I beg to move amendment 1:—
In page 12, line 18, Section 19, to insert after the word "may" the words "at their discretion."
I am moving this amendment without, I hope, prejudicing what "may" may mean in other places.
Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1931.—Fourth and Fifth Stages.
The Minister stated yesterday that the insertion of these words might be interpreted to mean that everywhere else where "may" occurs in the Bill it might be interpreted to mean "shall."
I am moving the amendment in the hope that it will not prejudice the meaning of the word "may" elsewhere. I am moving it entirely in deference to the feelings of Deputies. If Deputies think their feelings would not suffer by it being left out, I would be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
It is not altogether a question of feelings; one must think of the nation.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move amend ment 2:—
In page 29, before Section 66 to insert a new section as follows:—
"A local authority may in the exercise of any power of borrowing conferred upon them by the Housing of the Working Classes Acts (Ireland), 1890 to 1921, the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, 1899 and 1919, the Housing Acts, 1925 to 1930, or any of them as amended by this Act borrow money from the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland and the said Commissioners may with the consent of the Minister for Finance and on the recommendation of the Minister lend such money to such local authority under the Public Works (Ireland) Acts, 1831 to 1886, as amended by the Public Works Loans Act, 1897, and notwithstanding anything contained in the said Acts such loan may be made by the said Commissioners for such period and at such rate of interest as the Minister for Finance may from time to time prescribe."
It is thought by the City Manager and the Law Agent of the Dublin Corporation that it would be well to have power given to the local authority to apply to the Commissioners of Public Works for loans for the purposes of this Bill in general, both for the housing of the working classes and under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. I do not know whether much use would be made of that power, but it might sometimes be possible for local authorities to borrow directly at a cheaper rate. I have been asked to put down this amendment for consideration.
The reason why power is expressly put in in respect of the Labourers Acts is that that statutory authority did not exist. In respect of urban areas the necessary statutory authority does exist. Section 25 of the Act of 1890, as applied by this measure, gives power to borrow from the Commissioners for the purpose of Part I of the Act of 1890; section 43 in the same Act gives power of a similar nature for the purpose of Part II, and similar powers are also given in respect of Part III of the same Act. The powers that the Deputy seeks in his amendment actually exist. That matter has been discussed with the city authorities and has been explained to them and, therefore, this amendment is not necessary.
I do not know about the City of Dublin, but I am aware that Wexford and certain other urban authorities have been getting money from the Board of Works for the last four years.
The question may arise as to whether loans should be made available for places like Dublin City and places like Cork. The intention of the Minister for Finance is to co-operate if necessary with Dublin City authorities so as to extend loans to them if they find that loans cannot be more satisfactorily got through their own borrowing powers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment 3:
In page 29, before Section 66 to insert a new section as follows:—
"Notwithstanding anything contained in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, the fees to be charged in respect of proceedings before official arbitrators in the execution of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921, or the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1930, as respectively amended by this Act, shall not be fixed by reference to the amount awarded and shall not exceed the sum of five guineas for each day or part of a day of five hours occupied by the arbitrator in the hearing of the parties, viewing the lands and preparing his award and sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919 is hereby amended accordingly."
It was also on the representations of the Dublin City officials that I put down this amendment. They said that in their experience these arbitration costs had worked out at a very high figure and they thought that some limitation of this nature should be put in the Bill.
On another Stage I referred to the arbitration costs and I mentioned that in the case of Mary's Lane area they were actually about £52. As far as this amendment is concerned, I may say that the matter has been under discussion between ourselves and the Department of Finance. At the present moment the rates paid for arbitration are paid on a scale that the Minister for Finance is empowered to alter. The scale is fixed under power given by Section 3 of the Act of 1919. I will ask the Deputy not to press this amendment. I will undertake to discuss the matter again with the City authorities and any other body likely to have a case to make. Armed with their opinions and with whatever conclusions we come to as a result of our discussions, I will undertake to approach the Minister and have the matter re-reviewed by him with a view to the exercise by him of the powers he has to meet any reasonable claim that might be made to have the scale altered.
Would it be true to say that the arbitrators are entitled to charge any fee they wish? If that is the case it would be certainly very unfair.
Well the fee rises in a graduated way in respect of the amount valued. Naturally when dealing with the valuation of a very big property one would expect a very much higher fee for it. The fee must be based on the nature of the work that will be done. I will be armed with any representations the local authority will have to make on it and I will discuss it directly with the City of Dublin authorities and that matter can be re-reviewed.
Is it not a fact that the official would be an official of the Ministry of Finance and that that official would only get his salary—that he would get nothing extra arising out of his work as arbitrator? I am informed that it has been the case frequently, so far as the City of Dublin is concerned, that the Ministry of Finance made a considerable profit out of the transaction. That, of course, would add to the cost of the scheme. It is with a view to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health here suggesting to the Ministry of Finance that it would not be advisable for the Ministry to make a profit out of a matter of this kind that I am pressing the matter on the attention of the House. If the officials of the Ministry of Finance are paid for their time and given their expenses and any costs attached to their work, and if they are paid out of the local authorities fund, then the Ministry should be satisfied. However, I take it that the Minister for Local Government will put these views before the Ministry of Finance and seek some way to discover some method by which this question of the fees could be reduced.
Yes, but the arbitrator is not necessarily an official of the Ministry of Finance. His appointment may be fixed by a committee of reference under the 1903 Act.
Amendment 3, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 4: In page 32, Third Schedule, Part 1 to add at the end of the Rule after the words "such land" the words "In assessing the value of sites the arbitrator shall have due regard to the ground rents current for similar areas in the vicinity"— (Deputy Law.)
I would point out to Deputy Law if he were here that this would rather emphasise a matter that will no doubt be taken into consideration, and that might direct the arbitrator's mind to a particular class of thing; the ground rents might be artificially high in the area. The principle on which Part I of the Bill is framed sets out that the compensation that will be paid will be compensation that will be the value of the site in an objective way as the site that is there and ready for development, less, if building has to be cleared away there, the cost of that clearing away. The arbitrator dealing with a site will naturally take into consideration a number of things, including the ground rents in the area. I would not like to have anything there that would suggest that the value should be the value to be placed on the site because of the ground rents. It should be the value placed on it in a much more objective way.
Amendment not moved.
Question proposed: "That the Bill as amended be received for final consideration."
I have given a certain amount of consideration to Section 32 and I find myself up against very opposed views on the matter, so that I am leaving the Section in with a view to having it further examined. If, on having it further examined, we see that we can take it out, then I will take steps to have it taken out in the Seanad. If Deputy Lemass however from his particular point of view could get anyone likely to be interested in it to have a further look at it and see in what way leaving it in the Bill might prejudice doing the work in the public interest that it is necessary to have done under this Bill, I will be glad to hear any additional objections that may be made.
Deputy O'Kelly raised the point last night on the financial Section of the Bill as to whether a local authority having a sum of money on hands and putting that capital sum into the building of houses could get assistance by way of annual grants towards meeting loan charges as in the Bill. I said I would be very glad to think that there were local authorities in the country who had money on hands which they would put into house building, and I said that I would like they would get financial assistance. I have had a further examination made into this matter and I am informed in the first place that there are no such sums likely to be available in the country except in four places. Beginning with the million pounds grant and working down along with the grants that the Government have been giving for the building of houses, certain local authorities have actually made a profit on the transaction of the sale of their houses in some of the places in which they have this money, rather against the wishes of the local people because these houses were sold to the people coming in. The only moneys that I understand that are likely to be there are the moneys made by local authorities, a very small amount of money, on the selling of the houses and through manipulating funds made available for house building by the State since 1922. I do not think that the moneys that exist in that particular way, drawn from the State, should be made the means of drawing more money from the State.
I would like to go back on any implications made in my statement yesterday. If we find that it is necessary to re-examine the point that the Deputy makes about local authorities putting capital into houses, I will have the matter reconsidered; but I think it would not be the wish of the House that the money that exists because of grants already paid out by the State would be giving the power to the existing authorities to draw additional moneys from the State, at a time when it might reasonably be expected that the money should have gone into either building new houses of relieving the rents or prices of the houses that the grants were intended to get built.
For my part I would not favour profiteering by local authorities in houses any more than any private person or public utility society. If any local authority has been profiteering it should not be assisted to profiteer by the State. I think that any moneys that are available should be put into housing. With housing conditions as they are it is not a creditable thing for local authorities to be making a profit. In the one case brought under notice in Co. Cork I cannot imagine that the housing conditions in that particular area are so good that they can afford to make and hoard money. If there is profiteering, and if the conditions in the area show a need for further houses, I would bring any pressure I could to bear on the local authority to expend further money and even possibly go into debt to see that the housing in the area is brought up to a proper standard. I would not use my influence in any way to get money for people who are merely profiteering, whether they are local authorities or otherwise.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Last night I was trying to elicit some information from the Minister as to his conception of what rent a wage earner ought to pay in a district where the wages range from 35s. to £2 per week. That is the wage which prevails in practically all provincial towns. My objection to the Bill is that so far as I can see the rents under it are going to be higher than they have been under the previous Acts. For instance, under the arrangement whereby local authorities are entitled to a 30 per cent. subsidy towards the repayment of sinking fund and interest as far as one can see there is going to be an increase in rent. Under the old arrangement in a great many cases the houses cost £250. The local authority received £60 from the State and put up another £60 or its equivalent by paying the loan charge of 4 per cent. per annum. That was responsible for bringing the rent down to 6s. per week. Under the new scheme 30 per cent. is to be paid to the local authority. The Minister stated that the local authority is supposed to make a contribution of 36 per cent. I think he said that the 30 per cent. arrangement is equivalent to 36 per cent. on the cost of the house, and my calculation is that the weekly rent will be 8s. Let us assume that there is an area in a certain town which will have to be declared a clearance area and that the inhabitants will have to be housed by the urban council. One wonders where the difference is going to come from in the rent that these people will be called upon to pay. I have in mind a certain area, a town in my constituency which undoubtedly can be classed as a slum area. The people in that area are paying rents ranging from 2/6 to 3/6 per week and are in comparatively poor circumstances, some of them as a matter of fact being unemployed. Under this Bill, if nothing is forthcoming except the 30 per cent. subsidy from the Government, they will be called upon to pay a rent of 8/- per week. If there is to be an equivalent subsidy from the local authority they will be called upon to pay 5/9. Does the Minister consider that is a good proposition from the point of view of the Government, the local authority, or tenants concerned? A better contribution ought to be made in cases of that kind.
Under the financial clauses in the Bill where tenement dwellers have to be rehoused in Dublin a contribution of 40 per cent. is to be given. I am prepared to admit that there is necessity for that provision, but I submit that in provincial towns there is an equal reason why 40 per cent. at least should be given if not more. The rent that would be looked upon as very high in a provincial town would not be looked upon as a high one in the city. I ask the Minister to consider that point and endeavour to give us a higher percentage of subsidy towards houses of that nature.
Then again there is the question of houses which local authorities will be called upon to build apart from clearing an area for the purpose of doing away with slums. There are other people to be housed as well as those living in slum areas. There is overcrowding in various parts of the country in houses which could not be looked upon as actual slums. There may be something approaching slums in consequence of the overcrowding caused by different families living in one house. I submit that people of that kind are not in receipt of any more wages than those living in a slum area who would be entitled to the same consideration as those who are living in slums. There are, for instance, young people who have just been married and whose wages are not so high that they should be called upon to pay the rent which the houses to be erected would undoubtedly cost under the new proposals of the Minister. These are entitled to consideration and I hope the Minister will see his way to re-open the question of the financial provisions contained in the Bill.
