses at rents which the workers can pay, because the tendency at the moment is that wages will be reduced according as the cost of living is reduced, and the capacity of the people to pay will thereby be reduced. I know cases in which houses erected by local authorities are set at rents of 10/- or 11/- weekly. I do not know what will happen in future, but I know that the people will find it very difficult to pay these rents. They may do so for a year or two, but in five or ten years they will not be in a position to do so.

The only way in which urban authorities can provide houses for workers in towns is, as I have said, by long-term loans. I hope that the Government will see their way to have that provision inserted in the next housing Bill. I think that there are also other means of obtaining money. I think the Minister should be aware of the fact that at the moment there is money lying in certain quarters that could be used for the building of houses and that could be issued on loan to urban authorities over a period of from twenty to thirty years. I hope that the Minister will take steps to have that money put into circulation and placed at the disposal of the local authorities who need it. As I have said, the Bill has the general support of all parties. The general hope is that the Government will in the near future introduce their comprehensive Housing Bill which, it is hoped, will go a long way in settling this important question.

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to re-echo the hope expressed by the last speaker that this Housing Bill would be the forerunner of that great, comprehensive measure which the Government have led us so long to expect, but I regret to say that I cannot find in the present Bill any justification for that hope. I listened with great attention to the debate, and I think that the prevailing tone in all the speeches, irrespective of the benches from which they were delivered, was one of disappointment and, so far as some of the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies were concerned, one of disillusionment. Everybody in the Free State for the past twelve months, at least, has been looking forward with a great deal of expectancy to the Government's proposals on housing. They were deliberately led to that belief by the action of the Government themselves. Only twelve months ago the Government appealed to the electors in North Dublin City and asked them to return a gentleman whose assistance would be of the greatest possible value in the solution of this problem. The electorate were told that if this gentleman were returned the scheme which matured under his chairmanship of the Unemployment Committee would immediately be put into force, and that as that scheme involved an expenditure of about fifteen million pounds, not only would the problem of housing be solved, but also the problem of unemployment. That gentleman has taken part in the debate here. He spoke yesterday, but I have not seen him during the course of the debate to-day. As I say, he was present yesterday and delivered a speech, a speech which I will not say was not helpful. I think it was helpful, and I think it will do some good in opening the eyes of the people regarding the real policy of the Government on this matter. I think that the speech of Deputy Rice was the most devastating expose of the Government's policy that has ever been delivered in this House, because Deputy Rice gave the game away. He explained that the promise to expend £15,000,000 on housing was purely conditional. The Government policy was, he said, conditional on an agreement being reached between the master builders and the building operatives.

Mr. Cooney

In order to demonstrate the Government's interest in the housing question, I must draw attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present.

General Mulcahy

Six of the Deputy's colleagues are with him on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Cooney

This is a Government Bill.

Mr. MacEntee

I think I might challenge that remark by saying that there are certainly fewer on the Government Benches.

General Mulcahy

I take it that that is an indication that the Opposition have found fault with the measure, whereas the Government Party have perfect confidence in it.

Mr. MacEntee

I think it shows a disposition on the part of the Government Party to recognise that they have no hope of improving it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

As there is a quorum present, the Deputy may proceed.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Rice explained that the Government policy was conditional on an agreement between the master builders and the operatives. I would like the House to throw its mind back to the speech delivered by Deputy Rice and to recollect how he endeavoured to secure this agreement which the Government regarded as all important for the proper fruition of its housing policy. Deputy Rice, as he admitted, chairman and all as he was of the conference called at his behest, withheld from the conference an important document which was handed to him for submission to it. I think that that exposes once and for all the nigger in the wood pile, because, so far as I could see, though the Deputy declared that the workers' proposal which he held up was one which not in two years would he bring forward to the conference, he disclosed to the House the grounds on which that document was withheld. I would like the House to think over what these grounds are. First, the document stated that not more than 25 per cent. of the workers engaged in building houses were engaged in building houses for the working classes. On the basis of that statement, the document proceeded to say that it appeared that the master builders, in making certain demands, seemed, under cover of the necessity for building houses for the workers, anxious to worsen the conditions of labour. I submit, when you analyse that, that there is nothing in either of these statements which should have prevented the document which was handed to Deputy Rice being submitted to the conference. The statement is there, and I do not think that it could be held that it is one that would have created conditions of antagonism between the master builders and the operatives. The statement that not more than 25 per cent. of the workers engaged in building houses were engaged in building houses for the working classes is not a statement that would embitter the relations between the builders and the operatives. It could have only one effect, and, after all, it is an effect that could be easily determined. In regard to the statement that the master builders in certain conditions were taking advantage of that fact, I am sure they would have proceeded to controvert that, and, if it had been controverted to the satisfaction of the operatives, instead of producing a feeling of antagonism in the conference it would have produced a feeling of understanding between the parties. Therefore I say that Deputy Rice had no justification on the grounds which he disclosed for withholding the document. I ask the House to go further and say whether, in its judgment, Deputy Rice was sincere in calling this conference.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The calling of the conference does not arise on this Bill at all.

Mr. MacEntee

The question of the whole policy in regard to housing arises on this Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a different matter.

