Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 1931

Vol. 14 No. 40

Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1931—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (General Mulcahy)

Following the circumstances from 1922 down to date, a period during which a considerable sum of money was put, by way of free grants on the part of the State, into housing, resuscitating the building construction industry, to make good some of the shortage in ordinary housing in the country, we are now introducing a Bill that turns our housing policy in a somewhat different direction, a direction, considering the amount of work that requires to be done and the financial resources of the country to which, in our opinion, our housing efforts and the moneys that are available should be put. From 1922 to date the State put by way of free grant two and a half million pounds into housing. Local authorities put into housing another two and a half millions, a considerable amount of which will be returned through rents. As a result of the policy of grants pursued by the Government, about £6,000,000 of private capital was induced into housing too. So that during that period about £11,000,000 has been spent on the type of housing to which the Government has directed its policy. During that time, as would naturally be expected, a certain reduction in costs has taken place. The square foot cost of houses built in 1922 or 1923 would be between 14/- and 15/-. The cost of a comparable type of house at the present moment would be about 10/6, and in the case of satisfactory housing schemes, in areas such as Thurles and Monaghan, the cost has been reduced approximately to 8/- per square foot and in one case to 7/8½. So that the costs have been substantially reduced. During that time the number of houses that have been actually constructed in urban areas by private persons is 3,568; public utility societies, 1,156, and local authorities, 8,195, being a total of 12,919. During the same time in rural areas the number of houses erected by private persons was 11,084; public utility societies, 178, and local authorities, 385, making a total of 11,647, the sum total being about 24,500 houses.

With regard to the housing policy, statements have been made that the policy has not made any impression on the housing of the very poor or the housing of those who are in very insanitary areas. That is quite realised and it was quite realised during the period of the application of the past policy. But to attempt to approach the housing of the very poor or the clearing of insanitary areas and replacing them by houses for the poor working classes at a time when building costs were so high was simply to fail in our object. By directing the policy to the provision of houses for the better-paid working classes and the middle classes generally and at the same time inducing capital to the building industry for the purpose of putting it on its feet again after the post-war stagnation we prepared the ground for the present policy. The change, as I say, is brought about purposely, so that we move over to a position in which public moneys will be devoted to endeavouring to house the poorer working classes and those workers who are living in insanitary areas. Private persons building within certain restricted dimensions have been given grants from 1924. At the 1st April last persons were entitled to a £45 lump sum grant. In answering certain questions subsequent to 1st April I said that we would provide the same grant to private persons in respect of houses that were built in the meantime and until this legislation had been passed. So that private persons who have begun the building of houses since 1st April and will complete them before the end of February next will get a grant of £45. Private persons beginning to build now will be given a reduced grant of £20 contingent on the local authority providing a grant of an equal amount, and private persons will get a remission of two-thirds rates for seven years. That is a transition to the time when private persons will not get any grant.

Criticism has been made of that proposal, that local authorities will not provide moneys to private persons. When you take into consideration the amount of work that has been done under the eyes of local authorities throughout the country and the improvement that is supposed to have been brought about by them, I submit it is not asking local authorities too much in the transition period if they realise that the work is valuable work that they will make a contribution towards the private person. If the circumstances of the area are such that they do not consider it reasonable to put a burden on the rates for that purpose, then I think we must come to the conclusion that in that area, at any rate, public opinion has reached a point of deciding that private persons should not get grants. No very great burden will be placed on local authorities in providing a £20 grant for private persons considering the extent to which building has gone on in most of these areas up to the present. In County Roscommon they can subsidise building to the present extent by a rate of 1d. in the £ in the county health area. In Galway, it will probably be 1s. 1d.; it may be less in Cork. In places like Mayo it may run into 4d. or 5d., but in Mayo the Gaeltacht Act is working. Ordinarily, local authorities may be expected to bear that burden where, in their opinion, the circumstances are such that private persons ought to continue to get grants.

In the case of public utility societies, immediately before the 1st April last they were getting £60. They will get the £45 grant. That will be applicable to private persons building from 1st April until the passing of this Act, but for the purposes of this Bill in future a public utility society will not be a public utility society that was contemplated under the Act of 1924 when public utility societies were extended beyond the definition of public utility societies in the Housing Act of 1919. In the Housing Act of 1919 a public utility society meant a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts of 1893 to 1913, where rules restricted the interest on the grant to 6 per cent. per annum. It is that particular type of registered public utility society that we intend to deal with in future. These public utility societies will be given the same type of grant as will be given to local authorities building houses for the working classes apart from building them to replace houses that have been demolished under a clearance scheme. So that in future public utility societies instead of getting a grant will get an annual sum over a period of years towards the redemption of principal and interest and they may get 75 per cent. of the total capital amount required for building houses. They may get that amount of money on loan from the State.

In the case of rural sanitary authorities additional facilities in the matters of grants and loan will be given in respect of the erection of labourers' cottages. Hitherto rural sanitary authorities got a grant of £50. Now they will get the equivalent of £60, that is, if the cost of the labourer's cottage is £300, they will get an annual grant towards the principal and interest the present worth of which would be about £60 and the Local Loans Fund will be open to them. They will get capital to enable them to carry out their work at the same rates as urban bodies have got it up to the present.

On the urban side, the Bill contains special provisions for the clearing of insanitary areas, for the acquisition of derelict sites for the purposes of the Housing Act, powers to improve sanitary areas and extended powers to control insanitary dwellings. The principal idea in the clearance area is that, having satisfied the Minister that if they make a clearance area they can provide out of their own resources for the housing of the people who will be displaced, the local authority may pass a resolution declaring a particular area to be a clearance area. A clearance area will be an area in which that local authority have decided that all the buildings in it are in such a state that they must be completely demolished. A clearance area may contain islands of houses that will not be demolished. There may be in an unhealthy area certain houses that the local authority consider might stand. These houses will not be properly regarded as being in such a clearance area. A clearance area will be an area of these houses that are to be destroyed.

The local authority prepares that order and the Minister after the necessary precaution with regard to the giving of notice to all authorities interested, after the necessary holding of an inquiry and after the necessary amending or modifying of the order, may confirm that order. Hitherto, the courts could be invoked on the merits of the order that it was proposed to make. Now the only approach to the courts will be as to whether the Minister has exceeded his powers under the Act, or whether anything that was required to be done under the Act has been left undone. The compensation to be awarded in respect of a clearance area acquired by the local authority will be the value of the cleared site less the cost of clearance. It will be possible for a local authority in dealing with a clearance area to take any additional land which it requires for the proper opening out of the clearance area when it is being redeveloped. Compensation will be paid in respect of additional land so acquired in the same way as at present under an ordinary compulsory purchase scheme. If the local authority deciding the area is a clearance area does not so acquire that area itself it may cause the owners to acquire that area, and if the owners do not acquire it the local authority can come in and acquire it.

There are analogous provisions for dealing with individual insanitary houses. The financial assistance to be given to local authorities in urban areas carrying out a clearance area, re-housing the people that have been disturbed or building ordinary houses for the working class is as follows: State contributions will be paid to municipal authorities for the erection of dwelling houses of two or more tenements (commonly known as flats or apartment dwellings) on lands comprised in or surrounded by or adjoining a clearance area, or with the consent of the Minister on any other land. The rates of subsidy will be: 40 per cent. of the annual loan charges over a period not exceeding fifteen years, and 33? per cent. for a further continuous period not exceeding 22 years.

