Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 Feb 1924

Vol. 6 No. 16

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - HOUSING (BUILDING FACILITIES) BILL, 1924. THIRD STAGE RESUMED.

I desire to make a personal explanation, if I am in order. I am reported in the Press as having stated here on Friday last that builders' profits were abnormal. If I said that I would like to correct it. I think there is some doubt as to whether I said it, but my statement was to the effect that an examination of or comparison between the prices charged by building guilds and the prices tendered by builders does not make out the case that there had been abnormal profits by builders. I think that we agreed that these prices should be brought down. Even though the building guilds may not have been the most favourable comparison with builders, it cannot be excluded from our consideration that the builders have had an opportunity of organising their business. They have had a great number of years of experience of that organisation, and although the percentage in difference between the price for which the house was built by a building guild might not show an abnormal profit, the comparison is against the building guild. I am satisfied that a little more attention and a little more application on the part of the building guilds might have produced much better results. In one case I think the result was not at all favourable to the building guild. In the other case there was, as I stated here I think on the 25th of January, a difference between the two of something like 7½ per cent. That would not be an unreasonable profit for a builder to charge, but bearing in mind the better organisation on the one hand and a new service on the other, that 7½ per cent. might have been a great deal more.

Amendment 44 to Section 8 was before the Committee. The amendment had been proposed by Deputy Johnson.

The amendment seems to be to enlarge the scope, or to tend to do so, of the inquiries based on the main clause. Personally, I see no objection whatever if the main clause of the Section were accepted. The real damage, in my judgment, is in the Section itself standing at all. In proposing his amendment Deputy Johnson introduced the question of the organisation of the Light Casting Association, and I think he tried to show that the operations of that association were detrimental to building costs. Unfortunately I am unable to follow him with regard to his facts as, in the absence of Deputy Good, I have nobody to consult on the subject. But at all events the charge was that there was an organisation of employers for a certain purpose, that because the employers organised it was very wrong of them, and that they were very wicked people to do any such thing. Of course we all agree with that. It is a shocking state of affairs that employers come together to do anything of that sort. It would have been more helpful to us if Deputy Johnson had brought his information more up to date and had told us what was the position of the Light Casting Association to-day rather than thirteen years ago.

The Deputy is under a misapprehension. I said the organisation was formed in 1911, and was operating up to date. The figures I gave were quite recent.

As I say, I have no intimate knowledge of this particular organisation, and nobody has been kind enough to supply me with any information second hand, so that I have to accept that that is the position for better or for worse. But even supposing this bad company is operating in that way, it does not in my judgment shut out competition in that or any other form of business activity. The world is large, and you always find people who are willing to come in and try to take other people's business. It is a common failing, but it is a human failing, and as against machinations of those bad employers, might I draw Deputy Johnson's attention to the fact that on the other side, the opposition side of the Dáil, they represent perhaps the greatest combination that the world has ever seen. Trades Unionism is certainly a very effective organisation, a very complete organisation, and what is its object? I do not think that Deputy Johnson will hold that its object is for the general good of the community by reducing wages or by increasing the hours of work, or in the one hundred and one activities that the unions play in the lives of the people; nor do I think he will stand for the opposite position of the Light Casting Association. The principal charge against them was that they tried to prevent other people buying outside themselves; in other words, that they refused to sell to people if they bought outside their organisation.

What do we see to-day in connection with the Trades Union Movement? Is it not in that direction a very close borough? Does the Trade Union Organisation to-day even give full recognition to the rights of the unemployed? Does it give full recognition to the right of a man to get work? Certainly, if a man is a member of a Trades Union he gets the full benefits that could be conferred on the individual by that Union. But under certain circumstances, such as being in arrear or being out of the Union from one cause or another, what is that man's position? I think one must recognise that there is a very grave interference with the liberty of the subject in these matters, so that I do not think that the complaint by Deputy Johnson as against an organisation of employers, stands on quite as firm a footing as if we were in the happy position of every man being told to take up his activities in any direction he wished. As far as the amendment itself is concerned, and the bringing in of those different words, or changing the sense of the clause, so as to enlarge it by putting in other words, I would not really see any objection to it, although on principle I will vote against the amendment, as I will vote against the Clause.