Mr. MacEntee

Was he, as representing the Government in this matter, anxious to secure that agreement between the master builders on the one hand and the builders' operatives on the other which would clear the way for this big housing scheme which was going to involve an expenditure of £15,000,000? In view of his own statement I submit he was not sincere in that, and the one purpose of imposing these conditions was in order to secure that that £15,000,000 would remain intact for housing at another by-election. In regard to the Bill itself, I think that Deputy Corish put his finger on the weak spot. This Bill, as he pointed out, by reducing the grant previously given to those people who proposed to undertake the building of houses, whether they are private individuals, speculative builders, public authorities or utility societies, is going to increase the net cost of houses to the builders. Because it does that, and because the economic price at which an article can be sold is determined by the cost of production, by the cost at which the lowest quantum of that article can be produced, this Bill is inevitably going to increase the rent of houses throughout the country. Deputy Corish pointed out that this was the weak spot in the Bill, and I agree. I do not think there is any justification for decreasing the grant towards houses. I think, on the other hand, a case could be made for increasing the grant because one of the big factors in the case of building is the rate of interest which the builder, in the first instance, will have to pay on his money, and the rate of interest which the local authority will have to pay on loans in some places. That rate of interest has increased very considerably since last year and, as far as I can see, it is not likely to be decreased for a very long period. Therefore, so far as the cost of money is concerned, a case could be made for increasing the grant under this Act.

Another great defect in the Bill is that which was pointed out by Deputy Dr. Tubridy in the first place and which has been emphasised by Deputy Broderick and Deputy Mongan. They pointed out that the proposals in the Bill relate entirely to conditions in urban areas and that so far as the Government is concerned they give no indication in the measure, whatsoever, that they have any concern for housing conditions in the Gaeltacht. A suggestion was thrown out by Deputy Briscoe which I think might be applied to those areas. He suggested that instead of a grant being given in the form of money there might be a grant of material. I feel that if some provision of that sort were made, a good many people in the Gaeltacht would take advantage of it. I know there are many people in the Gaeltacht who have nothing much to do and if the materials were made available for them they would proceed to build houses. I know that of my own knowledge of the conditions there and I have that opinion reinforced by a number of people who live in the Gaeltacht, medical men and others. They stated that one of the ways in which housing conditions could be improved in the Gaeltacht was that instead of making a grant of money, a grant of material should be made to a man to build his own house. Most of these people are handy men and many of them can do masonry work. I do not say that such a house would be on the same standard as we are accustomed to get in this city; nevertheless there would be a considerable improvement on the hovels in which these people are living to-day. As I have said, I have made the case against the Government that they were not sincere when they stated from the hustings in the election for North Dublin City in March, 1928, that they proposed to spend £15,000,000 on housing provided a certain agreement could be arrived at. I say again that Deputy Rice, a member of their Party, whom they nominated to the Chairmanship of the Committee on Unemployment, in withholding from the Conference which he called a certain important document, proved that insincerity up to the hilt.

Mr. Cooney

The President has told us that prior to his coming into office he had learned practically everything that was to be known about housing. I do not profess to know anything about the technicalities of any scheme for the solution of the housing problem, but when Deputy O'Kelly yesterday evening advanced a suggestion which amounted to a proposal that we ought to set up a National Housing Council—I think that was the suggestion put forward—the President interjected to say that that was handing over the child. Evidently the President has learned so much about housing that he has come to the conclusion that the problem is beyond solution, but I think there is no person in this House who is so adept at handing over the child as the President is. He handed over a child to a body known as the Agricultural Corporation, a child which turned out to be a white elephant, and on this occasion he simply tells us that he has learned so much about housing that he finds the problem is beyond solution, and he demands that the other Deputies in the House should shoulder the responsibility for finding that solution.

I would like to stress a point which has been already stressed here with reference to this mythical £15,000,000 which was prophesied by Deputy Rice some twelve months ago as an absolute certainty in the event of his being elected. The President told us yesterday evening that the £15,000,000 is still available on certain conditions. What are the conditions? Housing, he tells us, is not an economic proposition. Deputy Good re-echoed that statement —"Not an economic proposition." I think the House is entitled to know what exactly is meant by that statement—"An economic proposition." Are we to continue viewing this question in the light of profit from the people who want houses and cannot get them? Are they to be exploited to the last halfpenny? If they are not able to come across with the amount which will satisfy the building rings are they to remain homeless?

Is that definitely to be understood? Is that the attitude of the Government? I think we are entitled to know exactly what is meant by the economic proposition which we are told housing is not considered to be at present. So far as this recent conference between the master builders and the building operatives is concerned, the same question arises. No agreement was reached. And we are told that until building costs are reduced there is no hope of any real progress being made towards a solution of this problem. I think it only fair that we should ask who are the people responsible for the high costs. Can it be held that the workers are responsible?

Mr. Good

Is the Deputy aware that the wages paid to building operatives in the city of Dublin are the highest in Europe?

Mr. Cooney

I am aware also that the cost of living is higher in Dublin than, I think, in any city in Europe.

Professor O'Sullivan

No.

