Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 9 Feb 1945

Vol. 95 No. 19

Private Deputies' Business. - Housing of Dublin Workers—Motion.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

I have the honour to propose the following resolution:—

That the Dáil is of opinion that the provision of 20,000 more working-class dwellings for Dublin is a major post-war problem, and that the failure of the Government to announce its decisions with regard to some of the aspects of this question is holding back the plans of other Parties who must necessarily share in the solution of this vexed problem, and accordingly asks the Government to make an immediate pronouncement in the matter.

I am quite sure the Government are just as anxious as we are to solve the housing problem. My contention is that they have not given enough consideration to a very complicated question. The Dublin housing problem is a very old one. It has many facets. It is intimately linked up with the twin problem of unemployment, and it has been a major problem in this country for three generations. Why is there any housing problem? Dublin started in early times as a desirable military position. The angle caused by the junction of two rivers, and, more desirable still, high ground in between, made a site which was eminently suitable for military operations in olden times. The Danes were probably the first to seize this advantageous position. Coming down to the Middle Ages, Dublin was a walled city, and, when those walls were done away with, the city boundaries were just as constricting. As an instance of this influence as between Dublin, an old city, and say, Belfast which is a modern one, in the early part of the present century many people started businesses in the latter place, due to a wider choice of location and facilities. This, of necessity, had its attendant repercussions on employment.

Many mistakes have been made in housing. It used to be the aim of most of the city corporators to get a building scheme promoted in their particular ward. Before the boundaries were extended, the corporation objected to promoting housing projects on which Pembroke and Rathmines would draw the rates. Another aspect on which there has been much muddled thinking is where the houses are to be built. This House has heard of the man who works on the docks and lives in Rathmines, but what about the man who works in Rathmines and lives on the docks? If there were a free market and an ample supply, those people could change their houses and get near their work. I remember some years ago hearing of the case of a bus driver who lived in Kill o' the Grange, and sometimes had to leave the last bus into the garage at Donnybrook. When he had left the last bus into the garage he had to walk home to Kill o' the Grange, taking his chance of getting an odd lift from a motorist. Who will deny that manufacturing firms, and especially wholesale ones, are moving out of the city to sites with good roads and sewers, and with gas and water laid on? Is industry to have the centre of the city, and the workers the outside, or are the workers to have the centre of the city and industry the outside?

The 1926 Census showed that in the present city area there were 26,000 families each living in one room, made up of 15,000 families of three persons and over, 6,000 families of two persons, and 5,000 families of one person. Nearly 2,000 insanitary basement dwellings are occupied, as well as a large number of condemned habitations.

Of the candidates for houses, the people from unsound and insanitary dwellings and people suffering from serious diseases have first call on the supply of houses. There is also the normal increase in Dublin's working-class population. Newly-weds have to compete for houses and the chance arrivals from the country swell the number of candidates for corporation houses. Is it any wonder that the ordinary claimant for a corporation house has lost heart?

The high-water mark of building was 2,000 working-class houses per year. The Minister for Local Government told us there were 4,000 sites planned. After the first two years in the post-war period we will probably come to a standstill. How long ago was the clearance of the Whitefriars Street area started? I suggest it is coming close to seven years. If 20,000 sites were planned it would change the face of the city and one would get an idea of the extent of the problem. The Government have elbowed everybody else off the job and I submit they have considered only one facet of the question. They said they were doing their best, and possibly they were doing their best according to their lights. They said no one else could do more and they stopped at that.

There are many other aspects of the matter not touched by the Government. There are many people living in working-class dwellings who could pay for a house for themselves. Look at the number built under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. Many of the purchasers under these grants were potential competitors for a worker's house. Belfast has made substantial progress by giving a free grant of £100 to anyone who built a house to Government specification, and £100 at a very low interest. Private interests have built or taken up many of those houses. For the last 11 years the output of houses has been:—Dublin, urban and rural, by the local authorities, 14,000; private persons, 8,000; public utility societies, 2,000, making a total of 24,500. I have altered the figures slightly so as to make them a little bit plainer.

