Deputy Allen can get up and if he wishes make the kind of filibustering speech we have had to listen to last night and this evening from Deputy de Valera. If Deputy Lemass interpreted the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party in his speech last night, we know where we stand and I do not think there is a terrible lot between us. I cannot understand how Deputy Lemass can go on to argue—because they did not put that policy into operation themselves — that money provided for arterial drainage, land reclamation, water supplies, improvement of farm buildings, development of the tourist industry and afforestation should be found by way of direct taxation in the years in which the money is expended. Surely, the benefits, as he suggested himself, to be derived from the carrying out of capital works of that kind do not come back to the Exchequer inside the period in which the money is supposed to be raised, according to him, by way of direct taxation? Deputy Lemass indicated that he was prepared to advocate a policy of borrowing only when there was a clear assurance or indication that the moneys borrowed would come back directly to the Exchequer in the year in which the loan was raised. Personally, I cannot follow that kind of argument. I think the Government of the day, whatever it may be, is quite justified in borrowing to carry out works of a capital development nature where these works provide useful employment for thousands of people and will, in the years to follow, provide increased production. Increased production is going to provide revenue for the Exchequer, indirectly if not directly in the years following the carrying out of these works.
I rose to take part in this discussion principally for the purpose of dealing with one specific matter and I suggest to the Minister for Finance and his colleagues that it is a very serious matter which is bound to get more serious as time goes on. I feel very proud that this Government — and we have had proof of their progress in this matter published by the Minister for Local Government — have made such headway in regard to housing schemes. The figures speak for themselves. They cannot be contradicted or misrepresented, whether they refer to houses in the course of erection or houses completed since the Government came into office.
I want an assurance from the Minister for Finance — and if he cannot give it to me to-day I hope he will give it to me soon—that this whole question of the financial structure in relation to our housing policy will be reviewed in the light of existing circumstances and related definitely to the cost of money provided for local authorities for the erection of houses and to the rents which prospective tenants are being called upon to pay. I assert that with all the loose money that is available, that is lying in our banks on deposit— close on £400,000,000, nearly the equivalent of the amount of our external assets — some portion of it should, by arrangement between the Government and the Joint Stock Banks Standing Committee, be provided for the carrying out of our housing policy at a lower rate of interest than is charged through the Local Loans Fund to-day.
The Taoiseach and his colleagues will have returns to show what percentage of the total sum provided for the erection of houses by a local authority represents interest charges on the one hand and the site to be acquired, the materials put into the houses and the wages paid to those who build them on the other hand. I understand that in some cases in Dublin City where houses have been built under the 35 years' loan system, at the end of the 35 years £1,500 was the sum that had to be provided for the erection of houses which cost the local authority or the utility society £1,000. If £500 has to be paid out of a total of £1,500 at the end of the 35 years' loan period, then I think that the money advanced for such an essential purpose is costing the local authorities and the people far too much. The financial policy from that point of view and the rates of interest charged will have to be reviewed in the interests of everybody concerned—the local authorities, the ratepayers, the taxpayers and the tenants. The whole matter should be treated as an emergency matter and it should receive the early consideration of the Government.
This question has presented itself to me in a most serious way, and I have had ample illustrations of what is taking place in my own constituency. So far as building costs are concerned, I know very little about them, but will any Deputy say from what he knows in relation to building costs that you would be justified in accepting a tender for the building of a house in a town like Edenderry in Offaly for £1,800 and expect tenants to pay the rents they will be called upon to pay, following the acceptance of a tender such as that? I say £1,800 is far too much for the erection of a house for a slum dweller in a town of that size. Houses are being built in some towns, and particularly in my own constituency, for people who have been living in slum dwellings or condemned houses. How are tenants of condemned houses, with an average income of £3 10/- a week, to be expected to pay the rents which it is suggested they should pay if they occupy these new houses? Many of these people are living in houses that have been condemned by the local sanitary authority, houses for which they were paying 2/-, 3/-, 4/- and in a few cases 5/2 per week.
Because of these high building costs that I have indicated, the economic rent of the new houses would be £1 8s. 10d. a week — I am quoting from official figures. The tenants are to be asked to pay 18/3d. a week plus rates. In pre-war days the houses built by local authorities cost far less and they were let at an average rent representing one-eighth, one-ninth or one-tenth of the tenant's weekly income. To-day, as a result of the excessive building costs, and notwithstanding the huge sums poured out from the Transition Development Fund and through housing grants, the tenants getting local authority houses will be called upon to pay rents so high that they will represent one-third or one-fourth of their weekly income. That position will have to be rectified immediately.
I and my colleague, Deputy O'Higgins, can quote many instances in relation to the cost of houses and rents proposed to be charged for them in Portlaoighise, Birr and other small towns. I am aware, and so are my colleagues, that the same applies to other constituencies. In Dublin City there are 25,000 or 26,000 people looking for houses, falling over each other in their eagerness to get them — married men with large families. Naturally, these people would prefer to occupy a house or a flat if they could get one, even at a fairly high rent, rather than remain in rooms where they are being charged excessive prices for the use of even one room. Before they are living long in these houses where the high rents are charged they will find that they have less to-day in the shape of money to buy food and clothes for themselves and their families than what they would have in pre-war days.
Just take into consideration the cost of house building by local authorities to-day as compared with pre-war days. I cannot emphasise the urgency of this matter too much. I want to be assured that the huge subsidies we are providing out of this Vote—an increase of £585,000 as compared with last year— will not be paid to the local authorities to subsidise excessively high building costs and unfair rates of interest instead of being used as they should be, and as it was intended, to subsidise reasonable rents for the occupants of these houses. I assume that any Government that provides millions to enable local authorities to erect houses for those badly in need of them has the intention that these huge sums should go directly to bring rents down to a figure within the capacity of tenants to pay; but I have a shrewd suspicion — and I have evidence in one or two cases—that this money, instead of being set aside to subsidise rents and bring them to a lower figure, is going to fill the pockets of building contractors who are getting excessive profits out of building contracts.
I suggest to the Government, and to the Minister for Local Government in particular, that wherever the local authorities have excessively high tenders submitted to them for the erection of houses these tenders should, when they come before the Department of Local Government, be held up.
I have protested against the acceptance of these excessively high tenders. I have suggested that in these cases—it has been done in other places—we could not do worse than experiment in the building of houses by direct labour. I want to point out, however, that when you do suggest carrying out housing schemes by direct labour you find that you are up against the hidden and hostile attitude of the engineers employed by local authorities and, possibly, the engineers who are working in the Department of Local Government.
