The Minister has made some statement which, while containing a certain amount of truth, yet give a false idea of the real position. Deputy Cosgrave has referred to the talk about expenditure, and to the criticism of expenditure made from this side of the House. We certainly regard the provision of houses as a very desirable form of expenditure. As I said on the Second Reading of the Bill two days ago, I am particularly interested in the position of Dublin. While I say that, I do not want it to be taken that I do not wish well to the rest of the country. But the position is that the population of Dublin is increasing, while the opposite is true of the rest of the country. Hence, I would like to make a few remarks about the housing problem as it affects Dublin and district.
The Minister, I think, will admit that there is a very grave housing problem in Dublin. It is possibly one of the greatest problems that confronts us at the moment. What has caused that problem? Dublin is an old city and a walled city. Some people blame the Danes for our housing problem. If that reason consoles them, they are welcome to it so far as I am concerned; but we have inherited this problem, and we have got to solve it. In our opinion the ideas of the Government in approaching this problem are far too narrow. That is the first point I want to put before the Minister. If, in his opinion, any wrong statements are made from this side of the House on this question, I hope he will take the opportunity of contradicting them.
This is a very complicated problem. There are many sides to it, and it can be approached in a variety of ways. I think it is a pity that in the last couple of years we have not had some debates on the housing problem. A couple of years ago I twitted the Minister on that, but we have not had any since. If we had such debates they would help to educate us on this problem. For one thing, they would help to prevent the Minister contradicting himself. It would be a great advance if we could find out whether the Government have any logical ordered idea of the way that the housing problem in Dublin should be tackled. I said before that the building industry, if it was to contribute its share to the problem, would require to know some years ahead what was expected of it. I observe that the Minister made this statement in the Dáil two days ago:—
"Subsequently it was decided to restrict the floor area of houses in urban areas that would be eligible for grants to 800 square feet. Up to then a house of 1,200 square feet in floor area was eligible for a subsidy. It was hoped that the reduction in area would induce speculative builders to engage in the production of houses suitable to the requirements of the average working-class family, and thus to some extent relieve the demand on the local authorities."
Now, that is sheer nonsense, and I will tell the House why. The Minister seems to think that the speculative builders have a sort of double dose of original sin, and that they have set out to combat the supply of houses for the working classes. The trouble is that they have got to cater for a certain small portion of the community who can pay for their houses. If the working classes could pay for houses the speculative builders would put them up for them, and in a couple of years there would be no housing problem. That is the point. It is not the speculative builder's sin that he puts up a house that is slightly bigger than the house that is required for the housing of the working classes: it is because he finds there is a market for that type of house.
The next point is that when one of those, houses is put up it results in the moving of a family out of a house in Dublin, and leaves the problem of the housing of the working classes temporarily less acute. I would like to suggest to the Minister that, supposing 10,000 houses of this type were put up in a single year and that a very big portion of the City of Dublin was vacated, would not that solve the housing problem temporarily for a certain number of years? That is why you have got 3,000 houses unfit for human habitation, that they cannot be pulled down because you cannot put people under canvas. The problem is that there are not enough houses available, due to the fact that people have crowded into Dublin, and that building is only going on at a certain rate.
The next contradiction that I would like to bring to the Minister's notice is to be found in his own statement made the other evening, in which he said:—
"Deputy Dockrell raised the question of the £45 grant in urban areas. It does not come as a surprise to the House, I am sure, that that £45 grant should cease, because it was mentioned here on the last two occasions on which I spoke in introducing the annual Housing Bill. Certainly on the last occasion I made a pretty specific pronouncement that the intention was not to continue the £45 grant after the expiration of the period covered by that last Bill."
I suppose the Minister considers that that is a responsible statement and that we ought to take him at his word, but apparently he has only made up his mind to that in the last few days, because on the 17th November the following question was addressed to the Minister:—
"To ask the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if his Department have ceased to issue certificates A under the Housing Acts to builders, and whether he is aware that this proceeding is likely to stop the provision of houses under the Acts."
The Minister's reply to that question was as follows:—
"The issue of certificates has been temporarily discontinued pending the annual determination of the number of cases where certificates have been issued and works are not being proceeded with. I am not aware of any grounds for the statement in the latter part of the question."
The latter part of the question referred to the possible stoppage of the production of houses. Apparently, therefore, on the 17th November, the Minister thought that these grants had merely been temporarily discontinued. Now, to-day, he tells us that they have been discontinued. I should like the Minister to look at what the effect of that is. He told us that builders had informed him that they did not want the £45 grant if they could get the Acquisition of Houses (Small Dwellings) Act implemented under the corporation. The truth about that matter is that a £45 grant is no use to a person who has not got the money to buy a house. The Minister has translated that into saying that the £45 grant is no use, but that is a very different statement. What is the position as regards the Corporation (Small Dwellings) Act? I think that £250,000 was made available in January, 1936. Now, that has been gobbled up—that is the only word I can use to describe it—and practically anybody now can go into the corporation and put up a scheme and, unless somebody has fallen out or there is some invalidity in their suggestion, they cannot get on with that.
There is another class of person to whom the £45 grant is a very serious matter. As I have said before—and I should like the Minister to correct my ignorance if I am wrong in saying this —the problem of housing in Dublin must be taken as a whole. I say that there are three main sources of supply, and each one of them is serving just as useful a purpose as the other. I have referred to the provision of houses by the corporation for the working classes. Now, it is very desirable that that should be gone on with just as quickly as possible, and, if it can be got on with any quicker, I should be very pleased to see it. At the same time, the corporation are doing an enormous work and I think they will find it difficult to increase their production. As I said before, if they are able to increase their production I shall be very pleased to see it. Now, you have got another source of supply, and that is the person who is going to be helped by the corporation to buy a small dwelling. As I have said, that is being gobbled up.