The President last night said that a serious situation had arisen in so far as the yield of taxation is concerned; that people are not in a position to pay the taxation demanded from them under the last Budget. I submit that if a serious situation has arisen so far as the taxpayers are concerned, it follows that a serious situation has also arisen so far as wage-earners are concerned; that it is going to re-act upon these people if the position is as bad as pointed out by the President. I therefore appeal to the Minister to go into the matter from that angle.
Under the Bill certain subsidies are being given to rural councils to help them to provide houses for agricultural labourers. I cannot understand the mind of the Minister in this matter. He knows that at present agricultural labourers are housed at rents ranging from 9d. to 1s. 6d. per week, and as far as one can see under this Bill the rent which agricultural labourers will be called upon to pay will be between 4s. and 5s. without taking any cognisance at all of depreciation, rates, insurance or commission on collection. I seriously suggest to the Minister that that is not making a real effort to solve the housing problem in rural areas.
Taking into consideration the subsidy of 20 per cent. and taking a house at a cost of £200 which, I think, is rather low, considering that houses will be built in isolation so to speak and that it takes more money to build a house by itself than to build houses in ranges or in rows—taking the figure as I say as £200 and the subsidy as £20 from the Government we think that the fair rent would work out at something approaching 5/- a week. If the local authorities are expected to make the same contribution as the Government, that is, thirty per cent. sinking fund on loan charges the house would work out at 3/5, and that I submit is too high altogether to expect the agricultural labourer to pay, having regard to the fact that the agricultural worker's wages is low. I am not blaming anybody because I know the position with regard to the farmer who, at the moment, is not able to pay a great deal more than he is paying. But I feel that this section of the Bill and the fact that the Local Loans Fund has thrown open the rural council will not be taken advantage of if you do not make provision so far as subsidies for agricultural workers' houses are concerned. I ask the Minister to again go into that matter in an effort to try and secure the active co-operation of the different local authorities in an effort to solve the housing problem.
So far as I am concerned I would feel happier and safer as a member of a local authority in proceeding under the financial conditions that prevail up to now under other Acts. The Minister will tell me that in a few years the position will right itself, that owing to the changes in system of advancing loans whereby the interest and sinking fund will be annual instead of an annual repayment, that in a few years the position will right itself. But I submit to the Minister that we are living in a period now when a great deal is expected from the Government through the medium of this Bill. I have heard expressions of disappointment from different quarters from people who are interested in the housing problem and who are in earnest in trying to solve it and are prepared to give their full co-operation to the Minister, and who expect that he would do something more than is contained in this Bill.
The President told us that if this Bill was introduced this time last year better financial conditions would be forthcoming. He says the Government are alive to the necessity of better financial provisions for housing in this country. I would like the Minister for Local Government to approach him from that angle, especially in view of the fact that things have worsened so far as that class of the community are concerned in the last twelve months. I earnestly appeal to him in the matter of the agricultural labourer. I also ask him to rule out altogether the 15 per cent. subsidy and let us have a 30 per cent. at least for the provision of houses for bona-fide workers. As I said on Second Reading I am prepared to admit that houses have been built by the local authorities and have been inhabited by people for whom they never were intended. The reason was the high cost of building, the high cost of money and the difficulty of procuring that money for long periods. I agree that the tendency now ought to be in a downward direction of securing houses at less prices if possible so that the ordinary workers could be accommodated. I suggest that 30 per cent., at least, ought to be left as a flat rate of subsidy for the workers' houses in the different localities. Let us have a stipulation if you like that the local authorities should pay an equivalent grant of another 30 per cent. If that were conceded by the Government on a £250 house the rent inclusive of depreciation and one per cent. rate on a valuation of £5, that is 15s., insurance and the cost of collection, the weekly charge to be met by the tenant would be 5s. 9d. I think that is a fairly reasonable rent at the moment. I believe if the Minister does something on the lines I have indicated he will get co-operation from the local authorities all over the country and we will approach nearer the solving of the housing problem than ever before. But I feel that under the 15 per cent. suggested there will be a complete holdup of house building all over the country because it is going to make the position worse than it has been for the past five years. And in view of the fact that local authorities have been working for the last four or five years under these terms, at the beginning at any rate, I am afraid things will be worse. I believe the Minister will agree there is no encouragement for local authorities to proceed with houses. I would make a special appeal so far as rural workers are concerned. Agricultural workers will not be in the position to pay anything like the amount they will be called on to pay if the financial provisions of this Bill are applied to rural houses. I therefore make a last appeal to the Minister to let us know in the first place what is his conception of what the rent ought to be where wages such as I have mentioned prevail. I also appeal to him to try and do something to increase the percentages I have referred to. If he does that I feel he will have the co-operation of everybody who is desirous of contributing to the solution of this one of the worst problems we have to encounter.
It became obvious in the discussion on this Bill in its passage through the Dáil that the Government themselves are by no means satisfied with it. The statement made by the President yesterday, quoted now by Deputy Corish, of the decline of the yield of taxation and the consequent serious financial position of the State in reducing the amount of assistance which the Government could give as the main reasons why this Bill is not more generous than it is brings the attention of the Dáil to the question whether the policy on which the Government is working, the policy enshrined in this Bill, is the only policy and the best policy for dealing with housing conditions here. The situation arises in this way.
During the course of the Second Reading debate I said that the State assistance is given to housing for two reasons mainly; first the fact that this State came into existence with a serious housing deficiency which still exists, and secondly, because the high cost of building makes it impossible to erect dwellings for working class families at an economic rent. Under normal circumstances the financing of the building of houses for the working classes as a social service should be provided out of ordinary revenue.
I suggest that the meeting of the housing deficiency is something for which the Government would be quite justified in borrowing. If the State finds itself in the position that, because of the decline in the tax yield, it is unable to deal adequately with the serious social problem which it knows to exist, then I suggest that the Government should consider the advisability of pledging the credit of the country, in order to secure funds now which will enable it to deal with the housing situation, a situation which is peculiar to these years, and which, if we deal with now properly, cannot recur. If we wipe out the deficiency, and if we provide a sufficient number of houses properly to accommodate our people, then the task of merely keeping these houses up-to-date, and dealing with any situation which might result from increase of population, is one which could easily be met from year to year.
The policy of the Government has not resulted up to the present in any easing of the position, as far as people in most urgent need of proper housing accommodation are concerned. There are probably three classes to which State assistance should be given, the lower middle class people, the regularly employed artisan, and the casually employed unskilled labourer. As far as the first class is concerned I believe we have almost got to the stage when State assistance in the form of a subsidy is not necessary. I think by the giving of credit facilities under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, or otherwise, you will make it possible for persons of that class to provide themselves with housing accommodation, without direct or immediate cost to the State or local authorities. The artisan class, the worker in fairly regular employment, is provided for by this Bill. He and he only will be able to pay the rent which must be charged for flats and cottages which will be built by the Dublin Council or any other urban authority under this Bill.
The purpose of the Bill is mainly to deal with slums and adequate facilities are given local authorities to provide for the clearance of slum areas. In order to get a slum clearance order the local authority must be satisfied that the houses in the area concerned are unfit for human habitation. If these houses are so unfit you can take it for granted that they are occupied by persons who are not in a position to pay regularly a rent of any considerable magnitude. They are occupied by persons who are only casually employed or unskilled workers of various kinds who can pay at the most 2/-, 3/- or perhaps 4/- a week in rent. It is for such persons that alternative accommodation must be found if clearance orders are to be made. Such persons are not being provided with alternative accommodation by this Bill. I am convinced that the scheme which this Bill embodies will prove unworkable on that account. Undoubtedly it will provide in Dublin a number of three-roomed flats and cottages which will be let at rents of 7/- or 7/6 a week, and they will be taken by persons who are at present living in houses not altogether unfit, but in other tenement dwellings which are capable of being improved, no doubt, but which possibly could not be demolished under this Bill. The person living in the houses which you want to demolish as being unfit for human habitation, will not be able to take these flats, because they are not in a position to pay the rents which you will have to charge. In my opinion the only way of dealing with that is to increase the contribution which the State must give, or which the local authority must give, in order to effect a reduction in the rents which must be collected.
The suggestion I made on the Second Reading is one that I would like to have very seriously considered by the Government, namely, that the State subsidy should vary in respect of each dwelling in accordance with the number of people to be housed in that dwelling. I am convinced that until you make it possible for the man with a large family to come out of the slums you will not have tackled the slum problem properly. The man with the large family is the kernel of the whole problem. The rent which he can afford to pay decreases in proportion to the size of his family. As his family gets larger he can only afford to pay a smaller rent. Consequently there seems to be a very good case for adopting a scheme of grading the subsidy in accordance with the size of the family housed in each dwelling. The whole problem is one of very considerable difficulty, but I feel that we can solve it if we set out on the right lines. I believe these lines do not include the reliance on the local authority which the Minister contemplates in this Bill. The getting of money for housing schemes out of the rates is probably the worst way to get it, because rates are a charge upon the means of production, whereas taxes are generally secured out of profits. An addition to the rates is a much more serious matter for a trader or a manufacturer than an addition to the income tax. We will find that we will make it easier for the State to bear whatever annual charge is necessary to deal properly with the housing problem if we provide that the funds required will come out of the Central Fund rather than out of the funds of local authorities. I am convinced that the Bill before us is not going to do much. The Minister will find that the limited amount of work which he contemplates will be done by this Bill will fall very short of his estimate. We must concentrate our main effort and the greater part of the assistance which we are in a position to give upon the problem of providing accommodation for the people who cannot pay a rent of more than 2s. or 3s. a week.
In that connection there is another suggestion I would make, which the Government should seriously consider, and that is that as a social service, equivalent to the giving of outdoor relief or something of that kind, we should make it possible for a local authority to cease the collection of rents from unemployed persons. At the present time we give outdoor relief to the value of a few shillings a week to an unemployed man with a family, or we give him National Health Disablement Benefit or something of that kind. Part of that assistance goes in rent.
If the actual cash benefit was slightly reduced and, instead, the unemployed person was released from the obligation to pay rent, it would be of very great assistance to him. I think the time will come—the sooner the better —when we will find it necessary, as one of our methods of dealing with distress occasioned by unemployment, to relieve these unemployed persons of their rent charges. I should like to see in any scheme which the Government formulate some provision of that kind. Unless we can get such scheme we are always going to have the slums; we are always going to have overcrowded conditions in bad houses in our cities because it is the person who is unemployed for a long time whom it is hardest to provide for as well as the persons only in casual employment. There are very large numbers of people in our cities who consider themselves lucky if they get six months' employment in the year. We must deal with these persons if we are going to abolish the eyesore of the slums. That cannot be done unless we are prepared to give a much greater measure of assistance than is contemplated in this Bill.
I do not believe for a moment that this Bill is going to solve the slum problem. I am not sure that any other Bill of this nature would solve it. I do not believe that the solution lies in that way at all. I suppose the Minister was compelled to make some sort of gesture. He has made this gesture, which recognises, at all events, that the problem is there. I am not so much concerned with the slum problem in the city of Dublin. I am concerned with the slum problems and the housing problems in the country. The Minister recognises that the problem exists in the cities, but he barely recognises that a problem exists in the country. If the proposal is that cottages for agricultural labourers are to be erected to let at from 3/8 to 5/- per week, then the question will not be solved. I do not think the Minister intends that proposal seriously.