The regulations made under sub-section (5) of Section 60 will provide that the cost of these flats for subsidy purposes will be limited to a maximum of £450 per flat and within this limit the State contribution to the expenses of the local authority is equivalent to 36 per cent. of the capital cost. Suppose a flat cost £450. The present value equivalent of the Government subsidy is £162. Ordinarily it is contemplated that the State will bear 36 per cent. of the cost of such dwelling, that the local authority would bear 36 per cent. of the cost and that the occupier, in rent, would bear 28 per cent., that is, in respect of apartment dwellings that it might be necessary to build in central parts of large urban areas or cities. There will also be a case in which persons disturbed from an insanitary area or an overcrowded area will be housed in single family houses. In the case of the erection of dwellings containing only one tenement—that is a single family house—for the purpose of accommodating persons who are displaced by any operations of the local authority under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, the rates of subsidy will be 30 per cent. of the annual loan charges for a period not exceeding 15 years; and 20 per cent. for a further continuous period not exceeding 15 years. The maximum cost of these houses for subsidy purposes will be fixed at £350 per house and within this limit the State contribution is equivalent to 24 per cent. of the capital cost. In the case of house building in that way exceeding £350, the value of the Government subsidy in terms of present value is £82 and the percentages borne by the different parties are the State 24, the local authority 24, and the occupier 52 per cent. Considering the amount of work that requires to be done, even in smaller urban districts, in replacing the insanitary houses, the amount of work that will be done in this third class of house will not be very great compared with the other class of building. In the case of the erection of dwelling houses for other members of the working classes of a higher paying capacity the rate of subsidy will be 15 per cent. of the loan charges for a period not exceeding 20 years. The maximum cost of these houses for subsidy purposes will be fixed at £400 per house. Schemes for the erection of houses coming within this category but which were undertaken between 1st April last and the passing into law of this Bill will get the equivalent of £45; that is, they get a subsidy based on 20 per cent. of the annual loan charges for a period not exceeding 13 years and fifteen per cent. over a subsequent period not exceeding five years. A public utility society building houses in future would get the same financial assistance as local authorities building the third class of houses, that is, they will be paid a subsidy equivalent to fifteen per cent. of the loan charges for a period not exceeding 20 years.

Mr. Johnson

What is the equivalent value of that?

General Mulcahy

£45. Local authorities up to 1st April have been getting £60. They will get the equivalent of £60. The local authorities building after the passing of this Bill will get the equivalent of £45. The local loans that have been made up to the present to the urban authorities have been on an annual plan; in future they will be on the instalment plan. That is the reason why a bigger percentage of the loan charges is borne by the State in the earlier years when loan charges are high.

As regards the assistance to private persons as it bears somewhat on our general housing outlook a few words perhaps are necessary. Under Section 63, sub-section (3) (d), private persons building houses in urban areas with a 950 square foot area will get a grant of £20 plus £20 that the local authorities give as well as two-thirds remission of rates for seven years. If they are building between 750 square feet and 1,200 square feet they will get no grant, but they will get a two-thirds remission of rates for seven years. If they are building above 1,250 square feet a house not valued for more than £1,000 they get the ordinary five years remission of rates under the Local Government Act of 1927, but they will get an advance under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act to the value of £1,000. Very considerable facilities will be provided in future for getting capital to build houses. The State will provide any capital necessary for local authorities, including Dublin city if it is found that Dublin city cannot in its own way borrow money at rates equivalent to those at which the State would lend it. Private persons building a house up to a value of £1,000 may be advanced through the local authorities up to 90 per cent. of the value of the house. The Bill provides that an advance may be made during the progress of building, but such advance will not be more than 50 per cent. of the value of the work actually done at the time. Public utility societies will be able to get advances up to 75 per cent. of the total cost of their work.

The main point about the Bill is that it changes the orientation of our attack on our housing problem and brings us to the time when the whole of our housing effort will be applied in the direction in which we are of opinion it ought to be applied, that is the housing of the poorer classes and doing away with the slum areas.

Mr. MacEllin

I must say, from a countryman's point of view, I am very definitely opposed to this Bill, because it seems to me that it wipes out all the assistance and encouragement that was given in the past in rural areas. As far as I can see, this Bill deals only with the larger towns and cities and while it is giving great consideration to those places I am afraid it has forgotten what are called the rural slums, and which are a bigger problem, in my opinion, than even the city slums. As far as I can see the Bill seems to be framed around four points: the clearance area, the improvement area, the derelict site and what are called insanitary houses. In none of these four could it be said that the Bill is of any benefit to the rural population, except perhaps from the point of view of insanitary houses. Even in the case of insanitary houses I do not know that any benefits would be got under this Bill, so far as I can see, except the local authority is prepared to give assistance.

The Minister refuses to recognise the claims of country people. Section 63 gives £20 of a free grant for a house built in a rural area by a private builder, but that £20 is only subject to the local authority giving a similar amount. From our experience of what local authorities are prepared to do, or, to be more correct, can afford to do, they will refuse to put any further burdens on the rates to provide money of this sort. If we examine the relative positions of the rural areas and the towns and cities we find that the population living in one-roomed houses in the towns and cities is 138,808, and in the rural areas it is well over a million. The number living in two-roomed houses in towns and cities is 168,897 and in rural areas 279,236. In Connacht as a whole you have only 16,000 odd people living in one, two and three-roomed houses, while you have in the rural areas 344,000 odd living in one or two-roomed houses.

If you take those figures into consideration you will observe that the claims of the rural areas are far greater than the claims of the cities and towns. In face of that greater claim, what treatment is being meted out to the small farmers? All the assistance previously given to private builders and to small farmers has been almost completely wiped out. Under the 1929-30 Housing Act, £45 was given as a subsidy, and in the case of public utility societies the amount was £60. It seems now, and I make this statement subject to correction, that the operations of the public utility societies will be confined to cities and towns and they will not be able to give any facilities in future to the rural areas. Consequently I feel that this Bill is a retrograde step because it completely ignores the claims of the country people. Perhaps it is a further demonstration of what centralising authority in Dublin means.

The Minister mentioned something about Mayo having received special grants under the Gaeltacht Housing Act. On paper that Act sounded very good, but we cannot say that we have observed any great developments as the result of its operations. So far the operations of that measure seem to have been very limited. They have been confined almost wholly to the Western seaboard and, judging by the progress so far, it will be ten or fifteen years at least before the Act will give benefit to the people included in its schedule. When I mention the schedule of the Gaeltacht Housing Act it occurs to me that it might be possible to introduce in this measure a similar schedule for certain counties. So far as some counties are concerned the people are living under wretched conditions.

In Mayo there are people living in the towns, in one-room houses, to the number of 455; the number of people occupying two-room houses is 1,514, and three-room houses 1,388. In the rural areas you have in one-room houses 4,255, in two-room houses 41,665, and in three-room houses 81,147. It is obvious from figures of that description that there is great need for remedial measures. Let us make a comparison with a county like Kilkenny. In Kilkenny, in the urban areas, there are one-room houses to the number of 183, two-room houses to the number of 1,824, and three-room houses to the number of 1,261. In the rural areas in the same county there are 653 one-room houses, 5,675 two-room houses, and 1,874 three-room houses. It is very obvious, when you consider a comparison like that, that counties like Mayo are entitled to some consideration. There should be some provision made in order to take the people out of the practically uninhabitable houses in which they are living.

Great use has been made of previous Acts in order to avail of the grants given by the Government. During the last five years there were upwards of 2,000 new houses built in Mayo. If these grants are not continued in the case of the farming community I am afraid it will mean the complete holdup of progress in the rural areas. I am of the opinion that this measure should be definitely opposed until it is amended to include some provision favourable to those people of whom I have spoken.

General Mulcahy

The Senator mentioned one figure which I would not care to let go unchallenged. I understood the Senator to say that there were 138,000 odd persons living in one-room houses in urban areas, and that there were at least 1,000,000 living in one-room houses in the rural districts.

Mr. MacEllin

I am quoting figures from the census of population taken in 1926.

General Mulcahy

I think the Senator will find that the number is about one-fiftieth of that figure—less than 20,000.

Mr. MacEllin

The figures I gave were taken from the census of population.

General Mulcahy

I think the figure of 1,000,000 the Senator mentioned should certainly be challenged, and if the Senator examines the figures once more he will find he was mistaken.

Mr. MacEllin

Does the Minister not agree that the number of people living in one-room and two-room houses in the rural areas is as great as, if not greater than, the number of people similarly housed in the cities and towns?

General Mulcahy

The number of people in one-room houses in the rural areas is very much less than the number in urban areas. The number living in two rooms in the rural areas is appreciably less than the number living in two rooms in urban areas; but the number living in three-room houses in the country is about twice the number in the urban areas. It is the figure of 1,000,000 that I challenge.

Mr. Johnson

I have here some figures that may be helpful. The number of persons living in one-room tenements in Dublin City is 78,920; the number in other county boroughs 11,097; and the number in the rest of Saorstát Eireann is 50,044, making a total of 140,061.