Deputy Hewat has shown that he is quite in favour of the inquiry into the activities of the Trade Unions in the building trade, because he would like to have an inquiry into the operations of the Light Casting Association, or the Cement Trust, or any other combination; at least I think that might be deducted from his remarks. Personally, I have no objection, but may I say that while he tries to draw comparison between the position of workmen combined for the purpose of preventing employers playing one starving man against another, and reducing the wages of one man by pitting against that man, another man eager for a job, another unemployed man looking for a chance to earn a livelihood; if he tries to compare that position with the position of the Trusts we have spoken of, then he is welcome to all that he can take out of it. If the Association, Light Casting, or others, will be as frank and as free in regard to the rates of pay and the costs of the things they are selling, as the workman who is selling his labour, then I am quite satisfied. If Deputy Hewat will advocate that everything connected with the price of the articles to be sold is to be made public, I am with him at once. We all know what goes to make up the price of the labour power which a man sells his employer, and it is easily arrived at. Can we say the same thing about articles which the Light Casting Association, or the Builders Providers' Association, or any other association of employers or capitalists, do with the things they have to sell? Deputy Hewat wants to put them both on the same level. I am agreeable. I want to put the other Associations on exactly the same level as the labour organisations and the workman who is selling his labour are on. I have not heard whether the Minister is prepared to remove these words which limit inquiries to local inquiries. I hope there will be no objection to removing those limitations, and that the Dáil will agree that it is desirable that they should be free to make such inquiries as they think well, whether local or national.

I am in this position. I am not yet able to appreciate the value of the amendment. It takes out in every place where it is mentioned the word "local""in any county borough, district or other area," and it takes out "that area" in two lines lower down. We are not restricted by reason of this Clause from holding an inquiry into the general prices for the whole country, but if we do not have power to hold a local inquiry into prices, reasonable in Dublin, and unreasonable in Skibbereen, Wexford, Enniscorthy, Kilrush or any of those small towns far away in the country, the case to be made in an inquiry which would include two or three small towns would not appear to be justified. A local inquiry in those small places would be better. We can hold the inquiry only in the City of Dublin. If there are undue charges loaded on to the prices of building materials, say from Dublin to Naas, Kildare or Kilkenny, those exceptional charges which are added on by reason of transport from here to there may be the subject of a local inquiry, prices could not necessitate the holding of an inquiry for the whole country. Putting in the word "local" and "that area" gives very much more power over every particular part of the country than if you were to say for the whole country.

I suggest to the Minister that if he reads the Bill in the form in which it has been printed and in the form in which it would appear if the amendment were accepted he would recognise that if the amendment were accepted he would not be prevented from holding any local inquiry anywhere, but that if the Bill passes as it stands, it may be read as a limitation. It may be read as a necessity to hold a local inquiry, and any possibility of an inquiry into the condition of things as a whole is prevented. If the President will look into this matter with a view to ensuring that no limitation is placed upon the powers——

That was our intention.

Regarding a national inquiry, I am satisfied, but I think it is subject to the interpretation that any inquiry contemplated is only to be a local inquiry Every area in the Bill may include the whole country, but it suggests in its conjunction that it is a local inquiry. If you remove the localising terms the powers would then apply to an inquiry wherever a Minister may deem it well to hold such an inquiry. If the Minister undertakes to look through this with a view to ensuring that the powers are not limited I shall be satisfied.

I will undertake to do that. From Deputy Johnson's statement now, I think we are both agreed on the subject. I take it my way is the most comprehensive method of dealing with it, and he thinks that his is. I will undertake to have it examined very closely.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move:—

In sub-section (1) after the word "transport" on line 47 to add the words "and with particular reference to railway charges."

