Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Feb 1945

Vol. 96 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Housing of Dublin Workers—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

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—(Deputy H.M. Dockrell).

Mr. Butler

In speaking on the previous occasion, I took exception to the tone and the wording of the motion. I find that I made a small slip in mentioning the fraction one-half instead of one-quarter, and I should also say that I took the figure of 20,000 in the motion as referring to houses rather than dwellings. I think Deputy Dockrell used the word "houses" very frequently. I proceeded to say that very good progress indeed had been made by this Government in the matter of housing, and I want now to substantiate that statement. In order to do so, I propose to quote from the report of the Inquiry into the Housing of the Working Classes in the City of Dublin, 1939-1943. On page 234 of that report, the number of dwellings built yearly by Dublin Corporation from 1922-23 to 1938-39 is given. The annual total is given for every one of the 17 years. During the first ten years, the highest number in any single year was 793 dwellings. In the year 1938-39, under the present Government, 2,336 dwellings were completed.

I have given the highest figure for the ten years of the preceding Government and the figure for the last normal year under the present Government, and I think everybody will admit that these figures disclose a very great advance indeed. On analysing these figures, I find that the average for the first ten years of this period is 504.5, and, for the seven years during which the present Government was responsible for the housing of the people, 1,127.8. When we consider that a building strike took place in 1937, we can discount completely one of these years, and, on that basis, the yearly average of dwellings erected is 1,266. Another way in which to look at it is that, for the period in question, the total for ten years under the previous Government was 5,045, and, for the seven years of the present Government, 7,909. It would be futile to deny that very great progress is indicated by these figures.

I will give the House a further piece of evidence. There is here an analysis of the building carried out in 24 cities of this country and Great Britain in 1935-36—the last year in which it is possible to make a comparison because of the building strike here, which paralysed building for the time being, in 1937, which made the figures for 1937-38 useless for comparison purposes, and because, in 1939, we had the start of the world war. I am, therefore, taking the last normal year on the basis of which we can make a comparison between cities here and in Britain which will give us an idea of the magnitude of the effort made in this country. On analysing the figures on page 238 of the report, I find that of the 24 cities with a population of over 200,000, Dublin stands second. That is a very fine record having regard to the resources of Britain, and in the light of the rateable property of Dublin compared with the other cities cited, it is a stupendous accomplishment to have carried out such a splendid programme and to hold such a high place amongst the cities which have made an effort to house their people.

On page 239, five cities, comparable in point of population with Dublin, are given, and of these Dublin stands first. That is very definite and very conclusive proof of wonderful progress in the housing of the people of Dublin under the present Government. But I can give a further proof. On page 28, there is given the number of families of four or over living in tenement dwellings in the year 1901, 1911, 1926 and 1936. In 1901, 12.8 per cent. of our people were housed under these wretched conditions. In 1911, the percentage dropped to 12, but, by 1926, which was possibly the height of the régime of the late Government, the percentage had again shot up to 13.2. By 1936, it had dropped to 10.6. These figures are sufficient to prove my contention that very good progress indeed was made by this Government and by the Corporation of Dublin in the housing of our people up to the outbreak of this lamentable world war. I shall show later on that in spite of the world war, in spite of the shortages and restrictions which we have had to face in the matter of building material and supplies of all sorts, we have kept up a very good rate of progress indeed.

Now, in this motion, the Government is accused of failure and of standing in the way of the plans of other Parties. With regard to plans, I think the onus of planning the building programme of Dublin or of any other centre should devolve on the local body. I think the onus should in the first place be on the local body and I think that if that were taken from them and they were simply told what to do and if the matter were planned for them by the central Government, these local bodies would be the first to object. The local bodies know their local needs and it is right that they should plan at least for their local needs.

That does not mean that they should bear the burden of carrying out these plans. It is the duty of the Government to assist and to help, but I repeat, the onus should be on the local bodies. To my mind the function of the Government should be to examine these plans and to hold an even balance between one local body and another—between the local bodies throughout the country. They would restrict the extravagant expenditure of money but, on the other hand, the Government should help to the utmost of the capacity of the State, and having regard to the other needs of the State, in financing local bodies to enable them to carry out their duties. These, to my mind, are the functions of the Government.

One would think from listening to Deputy Dockrell that this whole question had been neglected, that he or his Party or the other Parties in the House had plans and if this wicked Government stood aside these plans would be put into execution and the people housed without delay. I do not think it is an honest motion. I do not think that motion is really designed in the interest of the people. The members of the other Parties have heavy representation in the Dublin Corporation, and on other local bodies throughout the country, but we never heard of plans. It is very strange indeed if there are plans ready and in the hands of other Parties for the housing of the people, that these plans have not been divulged. I think we might get the benefit of the help of the other Parties if these Parties have plans and if they really think the Government is standing in the way of these plans.