Mr. Cooney

At any rate I am perfectly well aware that the building operatives are not men of leisure. They are not living in mansions. There is not a member of any profession in this country going around looking for houses. The people who are earnestly looking for houses and wanting to get them belong to the building operatives and the common labourers throughout the country. There lies the real cause of this scarcity of houses. It is class legislation, and this is another demonstration of class legislation. We have plenty of mansions for those who are able to pay for them. The beautiful villas around our suburbs are occupied by the bellowing slaves and genteel dastards, as John Mitchel termed them. But in our slums dwell the real remnant of the Celtic race, the people with more spirituality and more nationality in them than would be found in the villas. They are living there under conditions which are beyond description.

On last Thursday here we had Ministers getting up and prating about observance of the moral law. I would like to bring those Ministers through these slums and ask them how they are to reconcile their responsibilities to the people with the conditions that prevail there, conditions in which you have families ranging in numbers from 5 to 10 of both sexes living in one room. How can those Ministers come here and declare themselves as responsible Ministers in a so-called national Government and not come forward with any definite declaration of any desire to end this evil? Over five million pounds could be found for the Shannon scheme. Hundreds of thousands of pounds can be found to create embassies and legations abroad with a view to carrying on the bluff that this great sovereign State is something that it really is not. No money can be found for the solution of the housing problem. There is another aspect of this housing problem which has not been touched upon. How much of the £200,000 in this Bill will go into circulation amongst the people of this country? Most of the material which will be used in the erection of these houses will be imported. As a matter of fact, due to the operations of the building ring and some other ring which I cannot name, the money which we are voting now is going to help the unemployed of other countries more than it is going to help the unemployed in this country. That is an aspect of the problem which I think should be considered seriously and tackled in the right manner.

Talking about the mythical fifteen million pounds reminds me of another promise and a definite undertaking. An undertaking, I am given to understand, was entered into by Deputy Rice during the time he was soliciting the votes of the citizens of North Dublin. Representations were made to him with reference to a number of houses known as "Donnelly's Orchard," situated, I understand, on the Clonliffe Road, wherein provision had been made for baths, on the same basis as obtained in Marino and Croydon Park. The Minister for Local Government was interviewed, I understand, and gave an undertaking also to consider this matter sympathetically. The residents of those houses offered to pay more money than the residents of Marino and Croydon Park were asked to pay to have baths installed there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That matter does not arise on this Bill.

General Mulcahy

But he must say something.

Mr. Cooney

It is to show the manner in which these promises have been carried out.

Mr. Rice

On a point of personal explanation, I want to say that I made no representation on this matter, and I was not in any way in touch with the persons the Deputy is speaking about.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy did not say that. He said he understood it.

Mr. Cooney

I am certain of one thing, and that is that Deputy Rice had a meeting at this particular place.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with this Bill. We will have no more about it.

Mr. Cooney

At any rate, those baths were not put in and Deputy Rice is here now 12 months.

Mr. Rice

I never heard of the baths before.

Mr. Cooney

You will hear of them at the next election anyway. I would seriously urge upon the Minister in view of the criticisms that have been offered by various Deputies in this House to withdraw this Bill and to bring it forward in a more presentable fashion. This Bill as other Deputies have said is simply nibbling at a problem which should be tackled in a big manner, and I think apart from party politics we could tackle this scheme in a manner which would indicate that we were prepared to act up to our responsibilities as representatives of the people and to recognise that houses are an essential thing and not a luxury and that we cannot have any standard of morality in a country where you are not prepared to provide the necessary conditions for the rearing of children. Anyone who knows the conditions obtaining in the city of Dublin knows perfectly well that there are thousands of children being reared there under conditions which make it almost impossible for them to become upright, moral citizens. From that point of view alone I think it is nothing short of a crying shame that this question is not tackled in a big way. I am not by any means getting up to exploit that evil or to make political capital over it. I do not believe that any of us gloat over the fact that such conditions obtain, and perhaps if we can apply ourselves to that problem in a manner which would indicate that we could on some issue raise ourselves out of party politics I believe a solution can be found. It is a national problem and the resources of the national treasury should be used if we are sincere in the efforts to solve it. That is what I urge upon the Government to do in this matter.

General Mulcahy

There is a time when in the first place we are told that this is not a local question and cannot be solved by the local authority. There is a time when to understand at all some of the statements made both on the Labour Benches and on the Fianna Fáil Benches the whole building industry in the State and the whole business of distributing builders' material is absolutely bankrupt of capacity. We are asked to face, by the application of large sums of money, a very wide problem. It has been extended before us from the slums in the city to the ordinary urban housing problem in the smaller towns, to the problem of the rural labourers, to the problem of the house in a country district that is falling down and has to be propped up with sticks, to the private person, whether in the town or city, and to the housing of the people in the Gaeltacht or the congested districts. All these aspects of the problem in all their magnitude are served up to us to be attended to by the application of money when, from the point of view of the Labour Benches and the Fianna Fáil Benches, the machinery for dealing with housing in this country has collapsed.