I do not know whether practical effect can be given to this amendment or not; whether the existing laws regulating the railway rates would not prevent the Ministry from instituting an enquiry solely confined to the charges of railway companies with respect to the materials to be supplied for the purpose of this housing scheme. I want to draw the attention of the Minister concerned to the high railway charges that contractors and those desirous of building will have to deal with in the provinces. If the enquiry could not compass an enquiry into railway rates with reference to materials supplied for building purposes, then I would suggest it might be possible for the Minister to approach the companies with a view to getting an agreed rebate on all building materials required for the purposes of this Bill. A few evenings ago I gave two instances to show the extravagant charges that people associated with the building industry have to deal with in the provinces. One was the case of a Dublin-produced article, an item of absolute necessity in every house, that is, plasterers' slabs for ceilings. I showed that the carriage of those slabs from Dublin amounted to nearly 50 per cent. of the price of the slabs, plus the cost of delivery to the railway station. By the time a contractor handled them and had them on his job the price was increased by more than 50 per cent. over the figure that they can be purchased by the people in Dublin. I gave a second instance with regard to a product of the Midlands in England. An article there was manufactured in the Midlands, carried to the seaport, and transported to Ireland. It was then taken from the seaport in Dublin, and deposited in the builder provider's store. It was taken from the store and carted to the Kingsbridge. Of those accumulated charges, over 35 per cent. were subsequently added in transit charges to the South. In those circumstances, everyone can understand the great difficulty there will be in building houses outside large centres such as Dublin, Cork, and Limerick. Railway charges are prohibitive. If the President, under the existing law, cannot give effect to the amendment, I feel the Minister should ask the railway companies if an all-round reduction on building materials could not be made by them before the scheme is undertaken.

I think that the word "transport" covers railway charges. If, on examination, I find that there is any weakness, I will consider before the next stage the matters referred to by Deputy O'Mahony. I would say that particular reference to railway charges would pre-suppose something which we have not pre-supposed against anybody else, and that is that a particular body or Corporation was responsible for the very high cost of this particular service. I do not know that it would be altogether fair that it should be put in in this way, so far as the railway companies are concerned. It might prejudice us with regard to other charges, and might prevent the cutting of unusual charges by reason of the fact that we stressed the railway charges in the Bill as one of the main causes for the high cost.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendment stands in my name:—Before Sub-section (2) to insert a new Sub-section as follows:—"An inquiry may be held and an order may be made under this Section, either generally or in respect of a particular county, county borough, town, district, or other area." It will be seen on reading this amendment that it was contingent upon the acceptance of the last amendment of mine. If we had deleted all reference to local inquiry, then the following Sub-section of which I had sent in notice, was to be inserted: "An inquiry may be held and an order may be made under this Section, either generally or in respect of a particular county, county borough, town, district or other area." It will be seen that the two amendments would have made it quite clear that a local inquiry was not precluded, but that a national inquiry might be held. In view of the President's undertaking to consider this matter for future reading, I shall withdraw this amendment also by leave.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'CONNELL

I move the following amendment:—In Sub-section (3), line 8, page 5, after the word "director," to insert the words "and manager." The object of this amendment is obvious. The idea is that the official on the spot should be made responsible for any default there may be. Therefore, I move to insert the word "manager" after "director."

I submit that this is scarcely a clear amendment. A manager may have no authority whatever in the matter of price. He may be simply an employee of the company directed to carry on the works, to supervise the construction, to regulate the disposition of the various articles and their distribution, and so on, and he may be quite an innocent person. If it should occur that I am right in that description of a manager, I am sure it is not the intention of the Deputy that he would be liable for a fine in the event of the director or managing director fixing a certain price over which the manager himself had no control whatever.

And vice versa.

And vice versa. I take it if there be a managing director the word "manager" is simply an indication that the manager may advise, but unless culpability were clearly brought home, I think the inclusion of the word "manager" might do more harm than good. In any event, I do not think that the clause is much weaker by reason of the fact that the word "manager" is not there.