Now, there have been plans for the housing of the people of Dublin. I will quote from the Report of the Housing Committee of the Dublin Corporation. This is Report No. 10, 1944, and it says:

"In Report No. 6, 1938, duly adopted by the City Council, the City Manager outlined a programme of ten years' building operations, covering a total of about 20,000 dwellings. This programme was divided into two instalments of five years each. The schemes included in the first five years' operations are shown on page 35 of that report and embrace some 12,000 dwellings. However, owing to the war it has only been possible, in the six years that have elapsed since the submission of Report No. 6, 1938, to build 8,257 houses out of an estimated 12,000."

When you consider the restrictions imposed by the present world war I think that it is highly creditable to the Corporation members and to the Corporation officials to have planned and carried through the building of 8,257 houses in the six years alluded to. It is a great tribute to the Government who made such a thing possible by maintaining peaceful conditions at home, and friendly relations with those countries from which we obtained the necessary material to enable us to build those houses. I quote again from the Report:—

"Apart from the fact that the war has intervened in the speedy prosecution of the housing programme, as outlined in 1938, it has also necessitated a drastic alteration in the programme arrangement as originally intended. As a result of a re-examination of the position by the City Engineer and the Housing Architect, a revised post-war programme is now proposed aiming at the erection of 7,500 houses over a period of five years. If conditions regarding labour and material are favourable, it should, in the opinion of the Housing Architect, be possible to erect an average of 1,500 dwellings in each year, or a total of 7,500 dwellings in five years."

I will quote one other short extract:—

"It will be seen that notwithstanding the abnormal conditions which have prevailed since the submission of the ten years' plan, the Corporation has succeeded in keeping ahead of the increasing demand, and from this it will be evident that if the war emergency had not arisen a very substantial advance would by now have been made in the direction of solving the most urgent housing problem.

Now, you have there the clearest proof that very good progress has been made, even in spite of the war, in the housing of our people. I think that it was a wonderful feat to erect 8,257 houses out of the 12,000 that were planned for, when you take into consideration the state of the world as it has been during these terrible years.

Was the Government idle? As far back as March, 1939, you will find a letter from the Department of Local Government and Public Health ordering the holding of this Inquiry, which is one of the most important inquiries conducted in this country. Not only had the corporation and all interested the opportunity of giving evidence, but, in addition, discussions took place with representatives of the Irish Banks' Standing Committee, the General Manager of the Dublin United Transport Co., the Superintendent Relieving Officer of the Dublin Board of Assistance, Dr. W.C. Dwyer, R.M.S., Dublin Union; Mr. T. Fitzpatrick, F.S.S., and Mr. Frank Gibney, architect. You had there the Dublin Corporation, with all its experience of the housing problem and all its knowledge of Dublin conditions; you had also the opportunity given to anyone who was interested to give public evidence; and you had these various experts consulted, so that the findings of this inquiry are well worthy of consideration. I have quoted from the report of that Inquiry figures which show that we have made tremendous strides, comparatively speaking, in the housing of our people under the present Government. More recently, a research committee in the building trade has been set up by the Minister for Industry and Commerce; so I am afraid Deputy Dockrell has not been really conversant with the efforts made by the Corporation and by the Government in the direction of housing the people.

The Deputy referred rather particularly to virgin sites, and I would like to offer an opinion on that aspect of housing. I would urge as little dislocation of family and neighbourly ties as possible, as I think our people should be housed—even if it took a little longer time to do it—as close to their original place of dwelling as possible. When a huge scheme such as the Crumlin scheme is undertaken, terrific problems are created. Apart altogether from the cost to the ratepayers and taxpayers, there are terrific problems presented to the clergy and to the educational authorities.

The educational life of the child is disrupted; the schools in and on the fringe of the new area are in a state of chaos for possibly several years. You have overcrowding; you have the fitting in of boys, with very diverse ways of life, from very diverse localities and from very diverse schools. My experience has been that the education of the child is retarded, as a general rule, by being transplanted to a completely new district. The cost of erecting schools and churches in these very large schemes is immense and presents a very great problem.

Apart from that, I think it would be desirable for us to conserve, as far as possible, the character of our various areas in Dublin as they are. Those of us who know Dublin know that each area has really a character of its own. The people create family ties and neighbourly ties and these ties make life sweeter for these people. In my own district in Terenure, during the big coal strike we had many years ago, I saw people carrying coal and fuel to each other. When sudden calamities come upon a family, I have seen the neighbours coming along and rendering help, simply because they knew and understood each other and had these ties of neighbourliness and friendship, and very often of kinship. I think it is a great thing to keep the people in their own areas as far as possible.

