Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 12 Apr 1929

Vol. 29 No. 3

Housing Bill, 1929—Report Stage.

I move:—

In page 2, line 26, after the word "classes" to insert the words "and the expression shall include a company which satisfies the Minister that its objects are wholly philanthropic and include the provision of houses for the working classes."

I think this is a form which will prove acceptable to the Minister. It secures the principle of the amendment I put down in the Committee Stage in this way. It gives the Minister power to state whether he believes that the objects of the company are sufficiently philanthropic to enable them to come under this special benefit clause for public utility societies, and their objects ought to be for that purpose wholly philanthropic. He is to be the judge of that. Their objects are to include the provision of houses for the working classes. I hope the Minister will be able to accept the amendment in that form.

Will the Minister accept the form now?

So far as the form is concerned, I want to suggest one or two verbal alterations.

I must say I have the deepest sympathy with Deputy Professor Thrift's amendment, and I sincerely hope it will be accepted by the Minister. To my mind it will enlarge the scope of this Bill and help housing for that class of people who, through no fault of their own, require all the assistance possible to enable them to live in decent houses. For this reason I would like to make an especially strong appeal to the Minister that he will give careful and sympathetic consideration to the insertion of a clause in this Bill that will enable him to have the power to make, should he consider it desirable, special provisions for those unfortunate people who, through no fault of their own, but by the act of God, have suffered severe hardships. The people I refer to are those unfortunate people who lost their homes at Greystones. An inspector from the Minister's Department is going there to make full inquiries, and I would like the Minister, when he has all the facts at his disposal, to have the power under this Bill to introduce any remedy he considers necessary.

I suggest that Deputy Thrift's amendment should read, instead of "and the expression shall include a company,""and the said expression also includes a company."

It is just a question of the change of the tense to bring it in conformity with the rest of the clause. I would accept the amendment changed in that form. It simply gives the Minister power to regard certain philanthropic bodies actually building houses as public utility societies for the purposes of this Bill and to give them the increased grant. As to Deputy O'Mahony's statement that it is going to contribute materially just at the moment to the building of an additional number of houses, I do not know that it is. I agree that people who in a philanthropic way are doing this work should get the same facilities as public utility societies.

Deputy O'Mahony raised another point. I am not quite clear what is involved in it. This Bill makes provision to give grants of a certain size to private persons building houses, to public utility societies and to local authorities. I do not know what the position is at Greystones from the point of view of reconstruction or rebuilding or providing houses to replace any houses that have been destroyed, but the matter can receive consideration when we have the facts before us.

Amendment, as altered by agreement, put and agreed to.
The following amendment was on the Order Paper:
In page 2, line 44, Section 3, (1) (a), to insert after the word "erecting" the following words: "or reconstruction."—(Seán T. O Ceallaigh.)

It seems to me that an amendment to alter the scope of the Bill so as to make it include the reconstruction of houses cannot be offered. I am not accepting this amendment.

Do I understand that this amendment has been refused?

I would ask the Minister——

If it has been refused it has been refused and that is all about it.

You are making the Bill worthless.

I had intended to move two other amendments to the same effect as amendment No. 2, but I was told on Wednesday night that in all probability they would be ruled out of order. That view was confirmed on Thursday when I saw the official in charge. I take it that any amendment in relation to reconstruction would be out of order?

Certainly. Apart from the scope of the Bill, you have a Money Resolution which authorises the making of grants in respect of the erection of houses. Both the Money Resolution and the Bill exclude reconstruction.

I move amendment 3:

In page 2, Section 3 (1), paragraphs (b) and (c), to delete lines 47 to 54 inclusive and to substitute the following—

"(b) to any public utility society erecting one or more houses to which this Act applies a grant not exceeding £45 in respect of each three-roomed house and in respect of each four or five-roomed house a grant of £60.

(c) to any local authority erecting one or more houses in pursuance of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Acts, 1890 to 1921, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister, a grant not exceeding £45 in respect of each three-roomed house and in respect of each four or five-roomed house a grant of £60."