Mr. O'CONNELL

The final words of the clause would apply if what the President says were the case. That is if the act takes place without his consent or connivance, there is no offence committed. But there may be, and I am informed that there are, cases in which the manager is an Executive Officer who has the right of fixing prices. I think that case would not be covered by the clause as it stands. That was my reason for moving the amendment.

I submit—and it is important—that the person actually responsible for overcharging is, in the case of limited companies, neither the Chairman, managing director nor other director of the company. If you leave the responsibility on the managing director and every other director of the company, he may live outside the country or he may live in Dublin or Belfast or Cork, when the offence is being committed in Wexford or Waterford, and he will easily prove that the offence took place without his consent or connivance. As a matter of fact, it is very unusual for the directors or managing director to know what price is being charged for the separate items that go to make up the building materials of a house. A manager is running a branch of the business in certain towns, and he fixes prices according to the arrangements he can make with his local competitors. I imagine that in nine cases out of ten he is responsible, and all his directors require is a return in cash. How he gets it they do not care. If you leave the manager outside liability, then the absentee directors will plead to the satisfaction of any Court that the offence took place without their consent or connivance, so that in the case of a company if this clause remains as it is, nobody is responsible and nobody will be punished.

I think that what Deputy Johnson wants is that nobody would be responsible for the work. From my point of view that would be the right way to leave it.

That is the case I made.

I am afraid that it is a very severe blow. I think in the case of a manager who stood to make 10 per cent. and charges prices which are not moral prices or which exceed those allowed by the Act, the liability is scarcely his. I know that Deputy Johnson in other instances would subscribe to that, and it is fairly obvious that the manager is almost bound to charge these prices. I will, if Deputy Johnson agrees, have this clause examined also to see if we have made it fool-proof. If there is culpability on the part of a manager he should not be allowed to go scot free. My concern was that if culpability could not be brought home to him it is not right that he should bear a burden which apparently he has not a free election to bear or not bear as he so desires.

The object is not quite to make this Section so much foolproof as knave-proof. If the President will recollect I think he will admit himself that quite a considerable number of businesses in this country are very general. They will sell paraffin oil, turnip seeds, butter and slates. If the whole concern had returned a general profit, say of 10 per cent., it would be satisfactory to the directors, but if, by virtue of the Bill that the Minister is telling the country is to be brought forward shortly, the grocery department fails to return a 10 per cent. profit, then it might be necessary to make it up out of the slates, light castings, mortar and boards. It is not quite the way the business is done. I suggest he is told he must return a certain rate of profit on the building side. But whether he is told that or not, he will have a right to defend himself in the courts, and if he can show that he is not responsible but some other person, I am sure any Justice will take the facts into account. If we leave the Section as it stands, the manager is not responsible and the other people can prove non-connivance and non-consent, that they did not know anything about it, and consequently no one will be made amenable.

Very good. I am prepared to accept the amendment, but if I find on the Report Stage it should be knocked out, I will bring in an amendment accordingly.

Amendment put and agreed to.

took the Chair at this stage.

On behalf of Deputy Everett, I move amendment 48:—

To add at the end of sub-section (3) the words: "and the stock of such materials or appliances in the possession or under the control of such person shall as from the date of the offence be forfeited to the Minister for disposal as he shall think fit."

If the contracts are big enough a fine of £50 to a big business firm will be a mere flea-bite and may be winked at. The object of the amendment is to ensure that there shall be something substantial in the way of a penalty, and that the material in question shall be forfeited to the Minister, to be disposed of as he may think well. I think it is obvious that something more than a fine not exceeding £50 is required in the case of a serious offence being proved against a managing director or every other director of a company. I suggest that the forfeiture of the materials in question is the best way of meeting such an offence. The materials then can be used for the building of houses.