You have in the old areas very fine churches and schools, and I have seen these very fine schools depleted by the exodus of big numbers of children, while the schools in the new areas are crowded out to a most extraordinary and, I might say, a most damaging degree. It takes time to erect the necessary schools and churches in these new areas. So that in the matter of virgin sites I am rather doubtful. I certainly should not like to see schemes as large as the scheme we had in Crumlin or possibly in the Cabra area. I think a number of smaller ones would be better and that best of all would be to keep our people in their own localities.

I hold that there cannot be any quick solution of the housing problem in Dublin. If this motion gives the idea to the people that a quick solution is possible, I think it is a very wrong thing. If you look at the report, at page 99, you will find that the principal recommendation is a long-term policy. I will not worry the House with a long quotation, but the report says:

"The first remedial measure which we have to suggest is the institution of a long-term building programme, and this is the basis on which would rest the success of all other measures."

There is no quick solution. I do not know what the conditions may be post-war, but I fear that they will be conditions of unexampled hardship for this country. All history tells us that major wars are followed by times of stringency and hardship, and if we are to judge the probable hardship following this war in proportion to the magnitude of the war, I think it is no exaggeration to say that we are likely to go through times of unexampled hardship.

Now, important and all as housing is, there are two more pressing needs for the people—the need of food and the need of clothing. These must take precedence even of the need for housing. Food and clothing depend upon employment. Houses cannot be built without money. They must be paid for out of the rates and out of the taxes, and if we search the pockets of the ratepayers and the taxpayers too frequently, we will bring industry to a standstill. In that case, not only would it be impossible to house our people, but our people would go unnourished and naked. So that, while we must do everything that we can within the margin of safety to house our people, we must not house them to the detriment of these two more urgent needs, the need of food and the need of clothing.

I do not know what our Government may be able to do in the matter of help, but I think that, even from the financial point of view, there is no quick solution of the housing problem. It must be done as speedily as possible. All we can do within the limit of safety must be done for the housing of the people, but that does not mean that this problem can, by this motion or any other means, be solved rapidly. The mere acquisition and clearance of sites must be a very deliberate and a very judicious procedure, if we want to give fair play to everyone, and if we want to convince our people that we are living in settled times and under an Irish Government, and if we want to give them respect for law and legal procedure.

Anyone who attempts to give the idea that the housing problem can be solved out of hand by any action of this or any other Government is either dishonest or uninformed. I repeat that if houses are built in huge numbers, they must be paid for. When I say that, I do not mean to say that only the rich pay for them or only the middle classes pay for them. They pay of course and pay heavily and, even at the moment, are paying comparatively heavily. But the very poor, indeed the very poorest, contribute their share. They pay it in the form of higher rents and through indirect taxation, so that they, any more than the rich or the middle classes, cannot escape the burden of payment for these houses.

Then what is the object of this motion? If the object of the motion were to secure co-operation and to secure a speedier housing of our people through united action on the part of all Parties in this House, I do not think it would have been framed in such a manner as it was framed. I do not think it would have contained the undeserved and very unjust censure on that Party which forms a clear majority in this House. I think that, if co-operation were looked for, the motion would be framed in another manner altogether. Nobody knows better than the intelligent Deputy who already spoke on this matter that, in urging the Government to house our people, he is simply pushing an open door. But I am afraid from the wording of the motion that it was designed to give the Government Party the appearance of resisting a measure that was meant for the good of the people and I think I have exposed the fallacy of that. However, I repeat that our workers must be housed as speedily as possible. I hold that we have so far, in this area, housed them as speedily as the resources of our ratepayers and taxpayers were capable.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am loath to interrupt the Deputy, but I would remind Deputies that there are only three hours for the discussion on this motion. It is a matter for the Deputies themselves.

Mr. Butler

I am sorry; I did not know that I was speaking so long. I shall just finish by saying that in putting forward this motion, if it is sincerely meant, the Deputy is only pushing an open door. Our workers must be housed. They will be housed as speedily as the resources of the State will allow. But they must be housed and will be housed without danger to the two more primary needs, the need of food and the need of clothing—in a word, the need of employment.