If one allows for the war, will this rate of progress solve anything? The corporation are doing their best, but the Government will have to approach the problem from several angles. Many more sites than at present envisaged will have to be provided. Anyone who can pay for a working-class dwelling should be given one, and let him go out of the crowd.

I suggest that these figures, though they are very rough and ready, are more or less true about schemes in the centre of the city. It takes a year to plan a housing scheme, a year to acquire the site, a year to clear it and a year to build it. I do not think the ordinary person realises that there is so much preparation before the builder comes on the scene. Some people have jocularly said that the city is falling faster than it is being built. I would not like to say that that is quite true, but it is a picturesque description of a very undesirable state of affairs.

Mr. La Guardia, the Mayor of New York, has spent millions of dollars preparing drawings for post-war building in his area, and if the war ceased to-morrow he could lay contracts in a few days. It is no use the Government saying they will have a wonderful building programme completed in 25 years. Can they start any scheme to-morrow? In England they are turning the plant used on the preparation of aerodrome sites to the preparation of sites for houses in the post-war period. Have our Government got any plans along these lines? If they have, why not make them known?

There are certain reasons for the failure of private enterprise to supply houses. Each one of them has its due weight. I would like to suggest that the housing problem is made up of a number of questions. Each one of them examined by itself is so small that it scarcely looks as if it merited attention. I think housing is about the only want in this city that, certainly before the war, had not been fulfilled for anybody who had money in his pocket to pay for it. I think we can all remember that at the end of the first war there was a whole lot of shortages of clothes and various other things and in a few months there were no shortages at all.

I should like to suggest to the Minister some of the, possibly, lesser reasons for private enterprise having practically ceased to build these smaller houses. One of the reasons is the five-fourths assessment, under Schedule A, which an owner has to pay, and the withdrawal of the allowance for repairs to a man who owns his own house. On the Labourers Bill it was stated that repairs cost from 29 per cent. of the rent in Co. Wicklow to something like 120 per cent. in other districts. The Rent Restrictions Act has prevented the building and letting of houses becoming a commercial probably say: "Oh, well, would you contemplate taking off the Rent Restrictions Act and letting houses go to their economic price?" I do not think I should be prepared to do that, but I should like to suggest to the Minister that for too many years the Government have looked on at that question, and that they ought to have realised that it would ultimately dry up the supply of houses at the source from which they were formerly supplied.

I suggest that the solution of the housing problem calls for an alteration in the approach to it by the Government. I have already said that some of them were very small, but the effect is cumulative. There are not enough sites available, and I should like to suggest that the acquisition and layout of such sites as are available should be gone on with at the present time. No builder gets clear possession of a site, and it is popularly said that most builders, when they are asked to go in on a site and start building on it, use a certain amount of bad language over the way in which they are given a piecemeal delivery of the site. I am not denying that there is something to be said for that on the corporation side also. Is it suggested that 2,000 houses per year is the maximum output of Dublin builders? If so, I should like to deny that. What is wanted is a long-term policy. We have heard about delays resulting from all sorts of things. I have mentioned the acquisition of sites, clearance of sites, and so on, but there may also have been strikes and other things. All these things, however, only cause delay for a certain time, and if enough attention were given to these matters, I feel that these 2,000 houses could be doubled once supplies are available, and, possibly, stepped up still further.

Another point that I should like to make is that a tremendous amount of consideration is given to the selection of a site for housing. I believe that some people who back horses are wont to shut their eyes and point with a pin at the list of starters, and that the horse at which the pin points is the horse of their selection. I think that you can almost approach a map of Dublin with a pin, with your eyes shut, and, provided that you do not land in a river or on an existing building, you can be practically sure that any place where there is room for a house is a desirable site. Dublin is very badly laid out from the point of view of people wishing to cross the city, and if there were more traffic arteries, I think there would be less complaints about housing, particularly from the point of view of the workers who, naturally, would like to be housed as near as possible to their place of employment.