Within the last couple of months, the wages of agricultural labourers in parts of Meath have been reduced to 18/- per week. That reduction was, of course, compulsory. The unemployment question has become intense there. I do not believe that along this method there is the slightest hope either of aiding unemployed labourers to build houses or securing that, when houses are built, they will be occupied by agricultural labourers. It seems extraordinary that, in rural areas, where material is plentiful, where roads are convenient, where there are willing workers and where lime can be burnt instead of obtaining foreign cement, we are not able to make any advance towards the solution of the housing problem. Anybody who drives from the city of Dublin to Navan or Kells will see houses which are a disgrace alongside a really magnificent road. Within 15 or 16 miles from Dublin, there are houses stuck under hedges, their roofs falling in and the walls in a dilapidated condition. There does not appear to be any means of taking the people out of these houses. Within the last month or two, two or three women with children have come to me looking for subscriptions to buy some sort of wooden hut as their houses had fallen in.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
With all the unemployment that exists and all the material that is at hand, I do not think that this is the best method of financing a housing scheme or that it is going to bring about a solution of the problem. I believe it is unfair even to tempt county councils to advance money in this way. I do not think they can do it. I believe that if an attempt is to be made to deal with the problem, some form of loan should be raised. When a question is raised here as regards the need of housing, the Minister replies that the county councils have full powers and that it is the county councils' business to raise the money. But they cannot attempt to do that. The money is not to be got by the council. I think the Minister is satisfied as to that. I would have been thankful if the Minister had recognised in the Bill that there was a serious housing problem in the country. Small farmers and labourers with bad housing would then have some hope that the rural problem would be solved at all events, in the future, when perhaps prosperity would be increased or the prospect would be more hopeful than it is now.
When a labourer's cottage is to be let I get a number of communications asking me if I can use any influence on behalf of the applicants. There are twenty or thirty applicants for every house. A number of these applicants have large families and are most deserving. A number of young men are also without housing accommodation. The reply, of course, in that case would be that there are facilities available. But these people cannot avail of the facilities. There will be no progress made in the country under this Bill and the people of the country know that well. We have most expensive public health services. Everybody agrees as to that. The Minister knows that well. Bad housing in the country has increased and intensified the public health services. No effort whatever has been made to get to the bottom of this question of public health, and to reduce the expense by reducing the number of people in ill-health. One of the first steps in that direction should be to provide good housing. Within the next year or two, we will be compelled to cut down our purchases from abroad. We shall have to make some effort to produce what we need here—it does not matter how bad it will be. If we have to do that, we shall have to provide some sort of houses for the people. We cannot expect people to live in tents. Once we get houses erected, they will be good security. If we ever come to the time when we establish our own banking system—I hope it will not be long—I think we will be in a position to enlarge our credit or make it a little bit more elastic than it is at present, so that the housing question is a fundamental issue. It seems extraordinary that we should have from the city to the town of Kells or the town of Virginia, in County Cavan, one of the best roads probably in the United Kingdom. It is certainly a credit to the country. I feel quite proud of that road until I come along and see a tumble-down cabin with the roof falling in and the walls grimy and yellow. One wonders then what is wrong or if there is such a thing as charity in the State. I know that the people got good employment on that road when there was nothing else for them to do but I think that when we went to the trouble of making these magnificent roads the least that might be expected would be that we would put decent houses along these roads.
I think that the Minister at this time should be able to consider the financial clauses in the Bill and to give a little more encouragement to local authorities. I think he could increase the grants to them. If he did that some attempt would be made to erect houses. In present conditions in the country, I do not believe there will be the slightest attempt made to erect houses, and that as a result the slum problem will become worse. There is such a dearth of employment in the country districts that, if building schemes are started in Dublin, workers in the country parts will come to the city seeking employment. If they only succeed in getting employment for a couple of days or no employment they will remain here, and the slum problem will, as a result, become worse than what it is. If you want to deal with the slum problem in Dublin you must decentralise and give more employment in the country. Unless you do that the slum problem in Dublin will become worse than what it is. It is along the lines I have indicated that I think this problem must be solved. Divert some of the employment to the country and do not concentrate it all in Dublin city.
I think it is pretty obvious from the Bill before the House that the Government have got into such a rut that they are not able to offer any solution that will deal with this housing problem. In view of the facilities available for dealing with it, one must wonder and ask what on earth is the state of mind that the Government is in in relation to it? In this year of our Lord, with all the unemployed people we have, and with all the building material there is in the country, there is no reason why these idle men and these materials should not be utilised to produce the houses that are required. Thinking over the situation, the only reason I can see for the Government's failure to deal with this problem is that they are completely under the control of men who have the same mentality as the old landlords had in the famine times. Then you had the Unionists and the landlords here watching our people starve, though there was plenty available for them. They thought that they could have no happiness for themselves unless they allowed the misery, into which the majority of our people had sunk, to continue.
To-day we have here plenty of materials and plenty of men to deal with this housing problem and yet we are allowing our people to die in their hovels because of the lack of Government effort, just as people were allowed to die of starvation due to the lack of Government effort in the famine period. The fact that the Government have not produced anything helpful in this Bill is proof that they should get out and let somebody else try their hand at dealing with this housing problem. We know that there is plenty of money being raised by the State. In one way or another over a number of years past they have raised 21, 23 and 25 million pounds each year. If they took no other action than to divert that money into the proper channels they could deal with this housing problem. Instead of having an enormous number of Civic Guards it would be far better for the country if some of these men were employed as masons. That would help to get us some way along the road. If, instead of wasting, as Deputy Seán MacEóin said, one and a half million pounds a year on the army they spent that money in paying some of the soldiers to work as carpenters it would help to solve this problem. The same could be done as regards the enormous and luxurious salaries paid to Civil Servants. Portion of that money would be more usefully employed in giving grants for the building of houses.
One of my reasons for being against the payment of enormous salaries is this: that once you go above a salary of £300 or £400 a year the tendency is for a man to spend anything that he gets in excess of that on goods or luxuries brought in from abroad. Instead of employing 1,000 men at salaries of £1,000 a year each it would pay this country better to employ four times that number at £250 a year. The tendency would be for a salary of £250 to be kept within the country and to circulate here. In the case of salaries of £1,000 and of £1,500, the tendency is for the greater part of it to go outside the country. In my opinion if the Government wanted to tackle the housing problem they would pay the higher Civil Servants salaries that the country could afford and utilise the savings effected in the giving of housing grants to promote production in the country.
The Minister's scheme to make the Government grant for rural housing conditional on the local authorities giving a similar grant is simply passing the buck. The Government know perfectly well that the authorities in the rural districts are not in a condition to put up any money for housing. That is evidenced by the fact that the Government last year put up £750,000 to relieve local authorities. They knew that the local authorities were not able to bear the strain and they gave them that additional grant. Knowing that the local authorities are in a serious financial condition, more serious even than it was last year, they are asking the local authorities, or they are pretending to hope, that they will put up an amount equal to that provided by the Government to meet this situation. The local authorities will not do that because they are not in a position to do it. If the Government really wanted houses built in the rural areas they would put up whatever sum of money was required and not make that contingent on the local authorities finding an equal amount.
The Minister, on the Second Reading of the Bill, outlined what is being done towards reducing the price per square foot in house building as well as to bring about a reduction in the price of materials. That is all to the good, but in order to reduce rents to the scale that Deputy Corish wants something more will have to be done than simply to get materials at a less price than that which hitherto obtained. I pointed out on the Second Reading that it is the interest charges on loans that exercises the biggest influence on the rents that have to be charged. I pointed out that a house costing £500, if the loan obtained for it was for a long period and at a small rate of interest, could be let at half the rent charged for a house costing £300 but built under a loan obtained for a short period and at a high rate of interest. The figures are: if a £500 house is built on a loan extending over sixty years, the rate of interest being 2 per cent., it could be let at 5/2 per week. In the case of a £300 house, if the loan were only for twenty years and the interest charge 5 per cent., the rent would amount to 9/3 per week.
If the Government want to tackle the housing problem in a serious way they will have to take steps to see that loans are provided for housing purposes over a long period and at a low rate of interest. Deputy O'Reilly said that the housing problem was so serious that loans should be provided. I hold that the Government will have to see that the loans obtained are over a long period and at a low rate of interest. If they are not prepared to do that they should at any rate see that the moneys raised from the people of this State are diverted into proper channels; instead of paying a large number of luxurious salaries and of maintaining a large number of Civic Guards and soldiers they should reduce the salaries of the highly paid Civil Servants and the numbers of Civic Guards and soldiers. Many of these Civic Guards and soldiers could be employed in the building of houses. The money saved by reducing the larger salaries paid in the Civil Service, salaries that the country cannot afford, could be applied in the giving of housing grants.
On the Second Reading of the Bill, the President made a misstatement to the House which I want to correct now. He challenged members of this Party—who are also members of the Dublin Corporation and who stated that this Bill was not suitable or desirable or could not possibly bring about any alleviation in the distress that exists arising out of the shortage of houses—by saying that this Bill was better than what they had asked. He said that they had asked for a loan at 3 per cent. I challenged the Minister for Local Government and the President to produce that letter. It was not produced. The Minister stated that the date of the letter was August 15th. I made it my business since to go down to the Corporation offices. I saw the letter dated 15th August, and it does not state in any shape or form anything in relation to interest, but it enclosed a report of a meeting held by the Housing and General Purposes Committee of the Dublin Corporation of which I am a member and which meeting I attended. I challenge the President to produce it and have it put on the records of the House. This report, produced after several hours' study by the members of the Corporation with the officials of the Corporation, gives an account of the various difficulties and the various circumstances. It states that if the Corporation could get the Government to give them money at 3 per cent. for a period of 60 years, they would be able to build 2,000 houses per year, starting immediately, and they would solve the housing problem in Dublin within a period of five or six years. Will the President produce the report and the letter itself?
We say that this apology for a housing Bill which the Government introduced will not enable us to deal with the housing problem in Dublin, but we do say that if the Government shoulders its responsibility and realises that this is a national problem and gives us a loan at three per cent. for a period of 60 years, without any grant whatsoever, we will take the responsibility of tackling and settling the housing problem in Dublin, a thing which the Government have been unable to do even with their Commissioners. I challenge the President to deny what I say. I say that the letter had no reference to a loan at 3 per cent., with no qualifications. I saw the report and refreshed my memory with the details of it during the week. We were met here by that statement. We were jeered at and we were met by the President with the statement which is purely a trick: "Here money is 5½ per cent. or 5 per cent. We are going to pay 40 per cent. of the capital charges, which is not less but is about equal to what you are asking." We were not looking for money to solve the housing problem on a repayment basis of 20 years because as Deputy Aiken has pointed out the figure which he gave, the £500 house let at a 60 years' repayment basis at a low rate of interest, say at 3 per cent.—he quoted 2½ per cent.—would mean a rent of about 6/- per week, whereas the £300 house on a twenty year basis at the present rate would mean a much higher rent. I say that there are people in all parts of the House and on all local authorities who are anxious to face up to their responsibilities in dealing with this problem. Apart from the employment which building would provide, if we look at it purely from the public health point of view, if we realise what the President has stated, what it means to have a need for 80,000 houses in the 26 counties, surely some sacrifice should be made by the State to enable local authorities to go ahead, and start something that will alleviate that suffering.