Mr. O'Connor

I am in perfect agreement with the first part of this motion, that the Dáil is of opinion that the provision of 20,000 more working-class dwellings for Dublin is a major post-war problem. I think every Deputy will agree with that part of the motion. But, with the kind of political twist that comes with the following part of the motion, I cannot agree. I am not aware of anybody who contemplates a scheme for building dwelling-houses who is held up by any alleged inactivity on the part of the Government. On the other hand, for some years past, I have known of several individuals and organisations who have made their plans to commence building schemes, who have cleared the land on which they propose to build houses and are carrying out the work of making roads, and so forth. They are not waiting for any pronouncement from the Government. They mean business. They know the record of the Fianna Fáil Party in regard to housing. I do not suggest for one moment that the Fine Gael Party, when in office, neglected the housing problem, but they were not quite so keen on it as the Fianna Fáil Party have been. The Fianna Fáil Party, when they came to office, made a tremendous drive to provide houses, with the result that a considerable number of houses was built. Anyone who contemplates carrying out a building scheme knows that fact and knows that he can get any assistance that can be given by the Government when the time comes. What is holding up building at the present time, as is obvious to everybody, is the difficulty of getting supplies of building materials. That is the major hold-up and Deputy Dockrell is aware of that as well as everybody else.

The question of the price of the house, when built, must also remain a problem. It is safe to say that at present it costs at least twice as much to build a house as it would have cost before the present war. How long that state of affairs will continue after the war, no one can say, or how long it will be after the war before supplies of building materials are available, no one can say. One would want to have the powers of prophecy to deal with these problems. Perhaps Deputy Dockrell possesses these powers. I confess I do not. I do not know who are the "other parties" that Deputy Dockrell says are being held up in their building schemes. Does he mean his own political Party or any of the Parties in this House? Certainly, I have not come in contact with any organisation that genuinely contemplates carrying out a building scheme that is held up by any alleged inactivity on the part of the Government.

There is one fact which has emerged from the development of this problem throughout the war years, and that is that, owing to the extra cost of building, heavy loan charges, and so forth, the house which the average young man getting married bought before the war—the most popular, I think, was the house that cost about £800—will be beyond the reach of the average young man who contemplates getting married, when building supplies are again available and, as I have said, we cannot tell how long that state of affairs will continue. It is obvious, therefore, that the only chance of providing houses for young people who are about to get married is to build them with a view to renting them, and that must be done by private enterprise. The Government cannot possibly be expected to take upon itself that task.

The question of slum clearance and the provision of houses for those who have been removed from the slums is being handled by the Dublin Corporation under the direction of the Department of Local Government, and I think it is being handled fairly well. Despite the shortage of supplies, the Dublin Corporation has managed to build a number of houses since the outbreak of the war and there is no evidence anywhere that the Dublin Corporation has been held up through lack of knowledge of the Government's intentions.

I repeat that this motion appears to me to have a political twist, to be designed to try to discredit the Government, to suggest that the Government is not doing something which it ought to be doing. I think that is quite contrary to the facts.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy O'Connor has talked about the people who "mean business" in this matter. I think he is one of those who regard business as being with a capital "B" in this whole matter, giving a very large percentage of return. I do not think that is what is required with regard to the post-war housing problem and the solution of it. Deputy Dockrell's motion is put down here in quite a frank way. He says—

"the provision of 20,000 more working-class dwellings for Dublin is a major post-war problem."

I do not think anyone would disagree if he doubled that figure, and made it 40,000. I think the recent housing inquiry talked about 46,000 houses.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

In Dublin?

Mr. McGilligan

So, he has underestimated the problem. How many of the 46,000 are in Dublin? Is it more than 20,000?

Mr. MacEntee

Read the report.

Mr. McGilligan

Is it more than 20,000?

Mr. MacEntee

Read the report.

Mr. McGilligan

I have read the report.

Mr. MacEntee

Refresh yourself on it.

Mr. McGilligan

If the Minister would devote himself to suggesting solutions to his colleague who is going to speak and let other speakers alone, he might do better. Deputy Dockrell suggests the provision of 20,000 working-class dwellings. I think Deputy O'Connor will not disagree that it is an under-estimate of Dublin's needs in respect of post-war housing. Can anybody say that it is not a post-war problem of first magnitude? Deputy Dockrell's motion goes on to say:—

"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.".

Surely Deputy O'Connor or other Deputies do not believe that all this is going to be carried out without the aid of private enterprise. Does the phrase "other Parties" include those who may want to bring private enterprise into this matter or are we going to throw the whole question of future housing, say, in Dublin, and, incidentally, the rest of the country over on to local authorities or on to the Central Government, and is it a fact that nobody at this moment knows whether or not the Government has taken any decision on any aspect of the housing matter?

I take an editorial from the Irish Times of December 22nd dealing with the report of the Inquiry into the Housing of the Working Class in relation to the City of Dublin, as posing some of the matters upon which a Government decision or a Government view of what the future is likely to be might be required. This editorial says:—

"We must remember, of course, that the report cannot budget for the unknown conditions which will prevail after the war. It is based on the facts and figures of 1939: those of 1949 and 1959 are as yet unpredictable. Will the costs of building have gone down, or up?"