We are told this is not a local question, that it is a national question, and the implication of the invitation to make this a national question is that the money must be found as far as possible away from the people who are talking about it and the people who want the problem solved. The situation cannot be dealt with in that particular way. The problem of housing from one end to the other of the spectrum that has been put before us is a national problem, and as a national problem it demands to be looked at from that particular vantage point which must be taken up when a national problem is being considered, and it demands to have thought applied to it from that particular stand-point— thought as to how the problem is to be tackled, as to, if money is wanted, where the money is to come from, and on whose shoulders the burden of the money-finding is going to be placed. The kind of thought that has been served up to a very large measure here is that this is a national problem, and then all the vacant spots, all the half-formed or forming nebulae in the minds of people speaking on the matter have been taken and ranged as ciphers one after another. Some figures stick before them. We have one million, three millions and fifteen millions. The ciphers are turned into millions of pounds, and you are told that is the solution of the question. Then, easily got, easily spent, and the millions are distributed amongst the people who want houses in the slums, on the one side, and the people who want ramshackle houses rebuilt or improved in districts here and there and the private person who wants to build a house, on the other side.

It is suggested that the Executive Council have not a policy, and that in that position they have turned to other benches in this House and said: "What is your solution?" I do not know any occasion when any of the other Parties in this House have been asked by the Government to supply them with a solution of the housing problem. The matter is one that requires co-operation, but as far as the policy is concerned we have put the policy plainly before the House.

Mr. Corish

When?

General Mulcahy

I will put it again.

Mr. Corish

I have never heard it, and I am here a long time.

General Mulcahy

The policy for its early fruition may and will depend, to some extent, on what kind of a return we can get from the building industry as a whole in so applying itself to the organisation of its industry that it will give us houses at a cheaper cost. While depending on that, we have never stated that in the absence of it we have not got a policy.

Mr. Corish

If you carry that to its logical conclusion, then you should not have rebuilt the Four Courts or the Custom House.

General Mulcahy

I want to leave no one under the impression that in this particular matter we have not a policy. Deputy Rice has been spoken about a lot on this matter of housing, principally by people who want to shirk the issue, principally by people who will not get down to the facts of the case, principally by people who, instead of taking the final report of the Committee on the Relief of Unemployment as it stands, and seeing there the contributions made by Deputy Rice and by those others associated with him on that Committee, will do anything but start off from that point and will not realise the contribution in thought to the solution of the problem that is given there. I want, again, to direct Deputies' attention to the report, on page 7 of which paragraph 35 sets out: "If the problem is to be solved in the present generation this can only be done by (a) a drastic reduction in building costs, and (b) the provision of housing loans for local authorities on terms which would enable them to build and let houses at rents which will not throw an intolerable burden on the taxpayers and the ratepayers, on the one hand, or on the poorest tenants on the other." If Deputies who want to go further than that, and who desire to examine what took place and what proposals were put to Deputy Rice from one side or the other at the conference which he, as an individual, endeavoured to get working in order to get some progress under (a), they will look at the names of the persons who formed that Committee and see what they brought forward in their report, they will be much more profitably occupied than in going further, endeavouring to see to what extent progress has been made in getting that drastic reduction brought about.

Mr. Corish

This thing is very important, and the Minister is simply talking round the question again. He is not getting down to it at all. He says there is a problem. Everybody who has spoken agrees that there is a problem. The important thing is, is his Department or the Government trying to get away from the problem or trying to solve it? Might I suggest to the Minister that he should ask the different local authorities in the country to send representatives to meet him in Dublin in order that he may go into the question from their point of view? Then he will find out whether they are or are not serious. The Minister refers to a conference. That is only dealing with Dublin. It cannot be said that in other parts of the country they have settled all their housing difficulties.

General Mulcahy

I regret I cannot meet the desire of the Deputy to be as crystallised in my contribution to this particular question at the moment as he and other Deputies were. I am dealing with a very important point that has been talked black, white and blue in an endeavour, I suggest, to obscure a position that exists. The names of the Committee that went into this matter are worth examining, and their report is worth examining. They stated that what was necessary was a drastic reduction of building costs, the provision of housing loans, and the avoidance of an excessive burden on the taxpayer or ratepayer, or the person building houses. It has been suggested that the Government Party, in connection with the 1927 election, made a statement as part of their policy that they were going to open the Local Loans Fund for houses. In June, 1927, the President made a very elaborate statement of policy immediately prior to the general election. Speaking on the question of long-term credit facilities for local authorities he said:

"We realise that in present circumstances local authorities are hampered by lack of long-term credit facilities in the undertaking of certain essential local services, such as drainage and waterworks schemes. We intend to elaborate a scheme to enable long-term loans to be available for these projects. While we do not feel that, in all the circumstances, housing is a service for which these facilities can be justified, we are prepared, nevertheless, in very necessitous cases, to consider how far it may be possible to include housing schemes among the projects for which borrowings may be made."

Mr. Corish

What about the Minister for Finance's Budget speech of 1927?

General Mulcahy

That is the President's statement of policy before the general election in June, 1927.

Mr. Lemass

What does it mean?

General Mulcahy

It means that he does not commit himself to long-term loans in respect of housing until he can consider that there are fairly normal circumstances in existence, or only for dealing with very necessitous cases.

Mr. Corish

He said it in such a way that certain inferences could be drawn.

General Mulcahy

His words are there, and there cannot be put upon them the interpretation that Deputy Davin and others put upon them.

Mr. Corish

That is the interpretation he would like to have put upon them at that particular time.