Mr. Farren

I am compelled to support this Bill. I agree that the time has arrived when something should be done to build houses for the slum dwellers. It must be admitted by any impartial observer that the 26,000 houses that have been built since 1922 have not solved very appreciably the real housing problem as affecting the people in the slums. I do not suggest that the houses that were built by local authorities from 1922 onwards were too good for the working-class people to dwell in, but I do say that the houses erected by the local authorities—and I am speaking now of local authorities in the immediate vicinity, the place with which I am most familiar—more especially by the Dublin Corporation, since 1922, have not touched upon the problem of the real slum dweller because of the fact that the rents charged for those houses were out of all proportion to what the slum dweller could afford to pay. Therefore, all the Housing Acts passed by the Oireachtas and all the money allocated by way of grants have not touched even the fringe of the housing problem as we in Dublin know it.

Under this Bill an attempt is made to get nearer to the problem of the housing of the slum dwellers. This Bill is worthy of every support by reason of the inclusion in it of a section which gives power to local authorities to clear slum areas. It is largely because of that section that I heartily support the Bill. Those familiar with the conditions under which many people in Dublin have to live must be painfully aware of the difficulties that had to be confronted and the obstacles that blocked the path of the local authorities when they attempted to do anything in the way of clearing slum areas. The Minister proposes to give the local authority power under this Bill to schedule an insanitary area. Heretofore a local authority had power to declare an insanitary area. They had power to condemn houses as being unfit for human habitation, but there their powers ended. Under this Bill the local authorities will have power to declare an insanitary area. They will notify the Minister and he will have power to enable the local authority to order the clearance of the area. The local authority can then serve notice on the owners of the insanitary dwellings to take down those dwellings and clear the site. The cost of the site then will be the value of the land, less the cost of clearance. This is the first real attempt made to grapple with that part of the problem. Because that section is embodied in it, I feel myself bound to support the Bill.

There is one section dealing with financial matters with which I am not satisfied. The Bill proposes to induce the local authorities to build tenement flats. That is being done deliberately and I think it is a blot on the Bill. I hope before the Bill leaves this House the Minister will agree to a remedy in that respect. I know it is almost impossible to secure a sufficient amount of land in the immediate vicinity of Dublin upon which to erect houses to accommodate the people living in the tenements. There is, however, a certain amount of land available upon which small family houses could be erected. I think the Minister should not persist in making the State grant less in the case of the small house as against the flat.

Let us assume that the municipality of Dublin decides upon a clearance scheme in respect of an insanitary area. They must satisfy the Minister that they propose to clear the area. All the preliminaries are gone through. They want to re-house the people who are taken out of the insanitary area that is to be cleared. They must have virgin land somewhere in order to erect houses for these people. Before they get permission they have to prove to the Minister's satisfaction that they propose to re-house the people taken out of the insanitary area and therefore there must be houses built on virgin land. Instead of building flats the municipality may find it cheaper to build dwellings of a small type. I think on examination that will be found to be correct. The Minister will not deny that certain flats were built in Dublin within recent years and it cost more to build a flat than it would cost to build a house.

General Mulcahy

Very nearly as much.

Mr. Farren

Not very nearly at all, but it actually cost more. I think the figures will prove that, and I am sure the Minister knows the flats to which I am referring. The flats are very fine, no doubt, but I have yet to meet the decent man and woman who would not prefer having their own little house to any tenement flat. From every point of view the small house is more desirable. That is the result of our experience in Dublin with regard to the people who are removed from the dirty slums into small houses of their own. Even the President has referred to the change in the habits of the people who were moved from tenement dwellings to small houses. Anyone who knows these people cannot fail to observe the great change for the better since they were taken from the slums and put into their own little homes. The woman who is put into one of these little houses realises that the responsibility is upon her to keep it in proper order and everything pertaining to the careful management of the home is her concern. There is no reason at all why there should be such a distinction as is made in the Bill between the proposed flats and the small houses. No doubt there must be flats built, but in certain cases it would be cheaper to build small houses. I appeal to the Minister not to allow the Bill to go through without remedying the distinction that is made in Section 64.

With regard to the question of the reduction of the subsidy to speculative builders or to people anxious to build their own houses, I think those people have had ample opportunity since 1924 to take advantage of the very decent terms that were offered. They got a very fair innings. The poor people have had to wait in the meantime. I think the Government is well advised to take off a slice in order to endeavour to meet the real housing problem which concerns the poor people who have to reside in the slums.

I am not dealing with this Bill from the same point of view as Senator MacEllin dealt with it. He concentrated upon rural housing conditions. I am speaking only for the area with which I am familiar. I do know, however, that in certain cities and towns in Ireland the housing conditions are nearly as bad as they are in Dublin. I am dealing with the position of Dublin City principally. I trust the Minister will agree to alter the arrangement as it exists in the Bill between the flat and the small house. If he does that I think that on the whole the Bill will be considered as fairly satisfactory. It does not go all the distance that Senators would like, but I suppose we have to be satisfied with small mercies. The Bill certainly goes a long way with regard to the clearing of sites, and that is decidedly a step in the right direction.

Mr. Connolly

I also wish to support this Bill. I feel it is a desirable move in the right direction. I would like, however, to raise one or two points in connection with it. I have every sympathy with Senator Farren's attitude with regard to small houses as against flats. I would like to see small houses encouraged rather than big apartment dwellings. It is to be assumed that we will have these large tenements. I wonder would the Minister consider any suggestion relative to what has been adopted in other countries? In Holland they have this difficulty with regard to slums. They found, what might or might not be found in Ireland, that slum dwellers in many cases going into apartment houses and not being used to modern conveniences in their previous dwellings, frequently do not avail themselves to the full of the benefits that the new apartment houses offer. The system was adopted in Holland of having an inspection carried out and a certain amount of education was imparted relative to the use of the various facilities offered in the new dwellings.

I do not know whether there is much in the idea or whether sensitive Irish people would resent a local authority appointing such instructors or inspectors. It has been the experience of property-owners that in some cases baths were used as wash tubs. Those of us who have experience of small house property know that the maintenance of the sanitary arrangements in these small houses is a very big source of loss to the owner, and often an otherwise good house is rendered unhygienic and insanitary. I offer that suggestion for all it is worth, and I would like to hear the Minister's views upon the matter.

I wish to ask the Minister if, in working out the grants and subsidies, the officials in his Department have attempted to work out any schedule of what would be the economic rent under all the conditions embodied in the Bill for various types of houses, either apartment houses or small single houses. I think that would be very helpful to us when we are considering the Bill in Committee. It would be well to know, for instance, that under this arrangement of a subsidy by the State and a grant by the local authorities we could provide a house of three rooms and a kitchen for a family at a rent that would not exceed 5s., 6s., 7s., or 8s. We would then have an idea of the extent to which, under this legislation, we can produce a dwelling which the average labouring man in Dublin or elsewhere could afford to occupy.

I have every sympathy with the points raised by Senator MacEllin, but I am not in sympathy with him to the extent that I would be prepared in any way to hold up the operation of this measure. I feel that the housing problem in this State is one that must be faced as quickly as possible. I know that in the rural districts, and, what is worse, in the small towns, the housing conditions are in many cases extremely bad, to say the least of it. I think the time has passed when subsidies ought to be offered to speculative builders. It seems to me if there is any subsidy going to be provided, either by the State or by the local authority, it should not be passed on to private ownership. It is almost inevitable if a speculative builder, or even a private owner building for his own convenience, is afforded this subsidy that it will simply become a profit factor in the development of his building schemes, and that should not be so. I think any houses that are going to be subsidised by the State or by the local authority should be connected with some public scheme and be either State or locally-owned property.

Sir John Keane

It was my intention to ask, like the last speaker, that we should be given some idea of what rents tenant occupiers will be asked to pay so that we can judge whether they will be fairly economic rents. There is one point in the Bill to which I would like to draw attention. I do so not in any hostile spirit. It is with regard to clearing areas. In a housing scheme of which I had experience it was found expedient not to clear the whole area straight away. I do not know if that is possible under this Bill. It was found convenient to clear the area piecemeal, to keep occupiers in other portions of the area so as to make the demands on alternative housing as light as possible. The chief difficulty is the alternative housing, but with the resources of the State behind the scheme I do not see why alternative housing should be an insuperable matter. We had experience during the Great War of hutments being utilised for the purpose of housing people and they were found satisfactory. There might be, for instance, a continual use of small huts of that description, a sort of revolving scheme under which these temporary buildings could be placed on a temporary site and could be used for the accommodation of families during the process of rebuilding.