I am not disposed to agree to this amendment. After all, if the fine is not enough, a sum which would be sufficient ought to be inserted. The fine may not succeed in arresting this evil. I do not think that jurists generally subscribe to the idea that the penalties inflicted for disobeying the law are in the last resort the best security that society has got for the preservation of its laws. In this case, if you forfeit huge quantities of material, do you think that it is likely to impress every other person in the country with the necessity for keeping prices within a regular figure? My view of the situation is that you want to get general acceptance of your regulations. The more general acceptance there is, the less likelihood will there be of having to impose enormous penalties. I do admit that there are times when very stern action has to be undertaken. I subscribe to that very stern action when it has to be taken. Here, however, you are considering a case where you are not actually satisfied at present that there is a real justification for even a penalty of £50. We have heard of individual cases of over-charging. Is there a general impression that the profits of those companies are so colossal as to justify a penalty such as this? If you are going to go in for the forfeiture of property, the last stage may very well be worse than the first. There may be ways of evading those regulations very easily thought out which would more completely disturb the "fool-proofness" of this Bill than anything you might put in to make it certain that it would not be evaded.

The further this Bill goes the less I like it. This amendment put forward by the Labour Party is only adding another insult. I am sure it will not be accepted by the Government. At all events, putting the Government in the position of going in and seizing goods is ridiculous. In the first instance, I presume the Government would have to take some legal action to show that they were justified in doing anything at all. In the interval, if the man felt that he had been breaking the law, and that the verdict was likely to go against him, naturally, I presume, all the material likely to be seized would have disappeared long before the verdict would have been given. The thing is wholly unworkable and ridiculous, and the Section altogether is wholly unworkable.

Hand it over to the Minister for Home Affairs to bring in a Public Safety Act.

Amendment put and lost.
Sections 8, 9, and 10 put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.

With reference to amendment 49 in the name of Deputy Good, I have to apologise for him, as he is away in London. This amendment, and any others standing in his name, will not be moved.

Amendment 49 not moved.
Sections 11 and 12 put and agreed to.
SCHEDULE PART I.
Amendment 50 not moved.

As Amendments 51 and 52 in my name are both for the same object, to reduce rents, I would like to know if I can move 52 first?

I am agreeable to take first which ever the Deputy wishes.

I move Amendment 52:

To delete in Part 1 the figures opposite the words "Maximum rent on weekly letting" and to substitute therefor the figures "2s. 4d., 4s. 10d., 7s. 3d., 3s. 3d., 6s. 1d., 8s. 10d."

That would mean a reduction of 5s. all round in rents in Part 1 of the Schedule. I pointed out before the necessity for having some reduction in these rents, as the average working man is not in a position to meet them at present. These rents, in my opinion, are worse than any the rack-renters in the Saorstát charged tenants. Possibly, we will hear that some tenants in the City of Dublin are paying 12s. 6d. and more for one room. The same might happen in some of the country towns. Houses are so scarce in some towns that the only way to get one is to wait until the tenant dies. I notice by to-day's newspapers that the Minister for Finance is inviting the public, particularly the poorer classes, to buy Savings Certificates, and that at the end of five years an investment of 15s. 6d. will become £1. I want to know how can such people buy Savings Certificates and pay the rent demanded here on a wage of 30s., which is the rate the Government allows?

You cannot possibly ask tenants in the country to pay the rents demanded in Part 1 of the Schedule. In the city of Dublin I doubt if there is a worker with 50s. a week who would be able to pay a rent of 13s. 10d., at present, for a five-roomed house. In the country, how can a man earning 20s. weekly less pay a rent of 12s. 3½d.? I ask the President to consider this question of reducing the rents. I visited three towns in the constituency I represent on Sunday last, in all of which the people were crying out for houses. I told the people, and I think I was right, that to my mind, when the houses contemplated in the Bill are built, or reconstructed, in the city there will be nothing left for the country. At the same time the Government may think it necessary to give a further grant without introducing a new Bill. Even though I am alone in urging that these rents be reduced, it is my intention to press the amendment as far as I can, and to a division, if I do not get some guarantee from the President that the rents will be reduced.