Well, we know in regard to electricity, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as one Minister, has accepted that the post-war prices will be from 45 to 50 per cent. above 1939. Is that a view that is held only by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and only lately, and only in regard to electricity, or is it based upon a general attitude that the Government have with regard to post-war prices in relation to the year 1939?

"Will the costs of building," the editorial says, "have gone down, or up? Will the conditions of the new world leave us poorer or richer?" Have the Government anything to say to that? Are we going to have the programme of the standstill Order continued, the Order which means that people will not get more than their 1939 wages, plus about a 10 per cent. increase, even although costs of living have gone 70 per cent. ahead of the 1939 costs that people had to meet? Deputy Butler has been very keen on the fact that food and clothing, at least, come as requirements ahead of housing. Of course, under these circumstances, if people have to live on a 1939 wage and face 1945 costs, which are the 1939 costs increased by 70 per cent., and particularly when the food item in the calculation of the index figure has gone up by more than 70 per cent. they have less to pay for housing and for rents than they had in 1939.

Government policy since the war started has been to keep wages down and to let the cost of living rise. If they have made any attempt to keep the cost of living down, they have not been successful in that attempt, while they have ruthlessly clamped down a standstill Order on wages. The editorial says: "Will the conditions of the new world leave us poorer or richer?" With the conditions of life that the Government will seek to impose on the community, particularly that section for whom this motion is mainly intended, will they be constrained to live in what was, relative to 1939 conditions, a much poorer situation? And again: "Will Ireland's ‘exiled' citizens return, and if they do return, will they scatter themselves through the country at large, or will they concentrate themselves in Dublin, thereby swelling the demand for housing? The editorial goes on to say that some sort of planning with regard to the distribution of these people may help to solve some of the problems, but have the Government indicated that they have an answer to any of them? I found, in an article written with regard to house building in England, a few problems posed in this way:

"Thus, in the vital matter of housing, the mind of the majority turns at once to the council or the Government, thinks in terms of a cheap rent, and that is about all there is to it. In practice, of course, things are not so simple."

It goes on to point out that in practice there is a great deal more to it.

"For instance, a saving of 5/- a week in rent may be extravagant in time and money if it means an addition of 1/- a day to travelling expenses. A house must be considered as one factor, no doubt the big factor, but still only one in a very complicated and many-sided situation. Road, drains, gas, water, electricity have all to be provided anew for the large-scale operations of public authorities. Then transport, trains and omnibuses have to be diverted or adapted to meet the requirements of the new State.

Next social services must be established, among them being shops, cinemas, churches and public-houses. To make life tolerable to those who are not enamoured of the panel system, a doctor must be attracted to the neighbourhood. Some of these accessories present difficulties that are best overcome without the assistance of a public authority, others raise questions directly due to the invasion by public authority into private affairs."

Have the Government told us that they have a scheme for dealing with the swollen population in Dublin? What we do know arises out of the early inquiries of the 1939 commission, which, after about three months' activity in the public eye, hibernated until the end of 1943, when they produced this report. In the early days, when they were taking evidence, there was one amazing item which struck the public, and it was this, that, arising out of the activities of the Dublin Corporation in this city, many people had better homes provided for them in the outskirts of the city than in the old slum quarters in the heart of old Dublin, and yet it was sworn in evidence before this Housing Commission that it was discovered over and over again that many of those tempted to the outskirts of the city by the provision of better houses had been found again inhabiting the slums. They crept back to what was described as sub-human conditions.

On inquiry, this was found to be the answer—it is not an answer which was discovered here, but was put up by people who have written of their experiences in connection with housing schemes in Birmingham, Manchester and many other large industrial centres in England where the same peculiar situation was observed. It was that those people, who had no love for the old slum conditions, and who were tempted by better conditions to leave them, were eventually found back again in these shocking conditions for this reason, that as regards the person who was getting a small wage and was living on unemployment assistance—a fixed sum—if you shove him and his family to the outskirts of the city and he finds he still has the same income out of which to buy the same amount of food that his family required before, and that was cut down to the bare necessities, and if he has to pay more for transport or even the expense of going into the city a couple of times a week to sign on for unemployment assistance, every 2d, 3d, 6d or 1/- taken off his wage meant so much less to be spent on food. Of course, it was then the case with these people who went to the garden cities on the outskirts that the rents had increased to some degree over what was paid in the slums, and whatever extra amount had to be paid was taken away from the miserable sum which the family had to spend on food.