The corporation say, in effect: "We are out to house the poorest section of the community. We want to cater for those people before anybody else. We are not trying to cash in on the demand for housing, but we are doing the best we can to catch up with the demand. Our housing scheme involves a loss of over 2/- on the rates, and we will not build houses for people who are able to build them; we will be putting too heavy a strain on the city finances if we move any faster." The Government, on the other hand, say: "We have used all our powers." Now, most people can agree with those two points of view as a general statement, but where does all this get us? Does anyone think that we will solve the problem on these lines? I would suggest that most of the Deputies in this House will have headstones over them before this problem is settled, at the present rate of progress. Of course, that does not mean that I am wishing my fellow-Deputies any harm, but the problem certainly calls for some clear thinking. How is one to increase largely the supply of very cheap dwellings?

Mr. Lydon

On a point of order, Sir, may I ask if the Deputy is entitled to read a speech in the House?

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not usual, but where there are so many figures, as would appear to be contained in the Deputy's statement, it can be allowed.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

I can assure the Deputy and the House, Sir, that I am not reading this out word for word, but I have a number of notes here that I am trying to string together. I can show them to the Deputy afterwards, if he wishes to see them and, if he looks at them, I think he will find that there is a considerable discrepancy between what I am saying and the notes that I have here. However, I was saying that this is a problem that calls for clear thinking, and I was asking: how is one largely to increase the supply of cheap dwellings? I think that the first step to be taken in that direction should be to build many more houses in the outskirts of the city, until the cost of sites in the centre falls or until industry takes up such sites. I suggest to the Government that their approach and that of the corporation to the problem is on too narrow a front. As I pointed out to the corporation, they are looking at the problem only from the point of view of the under-dog or the most lowly-paid portion of the population. Let them look at what that has resulted in. At present, houses that are unfit for habitation cannot be condemned because there is no way to provide alternative housing for these people. I suggest that everyone who builds a house in the Dublin area is really contributing to the solution of the housing problem because, like it or not, the supply of houses seems to be made up from two sources, by the corporation, and by turning larger houses into tenements. The tenement owners can let rooms at 5/- a corner. Should the corporation decide that it will be many years before they can solve the housing shortage and say: we will get increased tenement houses, but not by purchase as we are doing at present. Why not set us a block of houses to let at 5/- a corner or in some way like that? Let the authorities take a realistic attitude.

The problem has to be solved in some way. I hope the Minister will not quibble over the precise extent of the problem. I put down 20,000 houses, but some people worked the figure down to 16,000 while others worked it up to 26,000. It is a very extensive problem, no matter what figure is taken. I contend that everybody who builds a house in Dublin leaves a vacant space somewhere for someone, just like the overcoat that some people discard is taken up by humbler citizens and serves its purpose until it becomes useless.

Mr. Carter

As a matter of information, may I ask if this motion is solely concerned with housing in Dublin, or with housing generally throughout the Twenty-Six Counties?

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy reads the motion he will find that it is confined to the provision of 20,000 houses in Dublin.

Mr. Carter

I read the motion but I forgot what it was about after hearing all this stuff.

Mr. Costello

I suggest that that is not a proper way for the Deputy to refer to this matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair did not hear the remark.

Mr. Dockrell

For the information of the Deputy I am stating that the problem exists in other cities, but that it is very much smaller than in the case of Dublin, and that any approach to, or solution of, the Dublin problem, can easily be applied to other areas. I have spent all my life in Dublin, and naturally my ideas turn more to this city than to the country generally. I purposely refrained from making this statement controversial. I put this motion down in December, 1943. It is more important for people to have food than houses, but if the payment of increased rent brings the family budget below the subsistence line, it really leaves them in a worse position. That is why I suggest trying to make some of the corporation schemes into real tenement houses. I said nothing about pre-fabrication. That is merely a detail of the housing question. I said nothing about the proposal to reduce rents for some people by having a standardised rent. I feel that an entirely new approach will have to be made to this gigantic problem.

