If there are a lot of blackbirds, Deputy Tully will always see a white one somewhere. In addition, I have initiated proposals from system builders and have rationalised building systems. A number of these proposals have been examined and I think the majority of new houses have benefited from them. I might say that up to 100 such proposals were submitted from one source or another indicating various forms of construction.
In reply to Deputy Andrews, another matter to which we are currently attending, is this question of national building standards. That has for some considerable number of months past been pursued with the utmost vigour to try to produce this new building code for the good of all concerned, not the least of which will be the bringing about of uniformity of approach throughout the country as well as a beneficial effect in regard to prices in certain respects. Further, modular coordination—which is another matter which shows itself to be of great value in other countries—is being pursued by a working party for some considerable time. I expect to have a report from them in the not too distant future. I should add that consideration, and indeed sympathetic consideration, of any further proposition to reduce costs while maintaining standards will be welcomed. This is something enunciated by me quite a number of years ago. Indeed it is just four years ago that I first went out on this limb, seeking new methods and ways of doing this rather than adopting the traditional method maintained for hundreds of years.
I have also introduced during these past few years, grants for prototype builders which I thought would have the merit of speeding erection and reducing costs while maintaining reasonable standards of accommodation.
We have also, in my Department, engaged ourselves on the question of site costs as they relate particularly to the built-up and urban areas, and are providing, in this measure before the House, site subsidy for the first time. Refusal to sanction exorbitant tenders after all sorts of pressure over a number of years has not been the least of the charges and, in some cases, I have been charged that it cost more because prices had gone up in the meantime. It is rather too easy a conclusion to draw that just because this happens in one or two cases, the general overall effect has been wasted. If I and my colleagues were to accept all tenders, no matter how exorbitant, it would be ridiculous.
I have also been trying to encourage builders of private houses to build houses of moderate standards as distinct from the dressed-up versions which were produced in greater number because there were sufficient people around with more than sufficient to pay and indeed more than many of them could really afford. This effort is, I think, even at this moment paying off, in that a number of our builders have in fact moved over to the production of less pretentious houses and are bringing prices down to the level of the people who require them rather than up to the level of those who can afford to pay exorbitant prices, as has been the practice in the market for the past four or five years. That is an answer, in some degree, to Deputy Larkin's charges as to what I am doing about these things.
Getting back to this really important matter which is related to the section, the question of subsidy and its relationship to rents, rates and taxes, I wonder has Deputy Larkin stopped to consider that the rates of Dublin this year are probably paying about £1 million towards the builders of the housing estates of Dublin Corporation. The Dublin local authority's house rents scheme is, I know, in the melting pot at the moment awaiting some changes because of the very poor comparison with other parts of the country. Further under the differential rents scheme the maximum rent in Dublin is 25/-. Deputy Tully shakes his head and I do not blame him. If he fell down, I should not be surprised but this is, in fact, generally the case.