Deputy Butler's placing of the situation is quite right. Food comes first, when you get to the very primitive side of life. Even clothes—rags, second hand clothes—come second, and the idea of a decent amenity in the way of a house comes only third. But people whose lives could be sweetened and developed and raised beyond the sub-human conditions have to refuse them because out of the small wages, they are not able to spare even the 6d or 1/- or 2/- exacted by way of a new toll for a better house or the travelling expenses they have to meet going to the city looking for work or to get the dole. What we want to know in connection with the housing problem is much the same as what we want to know in connection with many other matters facing this country in the post-war period. Are we going in for the narrow policy of restriction that we have had so long, or is there any attempt to be made to get at the root evil, which is poverty, the only cure for poverty being increased production?

I have referred to the most significant part of this report. It will bear repetition. I am speaking now of the Report of the Dublin Housing Inquiry dealing with the housing of the working classes. I will draw attention to paragraph 133 on page 54, where there is a reference to Appendix 17, which appears at the back of the report on page 251. The detailed circumstances are given in the appendix. Paragraph 133 states:

"Appendix 17 gives a summary, prepared by the city manager, showing the sizes and incomes of 10,500 families taken at random from the 33,411 working-class families included in the 1938/'39 survey. An earlier summary of 4,000 families was also presented, but the percentage differences were comparatively slight, and it is sufficient to confine attention to the larger sample, which, being one-third of the whole, may confidently be taken as representing the whole".

I do not think there will be any quarrel if we take one-third as being a reasonably good sample to show that the results deduced would apply over the whole. This means then that what follows may be taken as representative of the 33,411 working-class families. We usually take an average of five to the family in this country. If we are to take that figure, it means that the 33,000 families represent 165,000 people. Take that out of the population of this city. The summary indicates that 20.06 per cent. of the families had incomes from 5/- to 20/-per week. An additional 25.49 per cent. of the families had incomes from 20/- to 40/- per week. Let us stop there. Fully 45 per cent., a bit less than one-half of the 10,000 families, had less than £2 a week as a family income. I want to add just the other figure to get the point over the 50 per cent.

Another 9.48 per cent. had between 40/- and 50/- so that 54 per cent.— let us call it half—of these 165,000 people had, as families, a family income of not more than 50/- in the week, that is, at 1938-39 prices. That 50/- of 1938-39 is worth somewhere between 25/- and 30/- to-day. That means that over half the 10,000 families to-day find themselves forced to exist on something in the neighbourhood of 25/-or 30/- a week, because (a) of the standstill Order which prevents those of them who are employed getting any higher wages, with the exception of some 10 per cent. addition, and (b) the Government have been unable to control, or did not control, costs of living, with the result that these costs of living are 70 per cent. above the 1939 figure.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

When the Deputy talks about the standstill Order, he might at least know what it means. The standstill Order does not apply to anybody whose income is under 50/- a week, so that these 10,000 families are not affected by the standstill Order.

Mr. Corish

It did for a long time.

Mr. MacEntee

No, it did not.

Mr. McGilligan

Do not spoil that gem. The Government have been decent enough——

Mr. MacEntee

The standstill Order does not affect these 10,000 families.

Mr. McGilligan

The Government have been decent enough not to hurt the 10,500 families——

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy has ascribed their plight to the standstill Order.

Mr. McGilligan

Leave the standstill Order out for a moment.

Mr. MacEntee

That is right. Now get away from it.

Mr. McGilligan

These 10,500 families are not getting more than 50/- per week and the Government have allowed the costs of living to go 70 per cent. higher than 1939. The result of that on the £ is that it is worth between 10/6 and 11/- in purchasing value, so that if the Government have been decent enough not to collapse the wages of the people who are getting less than £2 10s. per week, it cannot be said that they have been very efficient on the other side. They have not done much to see that the 50/- has the old purchasing power.

What I said before is right. It is worth between 25/- and 30/- at the moment and I want to know if that policy is to continue post-war. The Government are clapped on the back in English newspapers and economic journals which circulate in England, and people are told that this is one of the few countries in the world in which wages have been kept down, and that it is a great policy. Of course, it is a great policy from the point of view of the old reactionary type of capitalist. I did not think we had many of these left in the world, but any that we have left in the world are concentrated here. In any event, that is the boast and a wreath is given to the Government—they should really be honoured amongst nations, because, while they let the cost of living soar, they have kept wages low.

Is that a policy only for the war? It would seem to me to be inhuman if it were only for the war period. If it is to be transferred into the post-war period, what will the situation be? Deputy Dockrell talks in his motion of 20,000 more working-class houses. His case is supported by figures of what houses may cost, but any calculations made are based on 1938-39 prices. Are housing costs to go up in the same way as the Minister for Industry and Commerce agrees that electricity costs will go up, or at least the costs of building electricity schemes, the materials which have to be brought in and materials which have to be made here will go up? I do not know whether he added wages, but, in any event, whatever will be done in regard to electricity here, prices will be 45 to 50 per cent. higher than pre-war.