The idea of the amendment is to discourage the erection of three-roomed houses and to encourage, as far as the additional grant would encourage it, the erection of four and five-roomed houses. I realise from the statement made by the Minister for Local Government last evening, in reply to some questions as to the number and the size of houses built in recent years, that the percentage of three-roomed houses that have been built by utility societies or by local authorities is small. I think the percentage was eight. The members on these benches hold very strong views on the question of the three-roomed house. They look upon it, as a matter of principle, that the building of three-roomed houses ought not to be encouraged by the grant of public money. The small number of such houses that would be necessary for, perhaps, old couples, or newly-married people in the cities or rural areas could be built other than by such societies as these. At any rate, there are not so many of them needed that they could not be provided for otherwise than by grants out of public moneys.

I cannot agree with the view of the Deputy that it is not desirable to encourage the building of three-roomed houses. The figures given last night by the Minister as to the small number of three-roomed houses that had been erected under previous Acts are rather surprising. I thought that though the whole object of the Bills we did pass was to encourage the building of five-roomed houses, that a larger number of three-roomed houses had been built. The position, as I pointed out on the Second Reading, is largely an economic one. We would all like to see these people housed in five-roomed houses. They would like to be in five-roomed houses themselves.

All of us would like to occupy a better house than we occupy at the moment. But we cannot afford it. You are seeking to force from these people a rent they cannot afford to pay. A five-roomed house at the moment costs anything from 15/- to 20/- a week. If we force the man with a large family and a small income to pay that rent the family is called upon to make very considerable sacrifices in other directions. How many are there that are unable to make sacrifices? What is the result? We all recognise that the problem is a serious one at the moment, and in order to get accommodation these people take these four and five-roomed houses over, and after they are in them for a short time they find that they are unable to pay high rents. Then they start sub-letting. I am only talking now of what is the common experience of those engaged in the housing problem. In those five-roomed houses in a considerable number of cases, as many as three rooms out of the five are sub-let, and in a large number of cases as many as two rooms out of the five are sub-let. Into those rooms you are bringing families with large numbers of children. And that is what the Deputies on the other side tell us is the solution of the housing problem.

My solution is quite on other lines. I would urge that while building is as expensive as it is at the moment it would be much more desirable, in view of the urgency of the problem, to get a larger number of small houses. These three-roomed houses can be let at rents under 10/- per week. That is within the ability of a great number of these poor people to meet. If you were to take the views of these poor people I am sure the great mass of them would prefer to be comfortably housed in a three-roomed house of their own, rather than to be forced to occupy a five-roomed house where they would have to sub-let two or three of the rooms. I have referred to this problem already on the Second Reading, and I was in very considerable doubt as to whether this matter arose at all, or whether it was in order on the Report Stage of the Bill.

I hope that this Bill as it stands, notwithstanding the defects that I have referred to, will not be further mutilated by continuing to carry on under this Bill the defects of its predecessors. The Minister pointed out that even under this Bill he has to approve of the different schemes, and if these schemes do not, in his opinion, embody a sufficient number of four and five-roomed houses, according to the area and the circumstances of the area and the needs of the area, he need not approve of them. To my mind, that is an ample safeguard to meet the objections that the Deputies on the other side put forward.

I would like, in view of the economic seriousness of the problem, to say a word about getting down the cost of living. I say that, because if we are to get rid of unemployment in this country we must face the fact that we must get down the cost of living. If we cannot get down the cost of living, we cannot get down the cost of wages and the cost of production, and if you cannot produce cheaply you cannot sell. You have got to face that, and while I am as anxious as any Deputy in this House to see every man comfortably housed, we cannot get away from this economic problem. There is no use in saying to a man "Here is a house for 15/- a week" when he cannot afford to pay more than 10/- a week. Even though the Minister has this power, I am anxious that he should use that power wisely, and as long as these circumstances prevail he should try to get more of the three-roomed houses than we have at the moment, because under the existing circumstances these are the only types of houses for which the poor man can pay.

I sincerely hope that the Minister will not accept this amendment. I think I can claim to have given a little attention to housing conditions in Dublin and to be acquainted with the appalling circumstances under which a great deal of our people are living and about which we hear so much. I believe that some effort will have to be made to meet the cases of people who are living in one room and who are unable to comply with the conditions that are embodied in the acceptance of four and five-roomed houses. I do not want in any way to suggest that the principle of adopting four and five-roomed houses, particularly in the City of Dublin, should be in any way lost sight of or neglected. On the contrary I think the work that has been done in that direction is worthy of all praise and credit to those who have undertaken it. I do not wish to take up the time of the House in going over ground that has been covered by Deputy Good. I wish to say that what he has put before the House as to the necessity for three-roomed houses for poor people agrees with the sentiments that I hold in this matter. I believe there is a great demand for three-roomed houses, particularly by the old people and by people whose families are such that it would be a great advantage and a great advance to get them out of the tenement houses.