General Mulcahy

Deputies can put upon them whatever interpretation they like, but the Government have never committed themselves to giving long-term loans for housing in circumstances that will place an undue burden on the taxpayer or ratepayer. Then we come to what the Deputy is anxious about, and what I say is perfectly clear: what is our housing policy? Our policy is that in the last eight years, including the present Bill, and the proposals for housing for the year 1929, 21,600 houses are being provided at a cost to the taxpayer of £2,050,000.

Mr. Corish

That is the past policy.

General Mulcahy

That is the past policy. The future policy is another 21,000 houses.

Mr. Corish

With the subsidy reduced?

General Mulcahy

At less cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. Corish

At more cost to the people who are going to live in the houses, because the bank rate is going up.

General Mulcahy

With less cost for the building of the houses, and further, by the operation of our policy, and a further driving down, by external circumstances or pressure, if it cannot be brought about by conference, of the cost of building; and influencing by our policy, along the lines recommended in this report on unemployment, a drastic reduction in building costs.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Minister explain why a Bill was introduced last October to wind up that housing policy to which he is referring?

General Mulcahy

A Bill was introduced to wind up the situation in which persons expecting a grant at the old amount had actually committed themselves to the work of putting up houses. In so far as people have made commitments under the old scheme, this Bill provides that they will be met by a grant of the old amount in respect of houses begun not later than 1st April next.

Mr. Lemass

Perhaps I might read what the President said in introducing that Bill.

General Mulcahy

If the Deputy is concerned about hearing what our housing policy is, he will let me continue.

Mr. Lemass

It is because I am in doubt as to what the policy is, that I am asking the question. A housing policy has been in existence since 1922. Last October a Bill was introduced which the President declared was the completion of a policy which had been in operation since 1922. Now we have a Bill similar in broad outline to the policy which had been in operation since 1922. Are we to take it that the Government, having decided to wind up the 1922 policy last year, have since changed their minds and decided to continue it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think Deputies ought to allow the Minister to make his speech, and ask the questions when he has concluded.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy should realise that the policy of grants in 1924 was not, in terms of money, the policy of 1922. The grant of one million pounds in 1922 finished that section of the Government's progressive housing policy. The Act of 1928 finished the policy of giving differentiated grants to local bodies and private persons according to the number of rooms in their houses. This is the continuance of the progressive policy. As I say, after the first 21,600 houses, under this policy of reduced grants, not necessarily grants keeping as high as they are in the present Bill, but under a further policy of reductions like that, the second step in the Government policy of meeting the housing shortage is to provide a second 21,000 houses, if you wish, at a less cost to the State. In the process of doing it, we must bring about what is stated by the Committee that examined it as necessary if the problem is to be solved in the present generation, namely, a reduction in building costs, and, at the same time, getting a more accurate appraisement by throwing further responsibility on local authorities in connection with the work required to be done; also the extent to which there are classes in the country who want houses built for them with the aid of public money, and throwing the responsibility in a more equitable way than it has been up to the present on the ratepayer and taxpayer, because of very good reasons. The position practically has been that almost the total brunt of the present contribution to the partial solving of the problem has fallen on the shoulders of the taxpayer, and that is why we have such a generous outlook on what can be done in dealing with the different classes of people who want houses, apart altogether from whether they are people of a class that ought to have their houses provided for them partly at the public expense. It was necessary that the State should put on the shoulders of the taxpayer a very large part of the cost that it put on them in connection with the one million pounds' scheme. Practically no local authority lost anything on that scheme. Very few local authorities have lost anything on subsequent schemes.

If we are going to be realistic with regard to the problem of what is required, if we are to be realistic as to whether building costs are at a reasonable point or not, we have to get an examination of the problem closer down than it was possible to get it up to the present, and we have to put the responsibility for bearing a large portion, if not all, of any payment which is to be made in the matter closer down and more upon the shoulders of the ratepayers than the taxpayers. If we have to deal with the whole problem from the end of the spectrum that we find in the Rosses and in Connemara, where you have people whose rent-paying capacity cannot be regarded as anything equal to the rent-paying capacity of the people in the slums; if we are to deal with it from the slum end here in the city there will be a sufficient amount of ground to be covered by the application of the taxpayers' money to take as much of that money as may be available. If the normal housing of the working classes in the ordinary Dublin districts or large town cannot be solved by the operation of the ratepayer alone as regards bearing the burden, however the State may assist in accumulating credit for the ratepayer in the matter, then your housing problem is not going to be solved, and we are going to hear wild and irresponsible statements with regard to national housing boards and millions of pounds that we have heard here to-night. I feel we are, in fact, much closer to one another in a practical way in the appreciation of the problem, and much closer to one another as to how it ought to be tackled, than the speeches delivered here would lead people who did not know us to believe. I say that is the Government policy in the matter.

We are invited to borrow at present a large number of millions of pounds at 5 per cent. We would not be invited to do that by people shouldering any responsibility in connection with the actual borrowing or carrying out of the work. But that is the policy. We must transfer a large portion of whatever loss there is going to be in the provision of houses for the working classes in the ordinary way, on to the shoulders of the ratepayers. In places where there are large insanitary clearances to be done and where really an insanitary state of things has to be dealt with, the State will find sufficient call upon its resources in dealing with that. As I say, we are closer to one another as to how the housing problem should be dealt with than our speeches would lead one to believe. We are closer to one another, I think, in placing the housing problem in its proper perspective with regard to other problems.