Is housing to cost 45 to 50 per cent. higher than pre-war, or is it to cost that unless the Government takes steps in some way to prevent it? If the Government are going to take steps to prevent it, what steps will they take? Suppose houses are to go up on that basis and suppose wages are kept at the same figure as at the moment, is it possible that we are going to have a bigger percentage of these 10,500 families, who will find themselves in a post-war period with their pre-war wages, asked to pay for houses erected at post-war costs? What are the rents of the new post-war house to be and how are people to be put in a position to pay these rents?

One other article I have here in connection with housing on the other side mentions three important issues to be decided in connection with any housing scheme. The first is: can private enterprise finance the building of houses, or, if they cannot do it entirely, is there any zone of the housing problem which they would be asked to fill on their own, and is the remnant to be filled entirely by local authority help or by central government help? The second issue put forward in this cutting is: what is to be done about building costs? They are far too high at the moment and this cutting adds:—

"They have risen out of proportion to the general rise in the cost of living. How are they to be brought down?"

The third issue is what is called long-range continuity of operations. That deals with a problem which, because we are faced with such an immediate urgent problem, we may be inclined to put on the long finger, but it is a rather necessary matter to have inquired into.

It deals rather with this, that apart altogether from the immediate demand for the erection of certain houses, not to replace anything, but really to get rid of bestial conditions in the city, it is recognised that houses are falling into disrepair, into dilapidation and almost into decay year by year, and there is an annual deficit with regard to the number of houses which are at any time to be found in any big industrial city, and particularly in Dublin. What sort of long-range continuity of operation is there to be as between Government, local authority and private industry to see that these houses are kept in repair, or that, when they fall into disrepair, they will be knocked down and replaced by others? Have the Government any plan with regard to the areas of work which are to be given over to private enterprise, and what are to be confined to public enterprise? Have the Government any scheme for keeping costs of building even to their present figure, or, as might be expected by people, for lowering them?

The Government has been silent on all this matter, although, owing to the efforts of a member of the corporation, Mr. Milroy, in 1939, they established this inquiry in March, 1939. While the inquiry was going on, one would have expected that they would have been forming views on their own. We get this report published at the end of 1943, and, since it was published, although there has been a number of newspaper articles clamouring for some revelation of Government policy in the matter, if they have any policy, so far there has not been a whimper from the Government to indicate that they have any plan at all.

I suggest we should get back to the root matters, of which I say there are two. One is very definitely touched on in the report, but it arises on another motion and I do not intend to touch to any great extent on it here, that is, the question of the rate at which the money to be invested in housing will be borrowed. That forms the subject of a separate motion and I prefer to leave it over to be discussed by itself, but it is quite clear not merely from this report but from the multitude of reports produced in connection with cities in England, that it is one of the very important matters which have been brought under consideration.

Our situation with regard to money is well known. We have so much of it that it is a drug on the market at the moment, so much of it that it is actually adding to our difficulties. We have any amount of it channelled into certain areas where very little return is given to those who lend that money. The pretence has been made that money, because it is what they describe as money at call, cannot be used for anything in the nature of a long-term or medium-term type of operation, and yet we know from recent discussions that some of this money supposed to be at call has been put into such an undertaking as the Shannon scheme where it cannot be described as money freely at call. Yet there is no apparent reason why the Government should not see that these conditions are there when money is to be put into so very important a matter as housing. That, however, forms the subject for another debate and I will say no more about it now.

The main thing the Government must face up to is that the conditions under which a very big number of our people live do not permit them to pay anything like an economic rent for the houses that are erected in these days. If they still live under the same conditions they will not find it possible to pay any addition to that rent. Now, it is easy to say that the solution of that problem is to make those who can pay, pay out the money for these things. But when you have a stationary national wealth, you are, when you do that, simply shifting the burdens as between sections of the community. That particular solution cannot last for any long time. You cannot go on piling on more and more burdens in the way of greater housing subsidies, and in the way of greater additions from the community to the rents which have to be charged for these houses without making someone step out of the queue they are in for production purposes and have them join the queue of the people who are in receipt of assistance, in receipt of help, or the dole.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce gave us here some time ago a list of the subsidies and of the reliefs, etc., which the poor are getting, but when he magnified them to double the proportions of the total amount produced in wealth or agriculture he did not say that he was afraid of that charge. Most countries, however, have swung away from that danger point. Most countries have realised in the past that the sections of the community not well enough off to house themselves properly must be helped, but unless those who can help are put into better means of production then in the help they are giving to the other sections they are loading down production.