I hope the Minister will consider the point as to whether it would be convenient to acquire the whole area or acquire only portions at a time in view of the difficulty of alternative housing during the transition period. I am also anxious to know if the Minister could not give preference to public utility societies in the matter of financial assistance, preference over local authorities, because there is a very great necessity for the human touch in regard to occupiers. I think everybody will agree that where there is a large voluntary element, such as you find in public utility societies, they will be much more sympathetic and have much more influence with the tenants. They will have a more pleasant way of dealing with personal difficulties. In the matter of rent collecting, they do not approach the tenants in the spirit of the ordinary rent collector with the power of the law always to the forefront; they will collect the rents, having due regard to the difficulties and the personal positions of the tenants. It is very necessary, if there is going to be full social benefit coming from these schemes, that the human touch should be present, and I do not know that you will get it in the same way from the ordinary official rate collector as you will from the workers on behalf of the public utility societies.

With regard to the clearance of areas, I do not think it is fair that the owner of dwellings pronounced insanitary should be asked to be out of pocket in the matter of the cost of clearance. After all, he is entirely in the hands of the authorities with regard to what may be deemed insanitary. If the Minister wishes to set a high standard a certain amount of injustice may creep in. There might, for instance, be dwellings which none of us, perhaps, might like to live in, but which at the same time are not quite as bad as they might be. These might be regarded as insanitary and the owner would have to bear the expense of clearing them. I think the Government should be satisfied with the acquisition of the premises, their demolition, compensation and site value. It must be remembered that the owner is making very big sacrifices. I do not stand up to defend the owner of insanitary property, but I wish to emphasise that on the question of what is insanitary he is entirely in the hands of the local authorities. If he is in the hands of some of the medical officers of health, I am indeed sorry for him. Some of them come hot-foot from their schools of hygiene with peculiar ideas as to what is insanitary. To them everything is insanitary that smells.

I think as we are committed to a very considerable amount of socialism on this housing question— it is quite impossible as housing costs are so high for the matter to be handled by private enterprise—this is certainly a wise and a good direction in which this socialistic policy should be applied.

Mrs. Wyse Power

I think everyone must agree that this is a genuine attempt to deal with the housing of the very poor who can only pay a few shillings a week rent. Section 4 is one of the most interesting sections in the Bill. Under it utility and philanthropic societies can take up a good house—it may not be suitable owing to the amenities surrounding it for a number of people—and have an advance of some hundreds of pounds from the Department to put it in repair. That can occur in the case of a number of old Georgian houses. Water and sanitary arrangements can be put on each landing. We have had a very good example of that kind of work in the City of Dublin. I hope it is going to be followed in this Bill and that this section will be availed of. A social scheme of that kind has I think been undertaken by a society up around Summerhill. The society took some houses there. They were not in very good repair. They put water and other accommodation in on the landings and set the houses to decent people. I think they have been able to get their own money back out of the scheme, but whether it has been able to pay interest on the money or not I do not know. Some of those associated with the work have told me that they have not been out of pocket as a result of carrying out that very good class of work.

Help is now going to be given on a larger scale under this Bill. Had what is being proposed under this Bill been done fifteen or sixteen years ago quite a number of magnificent old houses would have been saved from falling into disrepair. That is particularly true of the north side of the city. Under a scheme such as is now proposed much valuable work in that direction could have been done around Gloucester Street and Gardiner Street. Many of these houses might have been saved from becoming tenements. I agree with Senator Farren that this is a good Bill for those who can only afford to pay a few shillings a week rent. Everyone must wish to see these people in clean decent dwellings. There are reasons, as Senators know well, why it would not be possible to place certain classes of people in separate dwellings. Most of these people can only afford to pay 2/6 and 3/- a week, and everyone knows it is not possible to build houses for that class of person. Another reason is that many of these poor workers must live near their work. Many of them find employment in some of the larger hotels and in other places where it is absolutely essential for them to be at their work at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning. Decent tenement flats which could be let at a rent of a few shillings a week would be of enormous advantage to people so circumstanced. Those who can afford to pay more can avail of the houses built on virgin soil. I think that the provision of a good type of tenement flat is a serious want in the City of Dublin. I hope that problem will be tackled at a very early date.

Mr. Foran

I must congratulate Senator Sir John Keane on seeing the light even at this late hour of the day. I have been a socialist all my life. The Senator is a convinced one now, and believes that this housing question can only be solved along socialistic lines. I am in agreement with him on that. I think that no matter what opinions people may hold everyone will welcome the attempts made to solve the awful housing conditions that exist in parts of this country and particularly in this city. A commission some few years ago placed it on record that only in Constantinople could worse slums be found than in the City of Dublin. It is not many years since the Commission made that report. The Corporation made great efforts to do away with that condition of things, but its efforts have made very little impression on the slum problem as it exists in this city. There are 30,000 families living in one-roomed dwellings in this city, and 2,000 living in cellar dwellings. The Dublin Corporation cannot find the money necessary to house these people properly—to remove them from their present horrible, insanitary conditions.

It is the great desire of every one of these people to get out of these slums so that their children may be reared up under decent conditions. I cannot emphasise that better than by relating what happened a few weeks ago when the mother of a family living in a cellar dwelling received the announcement that a sweep ticket purchased by her husband had drawn a horse. Her first exclamation was not that she would buy a motor car or do anything like that, but it was this: Thank God we can now get a little house for ourselves. That expression of thankfulness on the part of that woman reflects the mind of those who live in these slum dwellings. I submit that we cannot solve the slum problem on borrowed money. That is out of the question. Borrowed money in the case of an ordinary house represents a weekly rental of ten shillings, allowing for interest and sinking fund charges. The average slum dweller could not afford to pay that rent. I would like to put this to the Minister: If one and a half million pounds were placed at his disposal free of interest for a period of four years what effect, in his opinion, would that have on the slum problem in this country?

General Mulcahy

Would you have to give it back at the end of four years?

Mr. Foran

No, to have it handed over free gratis. One and a half million pounds free of interest for a period of four years. I know where that money could be got. I know that it would be serving a more useful purpose than it is at present although I have no objection to the purpose it is serving now. I believe it is well spent, but I think it could be better spent by preventing disease than by attempting to cure it.

Mr. Robinson

I think it is a fair criticism of the Bill to say that the initiative in connection with it is left entirely too much in the hands of other people. The scheme of the Bill depends too much on the Local Government Department and on speculative or private builders. The local bodies are supposed to be the most suitable people to deal with this housing problem. I do not quite agree with that. This is not so much a housing problem as a menace. Therefore, it ought to be treated by the central Government as a menace—as an outside menace would be treated. The Bill is more or less intended to clear away some of the slum areas. I agree with the last speaker that it will do practically nothing in that respect, for the reason that the majority of the people there cannot afford to pay a higher rent than two or three shillings a week. That indicates the difficulty of the problem. I would like to know whether the Minister has considered what is to be done with the people living in an area in respect of which a clearance order is made. How are they going to find temporary accommodation? Surely some place will be required to put these people in before you clear an area of the inhabitants living there. I do not think it will be possible to carry out that part of the measure.

In view of the magnitude of the problem that has to be dealt with, the amount of money provided is infinitesimal. I referred earlier to an outside menace. If we had such a thing threatening the country I am sure there would be no difficulty in raising £40,000,000 or even £100,000,000 to deal with it. Here you have an internal menace and coupled with it unemployment. It may be asked, where are we to get the £40,000,000 or the £100,000,000 required to deal with it? I have a solution which I should say is my own, and I put it forward though it may be that no one will back me up. I have an idea that the credit of the country is money. It is really nothing else. What is that credit? It is all that we have and all that we can produce. Senators may contradict my statement, but I think that our credit is worth anything up to £1,000,000,000. The British people owe twice that amount. Surely we ought to be able to find £100,000,000—in other words, ten years' purchase of what our credit is worth. If we can so arrange it that we shall not have to issue script it will be so much the better.

