I must support the Second Reading of this Bill, but I do so with regret. I support it because it proposes to extend the Act of 1925, and to continue the arrangements that were made with regard to providing subsidies for the building of houses. My regret is this, that the Bill does not go as far as I would like it to go. On former occasions I think I said that if this housing question is to be dealt with in a satisfactory manner it should not be dealt with by Bills being introduced year after year, such as this, but that this question, which is a burning one, will have to be dealt with on a national basis. From the little experience I have had in dealing with this question of housing, and I have taken quite an interest in it, I think it is a question which will not be solved until such time as a national housing authority is set up by the State to deal with the whole problem regarding the provision of houses. I must say that the President, to his credit, from my knowledge of him for a number of years, is sincerely anxious to settle this question of housing, and he has done a man's part in that direction. I pay him that tribute whole-heartedly, for I have personal knowledge of what he has done to help in the provision of houses in the city. During the debate on the Second Reading the President made statements with regard to the whole question of housing, and the number of houses erected under the previous Housing Acts. I respectfully suggest that the number of houses that have been erected are not nearly sufficient to meet the requirements. The President told us that under the 1924 and 1925 Acts 1,361 houses were erected or under consideration in Dublin City area. I think it is admitted that the population of Dublin has been growing for a number of years, but, apart from that, to meet the normal demand for new houses by young people setting up homes the number of houses built is altogether insufficient, much less to meet the tremendous need there is for the housing of people who are living in insanitary slums. I do not think, much as has been done under previous Acts, in addition to what is proposed under this Bill, that it is grappling with the situation in the proper way.
From my knowledge, and I think I know the city of Dublin as well as most people, I have come to the definite conclusion that the whole of the social evils which we suffer from in the city are due to the bad housing conditions. It is the experience of any person who has had knowledge of people living in the slums, that when you provide them with decent houses their whole outlook is changed. People brought from the dirtiest of slums and given decent houses turn out to be good citizens. I think that statement will bear examination, and that investigation will prove that if people living in insanitary slums, through no fault of their own, are given a chance they will become good citizens. That has been proved on many occasions. They have made every sacrifice in their power to get themselves and their families out of the slums. I regret the Bill does not go further to meet the needs of these people.
I would like to deal with other aspects of the question. During the Second Reading debate in the Dáil the President made statements with regard to building costs. He stated that the cost of building houses in Dublin has been coming down, and that we have arrived at the stage that five roomed houses are costing anything from £500 to £535 to erect. There is one particular matter in connection with that type of house to which I will call attention. The cost of building a five roomed house has been brought down to a figure between £500 and £535—I am speaking now altogether in connection with the houses that have been built by the local authorities, because these are the houses that will be inhabited by the people I represent, the working classes. The houses that are being built by speculators and private people will not in the main be inhabited by working-class people.
The houses that are being erected in Dublin are being let on a sale purchase scheme, at rents that are beyond the means of the ordinary working man. At Croydon Park area the ordinary working-class family are asked to pay a rent of 17/1 per week for these houses. I say with all respect that with the wages that are being paid, and with the continual demand for a reduction of the wages of the working-class people, you are by this high rent putting a tax on them that they are not able to bear. We have Commissioners in charge of the Corporation affairs at present demanding that the lowest paid workers shall make a further sacrifice of 6/- per week. They have already sacrificed 13/- a week of their wages, and it is now demanded of them to make a further sacrifice of 6/- a week. At the same time these people who are demanding a reduction in the wages of these men are insisting on their paying a rent for their houses of 17/1 a week. Fixing rents is one thing, but getting payment is another, and I am afraid rents are being asked in this case that cannot be paid. A man can do no more than his best. I know from personal knowledge that large numbers of people inhabiting houses built by the Dublin municipal authorities in recent years are making tremendous sacrifices in order to keep decent homes for their families. These people have no say in the type of house that is being erected.