I hope that what I have said will not be in vain. Out of a survey of 33,000 families in 1938-39, over 21,000 were occupying dwellings of one room; and nearly 11,000 of the 21,000 families were occupying unfit one-roomed dwellings. That is so important that I wish to give the reference for it. It is in paragraph 457 of the Report of the Inquiry into the Housing of the Working Classes in the City of Dublin, 1939-43. That paragraph prompted me to make the suggestion that perhaps some entirely new approach ought to be made to the housing problem. If asked if we would rather have families in unfit, one-roomed tenements or in fit habitable one-roomed tenement houses, I suggest we would not be long in making up our minds as to which we would prefer. I think it was Marshal Foch who spoke about trying for a limited objective. I suggest to the Government that a one-roomed sanitary dwelling might be a very convenient half-way towards a solution of the Dublin tenement problem. Supposing they used the product of two years' tenements as single-roomed dwellings, look at some of the benefits that would accrue from that temporary measure. That would enable the corporation to clear away unfit rooms and would allow the corporation to get a much higher rate of profit that is at present going past them to the owners of unsanitary dwellings; it would enable them to see where the population is tending, and would cheapen rents all round.

At present the chance of getting a corporation house is nearly equal to the prospect of getting a prize in the Hospitals Sweep. The corporation, I suggest, are aiming too high in the rate of rehousing that even in pre-war days was going on. For many years the prospect of the average citizen is a corporation house or a room unfit for human habitation. Let us be honest with ourselves. Broadly speaking, there is not a modern house to let in Dublin at a reasonable rent. It seems as if the problem will not be solved on present lines. The corporation has all the skim milk. An increase in tenement houses is more necessary than an increase of ordinary houses.

Buying houses for reconditioning on the basis of present earnings is not likely to settle anything, and is not increasing the supply of rehabilitated or reconditioned houses. It only means swapping a house which was probably getting near the borderline of unfitness, or was frankly unfit, and the corporation making it fit. I suggest to the corporation that they should build on virgin sites till they can enforce their own by-laws and clear areas quickly. That will prevent artificial profit being made on houses unfit for habitation and get nearer to an economic rent. I have not quoted a lot of figures. My proposal can be summed up in two words—more houses. Only the application of that principle is in dispute.

Mr. Costello

In the unavoidable absence of Deputy O'Higgins, I wish to second the motion, but reserve my right to speak at a later stage of the debate.

Mr. M. O'Sullivan

The resolution is valuable if only for the fact that it affords the Minister an opportunity of giving his views on the Report of the Commission of Inquiry of 1939-43, which was issued early in December. I may say at the outset that I am in agreement with Deputy Dockrell in relation to the urgency of the problem of housing in Dublin, but I do not share his pessimistic view as to its ultimate solution. The Report of the Commission of Inquiry is a very valuable report. It is well documented and carefully prepared and gives magnificently the background of the housing position in Dublin. In the main, it agrees with the activities of the Dublin Corporation, particularly during the last ten years. Certainly it contains no strictures on the corporation's operations, and, on the other hand, makes no revolutionary recommendations.

Its main recommendations are first, in relation to differential rents; secondly, the extension beyond 35 years of the redemption period of the loans; and, thirdly, and perhaps most important, the lowering of the rate of interest to a figure not higher than 3 per cent. So far as differential rents are concerned, these are entirely a domestic matter for the corporation and will not be affected by any debate which may take place here. They have the power and the machinery to adopt these rents, if they so decide, but certainly the extension of the period of redemption and the lowering of the rate of interest are matters upon which we are very anxious to have the Minister's views. The report gives tables, very excellent tables, showing the effect of an extension of the redemption period and, more particularly, a lowering of the rate of interest, which are conclusive evidence of the fact that, on the basis of comparatively cheap money, the immediate effect would be a saving to the Government in respect of its subsidy, a saving to the ratepayers and the possibility of lower rents for the tenants.