Like Deputy Peadar Doyle I, too, hope that this amendment will be rejected. I have no doubt whatsoever about the sincerity of Deputy O'Kelly in moving this amendment. I am glad to know that it is one of those matters which we can discuss without importing any heat into our discourse or without attempting to make party capital out of what may be said in connection with it. I am in agreement in this respect with Deputy Good. I realise that there are thousands of our countrymen housed under very insanitary and very bad conditions, and the problem is very pressing. There is a desire, I believe, on the part of every Deputy here to do something to relieve that position. Personally, I delight in envisaging the time when every working man in this country and every working man's family will be decently housed, not even in a three-roomed or four-roomed house, but in a six-roomed and eight-roomed house with a bathroom in it. That is the ideal we should all keep in view. If schemes of building are undertaken in this country, they should not be directed towards three-roomed houses of an expensive character; rather should they be of an inexpensive character.

I do not claim to have any knowledge of the building profession. I will leave the technicalities of that business to be dealt with by those immediately connected with the trades and crafts. At any rate, I believe it is possible to erect three-roomed houses which will give a good service for at least anything from 30 to 50 years. As I have already said, these need not be of an expensive character. They would be makeshifts to relieve the present congestion and need of houses.

In speaking to the amendment, Deputy Good could not refrain from once again making a covert attack on wages. He spoke about the cost of living in relation to wages, and again in relation to building, but a notable omission on Deputy Good's part was that of profits. He never, by suggestion or otherwise, said that profits might be reduced. I had a newspaper cutting with me yesterday in relation to a scheme undertaken, or about to be undertaken, in Caterham in Surrey, under which a large number of houses were to be erected— five-roomed and six-roomed houses— at a cost of £480 each. The difference in wages is very slight as between here and England, and there is relatively no difference in output. These English builders are prepared to pay decent wages, and the men work under decent conditions. The builders are able to turn out these fairly decent houses at a cost of £480 per house. When Deputy Good and those associated with him in his profession can tell us they are prepared to build houses at £480 per house and give the same conditions as operate across Channel, then perhaps we will, to use a vulgarism, come down to brass tacks.

As I have already stated, I believe Deputy O'Kelly is quite sincere in moving this amendment and in believing that he is attempting to solve this housing question. I respectfully suggest to him that it will not achieve the end he desires. Though it may appear strange, when I have crossed swords so often with Deputy Good, I really now find myself in the same boat with him for once.

Do not limit it to once.

Deputy Good suggested that this amendment represents our solution of the housing problem. Of course it does not represent anything of the kind. We indicated fairly clearly on the Second Reading that we objected altogether to the half-hearted manner, to put it mildly, in which the Government is tackling this whole problem. What we are trying to do is to see that, when encouragement is given for the building of houses, the right type of house will be built. Everybody realises, in a question of this kind, that there is the old antagonism between the half loaf and no bread. Of course there is bound to be a difference of opinion as to whether we should go for the half loaf. We hold that there is not even a half loaf in giving three-roomed houses to certain classes of families.

We believe the State ought to face this problem as one of the biggest problems with which it has to deal. Unemployment and housing are the two big social problems that the State as a whole ought to tackle. If the price of a four-roomed house at the moment is beyond the capacity of an ordinary citizen with a family, who really needs a four-roomed house, then it is the duty of the State to see that the gap is bridged by State action of one kind or another. It should be bridged either by taking over the question of building houses and dealing with it directly or indirectly from a State point of view, or else giving financial assistance. We have already indicated that we believe the State, in order to cope with this matter, ought to borrow money on terms at which only the State could borrow it, and they should lend it to the local authorities on terms which would induce them to do their duty with respect to the erection of houses in their different localities. There is no real inducement in this Bill to get the local authorities to face the problem.

