Speaking on this Estimate last night I referred to the fact that Deputy Mulcahy had put before the House lengthy statistics designed to show that the cost of erecting 16,000 houses under the Housing Act, 1932, had been £2,216,000, as compared, he said, with an expenditure of £1,609,000 in the erection of 24,000 houses under his administration. In reply to a question by me during the course of his speech Deputy Mulcahy stated that portion of the £2,216,000 was spent in allocating substantial subventions towards interest charges in the matter of slum clearance schemes, those schemes alone costing, as a capital estimate, £1,220,000. He indicated that £54,000 had been spent in subventions towards interest charges in respect of houses erected under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, and that £541,000 was the estimated capital cost of the subventions towards interest charges in respect of the erection of labourers' cottages. In all, he admitted that £1,816,000 had been spent by way of subventions towards the erection of houses under those three categories.
As I said last night, the whole philosophy of Deputy Mulcahy's speech last night was that house building was costing too much. I think he will hardly object to my interpreting his speech as an indication that so far as he was concerned he doubted very much whether we could afford to spend that sum of money on houses. I think his whole point of view was that we ought to stop and take stock to see whether we could continue to spend such sums of money on house building. There may, perhaps, be good reasons from the Deputy's point of view why there should be that stocktaking. My curiosity in the matter is sharpened by the speech made by Deputy Minch, who came into the House last night and threw Deputy Mulcahy's cautious policy to the winds, advocating the mobilisation of every conceivable kind of publicity, including the films, to push forward a mass scheme for house building. Apparently Deputy Minch was not much impressed by Deputy Mulcahy's point of view that we could not afford to spend so much money on houses. Deputy Minch wanted to have a whole-hog house-building policy. Here I am tempted to ask whether Deputy Minch's policy or Deputy Mulcahy's policy really represents the official policy of the United Ireland Party—whether their policy is that adumbrated by Deputy Mulcahy, who casts doubts on our capacity to continue spending money on house building, or whether their policy is the policy indicated by Deputy Minch, who wants mass scale schemes of house building, and the utilisation of the films in order to ensure that there would be sufficient publicity for schemes of that kind?
Apart from that question, I should like to ascertain from Deputy Mulcahy what precise aspect of this expenditure it is that he objects to. It is perfectly true, of course, that we can save money on house building if we do not give such substantial subventions towards slum clearances, but does Deputy Mulcahy want slum clearance schemes impeded? Does he want the slum clearance problem to continue? Does he want to slow up the housing progress which is being made by stopping the present substantial subventions in respect of slum clearance schemes? Does he want the rent of houses erected as part of the slum clearance schemes to be increased by 100 per cent., because, as the Deputy knows, the fact of withdrawing the subventions will not only impede the slum clearance schemes but will have the effect of purely economic rents being charged for such houses. If Deputy Mulcahy wants to be economical in respect of expenditure on house building he can, of course, advocate the abolition of subventions in respect of slum clearance schemes. If that is done, of course, we know that the slum clearance problem will get back to the same position in which it was under the Deputy's administration. We know also that economic rents will be charged for such houses, and that the tenants of such houses will be required to pay rents 100 per cent. greater than are charged to-day. If there is more money being spent on houses to-day than there was during the Deputy's administration it is due to the fact that the State is now treating slum clearance as a problem of urgency, and is doing more to-day to rid the country of those dens of disease than was ever done during the Deputy's administration. We could, of course, save money on house building if we were prepared to say "The slums must remain with us." We could, of course, save money on slum clearance schemes if we were prepared to say that rents twice the existing rents must be charged, but is Deputy Mulcahy prepared to advocate that policy? It seems to me that the Deputy must realise on reconsideration that unless we are prepared to continue the policy of substantial subventions in regard to slum clearance schemes there is no possibility of our being able to rid the nation of those dens of pestilence, and no possibility of our being able to house people at rents bearing some proportion to their capacity to pay.
The Deputy, of course, made a point of the fact that £541,000 was spent in subventions towards interest charges in respect of the erection of labourers' cottages. The Deputy might have said that during the period of his administration they did not spend £541,000 in the erection of labourers' cottages, though perhaps it would be quite unnecessary to point that out, because the plain fact of the matter is that not a single labourer's cottage was erected during the 10 years from 1922 to 1932. If £541,000 is spent to-day in the provision of labourers' cottages it is because of the fact that the State to-day is providing for the erection of labourers' cottages, though during the Deputy's administration apparently no consideration was given to the question. I think the expenditure of every halfpenny spent in the erection of labourers cottages is fully justified. If the Deputy had been able to say in his speech last night that his administration spent £1,541,000 in subventions towards interest charges for the erection of labourers' cottages I think he would have been able to show that his Party, whilst in office, had been able to make a substantial contribution to the provision of labourers' cottages throughout the country. I do not think that Deputy Mulcahy will object to my interpreting his speech as being calculated to throw doubts on the capacity of the nation to continue to finance house building to the present extent. I think the nation's health position and its housing condition are such as to make it absolutely imperative for the State to continue spending large sums of money on house building activities. There is no greater form of waste and no greater form of extravagance in health than to allow the slums to continue, and to allow our people to go on residing in rain-soaked mud cabins throughout the country.
I would advise the Minister not to take any notice of the excessive caution advocated by Deputy Mulcahy last night, but to continue the comprehensive house building policy which is a feature of the work of his Department. Right throughout the country there is considerable admiration for the house-building activities which have been inaugurated. If there is any feeling in respect of house building it is a demand for more and still more houses to be erected, and that house-building should be carried through much more speedily than is the position to-day. While on the speeding up of house-building, I would invite the Minister's attention to the reply given in this House recently showing the number of labourers cottages erected in the various counties. On examination of that return the Minister will notice that a number of boards of health have not taken advantage of the Housing Acts in the manner one would expect from them. Many of the boards of health have adopted the go-slow policy in respect of house building and, in particular, in respect of the building of labourers' cottages. Fifty-nine cottages have been erected by the Carlow Board of Health. That figure compares very unfavourably with other counties throughout the country. If Deputy Minch were here I would advise him to ask the majority party in the Carlow Board of Health, who are of the same political complexion as himself, to put into operation some of the advice he gave last night.