Deputy de Valera mentioned the problem of housing in connection with the expenses of education, old age pensions and the expenses for other social services, and Deputy Everett brought in the consideration of the County Medical Officer of Health. This all indicates that we have come closer in our appreciation of housing. But if the housing problem cannot be solved—personally I am not as pessimistic in the matter as the report on unemployment would suggest we ought to be—and if it cannot be solved in a normal way, we have to stand back from all our social services and see whether education should sacrifice some money to housing, whether old age pensions should sacrifice some money to give to housing; and the question will arise whether in a county like Mayo old age pensions should be paid at such a rate that if put on the rates they would be 13/11 and perhaps no money at all found by the rates towards the housing of the people.

Deputies suggest that they could find lines here in which reduction in expenditure could be made; that they could find lines locally in which reductions could be made. Certainly. And these reductions will have to be made if only for the reason that perhaps more expenditure is necessary on more important services.

If on examination of the State expenditure we can bring about still further reductions than are being brought about, there are other directions in which that money should be spent than, say, in assisting private persons to build houses, or in assisting ordinary urban authorities to build ordinary working-class houses — these ordinary working - class houses due to increased population, as distinct from houses that have to go hand in hand with the demolition and clearance of insanitary areas.

The slum question is going to take money. In this connection I ought to answer a question put by Deputy Lemass when he asked why something is not done to give effect to certain recommendations with regard to giving more power to local authorities to clear derelict sites and put on the owners of some of those insanitary areas the cost of making them less insanitary or more sanitary. There is every reason why action should be taken in that matter at the earliest possible moment. The matter has been given a very considerable amount of thought, particularly, at any rate, as regards the Dublin area. There are perhaps difficulties in dealing with the matter, but I am satisfied it will have to be dealt with, and will be dealt with, as soon as I can have the proper legislation drafted to deal with it. But building in large city areas to replace slums that had been removed is a costly matter. One scheme of the kind was carried out in Dublin in Crab Lane, and for 40 flats the total cost amounted to £21,000, or, approximately £200 a room. Now you cannot deal with the slum problem if flatted buildings in the city areas are going to cost £200 a room.

Mr. Lemass

Would the Minister say what proportion of that cost is represented by the price paid for the site?

General Mulcahy

The price paid for the site is not involved in the matter at all. The actual building cost itself was £19,540, and the other money that brought it up to £21,000 for the lot was based on an estimate for the electric wiring, hot water service, and services of that particular kind. But the cost of the site is not in it at all.

Mr. Lemass

What is the date of the scheme?

General Mulcahy

It is the Crab Lane Scheme.

Mr. Lemass

Give the date.

General Mulcahy

Two years ago, approximately.

Mr. Good

That was the completion of it.

General Mulcahy

At any rate, take it two, three or four years ago, the reduction of building costs in Dublin is something like 14 per cent. from 1927 to 1929, and even with the 14 per cent. reduction, on these particular figures you are not going to house the slum dwellers without a tremendous financial loss if building costs are going to remain at that particular figure.

Mr. Lemass

Could the Minister explain why these building costs are so much higher than they would be in the case of a virgin site?

General Mulcahy

I could not. Everything we can do to help to reduce building costs, to help to see that the type of flat, in such a house would be of an inexpensive kind is being done. Before we leave the point of the slums, it was suggested by different Deputies here that different classes in different places have been neglected. Deputy O'Kelly, at any rate, complains that Dublin was shamefully neglected. The total amount of grants that have been given by the Government to the City of Dublin since 1924 is £801,000. If that is shameful neglect of the City of Dublin, I wonder what would be adequate. In so far as Dublin City is concerned, houses have been built at a rate higher than ever before.

Mr. Good

That is in point of speed.

General Mulcahy

In point of speed. As far as the Government were concerned grants were made available for housing to go ahead in Dublin at the quickest possible speed. So far as I know, the Dublin Commissioners have gone ahead at the greatest possible speed.

Mr. Good

Before the Minister departs from the slum problem, might I ask him if it would not be worth consideration to have this problem dealt with and a policy decided upon, and then see how far we could finance that policy, each year to do a certain amount of it? No one here suggested that we should face immediately the one big thing which is really the most difficult part of the housing, that is, dealing with the slum problem, but if we had it dealt with from the point of view of the planning and a policy decided upon, then we could see how far we could finance each year portion of it and then solve what really is a very difficult problem in housing.

Mr. Anthony

I would like to ask the Minister if he is aware that houses of the same type were built in Cork at £108 per room.

Mr. Good

Cork stands by itself. I think we will all agree.

General Mulcahy

I wonder whether the slum dwellers' problem is going to be solved by the provision of flats that cost £108 a room.

Mr. Anthony

I am not speaking of flats but of houses for the working classes.