Going from the general question, which I would not have dealt with at all were it not for Deputy Good's remark about our solution of the housing problem and Deputy Anthony's confirmation of the remark, our attitude in this question of three and four-roomed houses is that the section of the community that most urgently requires relief in this matter of houses is that section composed of men with fairly large families. Where you have a fairly large family of four or five boys and girls you cannot bring up such a family at all decently in less than a four-roomed house. There is no luxury about that. Like Deputy Anthony, I do not want any externals. In so far as any of these external appearances will mean extra cost, we can dispense with them at present. To have a four-roomed house is necessary from the point of view of ordinary decency in the case of a mixed family of boys and girls to the number I have mentioned. If you have a smaller house than that you are catering, not for the class of family that most urgently needs houses, but for the other class that does not so urgently need houses.

On the question of sub-letting, the person with the three-roomed house, if he is going to get fifteen shillings and is allowed to do so, will sub-let one room. If they sub-let three rooms out of five they will sub-let one out of three.

Is not the inducement less?

I understand Deputy Good's point. He says the inducement is less. The reason for the inducement is that if they were not able to pay the rent of the five-roomed house they would sub-let rooms. I think I understand Deputy Good's argument fairly well. When a five-roomed house is vacant a man will take it even though it is beyond his capacity to pay and he tries to bridge the gap by sub-letting. I recognise that and I understand the danger that exists. But we are going to have that in one form or another as long as we have an insufficiency of houses. Families are living in one room now. I have heard recently of a man earning four pounds a week and he was paying fifteen shillings a week for a single room in which he and his family lived. That is a disgrace to anything that calls itself a civilised community. We ought to make up our minds that housing is one of the big things that we have to face. We will ultimately have to face it, and the sooner we recognise that the better. Let our solution be at least commensurate with the seriousness of the problem that confronts us.

Let us not give undue encouragement to the building of the type of house which we will not be satisfied with ultimately. We can be satisfied ultimately with the four-roomed house. Ordinary decency can be preserved in a four-roomed house but not less for a mixed family. Therefore every house we build of the four-roomed class is undoubtedly ultimately going towards our final solution. But there is going to be always a relatively small number of three-roomed houses required, and why should we at this time give a special inducement to the building of three-roomed houses? There is a special inducement so long as you give a grant of £60 for a three-roomed house and only the same grant for a four-roomed house. The fact that tenants would be more readily got for a three-roomed house is in itself an inducement for building such houses. People who are speculating in the building of houses will see that the number of persons who are prepared to take a three-roomed house is greater than the number prepared to take a larger house, and therefore there is an inducement in that. Why should the State come along and give a further inducement by way of a grant which is out of proportion to the cost of the house? I do not know it accurately myself, but I think it was stated authoritatively three or four times as being roughly in the proportion of four to five. The ratio of the grant ought not to be more than that. The ratio of £45 to £60 is a proportion of three to four, and that is somewhat less, perhaps, than the capital cost, and there is, perhaps, a slightly less inducement as regards the grant in building the three-roomed house. That is as it should be. There ought to be less inducement by way of a State grant. There are other inducements for those building, and these will operate without adding an extra encouragement in what we regard as a wrong direction. We know the argument that a half loaf is better than no bread. We think it is unwise, in a matter of this kind, to start to give encouragement to the building of houses perhaps beyond the proportion which will ultimately be required.

There is a point in connection with the matter which, I think, the Deputy has overlooked. The difference in cost between a four-roomed and a three-roomed house is roughly about £20.

What is the ratio of cost of the two classes of houses?

One would cost about £400, and you will get the other for about £380; the difference is £20. If it were possible to get a thirty-five year loan in respect of a scheme of housing, the cost would be somewhere about £6 13s. 4d. per cent. and the actual rent charged in respect of the £20 would amount to about 6d. per week. With all due respect to idealists—and I included myself amongst their number for a very considerable time with that meekness and humility which characterised every person who has been in the Sinn Fein movement—I hesitate to say that 6d. per week is not a consideration to the people whom we are endeavouring to cater for in this Bill. Sixpence per week is the difference between a three-roomed and a four-roomed house. £15 would mean 4½d. per week on the same basis, so that the actual difference, as far as the ordinary citizen is concerned, comes to about 10½d. per week, which is a pretty considerable item.

Does that include the increase of rates on the increased valuation?