Deputy Lyons evidently does not want any houses built. He offers to a person who invests £240 interest at the rate of 28s. a year. If the money was invested in National Loan an investor would get as much as the Bill is providing. In one case the investor would be making a present to the tenant of £12 or £14 yearly, and at the same time have to collect the rent weekly. If Deputy Lyons wishes the public to invest money in house property, at least a reasonable return must be given for the money invested. Investors must be given more than they are given by bankers or under the National Loan. I consider the figures set down in the Bill are fair and reasonable.

So far as Deputies on this side are concerned, we are absolutely in favour of the rents being fixed as low as possible, but at the same time we realise that when you capitalise the money proposed this is asking the Government to do an impossible thing. As I pointed out before, we consider that if the Government go more minutely into this scheme and enable local authorities to go into it houses can be let for a lower rent than is set down here. I understand that the President had a discussion yesterday with representatives from the Council of Municipal Councils. I know that the discussion did not materialise to the advantage of the representations put forward by the Council of Municipal Councils, but I know that this Council has thought out a scheme, which, I think, may be acceptable to the President. The Council asked me to put it before the Dáil this evening. I would like to know if it was acceptable could an amendment be brought in on the Report Stage to enable local authorities to take advantage of the scheme?

Yes, I take it that if it is possible to agree to the proposals about to be submitted that they could be dealt with on the Report Stage. Deputy Corish and Deputy Wilson have dealt with the business end of this particular amendment. I think Deputy Lyons fails to realise the whole structure of this Bill. The Bill provides something like £300,000 as a contribution towards the construction of 3,000 houses, and the reconstruction of a certain number of others, between 500 and 1,000.

It seeks to make it possible for private enterprise to enter into this particular service; private enterprise that had been divorced from it now for a number of years. The sooner the Deputy and his friends realise that it is not by putting in an amendment of this sort that you are going to reduce the rents, the better for himself and for his friends. If I were to say "yes, I will accept this amendment," not one single house would be built under this Bill. I do not know whether it is the Deputy's intention to effect that purpose. I rather think that it is not. Very well; the problem that we are trying to solve is the problem of a particular commodity which is at an exorbitant price and which cannot apparently be produced at anything but an exorbitant price. That is the information we have got. Various schemes have been entered into within the last two or three years. Various local bodies throughout the country have interested themselves in this, and the result of all their efforts has been that the cost is still an exorbitant cost. Even in cases where during the last two years we subscribed two-thirds of the cost from the State and the local authority put up a quarter of the remainder by striking a rate equivalent to a quarter of the other portion of the cost of the house—that is one-twelfth of the whole cost—complaints were made to us that the service was uneconomic, and that the rents to be charged could not be borne by the people. Now, what do you want? Do you want homes handed over to you furnished and ready to go into at no rent at all, because if you do, it cannot be done. No other State does it. I have never heard of any other State doing it, and if the Deputy is putting up that proposition he is admitting bankruptcy of intellect and bankruptcy of idea on the part of the Party he speaks for. But I am sure he would not subscribe to that. The Deputy has not explained how he is going to formulate a scheme which will enable his proposal to be carried into effect. The sum in question here, the maximum price on sale, or the maximum fine or lease is £240 for the cheapest house, and he wants to charge a rent for that of 2s 4d a week.

It would come to £1 8s a year net.

It would work out at £6 4/- a year. Will he tell me where he will find a gentleman in his constituency who will lend him £240 for all time and get as interest £6 4s. for his money?

The President is forgetting that the owner is not investing £240 in the house. He is getting £100 of a grant.

The maximum grant is £100. In this case the grant would be £50. That does not say what the cost of the house to the man who built it would be. It does not mean that the cost to him of providing a £240 house would be £190. I am asking him if he knows any gentleman in his constituency who will put up £240 or if he himself will put up £240 in building a house, and agree to accept in return 2/4 a week that he would have to collect himself?

I would do it if I had succeeded like the majority of them in building up a large capital on the sweat of the labourers.