I submit that this question of easy or cheap money is the main factor in relation to Dublin housing in a normal period. The last five years cannot be classed as normal in respect of housing or other activity, but we have had an experience from the financial point of view of a rather startling character. Going back to 1938, when we had adumbrated our programme as best we could and were going ahead nicely, we found ourselves refused any easement in relation to our financial requirements by the banks. They refused us on the ground that our housing programme was uneconomic, and apparently they were alarmed by the magnitude of that problem. That position was eased later. We had various arrangements of 4 to 4½ per cent. until last year, indicating the position of the market due to conditions which the House will appreciate, we were able to secure from the Bank of Ireland, on the basis of a private stock issue, a loan of £1,000,000 at 3¼ per cent. at par.

The Minister or some Deputy may ask why we did not go into the open market for the flotation of our own issue last year. We considered it very carefully. We were anxious to tap the market for various reasons, but we had this advantage in the arrangement with the Bank of Ireland, that, for the first time, it was possible for us to get our needs in instalments. The House will readily appreciate that in relation to the flotation of a stock issue of £1,000,000 at 4 per cent., we might need only a certain proportion in three months, six months and nine months, as the case might be, and we should have had to put our £1,000,000, or the greater portion of that sum on deposit at 1 per cent. while paying 4 per cent. for it. We had the advantage for the first time that we were getting it on the basis of an instalment plan. Every three months, we could get what we required and were thus saving the interest loss which would otherwise have accrued.

Obviously what occurred last year is not to be taken as indicating the position in the post-war period. The present position with regard to the increase in bank deposits is due to the fact that there are no investment outlets because of restrictions on industrial development. That will cease in the post-war period and we may well be driven back to the period we had to face in 1939. From my personal point of view, the most valuable recommendation in this report is that which sets out that the corporation should have money at a figure not higher than 3 per cent.

We feel that, for a municipal activity, the rate of interest might be even lower. They also recommend that, because of the more easy form of market available to Government might securities, the Government might undertake in the case of the municipality the flotation of such loans, or at least take responsibility for them in future, rather than to adopt the corporation's own haphazard form of flotation, dependent on an up-and-down market, of which we have had bitter experience.

If the Minister would indicate that he was prepared favourably to consider that aspect of the recommendations he would be advancing along lines which we members of the corporation, and particularly those of us who are members of the Finance Committee and who had all these worries over the years, would be exceedingly pleased to see him advancing along. The extension of the redemption period is a matter which, I am sure, the Minister has examined, arising out of the report. The report refers to a ten, 15 or 20-year programme. It is a remarkable coincidence that, in 1939, the Corporation budgeted for a ten-year programme—to build 2,000 houses a year from 1939 to 1949, making in all 20,000 houses. Having regard to our experience in previous years, we were confident that we would be able to carry out that programme. The only difference between the contents of the report of the commission and the line on which we were prepared to advance is represented by two new factors which they introduced—obsolescence and family growth.

These may be off-set, to some degree, by the activities of private builders, particularly in the case of families in the lower scales. That was our programme and we are entitled to some credit for the fact that, notwithstanding the restrictions which have operated for the past five years, we succeeded in building, on an average, 800 houses during each of those years. Since Deputy Dockrell assumes that delays take place and that planning for the future is necessary, I should like to point out that, during the past five years, planning has been carried out in an intensified form by the corporation —to such an extent, indeed, that, if the war were to cease in the morning and if the necessary materials were available, our programme could be commenced within a week. The planning section of the housing department have made arrangements over the past three or four years, 12 months ahead so far as acquisition, bills of quantities and the necessary preliminaries up to the stage of tendering are concerned. I am satisfied that, given reasonable conditions, particularly under the heading of easy money and sufficient supply of materials, we should, during the next ten years, be able to break the back of the slum problem so far as Dublin is concerned.