There was a lot of talk yesterday on amendment 29 (b) in relation to the £20 grant, the State's contribution towards insanitary houses in certain areas. I pointed out that if the maximum grant which the Government proposed to give in this Bill were availed of in full, the total number of houses in that condition that you could deal with was 1,250 throughout the 26 counties. That is in towns and cities as the rural areas are excluded from that section. I say that the money provided for these 1,250 houses could be used up in any one of the four poor areas of the city of Dublin in dealing with insanitary houses that come within that description within a very short time.
The President yesterday made a confession that the problem was so big and that it had become so huge that in order to tackle it it would be, in his opinion, putting a burden on every seven citizens to provide a house for the eighth citizen. I want to tell the President that nobody pretends to believe that story. Nobody pretends to be misled. Nobody suggests that we ought to build 80,000 houses in one financial year. I mentioned yesterday when the President was not here and I mention it again for his benefit to-day. I am prepared to stand here to meet his jibes in case he thinks fit again to meet this point with the taunt that I am not of the particular persuasion to which he belongs. The fact that I am not of the same religion will not make any difference in dealing with this problem.
Oh, now.
I got no protection from the Chair when the President alluded to these matters. I am not ashamed of the religion to which I belong and I never appeared in the House in any other guise.
Did that occur on this Bill?
It occurred on the Second Stage of the Bill. If the President is leader of the House and sets the pace and the style of the debate, we probably have to fall in line. There is too much hypocrisy and there are all kinds of suggestions about the grand people we are. I want to look at this particular problem from the facts as they confront me. We do not want to build 80,000 houses in one financial year. We want to supply a reasonable proportion of the shortage. If the President would go again into his calculations, he might find that it might mean putting on the shoulders of 50 citizens a contribution towards the housing of one person. If he added to his calculations that a certain proportion of housing accommodation consists of flats, the renovation of other houses and not rebuilding absolutely new houses, he could not face up to the particular story which he told us here because it meant every seven citizens would have to build a house for the eighth. Would that fall to the ground?
I want to make this clear and I want it on the records of the House that the President was not fair when he pretended to read out of the Dublin Corporation memorandum that they wanted money at 3 per cent. and when he argued that we were fools because we did not see that what the Government were giving was better than what we were asking. I want it made clear that the Dublin Corporation is willing to take the responsibility on its own shoulders and that if the Government secures a loan for us for 60 years at 3 per cent. we will tackle the problem and we will solve it. I challenge the President on behalf of the Dublin Corporation in which his Party have a great number of members that he ought to subscribe to that unanimous report which he pretended to read out and which he misconstrued for the obvious purpose of belittling members of this Party who have the matter as seriously at heart as he has, if he has it at heart at all. I want to say to the President if he does not want to tackle this problem let him get out and let somebody else tackle it. The Dublin Corporation is willing to tackle it if money is made available for them for 60 years at 3 per cent.
If the present Government is not prepared to tackle it then I say get out and let another Government in who will be prepared to tackle it properly. The Government made another jibe about Deputy Ward voting against a Supplementary Budget for an additional £500,000 taxation. He said we voted against that and wanted other money made available. We gave our reasons. The President did not say that they wanted that £450,000 for housing. If he said he wanted £1,000,000 for housing we would not have voted against it. We gave our reasons. We said we were not satisfied and that we had no promise or undertaking from the President or the Minister for Finance as to what retrenchment he was going to make. That was to make up a deficiency on the Budget and no explanation was given as to over-expenditure or as to savings which were to be made and which we had not heard about yet. There is talk about £250,000 being made available for relief. There is no suggestion in this Bill that any of that money for relief will be used to help local authorities or expended in giving relief to unemployed, at the same time spending it in a way that will be of a reproductive nature. £25,000 is to be spent on insanitary houses.
I once asked a question of the President who threw back at me that I would not ask such silly questions if I understood the insanitary history of this country. What is the President's contribution to the sanitary history of this country? It is twice as bad as it was eight years ago. We were asked did we know anything about the subject. We do know something about the subject. I want to repeat that I challenge the President and the Minister to produce the letter of the 15th August and to show where it says anything about a 3 per cent. loan, and I challenge him to produce the report of the housing committee of the Dublin Corporation which gives in three or four pages the result of conscientious work and which challenges him to give us money for sixty years at 3 per cent. Keep the grants and we will solve the problem. We will not have to go to a by-election and promise £15,000,000 for housing which was promised by the Government at the North City by-election. I challenge the President to produce these documents and to show me where I am wrong.
The Deputy now admits that there was this suggestion of a loan at 3 per cent.
For 60 years.
There was a loan at 3 per cent.
I admit that was there, but I dispute the fact that the suggestion was contained in any letter.
It is now clear at any rate that there was a proposal that we need not give any grants if loans were made available for 60 years at 3 per cent.
Yes.
And all the racket that has been kicked up has been over that remark because we say we are giving the equivalent practically of that assistance. That is to say we are giving assistance the present worth of which is about £162 as against assistance worth £169.
The Minister for Local Government need not get over it that way. He knows we cannot get money on a 60 years repayment basis. He knows further that if we were to raise money to-day we do not know next week what the rate is to be and we cannot undertake to borrow money next year or six years hence if we do not know what the rate is going to be. What we say is, put us in the position that we will be able to tackle the problem. Give us money for 60 years on a 3 per cent. repayment basis and we will tackle it.
I have the letter here. It is under the signature of T. W. Robinson and is dated the 10th August, 1931.
The letter I refer to is of the 15th August.
The letter is under the signature of T.W. Robinson. It is dated the 10th August, 1931, and it sets out at the top of the page——
Which is the letter?
Let the letter be read.
I want to know——
Mr. T. Sheehy
Give fair play. The Deputy got fair play in the House when he was speaking and he should allow it to others.
Is it the 15th or the 10th?
The Deputy was allowed to speak for nearly 20 minutes without a single interruption and surely the Deputy ought to allow other people to make their speeches.
On a point of order, if the most responsible person in this House makes a suggestion and if he is asked to back up that suggestion and if his next in command, the Minister for Local Government, refers to a letter of August 15th and if it is now proposed to read out a letter of August 10th——
That is not a point of order.
It is.
I am to decide what is a point of order.
May I intervene on a point of fact which is very much stronger than a point of order? I was proceeding until the Deputy interrupted me to give information which is conveyed under the hand of T.W. Robinson—I presume it is Sir Thomas Robinson—Chairman, and is dated the 10th August, 1931. That is Sir Thomas Robinson's Report. It has been forwarded to the Department of Local Government with a covering letter dated the 15th August, 1931.
That is the one.
Would the Deputy restrain his impetuosity. I have here the facts and the figures.
Put them on the records.
I am going to put them on the records. The Deputy stated that the application was for money at 3 per cent. and no grant.
For 60 years.
For 60 years. What exactly is meant by that statement? Do we borrow money at 3 per cent.?
No.
What do we borrow it at? We need not go into the details of a fraction, but approximately it is——
5 per cent.
5¼ per cent. We will say 5 per cent. if the Deputy wishes, but I believe, taking it over the last few years in respect of the loans we took out, it would be nearly 5¼ per cent. Therefore, £2 5s. per cent. has to be found by somebody. The Deputy starts off by saying we want no grant. Who is going to pay the £2 5s. per cent.?
The Government.
Aye, but no grant. What do we call this sum of money which the Government must hand over and which the Deputy objects to being called a grant?
Do you want an answer now?
I did not interrupt the Deputy. The Deputy proceeds to interrupt me, but I will give way to him if he will explain.
What I said was, and if the President will take the trouble to read the speech——
I never read speeches.
If the President would try to educate himself occasionally it might be a lot easier for everybody. What I said was that the State has the responsibility and this responsibility is to make money available for local authorities at 3 per cent. over a period of 60 years, and no grants beyond that. Give us the money at 3 per cent. no matter what you pay for it. That is your responsibility.
It is our responsibility?
Yes.
It is the responsibility of the taxpayer. This is the report I have before me. It happens that there is a sort of balance sheet laid out. It says "Outlay, capital charges at 3 per cent. on loan of £1,100,000 for sixty years". That is to solve the housing problem in Dublin. That is the request—£1,100,000. I suppose if we get a figure, there is no limit to the number of times it may be multiplied to find out what the Dublin Corporation means. That is the figure. What will £1,100,000 do towards solving the housing problem?
Per year. Read the thing and understand it, but do not try to make a joke of the whole thing—of your own Sir Thomas Robinson.
I am not making any joke of Sir Thomas Robinson. Sir Thomas Robinson is a business man. I am taking the figures which have been put before me and on which the Deputy said I misled the House.
We will build 2,000 a year.
It would appear to me that the Deputy has got to make a speech first and then to interrupt everybody afterwards to get his meaning plain. Let us go back again to this return. We have got the outlay and income.
"The deficit, as shown above, at £25,697 upon the basis of an annuity loan for sixty years at 3 per cent. is equivalent to 5d. in the £, and if it increases by a similar amount in each of the five years the housing rate in the fifth year would have increased by 2/1d. in the £. The adoption of the latter proposal would, therefore, effect an ultimate saving in the rates of approximately 2/1d. in the £."
The "adoption of the latter proposal" means this: "The annual deficit in respect of 2,000 dwellings upon the basis of an annuity loan for forty years at 5½ per cent. would be £54,502, equivalent to approximately 10d. in the £, increasing by a similar amount in each of the five years, so that in the fifth year the housing rate would have increased by 4/2d. in the £."
The first point for consideration in connection with this is, what is the actual value of that request. The second point is what is going to be the cost to the State, say in five years, of this particular proposal. It is fairly heavy. When you take a single sum of £1,000,000 and an actual deficit of £25,000 which has to be met by the local authority, I think it will be discovered that the contribution by the State in respect of the difference between the 3 per cent. loan and what money can be borrowed at is practically equivalent to the same sum. 2¼ per cent. on £1,100,000 is £24,750. So there is no difference between the two figures. One is £25,697 and it includes various items, such as maintenance, supervision, rates on £9 valuation at 16/7d., insurance and vacancies. Even if there were no alteration in the figures, 2¼ per cent. is practically equivalent to the loss on the local authority.
For the first fifteen years.
What is the necessity of introducing irrelevant and foolish interjections?
Is it not in your Bill?
I am dealing with the figures before me. The Deputy says they want no grant, that if we give the money at a much lower rate than we can borrow it at, they will solve the question. There is no business in this country of any sort or kind that could not do the same thing in the same way. There is no business man in the State who if he was in a position to borrow money at 2¼ per cent. under the normal rate would not be able to achieve that purpose.
Housing is an ordinary business!
One of the businesses of the State. What I want to prove is that the request of this body has been to all intents and purposes met in practically the way the proposal was put up. The value of the advantage which the Minister has enshrined in the Bill in cash is £162. The value of the request from this body is approximately £169. The burden in respect of the two bodies under the Bill is the same, fifty-fifty. The balance sheet that is submitted to us by this body at present in charge of this service in the city of Dublin is practically fifty-fifty. What is all the pother about? It is from their own figures that I am taking that.
The Deputy went on to say that I had exaggerated the case yesterday when I said that practically every seven heads of families in the country were, in connection with this problem of the provision of approximately 80,000 houses, liable for the cost of one house. That is the average. I am not saying, that if you took seven men from the banking classes or the directorates of bodies or persons in receipt of incomes of four figures and so on, one of that class is going to be provided by seven of that class with a house. The average figure, if we require 80,000 houses, works out as I have said. There is no doubt whatever that seven citizens of the State will have to bear the cost of providing one house over the period which will elapse in dealing with the problem of providing 80,000 houses.