General Mulcahy

In reply to Deputy Good, we may examine the slum problem and see how it should be tackled. There has been a very considerable amount of examination of it, but until you get the economic part of your building problem solved—that is, get your building costs down to such an extent that your ordinary normal working-class houses in an ordinary town or in the Dublin area can be built without throwing an undue amount on the ratepayers—you cannot approach your slum problem unless you throw a certain number of thousands of pounds into it. Out of 2,897 of the houses built in Dublin and occupied on the 31st of January, 1929, 2,145 were five-roomed houses. The economic state of affairs dictated to the Commissioners that it would be five-roomed houses that would be built, and to have a very large number as against houses of the smaller kind, because there was a greater return on money and we are housing a bigger number of people. We are housing the large families.

These economic facts operate on people and on local authorities to such an extent that until they settle themselves to a certain amount, at any rate, you have not the financial capacity and you are not able to bring yourself to deal with the slum problem directly. As I say, as far as the examination of the problem goes, a very considerable amount of the examination has gone ahead. To a certain extent, you have to treat the Crab Lane experiment as a definite piece of work to provide houses for the slum dwellers.

Mr. Good

From the figures the Minister gives, it is questionable whether it is feasible to follow that policy.

General Mulcahy

It means further examination of the general position and of your whole financial position. The farmers, it was stated, were neglected. Out of 10,717 houses built up to and under the 1928 Act, 7,706, or 72 per cent. of the whole lot, were built in rural areas, so that the rural population have not anything to complain of in that matter.

Mr. Corry

Did that apply to the whole 26 counties?

General Mulcahy

It applies to the whole 26 counties. To get back to another aspect of the matter, the question of co-operation and of getting closer down to the problem locally in order that we may see more clearly where we stand with regard to what is to be done, and in order that we may see more clearly the implication of shouldering people with a debt in connection with this matter of housing. Deputy Coburn made, from my point of view, a very acceptable and satisfactory contribution to the debate. If Deputies would look at the "Dundalk Democrat" of the 16th March, they would see where a discussion was entered on in Dundalk between members of the Urban Council, of trades bodies, and of the business community. They are facing up to the question, in the first place, of whether a brick works might not be established in Dundalk for the development of the town and of industry. They are making a census of insanitary buildings and of the housing requirements that are necessary. They are also to go into the financing of housing. I feel that we ought to get more of that kind of thing from the ratepayers as distinct from the taxpayers.

Mr. Corry

Does the Minister suggest that the ratepayer should be saddled, considering that in the whole of the Twenty-Six Counties less than one-third of the £2,100,000 went back to the ratepayers themselves?

General Mulcahy

If we take a place like Drogheda, the national contribution to housing there was £19,243. A penny has not gone on the Drogheda rates to co-operate in the shouldering of the cost of these particular houses. In Dundalk, £15,559 went in grants to private persons and public bodies. There is a small housing rate in Dundalk, but I think the greater part of it, if not the whole, is for houses built before 1922. I do not think that since 1922 a penny has gone on the rates in respect of house building. As regards Wexford, a town with which Deputy Corish is closely in touch—he takes a serious interest in housing and has endeavoured to make the problem understood from his particular point of view here—since 1922, between grants to private persons and the local authority, £11,867 of State money has been given. I do not think a penny of Wexford money has gone into these schemes.

Mr. Corish

Indeed there has.

General Mulcahy

What has gone into it? A few sites have been given to private persons for one hundred years, at something like 30/- a site.

Mr. Corish

Did the Corporation ever strike a housing rate?

General Mulcahy

The rate for housing at the present moment in Wexford is about 3¼d. They struck a rate of approximately £1,000 in 1922 in connection with the £1,000,000 grant, but the Wexford Corporation did not lose any money in that scheme. Wisely, they sold their houses and they made use of the money available to go into other housing schemes. But I do suggest, as against the State's £11,867 to Wexford, the Corporation has made no contribution. Deputy Corish, who is seriously interested in housing, has done a lot to interest his council in the matter. He comes here and tells us that he has been excusing the Government to the Wexford people. He has been offering excuses to people who did not contribute anything on behalf of people who for seven or eight years have contributed £11,000.

Mr. Corish

The Minister does not know a blessed thing about it. Last year there was a sixpenny rate for housing.

General Mulcahy

I am open to correction, because we want facts. I do not want any colouring but the true colouring. I do suggest that these are the facts. We have to get away from that before there is a responsible outlook on what are our housing wants and how money is to be provided for them, and before we have credit properly established for building our houses.

Mr. Corish

In that connection——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy ought to allow the Minister to make his speech. He can ask questions when the Minister has concluded.

Mr. Corish

All right. I thought we wanted to solve the housing problem.

General Mulcahy

On the question of long term loans, I have quoted from the President's statement in June, 1927, with regard to housing and long term loans. The money that the State contributed to the housing problem up to the present moment was money paid out of revenue, because with housing costs so high and with housing costs falling, and with the value of property falling year by year, it was unreasonable and unsound that a debt should be saddled on the people in respect of property that at that particular time may not be worth the money.

The position with regard to long-term loans, I say again, is with building costs at their present height, with the cost of money at its present height, the Government cannot look with any kind of equanimity on local authorities saddling themselves with a large amount of debt. We are catering—and we have to keep our minds on the future—for the shortage of houses at present, the normal wastage in respect of our houses here, and we are catering for a population that has been reduced considerably through economic, political and historical causes and a population that we must regard, under the present circumstances, as being on the increase. For that reason, if, in order to meet the immediate and pressing problem, local bodies saddled themselves with heavy debts for a period of, say, thirty-five years they might deal with their present problem or a reasonable percentage of it, but they would leave themselves with a similar problem recurring within the 35 years, because the debt they would undertake would prevent them from tackling the normal wastage and the normal increase necessary. It would also tend to keep up the building costs which have been steadily declining under the influence of the Government's policy which rehabilitated the building industry here and put State funds into the hands of the building industry to get ahead, and draw private money out of the hands of individuals to meet it.