I am glad that the Deputy referred to the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. That is a matter in which I have taken a keen interest in the corporation. Up to six or seven years ago, it was possible to get a loan under the Small Dwellings Act from the corporation, and, while the rate of interest was comparatively high, the system of easy payment was of such a character as to enable quite a number of people to build their own homes. We had about 3,000 borrowers on our books who secured their homes by that facility. The sum advanced amounted to £1,500,000. At the time that the commission made its inquiries, only 60 of the borrowers were in arrears, and I can assure the House that the arrears were of a nominal character— perhaps only for a month or two in the period which came under review. The arears amounted to only 49 of the total amount falling due during the whole year. That was one of the most successful activities of the corporation. It enabled a man who had saved £100 or £150 to supply himself with a new home. A number of the members felt that slum clearance should have priority in connection with our finances, and, because of the heavy commitments in connection with that item, operations in connection with the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act were dropped. Funds were not available for that particular activity from our flotations.

I should like to see the Minister give attention to that particular matter, because I know of no better means of creating a good civic spirit than by encouraging the young man who has saved £100 or £150 and who has it on deposit receipt to invest it in a new home. Our chief, the city manager, stated, according to the report, that that was an activity that should not come within the purview of the corporation. I venture to disagree with him and I do so because of my experience regarding the type of person who borrowed the money. The borrowers knew that, if harsh conditions arose or upsets in their domestic affairs occurred, affecting their payments from month to month, they would be dealing with a body which would have a human understanding of their position and the axe would not fall upon them as it might if they were dealing with a private company, thus depriving them of a good deal of the money they had invested up to that stage. I advise the Minister to arrange for an extension of this activity, whether the corporation be chosen for carrying it out or not, for the reasons I have stated. I believe that the most desirable form of administration is by an organisation such as a municipal or borough council.

Deputy Dockrell referred to a great many phases of building. I should like to refer to the question of building by direct labour, which is dealt with in the report. It is an extraordinary fact, as evidenced by the report, that, notwithstanding the extensive building which has taken place in the city, there were not, on an average, more than three tenders for each contract set by the corporation. So far as the contractors are concerned, I wish to say that they have given us complete satisfaction. It is rarely that we have had complaints so far as the building or structural aspect of our programme was concerned but it is remarkable that only three contractors have been tendering on an average for each of our contracts. I suggest that, since we have had an experiment in connection with direct labour on what is known as the Elm-field scheme, we might have an extension of that system up to 25 per cent., at least, of the total programme of the corporation. It would have the effect of imposing a check on existing prices and conditions so far as the building is concerned. The one scheme which we did try out in that way compared quite favourably with the contractors' scheme on the other side of the road, but this disability attaches to it—that, under the requirements of the Public Health Act and other Acts, delay is inevitable.

Deputies who are members of local authorities are aware that contracts for sums over £100 have to be advertised and that a period of ten days has to elapse before anything can be done. You have these and other delaying factors with regard to building. In that respect the scheme, such as it was, did not get a fair trial. I may say that the municipal authorities in England were able to get legislation, to ensure that these restrictive clauses in the local government code would be eased to a very great extent so far as direct labour operations by public authorities are concerned. I suggest to the Minister that that is an aspect of the question to which he might direct his attention.

There is one other point to which I have referred frequently in the House, and that is the subsidy payable under the 1931-32 Acts. I have again and again drawn attention to the fact that the conditions which obtained between 1931 and 1932 are totally dissimilar from those which obtain to-day owing to war conditions. The ceiling figure for cottages under those Acts was fixed at £450 and for flats £500. But every Deputy who has knowledge of conditions in Dublin is aware that cottages and flats are costing the Dublin Corporation considerably more than that, and have been for some time. Cottages to-day run into a figure of £675, while the cost of a four-roomed flat is as high as £900. That means that the Dublin Corporation has to bear the difference between £450 and £675 in the case of cottages, and of between £500 and £900 in the case of flats. I think that the time has arrived so far as the Department is concerned for a revision of the ceiling, and in any case of the subsidy.