It is alleged by many people, particularly from the Front Opposition Benches, that we have not faced up to this problem. In essence, what we were invited to do when we first assumed responsibility for administration here was to start out with an immense programme and we were told the maximum number of houses ought to have been built in the beginning. In common with other countries we have entered upon an economic cycle which does not permit of any extravagance or any expenditure over and above the capacity of the people to bear. The cost of building in 1922 was approximately 15s. per square foot; the lowest cost in this year is approximately 10s. 6d. per square foot. Between 14s. and 15s. was the cost in 1922, and I think 10s. 6d. for this year would make a comparable figure. Building costs have gone lower than that, as the Minister stated in his opening speech. If I were inclined to score politically on this matter I could say that we are condemned because we have not got a pile of debt at the present moment on the backs of the local authorities or on the State in respect of the provision of a service at a cost of 15s. which can now be carried out at 10s. 6d.
I am sure in their sober, levelheaded, sensible and unexcitable moments the Deputies opposite will agree that that would not be a business proposition. Over a period of nine years, and I think we might reasonably exclude one year from that period in view of the disturbed conditions, a total of 26,000 houses have been provided with the assistance of State funds. That is a creditable record and such statements as have fallen from the Deputy who has just sat down, that the insanitary condition of houses is twice as bad as it was eight years ago, is the merest piffle. Everybody knows that that is not a fact. Is it contended that the provision of that number of houses, which nobody from any political platform had ever asked for, is not a creditable achievement?
As I announced last night, houses to the number of almost 14,000 have been provided in the rural areas. Did any political party ask for the provision of these houses? In accordance with the best traditions of British political parties, the party in opposition here simply adds an extra nought to any figures that we present in respect of expenditure for public purposes or for social services and they say that that amount ought to be provided no matter how it is to be got and no matter who has to pay for it. Occasionally I get letters from America asking if certain extravagant statements featured in certain newspapers are correct.
The President then has to contradict them.
I would not exactly say contradict them. I think I would have to enter into a very lengthy explanation of that.
The President ought to.
Deputies opposite if they ever expect to be saddled with a responsibility higher than what they have got at the moment, if they ever anticipate that, will find themselves in an extraordinarily difficult position because, whether through their own agency or through the agency of their friends or for whatever cause, this country is featured in certain parts of the United States as a poor, impoverished, wretched, miserable country.
Coerced.
Right—coerced. When I look across there and see the victims of coercion I wonder what is meant by the term or whether it has not changed absolutely.
They are to be seen elsewhere.
One of the questions put to me by one of the correspondents in America was: Is it a fact that conditions in Ireland, in Dublin, are bad in respect to housing? Just imagine what a problem it is to answer a question like that.
The President could have told the correspondent that he had turned the corner.
The impression abroad is that the people are living in terrible, deplorable, insanitary, unheard-of conditions. That is the position as it is described to people abroad. What would be the result of that translated into statistics in which the Deputies opposite revel? They would show that the zymotic death rate was high; that the curve in respect of the ordinary death rate was high. What are the facts? The facts are that over a period of ten or fifteen years, the period during which those awful conditions have been featured on certain political platforms as being worse than ever they were, the death rate in this country has been lower than at any other period and that is particularly so in the case of the City of Dublin.
It has gone up.
No, it has gone down. I am taking the death rate now for all over the country. I will admit at once that the death rate may have some relation to the depressing utterances of persons speaking on Fianna Fáil platforms. Allowing for a moment that that crescendo is off, and I presume that for the next twelve months it will be off, I have no doubt a corresponding improvement will take place. In 1922 we took over responsibility here after practically eight years, in which there was no attempt made to deal with the housing problem not only in the cities but all over the country. The building industry was practically idle. Wages were high and so were other costs. Materials, labour and so on were as high as ever they were. During that period and down to date, with all these disadvantages, 26,000 houses have been helped by the State.
Take the County Mayo as an example. Did anybody ever conceive that a Government in its first eight years would have been able to contribute towards the provision of 2,000 houses in that one county? Fully 1,500 houses have been erected under our Housing Acts and something like 500 under the Gaeltacht Housing Act. We have to consider what the capacity of the ordinary taxpayer is equal to, not alone in respect to this, but in respect to other problems. We have to do everything possible to keep the building industry going. We have to relieve insanitary conditions in cities, towns and country districts. We ask co-operation, a shouldering of the burden, on the part of the people immediately in touch with the problem of the provision of houses.
It is said by Deputies that it is unfair that it should not be done, because the immediate results, the immediate costs, will have to be borne by individual ratepayers in each case. Very good. If it is to be relieved further moneys must be found and other things taxed. What are we to tax? Tea? Approximately 5d. in the lb. on tea would be necessary to provide all that the Deputies want in excess of what has been proposed in this measure. 5d. in the lb. on tea; are Deputies going to stand for that? Are Deputies going to stand for an extra tax on incomes if we are not to tax tea? Approximately there would have to be a tax of 3d. on petrol and almost the same tax as we have already imposed on sugar in this year's Budget —any one of these would provide the necessary moneys. May we not have got to the saturation point in respect of taxation? If there is shown a reduction in respect of the revenue from the various taxes imposed, is there not a danger signal in respect of that? If costs are high and obviously they must be high when there is a request and a demand put forward for a subsidy in respect of this housing industry does it not show that prices had to come down somewhat and that some effort ought to be made to bring them down, and alternatively if we are to make a special effort to deal with it, we must either reduce the standard of the supply of houses or we have got to get some other means of getting the people to share the burden.
The whole finance of this Bill has been very carefully considered. It has been considered in the light of the present serious economic slump. If the revenue returns were better the finances of this Bill could be better and would be better. Until the revenue returns improve we must cut our cloth according to our measure. We must bear in mind that this is not the last Housing Bill and that something more than criticism is desirable in solving a problem of such magnitude and such complexity. We must bear in mind that there is no easy, royal, or even republican road towards the provision of a large number of houses in the country. I invite Deputies to remember that so far as I know outside England such contributions as have been given towards the housing problem by the State are negligible in comparison with what has been done here. They are negligible having regard to the relative wealth of the country and its capacity to bear such a burden as this.
One point to which some attention should be given is this: The provision of 14,000 houses or an average in excess of 500 for each county in the rural districts must have contributed very considerably towards relieving the necessity for housing in these areas. In my journeys through the country I have observed in most cases that the provision of new houses was by way of replacing old and insanitary houses judging from their appearance. The people made a special effort to provide themselves with better houses. There is much more to be done there and I think we are not unreasonable in asking the local authorities throughout the country in connection with this big problem to lend their aid. The basis of the Bill is framed with that intention and it is not an undue demand to make on them, bearing in mind the fact that the State has put up £2,500,000 in the last nine years towards this service of housing.
I indicated in the speech I made here some time ago that while the country has been taken to task by the President of the Executive Council and asked to consider seriously this problem of communism which is said to exist, the country ought also be asked to take into consideration the other side of the question. The other side of the question is the failure, now admitted by the President, of the Government to deal with this matter. I do not say that the whole responsibility for the failure is on the Government. That responsibility is on conditions generally as well, but I do say that they have failed and that the statement just made is simply a candid admission that the Government has failed to tackle this problem of housing in Dublin in the way in which it should be tackled.
The President has given no indication that if he is returned to power at the coming general election that he will do any better for the dwellers in the slums of Dublin than he has done during the past eight years. He says he cannot get the money at a low rate of interest. In a remarkable, arithmetical quibble he tries to defeat the perfectly intelligible argument of Deputy Briscoe. That argument was that the Dublin Corporation, a body eminently qualified to go into this question, which has gone into it and which has more representatives of the President's supporters than of all other Parties, has put forward a proposition that by the Government taking over responsibility for a portion of the interest and sinking fund charges, an effort might be made to place a large sum of money—I do not care what it would be, whether it would be £1,100,000 or less—at the disposal of the Corporation. The President's reply to that is that the Bill gives the same facilities as the Dublin Corporation's proposal suggests. How can the President suggest that there is a comparison between the sum of £26,000 which is to be given in grants and the sum of £26,000 which would make available the much larger sum stated to be £1,100,000.
The Deputy does not understand what he is talking about.
The Minister can deal later with what I am talking about. The point, as I understand, is that the Government is asked to contribute a certain sum to pay interest and sinking fund charges on a large capital amount yearly and they tell us that they are paying substantially the same sum, but they forgot to mention that the capital sum of £1,100,000 is left out. It is not there. The capital sum which it is suggested should be made available is not there.
I suggest that if we are discussing the problem seriously, if we are to deal with it in a non-Party spirit, we ought not to take up the attitude of brushing aside proposals which I take to be serious ones and which have been put forward in a real spirit of attempting to solve the problem. We ought not take up the attitude of trying to brush such proposals aside by quibbling and saying that, in fact, under this Bill we are doing substantially what the Corporation of Dublin wants. We are not doing anything of the kind. The President said this problem existed before his Government took office and so it did. He says that no Party before the Saorstát came into existence even suggested that they could solve this problem. He says that that was not even suggested before his Government took office. The position is that in this small State of less than 3,000,000 people you have probably the worst slum conditions and a larger number of people living in these bad conditions than in any other capital or State in Europe which can be compared with ours. You have that situation. It does not matter whether it is just as bad, or whether it is worse, as I think is generally admitted. Every other class in the community has gone ahead. The standard of living has increased and the standard of wages has increased. We see people enjoying luxuries and comfort and amenities that they had not before the war, or during the war. It is not denied, however, that the slum problem is at least as bad now as it was then and, I think, it could be argued that it is very much worse. If we were progressing in the same way as other countries, we would have made some advance in the direction of removing that blot from our country and in dealing with the problem as it ought to be dealt with.
The President said that the efforts made in other countries outside Great Britain are negligible. My reply to that is that countries like Germany and Austria, which found themselves in far worse difficulties than we have, which had tremendous industrial and post-war problems, such as countries never before have had to face, have made a respectable effort to solve the housing problem on a large scale in Berlin and Vienna. If these countries in these conditions could make that effort, in spite of the extraordinary financial stringency they have suffered from ever since the war, is it argued that, because this problem was neglected, because people did not look into it or consider it seriously before the Free State came into existence, and public opinion was not roused, and is not even yet possibly roused to the magnitude of that problem, that that relieves the Government of responsibility? At any rate, they were a native Government. Members of the Government and of the Government Party had an intimate knowledge of the conditions in the city of Dublin, and when they say that they have not been able to do any better than they have done, and that they propose to do in this Bill, I say that the verdict of the country will be that they have failed in the task.
Great capital has been made in the discussion of the number of houses built in County Mayo. The Minister for Local Government admitted that in County Mayo there were only a few hundred labourers' cottages built, whereas in other counties, such as Co. Limerick, which has not anything like the population or the congested conditions existing in Mayo, thousands of labourers' cottages have been built and are let at a very small rent. The Congested Districts Board, in my opinion, did far more than the present Government for rural housing and housing in the congested areas than the present Government have done. I am willing to admit that the Government in introducing the Gaeltacht Housing Act took a good step and I pay tribute to them for the way that work has been carried on. Very little, however, has been done up to the present. I have not the figures by me, but if we take the record of the Government, the small amount of work that has been done on the Gaeltacht Housing Scheme, and the other houses that they claim to have built in the rural areas, and compare that with the work done under the Balfour régime, it will have to be admitted that they have not done what would have been expected from a native Government.
Although the Deputy has not the facts for comparison !
The Deputy has not the facts that the Minister has and I hope the Minister will deal with them.