The Deputy will do it if he succeeds in amassing wealth. Will he point out to me any citizen in this or any other State who has done it, who has put down £240 and is satisfied to collect 2s. 4d. a week as a return on that money?

He is sweating already.

This question of housing is only a question that can be solved by cordial co-operation between all the persons interested in it. During the last two years we put up close on one million pounds, and our proposal was that we would give £2 for every £1 put up by the local authority. In addition, we allowed the local authority to strike a rate of 5s. What has been the result? Out of ninety authorities, twenty stood out altogether. They would not take that money. What do they want? They want spoon-feeding apparently, or they do not want houses. But I think we have come to this stage, at any rate, that if there is going to be any good done in this country, we will have to do it ourselves, and the sooner we realise that it is not by talk but by constructive work that any good can be done, the better. The Deputy has the Bill before him. He made no proposal to reduce the cost of the houses, and now he comes along to ask to have a price inserted that would ensure that not a single house would be constructed during the next twelve or eighteen months. That is not constructive, and I cannot subscribe to it.

I am going to vote against this amendment, and I am going to state my reasons. I would like to see houses built to be let at these rents, or less. But my attitude to this Bill has been that, while I have little faith, or no faith, in its efficacy as a Bill to provide houses for the weekly wage earners, it may provide houses to the extent of two or three thousand in the coming year. I am not going to be a party to any amendment that will have the effect of preventing houses being built, no matter for whom. I am not going to be a party to any action which would even be construed into an attempt to prevent houses being built. In dealing with the measures that have been proposed, and to which we have sought to promote amendments, we have always tried to be constructive and to move amendments conforming to the plan and principle of the Bill once it received its Second Reading. This amendment does not conform to the plan of the Bill and is not consistently moved by any person who has already assented to the sections which go to make up the Bill. So that in refusing to support this amendment, we are not opposing the desire for houses at a low rent, but are leaving the responsibility for building houses under this Bill to those to whom the offers of the Government are made. As I said, I shall not do anything to prevent or militate in any way against houses being built under this Bill. To vote for this amendment would certainly have that effect. Consequently I shall vote against the amendment.

I am delighted that Deputy Johnson has expressed his opinion on this matter. It shows completely and clearly what he thinks of the workers of Ireland outside of the City of Dublin. I certainly agree with the remarks of the President. I agree that the State has given one million pounds in connection with the housing question in order to facilitate the people, and to house them in a proper manner. I further agree that it was not an economic proposition for the different local authorities who erected those houses. In some of the larger towns in my constituency, houses erected as a consequence of this grant are not yet finished. I know there are up to 200 applications for 12 or 14 houses. I would like to touch upon the point made by Deputy Wilson. Deputy Wilson, to my mind, is one of those gentlemen who are out seeking salvation under the false wing of Labour, and is one who would like to place himself in such a position that he could act as an electric magnet in the next election, to draw Labour's No. 1 vote to his ballot paper. Deputy Wilson is going the wrong way in his effort to try and capture those votes, when he states that the person who invests the sum of £240 in the erection of a house will get in return only £1 8s., or 12/6 interest, in the year.

The rentals mentioned in the schedule of the Bill are more than the average worker can pay. A rental of 2/4 is quite enough for a three-roomed house in the country. Years ago labourers' cottages were erected, and some Deputies tell me that they increased the expenditure of local authorities. There may be two sides to that question. These cottages can be let at 1/3 a week, although they have an acre of ground attached. If a cottage which cost from £75 to £120 to erect in 1910 can be let at 1/3 a week, why cannot a house which now costs £240 be let at 2/4, which is really only 1/1 a week more? Besides, there is no acre of ground attached to the house built now. Speaking for the constituency I represent, I congratulate the Government on the way they have tried to facilitate housing for the people.