May I suggest that, in any approach to this question, one of the factors that will have to be taken into consideration is that of transport charges for our housing schemes? We have found tremendous difficulty in bringing families out to Crumlin and Cabra West and to Marino and Donny-carney. Transport charges eat up a considerable amount of the wages of the ordinary worker where you have a father or perhaps one or two members of the family travelling to their work in the city. These charges are a serious matter in the budget of the average working person. There are those who plead for a higher ratio of cottages to flats. I think that we have reached a reasonable figure in that respect. Of the total number of cottages and flats built, the flats represent, roughly, about 20 per cent. of the total. The ideal thing, of course, would be to continue the building of cottages. Personally, my view is that serious consideration will have to be given to this question of transport charges. Recently, in the Dublin Corporation, the question was discussed of making provision for newly-weds. This is a social problem of very great importance. I may say that his Grace the Archbishop, the Most Rev. Dr. McQuaid, about 12 months ago, at a gathering of members of the corporation, made reference to it and said that he would be very happy to see an approach to that particular question: to see if it would be possible for the corporation, on the one hand, to meet cases of that kind, and on the other to meet cases of aged people. Difficulties abound in regard to this question of making provision for newly-weds. The corporation have taken a very sympathetic view of it, and by a unanimous vote have agreed that something should be done, even as a gesture.

The actual implementation of that proposal is still under review. But side by side with what we may be able to do in the immediate future as affecting that particular problem, something might usefully be done by the adoption of the facilities which the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act provides, and that is to give loans where a young man getting married is able to put down £50, £60 or £70. If such a person is assured that he can get a loan on easy terms he may be able to make arrangements with a private builder or a public utility socity, and in that way, I believe, we may be able to make a valuable contribution to this particular aspect of the housing question.

Mr. Butler

We all, and particularly those of us who are members of the Dublin City Council, are well aware of the necessity for an additional number of houses in the city. If there is one thing more painful than another to a councillor it is to have people coming to him and telling him that they are living with two, three or four, children in one room. If this motion had simply been that the Dáil was of opinion that a large number of extra houses for Dublin was necessary, we would all be in complete agreement with it.

I cannot regard this motion as a candid or frank one. It is divided roughly into two parts. The first is, that 20,000 houses are necessary. The second part of it amounts to a vote of censure on the Government for its failure. In neither of these directions is the motion true or necessary. As a matter of fact, the Dublin Corporation has planned for the erection of the necessary number of houses within the shortest possible period, and, of course, that is only done on the condition and understanding that the Government will continue to give during the implementation of that scheme the support it has given to the housing problem from the day that it took office. To be candid, I think the statement that 20,000 houses are necessary is an overstatement. Thank God, in this city our people, on the whole, have a Christian way of living, and the normal Christian family is the standard here— that is a family of four children, with the father and mother making six. On that basis, 20,000 houses would make provision for the housing of 120,000 people or practically half the population of Dublin. Therefore, I think that is definitely, on the face of it, an overstatement. These are the only two points covered in the motion. Nine-tenths of the speech of Deputy Dockrell was completely outside the motion. He dealt with things that are useful and informative, but what he said should have been said not on this motion but on some other. Of course, it is now a very popular thing to say that the poor are in need of housing and that we require 20,000 houses.

That is an excellent piece of propaganda, but candidly I am afraid there is a good deal of propaganda in it. We are all sympathetic and we all agree that more houses are needed. I think the majority of us believe that these houses are being provided as quickly as it is possible to provide them in existing circumstances. When I first became a member of the Dublin Corporation, shortly after the Fine Gael Government had gone out of office, I found a very sad state of affairs existing, sadder even than the present position after five years of war. I found it very hard to get a family housed at that time, a family that had less than seven children. But a gradual improvement—possibly the word "gradual" is not the right word to use; I should say a rapid improvement—set in.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy might now move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Butler

I move.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m., Wednesday, 14th February, 1945.