The Deputy has not the facts but he has the feelings.
I shall produce the facts at a later stage. With regard to the question of confidence and the doctrines that are being preached in America about the Free State, I do not know whether the President is charging this Party with responsibility for something that has appeared in an American paper. I should have thought that sufficient revenge had been taken upon that paper, which has done more than any other paper to further the cause of Ireland, not alone during the past struggle, but during the Land League. Where were the people who now support the present Government or their antecedents when the "Irish World" sent £45,000 to this country to enable the men who were then carrying on the campaign to put the land of Ireland into the hands of the people? Where were these people who now talk about the "Irish World"? Whatever the "Irish World" may have done recently, and however we may disagree with it, if we have statesmanship, and if we want to get the support of Irish America and make Irish America feel that on big questions we can all be as one, let us for goodness' sake not forget the things that the "Irish World" has done in the past. With regard to the argument that something that may appear in that paper or any other paper is calculated to prejudice the Government or prevent them dealing with problems of this kind, what about the speeches of Deputy Seamus Bourke in Tipperary about Communism, or the speeches of Deputy Dr. O'Higgins who spoke about the evil influence of Fianna Fáil on a man like Henry Ford, who is supposed to have scratched his head, moryah! Twice before he thought it wise to start a factory in Cork, feeling that if Fianna Fáil came into power the whole thing was going to go up in smoke? What about the interview with the Minister for Justice, which was blazoned on the front page of the "Daily Express," in which it was suggested that a Communist uprising was imminent here and something terrible was going to happen? Are they not calculated to injure the credit of the country? Are they calculated to improve the prospects of success of the religious festival next year that we all hope for? If we go into the question of propaganda we are never going to get finished. Parties make the best case they can against their opponents.
I have consistently stated in this House and outside, and I stand for it, that for many years past any Government or anyone who had the slightest knowledge of conditions in Great Britain and elsewhere must have known that a crash was coming and that in that crash Irish agriculture was going to suffer and was going to be the worst sufferer and I say in that matter the Government have not shown foresight. My charge against them is that at the time they were trying to rebut our arguments that the situation was critical—that at any rate it was such that it should be attended to, because it was likely to get very much worse before it would get better —they made no effort to deal with the situation and they simply told the people that they had turned the corner. The people know now whether we have turned the corner or not and they will know more in the next year or two.
Now we have the argument that we cannot get these things done because it would mean extra taxation. A Deputy of my Party stated to me yesterday, and I agree with him, that we would require to have a population of some 15 million people to enable us to maintain the standard of administration that we are at present maintaining. The situation is that we have that administration and we are not able to get rid of it overnight. We do not want to inflict hardships on individuals or classes, but I submit that if we want to come down to bedrock and face the housing position and the other problems that have to be dealt with, we shall have to tackle the question of administration. What is the use of saying that we have to tackle it now because the crisis has come upon us? If we were men of foresight we should have seen that things were inclining that way, that a situation would eventually arise in which circumstances would compel us to take action. Would it not have been better to take action in the beginning, even if we did inflict a great hardship rather than to have to take it later on when we would have to come forward with the guillotine and cut down even essential social services as apparently is threatened. I have no sympathy with the argument of the Government that the Fianna Fáil Party by propaganda have made things more difficult and that statements in America have injured the credit of the country.
The Fianna Fáil Party never refused and never will refuse co-operation with the Government or with any other Party when they genuinely set out to solve problems and social problems in particular. We are all Irishmen and we are eagerly anxious to do our bit. If the President was really sincere about the question of propaganda he should suppress the "Irish Times" and speak very strongly to the Most Rev. Dr. Gregg, Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, both of whom have taken great pains to show the country that this problem of housing is so bad and so serious and that the conditions in Dublin are absolutely scandalous. They indicated, and I have sympathy with their point of view, that if those of us who have money in our pockets and can afford it had a little more Christian charity in our hearts, if we showed a little more Christianity towards the poor and had a little less vapouring about Christianity, we would do far better.
The Dublin Corporation have put forward a proposal and I think the House should make an effort to deal with it. I want to know why the Government have not made some effort at any rate to meet that proposition. I want to know why they turned down flatly the proposition which seemed to every person of commonsense to be the only one giving ground for hope that we can tackle this problem properly; why the proposition of placing a definite capital sum at the disposal of the Dublin Corporation annually or every two or five years, at a low rate of interest, has not been considered? If the Government think they are going to convince the country that because in England services have been cut down, they are going to be allowed to do the same here without protest, they are making a great mistake. No one is more anxious to have economies effected where economies are necessary than I am, to eliminate waste, and to reduce the personnel of the administration as far as possible. But we must remember, and I think that even those who put the MacDonald Government in power know that there are great and serious arguments against this policy of wholesale cuts, particularly in matters such as housing, where you would be depriving people of employment. I think everyone recognises now that while there is urgent need for economy and while efforts must be made to cut our cloth according to our measure—and the agricultural industry in particular demands that—side by side with that in large centres of population, it is recognised if you take steps too suddenly and deprive the working classes of their purchasing power and deprive them of employment you are going to injure trade, in shops, in the wholesale houses, in the factories and everyone is bound to feel it.
We should try to put money in circulation for urgent problems in the City of Dublin and elsewhere and as far as our limitations and resources permit us to do so I feel we are doing by far the wiser and better thing from the economic point of view if we try to revive trade and confidence in that way than simply coming out with the axe in our hands and saying we are going to cut down everything irrespective of the consequences. Let us show that we have a balanced policy and that while we believe in economies on the one side we are not going absolutely to cut off social services, but that rather we are going to do our best to provide employment where employment is necessary. I say that in the long run that is the best way to give a fillip to trade and public confidence.
I had no intention of taking part in this debate and would not have done so but for the efforts most deliberately made to mislead the country. Deputy Derrig talked about the Government not agreeing to the Dublin Corporation proposal. He talked about his sympathy with agriculture and with the position agriculture is in in the country at present. When Deputy Derrig asks the Government to come to the aid of the Dublin Corporation in the terms of giving them a loan at 3 per cent. he is asking the agricultural community about whom he is so concerned to come to the aid of the Dublin local authorities. Knowing as we do that money cannot be borrowed at less than 5¼ per cent. the agricultural community is to be asked to bear the difference of the 2¼ per cent.
The Government say they are doing it.
I am dealing with the thing as it actually is. Local authorities in many counties in Ireland and certainly in the county that I am acquainted with, have solved their rural housing problem at least to the extent of 90 per cent. If more is needed it will be forthcoming, but they have already solved it to the extent of 90 or 95 per cent. Having done that in the county I am best acquainted with they are to be asked to come to the aid of the Dublin Corporation. Every one knows that the standard of living and comfort and luxury to be seen in Dublin is very different to the standard to be found in the bogs and lanes and hillsides of rural Ireland. The rural workers of Ireland, as has been admitted by Deputy O'Reilly, are in receipt at present of wages of 18s. a week. What is the rate in Dublin? Anything from £3 to £5 for the better class of artisan —the people, in fact, who do get the houses built by the local authority. The man with 18s. a week is asked to come to the assistance of the downtrodden individual in Dublin with a wage of £3 or £4 a week. That is the argument used here to find fault with the Government's proposal. If cheap houses have been found in the country for the agricultural worker they have been found at the expense of the farmers and the local taxpayers and these burdens have been shouldered by them.
I remember, being for 25 years a member of a local body, that we deliberately taxed ourselves at a rate of from to 6d. to 1/- in the £ so as to lighten the rents of the agricultural workers. We did that deliberately and solved the problem and having done that we are now to be asked to come to the aid of the Dublin Corporation. It is not the Government that is asked to do it; it is the country that is being asked to do it. According to Deputy Briscoe they say they are willing to shoulder the responsibility on the condition that the Government provides a loan at 3 per cent. Having done so their coffers will benefit from the rents that can be obtained in Dublin. I dare say the rents that will come in will almost wipe out their liability on a loan at 3 per cent. At any rate the margin must be very small that the Dublin ratepayer will be asked to bear considering the rents that can be obtained. The agricultural community is asked to shoulder 2¼ per cent. What goes into their coffers? Nothing. This is certainly a business proposition that does credit to Deputy Briscoe as a business man. People in the country are not so blind as not to understand the situation. They are not half so blind as Deputy Derrig thinks, and they are not half as big fools as Deputy Derrig or Deputy Briscoe think. If they have not turned the corner they are able to see as well around the corner as most people.
Mr. Doyle
I am not concerned with the differences between political parties but I am concerned about the housing of the working classes and particularly that class whose means does not enable them to get houses for themselves and their families. While I support the Bill it is no harm to point out to the Minister that while we have discussions about solving the housing problem Deputy Gorey knows that it is not solved even in Kilkenny.
Within 5 per cent. of being solved in Kilkenny.
Mr. Doyle
That is not my information. The problem is not being solved and it cannot be solved by this Bill. While we hear statements that the agricultural community is paying for the housing of the working classes, on the other hand it must be remembered that the working classes are paying an extra ½d. in the lb. for sugar and that the farmers are relieved to that extent. For instance, the extra tax on sugar represents 30/6 in my own case in a year; I have to pay that so that bloated ranchers in Westmeath and other places may get a free grant at the expense of the working classes. The same thing is happening in connection with butter. Out of a miserable wage the working classes have to pay an extra 4d. per lb. for butter. We have not been told that. A nation's most precious asset is its people, but when it comes to housing the people we hear growls about the cost of building houses. At the same time the Minister makes it impossible to house the working people. While the agricultural community have got considerable reductions in their rents the Minister for Local Government has allowed public bodies to increase the rents of labourers' cottages by 100 per cent. Is that the way to treat the working classes? Another burden on the people is the high cost of school books. I would like to know how many well fed, well groomed Deputies could exist on the pittance earned by the working people? How is it that if internal trouble breaks out the State is able to arm every man with a gun, to pay him and to feed him, while, when the country is confronted with such an important problem as the housing of the working people, money cannot be found except by making the rents prohibitive? I would ask the Minister to grant all the concessions and all the facilities he can to local bodies in order to help in some way to solve the problem of housing agricultural labourers and the working classes generally. It is absolutely essential that the people should be well housed. It is just as essential as water is essential to the living plant. If the people were well housed they would be contented, and no nation can be prosperous that is not contented.
Domhnall Ua Buachalla
An sceul do thug Maitiú O Raghallaigh, Teachta, dhúinn ó chianaibh, A Leas-Chinn Comhairle, i dtaobh Condae na Mídhe mar gheall ar staid na dtighthe, tá an sceul céadna díreach le n-aithris againne i gCondae Chilldara. Tá a lán, lán tighthe—na céadta dhíobh— nach bhfuil oireamhnach mar thighthe fothana do bheithígh, gan trácht ar iad a bheith oireamhnach do dhaoine. Do chuireas ós comhair na Dála an lá fé dheire cás amháin—agus ní cás fé leith é—i dtaobh sean tighe i n-a raibh na fallaí ag claonadh amach agus iad dá gcoimeád i n-a seasamh ag tacaí móra adhmaid; agus ar an dtaobh istigh an díon féin dá choimeád i n-airde ag taca eile adhmaid; agus an díon féin, ní raibh ann ach carn mór aoiligh! Agus mar a dubhraigheas, ní cás fé leith é. Tá a lán tighthe mar é. Do chuireadh sé náire ar Eireannach—go deimhin, do chuireadh sé náire ar dhuine ar bith— a leithéid de thighthe comhnuidhthe a d'fheiscint ar fud na tíre.