Only the question of the house. I am taking it that you are building a number of four-roomed and a number of three-roomed houses. In the first place, the difference in cost, so far as the repayment of the money is concerned, amounts to 6d. per week. If the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Kelly were accepted the reduction from £60 to £45 would mean 4½d. per week, and I have no hesitation in saying that that 10½d. per week is a considerable item in the ordinary workingman's budget. That is the way that the case strikes me—that a person who has a family of four or five or six, or seven, both boys and girls, in considering whether he will have a three or a four-roomed house must take that particular item into consideration when making up his mind.

I must say in Deputy Good's favour that from the first time we introduced a Housing Bill he was strongly in favour of giving a larger subsidy towards the smaller house on the ground that the man with the smaller means would get possession of the smaller house, and that there are cases in which a four-roomed or a five-roomed house is beyond the capacity of these people. There is a good deal to be said for that. One of the objections we had to agreeing to that view at the time was the desirability of getting five-roomed houses built and getting persons to put their money in building who would not come forward unless there was a pretty considerable attraction offered them. In other words, the building industry, as such, was almost stagnant, and it was necessary in our view to keep that particular portion of the machinery going before we concerned ourselves with the other question. I put it to Deputy O'Kelly that that particular aspect which I have pointed out was not before his mind when he had this amendment in view. My experience of people living in one-roomed tenements in Dublin is that they are always anxious to get a two-roomed or three-roomed dwelling. To get out of the tenement and obtain a self-contained dwelling is almost the ambition of their lives, and any improvement whatever of that sort marks an advance.

The Artisans' Dwellings Company within the last thirty or forty years have built some 5,000 dwellings in and around Dublin. It must be said to their credit that they provided these houses at moderate rents which would compare favourably with those of the Dublin Corporation, and at the same time were able to earn 5 per cent. It is right to say in connection with the raising of their capital that the £10 shares went as far as £12—that is to say, that they got in £12 although the value of the shares was only put down at £10. They built two-roomed and three-roomed houses, a small number of four-roomed and very few five-roomed houses. It is only within the last ten years that five-roomed houses have been built by the Dublin Corporation. During my time in the Corporation they never went beyond the four-roomed house up to 1918. The clergy generally are against anything less than four rooms. What Deputy Good has stated is perfectly correct. There was one case brought to my notice in respect of a four-roomed house which is parcelled out between four families.

Is there no way to prevent that?

Practically none, because it is not a question of starting off to make an improvement in a particular service, but of starting off scratch with this immense number of people housed in single-room tenements. There are two questions involved, the question of money and the question of speed. I think that with the best will in the world, and with all the money in the world, it would take from 20 to 25 years to deal with the problem. The Deputy may smile, knowing nothing about it, but I have been making a study of this question for over twenty years.

You know very well that I made a study of it in Lewes Jail.

That gets us no further. We are still building and will keep building. As I see the amendment, it has this weakness, that the man with £2, £2 10/- or £3 per week will be most anxious to get a three-roomed house. The difference between a three-roomed and four-roomed house is about £20. If this amendment were passed it would add another £15, and the result will be that somebody will be called upon to pay 10½d. per week. I think that that is a matter to which the House would be well advised to give serious consideration.

I cannot see eye to eye with my colleague, Deputy Anthony in regard to this matter and I propose to vote for the amendment. It is not a question of preventing three-roomed houses from being built. I suppose owing to the circumstances of which the President has spoken a certain number of three-roomed houses will be necessary, but I think this legislation should not go out definitely, as it appears to me in this Bill, to encourage the building of three-roomed houses. That would be the effect of this measure, as it stands, and Deputy O'Kelly's amendment, to my mind, has as its object the encouragement of building at least four-roomed houses. I was surprised to hear the President speaking as if he contemplated the possibility of families, in the new circumstances, of four or five or six or seven children, boys and girls, living in three-roomed houses. I think, however, it would make more for morality and decency that families of that kind should live in four-roomed houses. Three-roomed houses are built for that class of people of whom Deputy O'Kelly speaks, old couples, or young married couples, without families. I think we should do nothing which would encourage the lowering of the standard of decency and morality which the Commissioners here in Dublin and the other public authorities in the country have been endeavouring to maintain during the past six or seven years. For these reasons I support the amendment.