Mr. Lemass

I would like to ask the Minister if we are to understand from what he said that the Government definitely rejects the conclusions of the Committee on the Relief of Unemployment, in which they state that the continuance of the contributions under the Housing Act, even on an extended scale, cannot in itself bring us within sight of a solution?

General Mulcahy

The continuance of the present scales may, in accordance with this report, not solve the problem. The opinion of the Executive Council is exactly that, namely, that a continuance of the present scale would not solve the housing problem.

Mr. Lemass

Or an extended scale?

General Mulcahy

Or an extended scale. An extended scale, or the continuance of the old scale, would prevent the coming about of a drastic reduction in building costs, which, the report says, is necessary if the housing problem is to be solved in this generation.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Minister satisfied that that was what the Committee meant?

The President

Oh, yes.

General Mulcahy

I am satisfied that the kernel of the solution of the problem is contained in paragraph 35, page 7, of that report.

Mr. Lemass

Then why does not the Government put into operation the recommendations contained there?

General Mulcahy

"A drastic reduction in building costs." Until you get your reduction in building costs——

Mr. Lemass

What is the Government doing to get the costs reduced?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have cross-examination at this stage.

General Mulcahy

I quoted a long array of figures yesterday to show that, steadily under the influence of the Government policy, building costs have been coming down. I think I have left one important point out. Deputy Rice made a suggestion yesterday that in the case of local bodies who struck a housing rate an increased grant might be given. I must say that I would like to hear that point developed, because the amount that we propose as a grant for local bodies is, in our mind, sufficient to help in getting houses erected. It will be said that local bodies are empowered under this Bill to grant a sum of an equivalent amount. I have no desire to interfere with the judgment of local bodies in doing that, but I do say that much is being done in some of our urban districts in the wiping-out of insanitary houses and in their replacement by other houses. I would like to see, associated with all the money that local authorities can put into housing, the demolition and clearance of insanitary areas. If the local authorities are invited to strike a rate for housing and if an increased grant is to be given, I would like to examine the question, having heard what further can be said on the matter, to see whether the adoption of an attitude like that would not tend to increase or keep up the cost of housing. I am very favourably inclined to the idea that at this particular moment local bodies should strike a housing rate, because as the Government have shouldered the heavy end of the problem up to the present, owing to the general conditions that existed and according as our judgment of the situation dictated, our judgment of the situation now dictates that local bodies should shoulder their end of the burden. I am inclined favourably to consider what Deputy Rice suggested, but I would like to hear the matter further discussed and to have further consideration of the likely effect that an increased State grant, apart from what local bodies might do with a housing rate, might have on keeping up housing costs.

An Dochtúir O Tiobraide

Nách bhfuil rud ar bith le rá ag an Aire mar gheall ar an méid a dubhairt mé idtaobh na Gaeltachta?

Ristéard O Maolchatha

Ní bhaineann an Bille leis an nGaeltacht ach amháin sa mhéid go mbaineann sé le áiteacha eile sa tír. Beidh airgead le fáil sa Ghaeltacht fé'n mBille fé ghnath-choineallacha an Bhille. Ní h-é inntinn an Bhille, amh, réiteach do dhéanamh ar an gheist mhór economic dá dtagartar sa ráiteas a chuir an Rialtas amach mar gheall ar mholta Choimisiúin na Gaeltachta. Tuigtear go bhfuil daoine sa Ghaeltacht agus droich-thithe aca, daoine gur ludh atá ar a gcumas cíos d'íoc ná mór-chuid do lucht dealbhais an Chathair. Dubhradh cheana go raibh an cheist seo fé scrúdú ag an Roinn Tailimh agus Iascaigh. San am chéanna, nuair a bheidh molta cruinne, beachta ar an ní seo tarraicthe suas, caithfear cuimhneamh air go mbeidh an méid airgid a bheidh le fáil chuige sin ag brath ar an méid airgid a bheidh orainn a chaitheamh ar tithe sna bailtí móra.

Mr. Anthony

That will not reduce building costs.

Mr. Corish

During the course of my statement I made the suggestion that the Minister for Local Government should make representations to the Minister for Finance with a view to getting him to re-open a small portion of the Local Loans Account for granting loans to local authorities for the purpose of clearing sites and so forth. Would the Minister undertake to do that?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot argue.

Mr. Corish

The Deputy cannot do anything, so far as I can see.

General Mulcahy

I do not see the necessity for dividing the work of development from that of construction of houses in the matter of loans.

Mr. Corry

In view of the appeals made by all parties, does the Minister intend to introduce a reconstruction clause applicable to rural areas and give a grant for the reconstruction of houses? Otherwise the Bill is useless to the rural population who have to pay the rates. Does the Minister intend to do that? Are we to get no reply?

Motion put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10th April.