I dtaobh an deontais úd, an fiche púnt, ní leor ná ní leath-leor é mar dheontas, agus ní dóigh liom go mbeidh tigh sa bhreis againn de bharr an Bhille seo.
I cannot say that I agree with all that the last speaker said, but I want to say, by way of preface, that I have endeavoured since my advent to the Dáil to face up to the realities of every question, and of every position that presented itself from time to time. In connection with housing and in connection with matters concerning local government, when a Minister responded to requests made in this House, in any measure, I have always felt that I should support him by my vote, even though it may be said that it is the function of an Opposition to oppose.
I challenge the whole position of party politics in this State for this reason: If a Minister of any Department responds to the extent of 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. of any demand, it is a positive policy as distinct from the negative attitude taken up here from time to time—an attitude which, I confess, I have myself taken up on occasion because of the party system. In this Housing Bill, with all its defects and faults—some of them inherent—there is a decent attempt to deal with the problem, having regard to all the circumstances. I qualify that statement by saying "having regard to all the circumstances," because we must remember that we cannot get more out of a pint pot than a pint and that we cannot put more into a pint pot than a pint. Let us get down to earth in these matters.(Interruption by a Deputy). Deputy Fahy will have a chance of saying what he wants to say later. Let him say it in a language we all understand and then there will be no ambiguity as regards any of his phrases or fine sentences.
I could talk for some hours on the text used by Deputy Derrig—one of the most responsible Deputies in the Fianna Fáil Party and one of the most responsible Deputies in this House, a Deputy for whom I have a very sincere regard. He says: let us cut our cloth according to our measure. That was the one bright spot in his whole speech. There, he was facing up to the realities of the situation. Again, he says that we must cut down some things and have a well-balanced policy. His speech gave no evidence of any attempt to institute a well-balanced policy. I come from a city where the housing problem is just as acute as it is in Dublin. We have slums in the city of Cork. We are endeavouring by local effort to get rid of those slums. I hope that this Bill will enable us to go a step farther. I feel that in all the circumstances—I use the qualification again—this is a decent contribution to the solution of the problem. It will be said, with a good deal of truth, that certain sections of the community will not be served by the provisions of this Bill. I have in mind a most deserving section of citizens in the city which I have the honour to represent—the dock labourer and people of his class who have only intermittent and precarious employment and who work, perhaps, for only half the year. There is not in the Bill anything approaching a decent settlement of that phase of the housing problem. But, again, some attempt has been made to provide houses for a section of the community who will vacate their present houses and, perhaps, leave them available for the persons to whom I refer—the men who have only precarious and uncertain employment.
I do not want to take up too much time, because I want to give the Minister an opportunity of replying. I should like to act in a sportsmanlike way towards even a Minister who happens to be in opposition to me. Deputy Gorey has, I think, an altogether wrong perspective in this matter, and in kindred matters. He speaks of the conditions of the agricultural labourer, conditions with which, I may tell him, I am very conversant. The Deputy forgets a rather important factor. I sprang from the farming class myself, and I can say that Deputy Gorey's education in economic matters must be very limited. He forgets one factor in our trade and commerce—the factor of distribution. The farmer's produce must be distributed. The agriculturist is rarely a businessman. Some farmers are, of course, an exception to the rule, and combine farming with a certain amount of business. In speaking of citizens whom, he suggests, the agricultural population are to be taxed to serve, Deputy Gorey should remember that the dock labourer and the ordinary general labourer enter into the scheme of things and transport the agricultural produce to which he referred. That is one of the commonest errors made in this country. We have people of the mentality of Deputy Gorey insisting every day—as if we wanted to be told it—that the agriculturist provides 75 per cent. of the wealth of the country. That is fundamentally true, but without the other adjuncts to that industry, agriculture would be in a much worse position than it is at present. One cannot conceive of a state of affairs in which agriculture, left to itself, would be a success, as we interpret the word "success" in commerce. I would stress the point raised by Deputy Doyle, that many among the labouring classes in the country are not sufficiently well housed. I am sure the Minister appreciates that and will endeavour to meet it, if not in this session then at some future period. The rural worker cannot afford to pay a high rent. If his wants are to be supplied, in so far as housing is concerned, then of necessity the scheme to meet that must be subsidised by the Government or by a local authority. To a large extent that position was met under the old British regime as well as by our own Government, when we had local authorities building houses and letting them, if not at an economic rent, at a low rent. I put that point on behalf of the rural workers, in view of the fact that agriculture is our main industry.
I do not want anyone to get away with the idea that the workers in the cities and towns have not contributed in any way to the welfare of the farming element. They have, and I think it is an immoral doctrine to preach to our farmers and agriculturists who, I admit, are in a bad way at the present time, that they are like the old man of the sea—maintaining the rest of the community, and that the rest of the community are idlers and loafers. That is the kind of clap-trap and balderdash that during the last 12 months has been preached at the cross-roads of this country. I think it is time that we faced up to the realities of the position. As long as I am in opposition to this Government, and possibly I will continue for a long time in opposition to it——
What?
When Cork City returns me again as one of its representatives I will be in opposition to the Government, but, at least, I have the decency and sportsmanship to acknowledge when the Government do come forward and meet the situation half way, to say so. When, as I hope, they will later on come forward and meet us three-quarters of the way I will also acknowledge that. I am not going to act like some of the Jeremiahs who go around the country to the cross-roads saying "this damn Government is no good, they are robbing and fleecing the taxpayers." That is not fair propaganda. I am in opposition to this Government, but even so, I am prepared to give credit and honour where credit and honour are due. I hold that this Bill represents a decent attempt to solve the housing problem in this country, and for that reason I am going to support it.
I have only a few words to say on the Bill. Deputy Anthony has said practically everything that I intended to say. There is just one thing that I would like to bring to the notice of Deputies who represent rural areas, and that is the generous part that the cities have played in finding grants to meet the situation in the rural parts. They have got very little credit for that, I think. I would like to know what would be the amount of these grants if it were not for the contributions of the six or seven cities and big towns in the Saorstát. In direct and in indirect taxation, the people in the cities and in the big towns have provided a large volume of the money which has been distributed throughout the country. They should get credit for that.
The rural parts of the country have been very fortunate as regards housing legislation. It is due to the members of the old rural district councils to say that they built a great number of cottages. They built them well and cheaply, and let them at a reasonable rent. Of course, we have to bear in mind that the cost of building in this country is far in excess of what it is in England or in other countries. I do not know if that is the builders' fault. The builder will say that it is the workman's fault, but between them anyhow the cost of building in this country —it is just as well for us to be candid about this and to get out of the political atmosphere when discussing it— is far in excess of what it is in other countries. That, of course, does not help the poor working man to get a decent house. Rural Ireland has certainly got good houses and cheap houses. In many of the small towns and urban areas the people are still very badly housed. There is another class of man who has not got very much consideration, and that is the cottier farmer. I hope that when funds permit he will get special consideration, especially those of them who live in districts outside the Gaeltacht. Deputy Anthony said that in present circumstances the Minister had done very well by bringing in this Bill. I agree with him. The Minister could not be expected to do more with the means at his disposal.
Having spoken on the Second Reading of this Bill, I only wished to put two questions to the Minister, but in view of certain remarks that have been made by Deputy Anthony I feel that it is necessary for me to deal with the Bill more elaborately than I had intended. I am sorry that Deputy Anthony has left the House, because I wanted to put some questions to him. This Bill is looked upon as a measure to provide housing for the very poor. If it is, one can apply the acid test as to whether it is going to fulfil that purpose or not. The acid test is whether the rents that will eventually have to be charged for the houses when erected will be within the reach of the ordinary working man to pay. From an examination of the Bill I am absolutely convinced that it will be impossible for the majority of working men to pay the rents that will have to be charged for the type of house that it is proposed to erect under this Bill. I do not say that in regard to cottages built under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts. In regard to these Acts the Minister is already aware that the county councils throughout the country are not availing of their provisions to provide houses for workers in the rural parts, and the reason is the high rate of interest charged on the loans to enable schemes to be carried out.
The rate of interest charged on loans advanced for the carrying out of schemes under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, and indeed in connection with housing schemes generally throughout the country, is the one vital factor that has to be considered.
On the Second Reading of the Bill I put two questions to the Minister. One was that in 1922 the British Government owed this country a certain amount of money in connection with the erection of cottages under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts. The Kerry Board of Health raised this matter, but its claims got absolutely no consideration. It was denied that there was any money due under that head. The County Council raised the question that there was money due to this country from the Road Fund. It was denied that there was any money due under that head, but ten years afterwards, as we learned the other day, money is now forthcoming from the Road Fund. I suppose that the money due in connection with the Labourers (Ireland) Acts will also eventually be forthcoming. What I am concerned with is that the Kerry County Council took over 12 or 14 years ago 16 plots for labourers' cottages. They fenced and drained the plots. They went through the usual legal formalities, and got possession of the plots. At the end of a certain number of years, owing to a technical flaw in the Bill which allowed the different Boards of Health to take over these plots, the plots can revert back to the original owner on his paying back the purchase money if the Board of Health fails to build cottages on them. I asked the Minister if he would insert a clause in the Bill to say that the plots ought not revert to the original proprietors. He said it was in the Bill. I hold it is not in the Bill, and I ask the Minister to point out the particular lines in the Bill, and to show me exactly the clause that deals with it.
The other point which I would like to put to the Minister and to the Government is to give an expression of opinion as to whether they consider that it is a just state of affairs which relates to the sites for houses around cities. Whenever there is an attempt made to extend housing schemes, some estate agents will step in and purchase the land on the outskirts of the city. They immediately charge an exorbitant price for the sites of the houses. I hold that if any of these estate agents has a right to charge exorbitant prices for the site of a house, the Minister for Finance or the Government has a perfect right to say to him: "Well, if you are going to place a certain value on the site of a house, we have a right to place that value on the rest of your property and to assess income tax at that rate, and also charge rates on the same valuation." In making that suggestion I was simply guided by the fact that experience has shown that when a housing scheme is proposed these people step in, buy the sites, and then charge an exorbitant price for them. The reason I mention the matter is that the cost of the site is usually about twenty-five per cent. of the gross cost of the house. If we deal with this site question in a reasonable way I believe that these are the foundations on which you will eventually frame a decent housing scheme.
It is all very well for Deputy Anthony and other Deputies from the cities to stand up and glorify this Bill. I admit that there are certain clauses in the Bill to which I do not object, even though they apply only to cities. May I repeat once more what I stated on the opening stages of the Bill, that I have a strong objection to building industrial suburbs around factories and flats in slum areas. I have a strong objection to the building of flats on the slum sites which are condemned at the present time. I hold that the doctrine that was preached by the present Government was, that when the Shannon Scheme would eventually be in full swing the intention was to develop industries in the rural areas rather than in the towns. Deputy Anthony has stated that country Deputies should be condemned for going round to cross-roads and always pointing out that the country mouse is, as it were, feeding the town mouse. I believe that if certain advantages are going to be given to the city in this Bill some equal consideration, or very nearly equal consideration, should be given to the country. Looking at the matter from the point of view of the rural areas, we find that when the Government introduced its first Housing Bill the grant which they gave to people who intended to build their own houses was £70. In the second Bill they reduced that grant to £60, and in the third Bill they reduced it to £45. That was in the 1930 Bill. They are now giving the glorious sum of £20 conditional on the county council giving a further sum of £20.