I wish to support the amendment not that we, who represent rural constituencies, expect to get any benefit whatever for our constituents under this Bill. It is pitiable that Ministers opposite could not see their way to get the Dublin Corporation going, and to argue their differences out about Dublin City. I think it would be a relief to the time of this House if they did so.

Mr. Byrne

Leave Dublin alone.

I object to the time of this House being taken up by Dublin and nowhere else. My reason for supporting the amendment is that under the Labourers Act labourers' cottages built in Cork county were four-roomed houses. The present Bill absolutely precludes the building of any labourers' cottages in Ireland. It is quite worthless as regards labourers' cottages, because you cannot build a labourer's cottage with the amount allowed—£50 grant and £100 loan. Still, under the amendment we would get £180 instead of £150 for the building of labourers' cottages. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I support the amendment. I think it will give us some opportunity, though under the present circumstances even Deputy Good or Deputy Anthony would admit that no man could build a house for £180.

The Bill is worthless for the rural population. It is framed specially to render it useless to those people who pay 73 per cent. of the taxes from which it is financed. It is framed. I think, for Dublin City and Cork City perhaps, and a few other areas like that, but it is worthless to the rural population. My sole reason for supporting the amendment is that it gives us some slight hope of making use of the Labourers Act, but it is absolutely worthless in the way it is framed at the present time.

I should have been sincerely glad if the economic conditions and the urgent necessity for relieving congestion permitted the Minister to accept this amendment. I am no more in love with the policy of building three-roomed houses than the mover of the amendment, but we must have regard to those two considerations of money and speed. These must be the governing considerations when we consider this amendment. Having regard to these two considerations, I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment. Deputy de Valera described the three-roomed house as half a loaf, but I suggest that to families living in one room, a three-roomed house is a very good half loaf.

Another consideration that might be taken into account is that no undue encouragement will be given by this Bill to the building of three-roomed houses, because the Bill is framed in such a way that the Minister has control, and I think we may trust the staff of the Minister, having made a study of this matter in co-operation with the staff of the Dublin Corporation and elsewhere, to see that no larger number of three-roomed houses shall be built than they consider necessary. For the reasons I have stated, I oppose the amendment.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the point of view expressed by Deputy de Valera and Deputy O'Connell. It is difficult to see how you can satisfactorily house a family of five or six children in less than a four-roomed house. Still, one has to have regard to the actual practical difficulties of the moment. The President has spoken of the necessity for speed. I am bound to say that that brings me back to some years ago when I was, myself, directly and immediately concerned with housing matters. I dare say the President will remember the circumstances. There were, as he said, then as now, these two questions, namely, the question of money and the question of speed. We had at that moment to face enormously high building costs. I think it was impossible, if my recollection serves me right, at that time to build a house that conformed to the regulations for anything less than £1,000 or £1,200, for which the economic rent would be 30/- a week. In spite of the fact that the State grant at that time was on a basis of 25/- for every 20/- rent collected, it was found in practice that no municipality would face the loss to the rates involved. Many were willing to face the loss and have a housing rate of 1/- in the £. But it was found that that would not come near meeting the difficulty. One result was that when the Provisional Government took over, the Housing Committee, I am sorry to say, had an exceedingly bad record in regard to housing. There was another factor that undoubtedly mattered. The regulations imposed by the British Treasury were found to be hopeless and unsuitable regulations. Perhaps another fact, a somewhat more personal fact, was this: the Housing Committee took up an extraordinary line. We fought with every municipality in the country over the question of bath-taps. We sent back their plans; we would accept nothing but the best and the very best ideal possible. I shall not say now what went on behind the scenes. There was not, perhaps, entire agreement between the Committee, but the decision was what I say. The result was that by our insistence upon the ideally best, upon the whole we succeeded in the end, when the present Government took over, in having no loaf whatever to offer to the workers of this country.

The President seemed to lay great stress on this question of 10½d. I would believe in it if I had no faith in the future of the country, but I believe the country is going to develop, and in the process of that development I believe that in a four-roomed house the labourer with his wife and family would be able to get some of the family into employment. I do not see any reason at all for being afraid of this extra 10½d. If the family is properly housed, and they cannot be properly housed in less than a four-roomed house, they will be of great assistance in paying the 10½d. I think it would be well if we took that view in general. We are not going to remain in the conditions in which we are at present. I know the President is wise in doing that to a certain extent, but he does not look to the future. These are my reasons for advocating that four-roomed houses should be substituted in place of three-roomed houses.