Unfortunately people cannot get over the idea of insisting on taking money from somebody else to utilise it for Government purposes. What that amounts to is taking money out of circulation —money that ought to be doing its ordinary work. I wish some Government would go into the matter and see whether or not they could not raise money—that is issue money, create money so to speak. By that means we could do away not only with this housing menace, but with unemployment as well. What is behind the present issue of money? It is only printed. I know there are a good many difficulties to be considered in connection with this. If we did not balance our trade and our money was going out of the country, then I realise we would be in some difficulty, but if all our people here were fully employed we could not only balance our trade, but have a balance in our favour.

In this part of Ireland we have a population of about 2¾ millions. More than half that number is composed of women. Children represent one-fifth. Then we have civil servants, police, army, teachers. All these people are non-productive. If you eliminate all these I think you will find that you have not more than 500,000 effectives in the country. What are they doing? They have to pay for our imports, which run up to about £60,000,000 a year. They have to pay the £20,000,000 a year which goes to the upkeep of Government. They have to feed not only themselves and their families, but the whole country. Everything depends on them. I suppose they must be producing up to £100,000,000 a year.

If you had a proper building scheme in operation involving an expenditure of £40,000,000 or £50,000,000 a year, consider how many people would be employed and how many more industries would be set going. You would have brick yards, cement works and foundries working to full capacity. I put that forward as an idea of my own and suggest that it ought to be considered. It is not a new idea, but I think it is something that ought to be faced up to. If we cannot raise money by loans in the ordinary way then I think we would be justified in trying to raise it in the way that I suggest. This housing problem is a very serious matter. It was serious before the ban was put on emigration. The operation of that ban means that you have now 30,000 people more annually to cater for. That gives an idea of what the housing problem is going to be in the future.

Mr. Johnson

I think it is incumbent on the Seanad to give a Second Reading to this Bill and eventually to pass it, if only for the sections in it which deal with the clearance and the rehousing of the people in the slum area. The desire of the cities and of corporations to do that has been thwarted by the difficulties experienced under past procedure. The procedure is considerably simplified and made much easier by the provisions in this Bill. For that, and for one or two other proposals in the Bill which are very valuable, this is a measure which should be supported in general. But I am not so confident, in fact I am very doubtful, whether the aim that we are all seeking to achieve is likely to be accomplished to any degree by this Bill. If we were to follow the advice of Senator MacEllin and oppose the Bill, then we have to ask ourselves what is left. There will be no legislation in operation, and, therefore, there will be no stimulus for building. For that reason alone we must support the Bill. We have, however, the right to ask ourselves what are likely to be the effects of the scheme of the Bill.

In view of the fact that the Bill is introduced mainly to deal with the problem as it affects Dublin City, there is no harm in reminding the Seanad of this fact that in ten wards of the city, comprising a little more than half the population, 31 per cent. of that population live more than four persons per room. One-third of the population in half the City of Dublin live more than four persons per room. There is not much sign, in spite of all the building that has been going on during the last few years, that there is any lessening of that problem. That alone compels the Government and the Oireachtas especially to attack the problem of Dublin City and similar areas in other parts of the country. It is, unfortunately, true that, in very many of the small towns, quite apart from the cities, you have similar slums and similar problems. Tennyson's "Northern Farmer" said: "The poor in a lump is bad." It is very bad in this city, and it is relatively bad in many parts of the country.

We have to ask ourselves whether this Bill is going to be effective in remedying the evil. I admit it is going to make the machinery much more satisfactory than it has been hitherto, but whether it will accomplish the end I am very doubtful. The questions that have been asked by Senator Connolly and Senator Sir John Keane require to be answered before we can judge whether this Bill is likely to be effective. With regard to the financial provisions of the Bill, what expectation have we of the ability of the occupants of the cleared areas to pay rent as well as of the working classes of the little better-off type that are expected to be housed in a single family cottage? We have to have some idea of their capacity to pay. It seems to me that the financial provisions of this Bill are built upon the expectation of a rent-paying capacity which is not at all likely to be achieved.

No doubt the Minister has in mind certain figures at which money may be borrowed and, quite apart from percentages, what amount of the capital charges will be against the tenant of the £450 tenement house, the £350 cottage, the £400 cottage, or the £600 cottage. As far as I can work it out, based on such figures as I have been able to obtain, I cannot see a £450 tenement being let at much less than 10s. a week. The State is bearing an annual charge of about ten guineas and the local authority is bearing an annual charge of about ten guineas per tenement, the tenant paying somewhere about 10s. a week. If we reduce the rent to be drawn from the tenants of these tenement cottages, then we are going to put something more than 10 guineas per year upon the local authority. How much more than the 10 guineas per year per tenement are we going to ask the local authority to bear? If we take a £350 house, I make a calculation which seems to require about 12s. 3d. per week from a person who is at present resident in the slums and is being cleared and rehoused in a new cottage. That again assumes the local authority bearing 10 guineas per year subsidy for 20 years. If the tenant cannot pay this 12s. 3d. per week then the local authority will have to pay something more than 10 guineas per year. These figures may be inaccurate. They are an estimate based on a 6½ per cent. cost, meaning interest and amortisation, and allowing for one per cent. per annum depreciation which, I understand, is the practice insisted on by the Local Government Department.

I am only putting these figures forward as my own estimate. They are subject to correction. I think at least we must have an idea of what is in the mind of the Ministry as to the amount that is to be drawn from the tenant in the shape of rent before we come to any conclusion as to whether this financial scheme is likely to result in any great re-housing campaign. We have what is called the better-off type of workman, the workman who wants a little better house than a slum dwelling. The proposal is that men of that class should bear 15 per cent. of the annual loan charges for a period of 20 years. I would like to know what the Minister's expectation is of the ability of the type of workman expected to take these houses to pay as rent. Does he think that a 15/- or a 16/- a week rental in the case of a £400 house is going to be a solution of the housing problem? The Minister knows very well that, under many of the housing schemes of the Dublin Corporation, one of the problems to-day is the creation of new slums in the new cottages. That is to say, people cannot afford to pay a rental of 15/-, 16/-, 18/- or 20/- a week with the result that you have two families in the one house, thereby creating a new over-crowding problem simply to secure the rental. The proposal in the Bill is to continue that charge for a long time over this class of house. Perhaps even in Dublin, but certainly in the smaller towns, I think it will be found difficult to get the local authority to tackle their particular slum problem on the basis of this Bill. In so far as semi-urban areas are concerned, areas which are under the county councils and boards of health, what is the chance of this Bill coming to their aid based on the assumption that the local authority will raise a considerable rate? We have only to consider the action of the Government itself in its remission of rates on agricultural land and the necessity that was shown for that to realise how difficult it is going to be to get the local authorities to saddle themselves with a housing rate for a larger sum than they are paying at present for housing purposes. It is a significant thing—I say this in parenthesis—to note from the census returns that the class of workers who are engaged in building houses are amongst the people who live in these over-crowded dwellings. I find, for instance, in respect of builders' labourers in Dublin that 75 per cent. of them live in one and two-roomed dwellings, and that 33 per cent. of the carpenters in the City of Dublin live in one and two-room dwellings. One feels somewhat inclined to say on reading a Bill of this kind that to speak of these cheap houses as housing for the working classes is a very clear condemnation of the whole system under which we are living, that the working classes should be expected, in the natural order of things, to live in these cheap houses while the non-working classes are expected to live in the better, the roomier and the costlier houses.