There are differences of opinion with regard to the type of houses to be erected amongst the operatives in the building trade, and I speak with authority on their behalf. I am a building operative myself— a building operative in the building trade in Dublin. I say that the type of houses put up now and which the working people are forced by circumstances to enter into a sale purchase scheme to buy, is not the type of houses that these people should be asked to go in for. We are putting our opinions against the opinions of other people. We are entitled to offer an opinion, and that opinion is, that the cost of maintenance of these houses will be altogether out of keeping with what the tenants can afford to pay. It is a notorious fact that on the first section of the Marino houses, that is, houses that have been only inhabited within the last twelve months, the cost of maintenance has been altogether extremely high, and it bears out what I have been saying with regard to the type of houses that are being built. Further than that, I want to say that the large amount of money that has been spent in the erection of these houses of the new type of construction has meant practically the elimination of the skilled trades from the building of houses. The saving has not meant a very great difference in the cost of erection. But it has meant a most important difference from the point of view of the country as a whole. That is, that practically 60 per cent. of the amount of money that is being spent on the erection of these houses is being sent out of the country for the purpose of purchasing foreign material.
Heretofore, when the old type of brick house was being constructed, we used to estimate that on the average the cost of material and labour used to run to about 50 per cent. for each. It varied with the different type of house, but on the average it worked out at 50 per cent. for wages and 50 per cent. for materials. Now in the new type of house, where the skilled trades are being practically eliminated, and where the houses are built mostly of mass concrete, most of the money spent on these houses is being spent on material, and I regret to say most of the money is being spent on foreign material. I think that that is a very mistaken policy from the point of view of economics. I do not understand anything about finance. The President is well up in finance. I am satisfied that if he examines the whole question he will agree that it is false economy to be sending all this money out of the country. The new house costs a few pounds less. You have the materials for the old type of houses on hands. It is manufactured in the country and gives employment in the country and produces a better type of house. I have yet to meet the man who could afford to build a house for himself without the subsidy who would build a house of concrete. I have yet to meet the man who had a free choice who would not prefer to build himself a house on the old style, built of brick or stone and roofed with slate, than to adopt the new ideas. I pay considerable regard to this, particularly because of the tremendous amount of money that is being sent out of the country. I tried to estimate the cost of the 1,361 houses constructed or under construction by the Dublin Commissioners under the 1924 and the 1925 Acts. Taking it at between £500 and £535 and putting the figure at, say, £520 per house, the cost of materials used in those houses comes close to half a million of money. The great bulk of that money is at present being sent out of the country. I think that is a great mistake, and I take this opportunity of referring to it and calling attention to it.
The President in dealing with this question in the Dáil referred to the failure to take advantage of the section in the Bill with regard to the establishment of public utility societies. It is regrettable that the people did not take advantage of the section. But there are reasons why they did not. I was in some way connected with the starting of one public utility society. That society entered into arrangements with the Dublin Commissioners for the erection of a number of houses. We found that the great difficulty with regard to the establishment of these public utility societies was the fact that any person who joins a public utility society for the purpose of erecting a house, joins it for the purpose of getting a house erected for himself. When we come down to the actual people who require houses, we will see that the number of people who have sufficient cash to enable them to do that is very small. That in itself is the real cause of the failure of the people to take advantage of public utility societies. The main difficulty is with regard to raising money. The number of working class families in Dublin who can afford to put down a large amount of money for the erection of houses is extremely limited. They cannot get accommodation in any way. I interested myself with regard to a few people who were anxious to do the right thing, and to take advantage of the Housing Act to build houses for themselves—men in the building trade. I went on one occasion to the bank and two people who had leases of their own houses offered to go security for £200 for a man in constant employment who was prepared to build a house for himself. The bank would not do any business and I think that is the experience of anybody who has approached a bank with such a proposal. They have been turned down. The banks will not touch them. I think it is a regrettable state of affairs that the banks will not come to the assistance of people anxious to build houses. Because we want to get houses built, and every little would help.
It is a great pity there is not more public spirit amongst the people in regard to building houses. The failure with regard to the housing problem in this city has been the failure of the large employers of labour to give their contributions to the solving of the question. It is unfair when everybody else has been contributing that the employers would not contribute. The ratepayers of Dublin are all contributing to the providing of houses at 17/1 a week for tenants, the economic rent of which would be nearer 37/1 a week. That really means that the ratepayers have to subsidise the employers of Dublin, because if the economic rent of these houses were paid, the wages would have to be considerably increased. I do feel called on to direct attention to this failure on the part of the large employers of labour in Dublin to provide houses for their employees. An example was set by an English company who came over to this country to erect a factory, twelve months ago. Immediately after they came here they found that they could not get decent houses not of concrete for their workers. They built 70 or 80 houses just a little above where I live. These houses are a credit to the firm that erected them. They are in every way fit to be happy homes for the people who live in them. I wish Irish employers would take a leaf out of the book of this firm, take their example and thus help to provide decent houses for their working people.