In spite of what I hear in opposition to the amendment of Deputy O'Kelly, I am still as keen in supporting that amendment as I was before I heard the other side. Nothing at all has been said to impress anybody except from the point of view of a few pious wishes. Deputy Good forgets that we do want four-roomed houses. He confines his argument to three-roomed houses and five-roomed houses and left four-roomed houses out of the question altogether. The first thing that should have struck Deputy Good was what struck me, that a four-roomed house to-day could be built as cheaply as a three-roomed house some years ago.

That is not so. I do not know to what period the Deputy is referring, but if he is referring to the pre-war days he will find the discrepancy between those days and now is enormous.

I am talking of the period when these three-roomed houses were built under the other grants. The three-roomed house which Deputy Good had in mind cost the tenant about ten shillings a week in rent and the five-roomed cost him up to £1 per week. I do not know if the President was correct in his figures as regards the fall in prices which he quoted recently on the introduction of the Housing Bill, but if he is correct in stating that the difference between the cost of building a four-roomed house and a three-roomed house is £20, I contend that the four-roomed house built under the conditions of this Bill will be as cheap to the occupier as the three-roomed house built four years ago.

Does the Deputy argue that it is cheap enough?

Oh, no. I am arguing on Deputy Good's argument. We do know, and we have always stated that if the Government faced housing as a national problem, the rentals would be cheap enough for the people who have to live in the houses.

At the present rates of cost?

I say that if the problem was tackled from another angle that the houses could be let at rents that would certainly be lower than they are at present for the tenants who have either to buy the houses under purchase agreements or rent them at present-day rates. I can only speak of the city of Dublin as far as I know the conditions there. Deputies from the country know the conditions in the country. I say that the four-roomed house built now will cost only as much as the three-roomed house built four or five years ago. We are now going to give a four-roomed house to the class of person to whom you gave a three-roomed house previously at the same cost. It is all very well talking about those who are going to live in the houses. A workingman with a fairly large family, as the leader of our Party pointed out, a man with four or five children, cannot exist comfortably and reasonably in a three-roomed house. We have got to provide four-roomed houses for those who are in most need of them from every point of view. When we speak of old people and those without families living in three-roomed houses, if that argument is to be followed to its logical conclusion why not build four-roomed houses for such people? The people we have to consider are not the aged people or people without families. The person we are concerned with is the person who has a family, and who has no proper accommodation for them.

I was glad to hear Deputy O'Connell state that he could not agree with Deputy Anthony's argument. Deputy Anthony's argument was that these houses were only going to be a makeshift, but that we should build them for a certain number of years. We on those benches do not agree with a costly makeshift of that kind, of building 5,000 or 6,000 three-roomed houses which might be scrapped in a couple of years. We realise that every house built is an asset to the nation, provided it is a useful house, and we say that a four-roomed house is of greater use to the community, and more likely to fit in with our ideas of a progressive housing policy. If we are going to get near a solution of the housing problem we have got to build houses in a proper manner. We do not want to build houses as makeshifts that will be scrapped later, or we do not want to contribute to the creation of one slum by the elimination of another, because if these three-roomed houses are built in the way that some people want them, we will have new slums created by the elimination of others. I see every reason why we should support the building of four-roomed houses. I would like to see five-roomed houses built, and I believe if this amendment is carried we will see very few three-roomed houses built. We will have a number of four-roomed built which will be of some use to those who need them most. The President stated that the difference between the cost of building of a three-roomed and a four-roomed house was £20. That was not disputed. Perhaps Deputy Good will dispute it?

It was not verified.

Does the Deputy agree with it?

I do not dispute it, but I would like to see it verified. The President is usually well informed, we all know, but when I see a figure mentioned I would like to see verification of it.

Perhaps Deputy Good would oblige us by stating what he thinks is the difference at the present time?

Oh, no. I want to let the Deputy make his own speech.

Deputy Good attempted to help quite considerably by interrupting me at the beginning, but now, when we are coming to a point when we want his help, he will not give it.

A Deputy

It is a trade secret.