I want to put this to the Minister, unless he can give us some reasons that will inspire confidence in the expectation that this financial scheme will be taken up immediately and promote a great deal of housing in respect of clearance and improvement areas— that is to say the re-housing of the slum population—we are going to have, in the next spring, a very great slump in the building trade. I believe, that, without any question, the first call on State and municipal aid in respect of housing is the tackling of the slum problem and that all efforts should be concentrated upon that, if we can see our way to accomplishing it, and if we are prepared to take the necessary financial steps to ensure that that job will be tackled. But I am very doubtful whether there is a willingness to tackle that problem in the way in which it ought to be tackled, if it is to be dealt with satisfactorily and with certainty of success. I think it is not being dealt with satisfactorily and I am of opinion that there is going to be a very great slump in the house building operations in and around this city and throughout the country generally. We see already a very considerable development in the number of unemployed in the building trades in Dublin. In official returns circulated this morning, I read that between October, 1930, and October, 1931, there were more than 50 per cent. more unemployed workmen in the building trades this year than last year. That, I think, is likely to increase. All signs are that in respect of the building trade, other than housing, there will be a curtailment of activities, and if what I foresee in this Bill comes true there is going to be a very considerable decline in the building of dwellings other than working-class dwellings. I feel, therefore, that the question of building operations, from the point of view of employment, has to be taken into account as well as from the point of view of housing. From the point of view of employment, I think that the scheme as outlined in the Bill is going to mean the disemployment of a considerable number of men who have been employed, more or less regularly during the last few years in house building. I am now speaking of speculative building and of building by public utility societies and people of that class. I am one of those who believe that every house that was built during the last few years, while not directly attacking the slum problem, had some effect by relieving the pressure and in that way it prevented the slum problem getting steadily worse. In the case of every 100 new houses that have been built there has been something in the way of easing the pressure on the slum areas. I am speaking of £800, £900 or £1,000 houses built by speculative builders, or public utility societies. If that is continued it will, at least, continue to ease the slum problem and it will help to prevent the threatened slump in the building trades.

I do not think that the scheme outlined is going to encourage the building of the class of houses that the Minister spoke of in the Dáil, the £600 house by the public utility societies, and I want to make a suggestion to the Minister that it is worth while, without spending any more money than is offered in the Bill for that class of house, to give greater assistance and encouragement to the building trade in that direction, by continuing the remission of rates for 20 years instead of the 7 years that is proposed in the Bill. I suggest to the Minister for consideration that it would be a good proposition from the point of view of municipal finances to continue the method of the 19/20ths remission in the first year to the 1/20th in the last year, as against 2/3rds for the seven years. I would suggest that the £20 local authority grant should be cancelled and that in its place the old system of remission of rates should be substituted. I say it would be advantageous to the local authority, because I believe under that system houses would be built which will not be built under the proposed scheme. I am fairly well advised that that is a likely result. If there are no houses built, or if the number of new houses is going to be reduced considerably, there is going to be an absence of revenue by way of rates to the local authority. They, at least, would get an increasing amount of rates year by year, if houses are built and rates remitted, as in the case of the old system. I think that maintaining the building trades workmen in employment has to be taken into account, when dealing with unemployment insurance and so on, by the State in reckoning the merits of one scheme against the other. I firmly believe that the financial provisions in this Bill will not be taken advantage of in the present circumstances of finance by the local authority to enter upon any big schemes of housing and that, in so far as the private builders are concerned, because of the reduction in assistance there will be a slowing up of building operations in the type of houses that have been hitherto engaged in. As a whole, I think, whether in Dublin or in the country, the prospects are that you may have to slow up operations in the way of clearance in the cities, but in the small towns you will have a distinct slowing up, and that for private persons and utility societies you will have a certain reduction in the number of houses that are being built annually as compared with those that have been built in recent years. Consequently, I feel that the Bill is a real disappointment, especially in view of the hopeful notes that were struck a few weeks ago in various quarters.

It is quite true to say, as Ministers have said, that compared with pre-war activities in house building the building of houses in Dublin, and in the Saorstát generally, since 1922, has been gratifying and valuable, but I think it is not well to claim too much in regard to house building activities. After all, these things are relative to what has been done in other places and in that respect we have a right to be ashamed of what has been done in the way of house building since the Saorstát came into being. The Minister read to-day certain figures showing that there have been built since 1922 12,919 houses in urban areas and 11,647 in rural areas, and the President gave a figure of 6,500 houses built in Dublin. I have not the latest figures, but I have some figures for the ten years ending September 30th, 1929, which might be compared with our Dublin figure of 6,500. I take the City of Birmingham. In the ten years ending September, 1929, there were built there no less than 45,403 houses; Liverpool, 25,035; Manchester, 21,000; Sheffield, 15,000; Leeds, 15,000; Bristol, 10,000; Leicester, 10,000, and so on. Those are cities comparable, more or less, with Dublin. It will be seen that relatively to these cities Dublin's effort for housing has been very feeble indeed. I know quite well all the difficulties, and, making all the allowances that are required, we have no right to pride ourselves unduly upon the effort that has been made in this city and in the country towards building, particularly rehousing the working classes. I am afraid that we will have to say that this Bill is produced in circumstances and at a time which do not give us ground for confidence that any great improvement is going to be made in the solution of the housing problem. I hope that before the Committee Stage of the Bill is through we shall have some greater reason for confidence that the Minister's scheme is going to achieve the end that it seeks.

Mr. Dillon

I wish to express sympathy with this measure. My reason for getting up, however, is principally to support the recommendations that have been made with regard to the rural areas. The condition of affairs in these areas, in my opinion, is a standing reproach, not alone since 1922, but for many years before that. While saying that, I desire fully to support this measure. Everything that has been said on behalf of the slum dwellings in the city might be said with equal emphasis with regard to rural areas. In my own district I could point to a place where upwards of twenty sites for labourers' cottages were acquired twenty years ago and they remain there still as a reproach to the authorities, both central and local. There is nothing more depressing than to see such sites in the rural areas, while young men and young women crowd into the cities and towns when they think of married life. I suggest that in the Committee Stage of this Bill some effort should be made to double the assistance, or if necessary to treble it, so that such conditions might be removed.

I gathered from the Minister that there were 385 houses built in rural areas by the local authorities—I assume that these were labourers' cottages—while there has been a total of over 24,000 other houses built since the year 1922. Agricultural labourers and rural dwellers generally have borne their share of the assistance that has been given by way of subsidy in building these houses in city areas and now it ought to be their turn to receive some assistance. I put it to the Minister, and to this House, that something should be done in the Committee Stage to remedy the present state of affairs. I strongly support the representations that have been made by Senator MacEllin.

Mr. O'Farrell

I just want to raise one particular point with regard to this Bill. The aim and principal object of the Bill is, of course, an attempt at the clearance of the slums and the substitution of new buildings and new streets. As everybody knows, the slums of Dublin, particularly, which have become notorious are situated in the oldest portion of the city. They are quite adjacent to some of the principal and busiest thoroughfares. O'Connell Street is fringed on a couple of sides by them. They are adjacent to the Custom House, the Four Courts, Stephen's Green and to all the principal thoroughfares of our city. The clearance of these slums involves, of course, some regard to traffic regulation and to the amenities of the city as a whole and to its subsequent appearance as a metropolis worthy of the name. To that extent I think it is absolutely essential, before any clearance on a large scale and rebuilding should take place, that the local authority, or the City Manager, should have the power which can only be conferred on him by a Town Planning Bill.

The Minister, when dealing with the Bill that was introduced here by Senator Johnson, promised to introduce a Bill of his own at an early date. Unfortunately he has not given effect so far to that promise. I would urge upon him the great desirability and indeed the necessity of introducing that Bill and of endeavouring to make it an Act before any clearance of slums on a large scale is embarked on. Many of these slum streets are narrow and winding. Their entrances and approaches require consideration and their relationship to the other thoroughfares and main traffic routes in the city have got to be considered. Certain powers which can only be given through this Town Planning Bill will be essential, if when rebuilding this ancient part of Dublin particularly, and Cork to a lesser extent, we have some regard to the requirements of the position and the importance of these cities.

With Senator Johnson, I regret that there should be a withdrawal of facilities in regard to building that now exist. It would seem as if the Bill is endeavouring to concentrate a great blinding searchlight on the slums in an attempt to wipe them out. But the danger associated with the Bill is that it might confine house building very largely to the reducing of certain of the slum areas. The clearance must, of necessity, be of a gradual type for financial reasons, and because of the fact that alternative accommodation must be only of a relatively limited character. If we are going to have a slowing down of all other types of buildings because of the restrictions in this Bill and the withdrawal of subsidies, then we shall simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul. We shall be taking steps, undoubtedly, to eliminate the greatest blot on our civilisation, but whilst doing that I think it is very undesirable that there should be a slowing down of operations in any other direction. When we pride ourselves on what has been done for housing it is rather disappointing to find that in the last nine or ten years the local authorities and public utility societies have built altogether less than 10,000 houses whilst private enterprise has built over 14,500. It is true that most of the private enterprise houses were built on subsidies that were less than those given to local authorities. These figures show that no attempt at all commensurate with the magnitude of the problem has been made either by the State or the local authorities to deal with the housing question. Senator Johnson has given figures of what has been done in certain cities in Great Britain. They enable us to view in a proper perspective our contribution to this problem.