As far as this country is concerned the national income has not really increased in the last 20 years. A false appearance of increase has been given by the fact that prices are now higher than they were, and if you multiply production by the prices charged across the counter you might draw a wrong conclusion of an increase in the national income. The national income, however, has remained pretty much the same for some time. What is happening is this: more and more people are going off the work line in this country, more and more people are emigrating, more and more people are joining the relief line and the group of those who have to get help in different ways—those who have to get subsidies for relief, subsidies against hunger, subsidies against destitution and subsidies against disease, and you swell these more and more than you would in fact if prices were properly correlated to decreasing production.

The Government attitude to the whole thing is this: we are going to see that reliefs are given. We are not very much interested in production as long as we can keep people from destitution, and we do not care to look ten years ahead and see where all this eventually will lead to. We are just going on with this policy, and let production take care of itself. Of course, in that mood, we had the policy which is enshrined in the standstill Order, and we are brought back to earth by this amazing paragraph 133 of this report of 1938-39. Samples taken over these 33,000 families during 1938-39 indicate these amazing figures I have spoken of. Twenty per cent. of them are getting a family income of not more than £1 a week, and another 25 per cent. getting a family income of not more than £2 a week. What the Government have got to say to that particular aspect of the problem I do not know, because I have not heard it yet. The Government see these people getting these sums given to them, though not earning them, but if the Government's attitude is that they will look after these people, do the Government think there will be any amelioration in the condition of these people by taking this 20/- per week per family group and putting them out to Crumlin where they will have to spend a bit more than they had been accustomed to before, in travelling back to the city, or do they think there will be any amelioration in their condition where they demand from the people getting that 20/- family income a little bit more in the way of rent for houses than they are asking those people to pay now? The policy of the Government all the time in regard to this matter has been marked by that sort of reckless tendency. The attitude as far as the Government is concerned is to shut their eyes to the realisation of the impact of that vast increase in the cost of living—70 per cent. over 1938-39— upon the poorer people in the community; not merely upon the 20/- a week, the 40/- a week or the 50/- a week family income groups, but the people who are on low wages generally, the people with £5 a week and who find that £5 reduced to the region of £2 10s. Od. or maybe £2 15s. Od. through the way the cost of living has been allowed to soar.

Yet it is expected of this community that they should finance the war out of small savings and out of small earnings. More than 50 per cent. of the community have to live by earnings—on what they make out of their work and in the giving of services to the community, but, inhumanly—I cannot think it is entirely inefficiency—inhumanly, the cost of living has been allowed to swell to the point recorded in the official journals. Eventually it will be found, when we look backward, when we look in retrospect at the war, that the way we have got through this war is this: we have taken it out in disease, even in an increase in crime, and we have taken it out in the depletion of the small savings of the small man.

Mr. MacEntee

What has this got to do with the motion?

Mr. McGilligan

If it urges on the Minister the need for getting some solution it will be a good thing.

Mr. MacEntee

I am simply wondering if it seems so irrelevant to the Deputy as to everyone else listening to him.

Mr. Furlong

It is highly amusing.

Mr. McGilligan

But not pleasant.

Mr. Furlong

Very amusing.

Mr. McGilligan

If the Deputy was one of the 10,500 families on the 20/- family wage and was to be asked, in the housing of that family, for the new rents for post-war houses, he might not consider it amusing.

Mr. Furlong

Your figures are amusing.

Mr. McGilligan

If so, will the Deputy go and ask the members of the commission which were appointed by the Government as men of stark realism? Then he will see there is no comicality about these figures.

Mr. Furlong

Did Deputy McGilligan listen to Deputy O'Sullivan, the Lord Mayor—did he listen to his summing-up of the position and his solution?

Mr. McGilligan

I heard a comment by Deputy O'Sullivan recently that a £7,000,000 grant or loan in relation to housing would no more than solve Dublin's requirements. I am sure there is no one more aware than is Deputy O'Sullivan of the facts—that even if you provide £7,000,000 for the building of houses in Dublin, if you keep people at the 20/- a week wage you would not have improved housing conditions here.

Mr. Furlong

Who is going to improve the 20/- wage? Whose responsibility is it?

Mr. McGilligan

The wages are kept at 20/-, 30/-, 40/-, 50/- and £3, while the cost of living went up by 70 per cent.

Mr. MacEntee

Ask the trade union leaders.

Mr. Corish

The trade union leaders were prevented from trying.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid we are going away from the motion very much now.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, but I am sorry we cannot enter on the line which Deputy Furlong considers amusing, as to who kept wages low while allowing prices to rise.

Mr. MacEntee

So the Dublin trade union movement allows 10,000 families to have a weekly wage of 20/-.

An Leas Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid this is irrelevant to the motion. I will ask Deputy McGilligan to move the adjournment.

Mr. McGilligan

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.