This amendment of mine will not in any way incriminate Ministers. It simply aims at having the houses rented at a fair figure, one that the workers will be able to meet. I invite Deputies to go down in the country and stand on a platform and ask the people what rent they can pay with the wages they receive. If Deputy Johnson is powerful enough to get the workers in the country a better wage than the present starvation wage they are receiving, I quite agree with him that the rent suggested in the Bill would be fair; but until he can get them a better wage, let him not talk about imposing those rents. He, himself, states that if these rents suggested in my amendment are charged, there will be no houses constructed. That is merely a story that flew in through the keyhole, so to speak. I would suggest to the President that he should have the opinion of local authorities in regard to rents before the Bill passes into law. He could do that, or otherwise allow the local authorities to fix the rents in their own localities.

Deputy Lyons either wants the houses or he does not want them. He does not want them if he wishes to have effect given to his amendment, because no one is going to build houses in order to let them at the absolutely inadequate rentals that he proposes. He challenges people to go down the country and seek approval for those rentals. Will he put up on the same platform as an alternative to those rentals that no houses will be built? You have to deal with a very difficult situation. You have to deal with the accumulation of circumstances, lucidly explained by the President, that combine to make it impossible to let these houses at anything less than the rentals proposed. The Deputy draws attention to labourers' cottages being let at 1s. 3d. He also reminds us that these cottages were built at sums varying from £75 to £120. He forgets, however, to tell you that the experience of every public body that erected houses is that the rental of 1s. 3d. covers less than half the outlay connected with them. He also forgets to tell you that these public bodies that have suffered such a loss in connection with the cottages got money at £2 1s. 7d. per cent.

There was no need for me to say that, because every Deputy knows it.

The Deputy very conveniently forgot to draw attention to it. He forgot to tell the Dáil that even though the houses were built through the borrowing of money at £2 1s. 7d. every public body is paying considerably more than twice the rental to maintain the cottages. The Deputy referred to the contribution that may be given from local bodies. In the event of such a contribution being made by the local body, he overlooks the fact that further down in the schedule provision is made that the maximum rental suggested here will be reduced; so the rentals stated in the schedule are not the actual maximum rentals that will be asked in the event of the local body contributing a sum equivalent to the Government contribution.

The President very properly drew attention to the fact that one million pounds of public money was made available during the last few years for the erection of this type of house in the country. The result was that though one-third of the money was provided locally, the houses could not be let at an economic rent. If a house is erected, two-thirds of its cost being borne by the State and one-third by the local body, and if the local body is unable to let it at an economic rent, how does the Deputy suggest it will be possible to private enterprise to erect houses with the relatively small contribution that they are going to get. How can such houses be let at a rental less than what is mentioned in the schedule? If the Deputy succeeds in carrying his amendment the net result will be that no private person could erect a house for the purpose of letting it on the scale that he has suggested as an equitable one.

I think it is only right I should express my very deep appreciation of Deputy Johnson's statement on this question. Nobody knows better than I do how easy it would have been for Deputy Johnson to have supported this amendment, because at elections people could easily say: "You voted against charging a low rent," leaving outside consideration all the factors that are involved. In recent years this practice has, I think, developed to some extent, and it would be a good job if in public life the same honesty in approaching subjects were adopted generally as was adopted by Deputy Johnson in this particular instance.

Would I be in order in moving an amendment on the next stage of this Bill?

If so, I will withdraw this amendment. I will move a further amendment later.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I ask leave to withdraw amendment 53:—

In the second line of the first "Note" to delete the words "passing of this Act" and to substitute the words "from the date of the approval of plans submitted by persons proposing to erect or reconstruct houses or buildings to which this Act applies, such plans to be submitted within three months of the date of the passing of this Act."

More generous provision has been made by the President and the time for the building of the houses has been extended to 18 months.

Amendment not moved.

I move amendment 54:—

In the second line of first "Note" to insert after the word "shall" the words "unless the Minister otherwise directs."

The Note as it stands makes it mandatory on the Minister to make a reduction in the Grant where houses are not completed in the prescribed time. The object of the amendment is to give the Minister discretion in cases where there are special circumstances.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Question put:—"That the Schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Agreed.
Barr
Roinn