I have always said that the policy of the Minister for Local Government was one of centralisation. When it comes to a question of distributing money, the central body, in other words the Local Government Department, does it, but when it comes to a question of collecting money the county councils have got to do it. They have gone even to the length of making the county councils collect the land annuities from defaulters in their areas. There seems to be a peculiar outlook on the part of the Minister as far as public bodies are concerned. One day he will walk into the House and take the local authorities into his confidence and the next day he will minimise their powers. We had an instance of that in the Cork Corporation recently, when even the English Press was laughing its sides out at the way in which the Manager of Cork City was bossing the members of the Corporation and treating them as small boys. Under last year's Bill a grant of £45 was given from the Central Fund, but the Minister now states that the local authorities should provide £20 and that the Central Fund will only provide £20 more. As I have already said, the policy of the Minister, apparently, is to get local bodies down the country to collect the money and he will administer it.
As I have dealt so largely with the question, I do not think it would be fair if I did not give my views of the principles upon which a housing scheme should be based. Most people in the country are very much attached to their own land. Everybody seems to have real regard for anything that they can call their own. A good way to solve the housing problem would be for the Government to allot a certain amount of money to pay the cost of outside materials for the building of the house, and where landless people are concerned that they would provide the site. Before the Land Commission deal definitely with any more untenanted land on their hands, I strongly urge that they should get in touch with the Local Government Department to see if they could not come to some understanding that a certain amount of the land be set aside to meet the needs of housing schemes in the future. It is rather difficult after the land has been divided amongst certain people to get it back for building sites, but now, when the land is in the hands of the Land Commission, especially in the vicinity of cities, I hold the first duty of the Local Government Department should be to get in touch with the Land Commission to see if a certain amount of the untenanted land could not be retained for housing schemes in future.
Regarding the question of outside materials, I would suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider the question of grants for individuals in rural areas who intend building their own houses, and that he would give an increase of £10 in the grants to those persons who build in stone rather than concrete. In that way he would be keeping the money spent on the schemes in this country. A lot of that money at present goes across Channel, and to other countries for foreign materials. As I stated, I would not have dealt so largely with the Bill were it not that Deputy Anthony, who is supposed to represent the working man, stated that the houses which will be built under this scheme will be let at rents which will be within the reach of the working man. We know of houses that have been built by urban councils. We know of all the capital that has been made out of these houses, but we know that the houses have been sold at £450 and £500 each. The idea of a labourer being able to produce £400 or £500 for one of these houses is altogether absurd.
We have criticised from these benches the financial provisions of the Bill, by pointing out that the workers we represent will be unable to avail of these houses, as the rents will be so high. Deputy Anthony has been blowing hot and cold. He has held this Bill up as a great measure. He has gone further even than the President, who last evening made his apologies for the Bill by pointing out that owing to the financial condition of the country he was unable to give the local authorities more financial assistance to build houses for the working classes. Deputy Anthony in his speech said that this Bill was a decent contribution to the housing problem. In the next moment he pointed out that a large number of workers in Cork, whom he represents, will be deprived of any advantage under this Bill—the agricultural worker and the dock labourer. This is the Bill which Deputy Anthony hailed as a glorious contribution towards the solution of the housing problem.
If the workers of Cork will agree with Deputy Anthony, I have some sympathy for their intelligence. I have been connected with public boards, and I represent the workers in my own constituency. I know what the workers want. I do not blow hot and cold with capitalists or employers. I always speak out on behalf of the people I represent. I say that this Bill will only touch the fringe of the problem. It will be of no use whatsoever to those who are in need of houses at the present time. It may give some concessions to the men with good wages who can pay a rent for a house; but the man whom Deputy Anthony speaks about — the unemployed agricultural labourer and the man in receipt of 10s. a week home help and who is living in an insanitary house—will have to wait until someone can come along who has a real conception of his wants and can put him in the same position as his fortunate brothers who are in constant employment. We have asked the Minister on behalf of the rural areas to give what the British Government gave to enable the district councils to build decent houses for the agricultural workers—to give to the people in the rural areas, and to give to the boards of health a long-term loan for sixty years to enable them to build houses for which the worker with a small rate of wages can pay a rent. I have been connected with boards of health from their inception. They will not put an extra burden on the rates at the present time, and they will not increase rates for the purpose of providing houses for the working classes. This Bill will put an extra burden upon boards of health that have a huge problem at the present time, as the Government refuses to take over responsibility for the unemployed. Boards of health are doing the Government's work in trying to relieve in a small way the unemployed. How can you expect boards of health not only to relieve the unemployed but also to put a charge on the general taxpayer to build houses for the agricultural worker? I say, speaking for the majority of the members of the boards of health, that they will not vote for any rate that will mean an increase on the already high taxation of the people in the constituency I represent. They even condemn the high rates at the present time. The Minister points out that this will be a scheme that will solve the housing problem for the poor man. I hope he will explain how he will be able to secure a house for a man earning 10s. or 18s. a week who is working for a farmer and is in need of a house. That is an important type of man in our principal industry. How will he secure a house unless the balance of 3s. is accounted for by a county-at-large charge? I see no other way out of it.
I would not have spoken at all only that I heard Deputy Anthony misrepresenting the position of the workers of this country. He talked of the party system. He seemed to obey the party system for a long time until a recent occasion. I would prefer to see him on the Government Benches than to find him misrepresenting the position of his constituents in Cork by pointing out to the Minister that this is a glorious Bill.
I did not say that it is a glorious Bill.
You held it out as a glorious Bill.
This is a gallery speech, I think.
Deputy Lemass, in setting out the type of people who are interested in the housing shortage and the general things that are associated with the housing problem, divides them into the lower middle class, the regular employed artisan or workman, and the casually employed workman. When we throw our minds back over the type of criticism there has been of this measure we are driven, in the light of that criticism, to look back and see what is proposed in this measure for the assistance of the lower middle classes, the regularly employed workman and the casual worker. Taking the big things first, the position in the City of Dublin has been very much discussed here. What we are doing for the City of Dublin here has been criticised, and Deputy Derrig has told us that we are quibbling about it. We are told that the Dublin Corporation Housing Committee, having considered the general position here, put up certain proposals to the housing department for long term loans at a small rate of interest, sixty years at 3 per cent. Deputy Derrig says we are quibbling when we say we are making the contribution to the Dublin Corporation, a contribution that is practically the same as what they ask for. If Deputy Derrig had either read what Deputy de Valera's organ had to say about the Housing Bill, or if he had been here this morning when I was replying to Deputy O'Kelly, he would realise, as I told him then, that he was talking about something that he knew nothing about. The circulation manager of Deputy de Valera's paper ought to get after Deputy Derrig and a number of other Deputies who spoke here, because while Deputy Anthony may not have designated this particular Bill as a glorious measure, the organ I refer to spoke of this as a serious attempt to provide a solution for the housing problem in the Free State.
And I said something similar.
It does not say anything about what was done before, because it calls it the first serious attempt. Deputy Derrig would have found out from the discussion on the Bill that it places no limit to the aggregate sum which may be lent by the Board of Works to the local authorities for housing purposes.
It also provides a substantial annual subsidy in the reduction of loan charges. He says with regard to the City of Dublin Council by way of cheap criticism of us, that they are a body eminently qualified to go into the matter of housing in Dublin. That is what I have been arguing as against certain Deputies' proposals that a national housing board should do work of this particular kind. We consider that the Dublin Corporation is the best housing board you can get for the City of Dublin. If the Dublin Corporation are not able to borrow these moneys on better terms than the State can provide them, then it is claimed the State should provide the capital moneys necessary to deal with their housing problem here. It would be the same with Cork. It would provide them with contributions towards the repayment of interest and loan charges that are the equivalent of what is asked. We are being criticised in respect of our proposals in respect of Dublin by persons who have not taken the trouble, even though some of them may be Deputies, to find out what exactly we are proposing.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]
The City of Dublin's present proposal is to build approximately 2,000 flats or other accommodation every year. That is their proposal for getting rid of the insanitary areas. We were told to direct our attention to the way these matters were handled in Berlin and Vienna. We were told that by Deputy Derrig, and to a certain extent from the Labour benches. What was done in Vienna was: they built their houses out of revenue, and they rented them at rents that would simply meet the upkeep. If the present proposal of the Dublin Corporation was done on the Viennese system it would mean a 14/- rate for the particular purpose. These were the proposals for a solution of the problem in Dublin. We propose to provide large urban centres with the capital moneys they require. We propose to make a contribution towards the loan charges that will be equivalent to 36 per cent. of the total amount. We expect that the local authorities' contribution will be about 36 per cent, too, so that the workers in the cities of Dublin and Cork, in so far as they are housed in flats, will be asked to contribute what amounts to 28 per cent. of the capital cost of the building. That figure is small because the cost of flats is so high. If people are re-housed in separate family houses we do not run up the figures. The State will bear 24 per cent. of the cost, the local authority approximately 24 per cent. and the occupier will be expected to bear about 52 per cent. If that is higher than the 28 per cent. it is because, in the first place, the accommodation may be more valuable. The provision of separate family houses in any of those smaller areas will cost less than the provision of a flat. When over-crowded houses are relieved as a result of the application of the local authorities' by-laws, re-housing grants will operate. It is quite reasonable that the better-paid workers will get into these new dwellings. Where dwellings that have been over-crowded are put into a reasonable condition and allowed to be inhabited, the more lowly-paid workers will naturally avail of them.
The Bill also provides for the buying of tenement houses suitable for occupation by the very poor classes. It provides for grants from the local authority and the State on a fifty-fifty basis. You might say that philanthropic bodies will look after these houses. In these circumstances, the very poor will be housed. So that there is machinery set up to house the well-paid worker, the casual worker, and the worker of the poorer class. We are endeavouring to get public utility societies and speculative builders to build houses that will come within the capacity of a person who wants a house at a cost of £600 or £650. We are inducing the building of these houses by continuing the grant to private persons. A person who will confine the building to 950 square feet will have that grant. I feel certain that the local authority will realise the necessity of giving every assistance in the building of these houses, and that they will provide the £20 per house that will be required in order to get a State grant, as well as a two-thirds remission of rates for seven years. In the case of 1,250 square feet there is no grant, but there is a seven years' remission of rates. In the case of £1,000 houses, the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act is open. The principal thing in this Bill from the urban areas point of view, apart from the power of getting rid of insanitary dwellings and acquiring sites, is the £80 grant. Deputy Corish has been asking how that is going to affect places like Wexford. He complained that we are not giving the same grants as we gave before. In the Deputy's town, houses are being built at a cost of about £250, all in. The State assistance there is worth £60, and the local authority's contribution about £60. That means that the occupier of a house like that will be meeting approximately £132 of the capital cost. I pointed out to the Deputy before that it would not be even necessary to meet £130 in Wexford if the building costs were reduced. If the costs were reduced by £30 the occupier would only have to meet £100.
In dealing with the insanitary houses and the transfer of occupiers to new houses there is no necessity, as Deputy Anthony thoroughly appreciates, to have direct transfer. I have expressed my views as regards rural housing. I have not time to deal with the mentality that has been brought to bear on that question. A suitable opportunity will arise at some other time.
There is a serious attempt made here at dealing with the work that requires to be done in rural areas. Deputy Aiken talked of wanting to "pass on the buck" in respect of these problems. There is no use in "passing on the buck" to the seven benches here. The responsibility must be borne from one end of the country to the other. I have been challenged as to my attitude to local authorities. Local authorities are carrying on the work of the people, and anything that I am doing is helping them to get work done.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be sent to the Seanad.