There is one other item in regard to this clearance problem that requires consideration and that is the fall in the £ sterling. A certain proportion, at all events, of building materials come from countries outside of Great Britain and to the extent that there will be a very considerable rise in their purchase price if the £ sterling remains at its present figure or falls lower there should be an incentive to us to encourage the manufacture of building materials here such as cement, slate, brick and so on. That is a matter that the Minister might take into consideration although I doubt if it can be dealt with in this Bill. It certainly is going to be a matter of moment in the solution of the housing problem.

Mr. O'Connor

While I do not know much about the problem in the cities and towns I certainly know a good deal about the cottages that were built under the Labourers Acts. I have built three or four cottages myself for my own workers in preference to getting the work done through building schemes. I consider that there has been a good deal of unreasonable expenditure on certain of those cottages that could have been avoided. I think one of the most essential things in connection with these cottages, from a health point of view, is that they should have concrete foundations and I would put that to the Minister for consideration. I have had that done myself. People can live in comfort in such cottages and with benefit to their health and at the same time it is an economy in the building. I put up a cottage at a cost of £130 and it is fit for anyone to live in. I would invite inspection if anyone doubts what I am saying. There has been a good deal of unreasonable cost attached to building in many cases.

Another thing I would urge is that more encouragement should be given in the use of our own materials. The brick industry is one that could be extended. I think the Minister should make it a condition of all contracts that home-made bricks should be used and that concrete foundations should be put in. I strongly object to tenement buildings. It is like going from Purgatory to Heaven for a man living in a tenement to get into a cottage of his own with his family. Preference should be given to single houses for working people.

General Mulcahy

I appreciate the point made by Senator O'Farrell in regard to the necessity of having a Town Planning Bill when local authorities are approaching clearing work under this Bill. I have such a Bill back from the draftsman in its final stages and it probably would have already seen the light if I had not been in the position of having to call on my own Department to do the actual drafting in connection with this Housing Bill because of the pressure of business in the draftsman's office. I am indebted to the great efforts on the part of officials in my own Department for the drafting of this Bill in time to get it passed before Christmas. Perhaps that alone is the reason why the Town Planning Bill has not been introduced before this. I still have hopes that it might be possible to introduce it before the Dáil rises, if not to give it final consideration.

Mr. Johnson

You could take its first reading.

General Mulcahy

I would be prepared to do that, but I would like to have a particular type of consideration given to it by the Executive Council before doing that. My hope is strong in that direction; it will probably happen, but I would not like to enter into any guarantee that it will happen.

With regard to the question of rural housing referred to by Senator MacEllin and others, I know that there is a problem in rural housing analogous to the problem that there is in the urban districts, but I see nothing in the discussions that have taken place or in the approaches of the various local bodies responsible for housing in rural areas—I see nothing in what has been said or suggested by them that suggests there is any kind of a clear understanding as to what the problem is or how it should be tackled. I have, as I mentioned on another occasion, got the same criticism of the provisions in regard to rural housing in this Bill from representatives of Wexford as I have got from representatives of Leitrim or Mayo where conditions are radically different. I think the figures are that in the County Wexford about 20 per cent. or less of the inhabited houses there are houses of three rooms and under, whereas in Leitrim, Mayo, Galway and Roscommon you have 100,000 inhabited houses of which 70,000 houses are of three rooms and under. It is the same criticism we get of our policy from Wexford people as from Mayo and Leitrim people.

Where labourers' cottages have been built in rural areas definitely for the agricultural labourer and definitely as a contribution to the better economy of the farming community, everything that has been disclosed recently in connection with reports from local bodies would tend to show that the interests of the agricultural labourer in the distribution of a very big percentage of these cottages have been entirely forgotten and these cottages have been put into the hands of other than agricultural labourers by the farmers' representatives on local bodies. So far as my information and my present mind on the matter go, I realise there is a problem there. I realise that you cannot scheme out a policy that will be as definite in its approach and as definite in its finance as this Bill is towards urban areas in respect of rural areas until we have a lot more information and a lot more understanding of what really does require to be done in rural areas.

I would like to have some more examination of the situation by the county medical officers of health who have been appointed recently in some areas. I think we are shaping towards getting that information. Senators must realise that in four counties in the West of Ireland there are 100,000 houses, 70,000 of which have three rooms, two rooms or one room. There is a problem there that on the financial side alone would make one halt a bit before one actually suggests how finance ought to be applied. It really raises the question as to whether, by reason of its economic condition, a large part of the country, where you have housing conditions like those, is able to pay for improved housing. There is no doubt the country is able to pay for improved housing in rural areas, but, in so far as public money has to be applied to it, it has to be applied in order to relieve insanitary conditions. Of course it cannot be applied without being related in some way to the capacity of the people to pay, to the capacity of the country as a whole to provide the money.

In this Bill we are giving the rural sanitary authorities what they have not had up to the present since 1911. We are giving fairly satisfactory loan facilities. They will get money over the same periods and at the same price as urban authorities will get it. The financial assistance we are giving them is approximately £60, as compared with £50 up to the present. I seriously suggest that local authorities ought very favourably to consider the giving of the £20 as against the State's £20 in order to continue the type of building by private persons that has been going on. It is pretty clear that in many parts of the country small groups of men have been stimulated to organise themselves as builders of private houses of a type suitable to rural conditions. We particularly want that type of development of handicraft and industry in our rural areas.

Senator Connolly suggests a particular type of inspection with a view to seeing that people not used to modern houses and modern equipment and passing into occupation of a house constructed on modern lines will be able to take the fullest possible advantage without damage to the house. From what I have seen elsewhere, I do favour a kind of woman inspector who may, if you like, be a rent collector and who can get closer down to the woman of the house and the general economy of families in these houses than can the ordinary rent collectors. With a development on a larger scale of housing schemes in the interests of the poorer classes, no doubt the local authorities will realise the value of inspection by women who are capable of associating with their inspection helpful instruction. I think that would be of the greatest possible value.

Senator Johnson is, I think, just to the measure when he says that it is providing a better machine, and he is probably also just when he says there will be difficulties and that results may not be as rosy as some people would like to expect. It does give a better machine and, after all, to give a better machine is a very great contribution in dealing with a problem to which there are very many sides and in connection with which very many difficulties must be met. I am confident enough that local authorities like Dublin and Cork will make a real, definite, systematic approach to the working of this measure and out of their efforts, whether or not they will be able to break through all the difficulties that will confront them, we will have at any rate a considerable amount of constructive work done and we will have experience that will enable us, perhaps, to take steps in other directions to overcome the difficulties that lie around the solution of this problem, as far as cities are concerned. So far as the smaller urban authorities are concerned, they have a considerable amount of work to do. It is very difficult to get figures, but probably about 13,000 houses in all, outside Dublin, are available for removal and for replacement.

Mr. Johnson

In urban areas?

General Mulcahy

Yes. On the question of rents, the Senator takes 6½ per cent. as the rate upon which he made his calculation with a view to arriving at what the rents under this Bill are likely to be in respect of the three types of houses. The calculations I have made are for 35 years at 5½ per cent. I do not know whether there are any reasons why the Minister for Finance would not be able to provide money at that figure at the present time. Let us calculate giving money for 35 years at 5½ per cent., and work out certain figures on the sliding scale of falling grants to local authorities. Let us take into consideration the repayment of interest and sinking fund on the instalment system and the upkeep and collection charges. Let us assume that we are dealing with rents for the £400, for the £350 house, and for the £450 flat replacing a slum dwelling. I estimate the £400 house can be rented at 9/- a week plus rates, the rates being from 20 to 25 per cent. That is as against Senator Johnson's estimate of 15/- or 16/-. I anticipate the £350 house will be able to be rented at 5/10 plus rates, as against the Senator's 12/3. The £450 flat, I anticipate, will be able to be rented at 7/6, inclusive of rates. That 7/6 is, I understand, the figure the Dublin Corporation proposes in connection with a current scheme. Perhaps the Corporation will have to bear a heavier charge than is intended under this Bill for this particular scheme, but that is a matter that has to be faced until there is some reduction of the standard of the flat that is to be provided as against the standard that the Dublin Corporation are actually providing in this particular case, and also until there is some reduction in the building costs.

We cannot shut our eyes to the effects that the building costs are going to have on the question of rents that will have to be paid and on the carrying on of the building industry. When we deal with the building and construction industry I think we are dealing with perhaps the most important industry in the country, the most important if you judge from the point of view of wage-earners employed. I think it is a most important industry. I do not know whether railways might come near it; perhaps they do not at the present moment. If we judge it on the net annual value of its output, the brewing industry is definitely more valuable than the building industry. At least it produces more. The bread industry might come a little above it. The position is that the product of that industry has to be sold at such a price that even the higher-paid workers in the industry are supposed not to be able to pay for a reasonable standard house.

I think that we have to make every effort to force the building industry up against circumstances that will make it so organise itself as to produce at a more reasonable cost. If we are put in the position that an important industry in the country is so circumstanced, then I do not know where it is going to lead us. If we have in that position an industry dominating such an important part of our social life as the housing industry does, I do not know where it is going to lead us. I do anticipate that when local authorities settle down with the machinery of this measure in their hands to deal with their problems, they will approach those problems in such a way that it will bring down building costs. Building costs have been materially brought down. They have been brought down by systematic and thorough-going watchfulness on the part of the Department and a rather less systematic examination of the question by local authorities. A lot can be done by local authorities who are close up against the situation. The representatives of the local authorities are drawn from every rank in the country, and they are aided by skilled officials. They ought to be able thoroughly to examine the work that is being done under their building schemes and the prices for which that work is being carried out.

Mr. Johnson

Does the Minister take note of the fact that only 16.7 per cent. of the output of the building industry in 1929 was in respect of working class dwellings?

General Mulcahy

If their other business is as uneconomic as is the building of their working class houses, then not only is this country paying in a very big way for the high cost of the building industry and for building houses for the working classes, but it must be paying enormously and unnecessarily in other directions for the remaining 84 per cent. of the work done by that industry. I think that a really serious duty devolves on ourselves and on the local authorities to see that every method of examination is utilised in order to reduce building costs. I do not know if the reduction in the cost of building working-class dwellings from 1922 to date is in any way reflected in the reduction of other building costs, but if it is I would like to claim on behalf of the Department of Local Government that they have contributed materially in reducing costs here.

I think it was Senator Sir John Keane who made reference to temporary houses. I do not like houses to be called temporary houses, and I do not know whether we can say in the Department that we have experience of them. I can, however, visualise what is meant by a temporary house. The question has been fully considered, and it has been found that the difference in cost between a house that would be called a temporary house and a normal house of reduced standard would not make it worth while building a temporary house. We have done a considerable amount to reduce the standard of houses without in any way making the houses a shoddy affair, not fit to be lived in. We have reduced the standard in order to reduce building costs.

Sir John Keane

When I was speaking I had in mind huts such as were utilised during the Great War, in which those who would be displaced during building operations could be temporarily housed. Because of their nature these huts could not pretend to be anything like permanent.

General Mulcahy

That point was raised as a possible solution of the difficulty in clearing slum areas. It is not anticipated that the slums will be cleared unless, during the clearance of them, the local authority can find alternative accommodation either of a permanent or temporary character for the persons displaced. In fact the accommodation will be for those who are most fitted to avail of it financially, and they will probably receive permanent accommodation. The temporary accommodation, I imagine, would only mean a transfer to another building of the type that was going to be demolished. All that, however, is a question of organisation. One of the safeguards in the Bill is that a local authority, before it declares in favour of clearing an area, has to satisfy the Minister that it has plans for providing alternative accommodation for the persons going to be displaced.

On the question of a possible creation of unemployment by a stoppage of building as a result of the changes in the financing of private persons and public utility societies, I had a considerable amount of discussion with persons interested. On behalf of the builders, generally, I find the desire to remain building around the £1,000 figure or the £900 or £950 figure. One of the things that I would have in mind in the changes that are being brought about here is that the building industry would be forced down to building a £600 or a £700 house. Anyone in touch with people looking for houses will find that these people are mostly paying rents in very bad slum areas. They must find it very hard to understand the attitude of the building industry in not building houses at a £600 figure. The better paid workers are terribly anxious to get homes, and they are prepared to pay any kind of a reasonable rent for them.

Mr. Johnson

My informant tells me that that cannot be done for less than £1 a week, and the average workman cannot pay that without encroaching unduly upon his wages.

General Mulcahy

The situation in respect of that type of person is such that we cannot afford at present to allow the building industry to hang around the £1,000 house; that is the house that most money can be made out of. We are facilitating them to this extent, that we are doing for them in respect of that house a thing that has not been done before for them, in so far as building for private persons is concerned. The local authority may not give them exactly up to 90 per cent. of the value of the house, because they may anticipate a fall in values; but we are giving them authority in this Bill to pay up to 90 per cent. of the houses where they are building not more than £1,000 houses. That is a very considerable assistance to builders, so far as I can learn from them. If they are building to 1,250 square feet and between that and 950 square feet they get the seven years' remission of rates and the grant.

If the builders are going to complain now that in 1931 we are taking away grants that enabled them to keep working I think they are quite unreasonable. There is one remarkable thing about this. If the builders have this grievance it must be remembered that the Bill has passed through five Stages in the Dáil, we have this Stage here, and yet I had not heard the builders' voice raised in the matter. That is a very remarkable thing if we are in any way interfering with the industry. It is remarkable particularly if we are interfering with it in such a way as to throw some of the men they are interested in out of employment.

I think the Senator's fears are scarcely well-founded. I think it is worth an effort to try to do something, whether or not it is the right thing to try to do. We ought to try to bridge the gap between the building of the £900 or the £950 house and the type of house that the local authorities are building. Until we do that we are not going to have an advance along any kind of a normal front providing houses for different classes of people who require them. The phrase "the housing of the working classes" has been mentioned. This Bill is a Bill that is very much legislation by reference. It has been suggested that there ought to have been a codification of our Housing Acts. I want to say that it is a precursor of a codifying Bill but I would not like to see that Bill introduced until we have had experience of the actual operation of this measure and can compare the results with our experience of previous Housing Acts. I would not be inclined to call such a Bill a Bill for the Housing of the Working Classes. That is a phrase that has come to us from other Acts. A codified Housing Bill here should show plainly that it was a Bill for the housing of the poorer classes and particularly for the prevention of insanitary areas.

Question agreed to.

Cathaoirleach

It has been suggested that the Committee Stage should be fixed for 16th December.

General Mulcahy

If the Committee Stage is being left until this day fortnight perhaps the Seanad will agree to take the remaining Stages of the Bill in the same week in order that it may become law before Christmas?

Mr. Douglas

It might be better to take the Committee Stage next week. Very often points arise that require to be looked into and that would give an opportunity to Senators to consider those points perhaps the following week.

Mr. Johnson

There is a good deal in this Bill that requires to be looked into. There is also a good deal of work to be considered between now and next week. One week is not a very long time in which to examine the Bill in the light of what the Minister has said and to prepare amendments. It must be remembered that there are many other items to come under our consideration. It may be as well to remark here that if we have a repetition this year of a spate of Bills coming upon us within the last few weeks of the session, and we have to consider them only in the light of statements made in the Dáil and by Ministers who introduce them here, there will not be very much time allowed Senators for the proper consideration of those measures.

General Mulcahy

In reply to Senator Johnson, I would like to say that I am not treating the Seanad in this manner as badly as I have treated the Dáil. I explained that I had to get this Bill drafted in my own Department, and the Committee and Final Stages of the Bill in the Dáil were, after a week's interval from the Second Reading, taken consecutively on a Thursday and Friday.

Mr. Johnson

I would be quite satisfied if the Minister would say Thursday next. That would give a little time for the preparation of amendments.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 10th December.