Possibly it is a trade secret. The President said that the difference was £20. Supposing that he is wrong, that the difference is £40 and that the cost of building a four-roomed house is £400, do you not think it would be a better proposition for the community to give them a four-roomed house for £400 than to give them a three-roomed house for £360? Deputy Good might build four tiny rooms that would not be as good as three large rooms, but I am talking of proper rooms which will be passed by the Department.

I am talking quite sincerely. If the Deputy can show me where the President is wrong in that statement I might reconsider my attitude, but it has been stated that £20 is the difference between the cost of a three-roomed and a four-roomed house. From the business point of view, are we not getting a better return for the community and for the taxpayers of the State, in getting a four-roomed house at £400 than we would be in getting a three-roomed house at £380? The price per room in the case of a three-roomed house would be £130, whereas in the other case it would be only £100. We want a solution of the problem that confronts the workingman who is at present living in slums or small cottages where he has not got sufficient room to accommodate his family properly. The problem is not so urgent for people who require only two rooms or single rooms, but the matter is very urgent for people who require four rooms. I was glad to hear Deputy O'Connell state that he also was in favour of four-roomed houses. Of course, it would be a very bad state of affairs for the people for whom we are catering if we were going to inflict on them three-roomed houses in preference to the four-roomed or five-roomed houses. I have heard nothing to make me change my mind. I have, in fact, heard everything to strengthen me in supporting this amendment.

Are we going to conclude this Stage to-day?

There are some points we would like to have cleared up, such, for instance, as that mentioned by Deputy Good.

Perhaps it could be arranged, if additional time is wanted to clear up those points, that we could continue the discussion after 12 o'clock.

Does the Minister mean to finish the whole Bill or merely the Fourth Stage?

If, after discussion of these matters there was nothing else that was material to require the Fifth Stage to be postponed, I would be glad to get the Fifth Stage completed to-day.

There is some information which I want to get, particularly in regard to the administration of the amendment which has been put into Section 3.

We are discussing an amendment on Report which, I think Deputies will agree, would have been more profitably taken on the Committee Stage. When the amendment has been disposed of, I presume that the general debate on the Bill may be regarded as finished. The Minister says that he wants the Fifth Stage to-day.

I am only going to ask for it, but if there is any reason why the House thinks that it should not be given I will not press it.

This has been one of the most interesting, significant, and valuable discussions which I have heard in this House, and while we do not wish to obstruct or delay the Bill, it would perhaps be desirable not to restrict the debate now.

I thought it was rather understood when to-day was fixed instead of yesterday for the Bill that it would go through to-day.

If everyone votes according to his convictions, how can we decide when the President makes one statement and Deputy Good makes another?

We would like to elucidate these matters before we vote.

We would have no objection to continuing the discussion for five or ten minutes after 12 o'clock.

Is there any objection to that?

No, we would be prepared to allow half an hour extra if necessary.

I have always advocated that there should be houses of four or five rooms built for the working classes, but I find myself in an awkward position in regard to this amendment. I do not agree with the estimate of the President that there would be a difference of only £20 as between the three-roomed and the four-roomed house. My reason for disagreeing is that at the moment the Wexford Corporation are preparing a scheme. We have before us the G 1 plan of the Local Government Department, a modified standard house. That is a four-roomed house. We have also before us a plan for a three-roomed house prepared by the Local Government Department. We have estimates for the two, and the difference is £50. I believe that that is nearer the mark than the President's estimate. Coupled with that, the President based the figure of sixpence a week increase of rent on the supposition that he could procure a loan for thirty-five years. I would be glad if he would tell us where it is possible to get a loan for thirty-five years for the purpose of house-building at present. My experience is that you cannot get a loan for a longer term than fifteen years and, in the great majority of cases, you can only get it for ten years. Calculating a loan for fifteen years—I am satisfied that you cannot get it for a longer term—and on the terms regulated by the President in 1922, when he released one million pounds for housing, that means an annuity of £9 7s. 6d. if the difference is £50. We have it on the authority of the engineers in our area that it would mean an increase not of sixpence but of 1/9 per week. That is a serious consideration for the working classes. If the loan were for ten years the annuity would be £12 10s. and the difference would be 2/4 per week. That is a very serious problem for us. It would be very serious if we were to support the amendment and thereby place on the shoulders of the people occupying these houses this additional charge.

Is the local authority trying to recover the whole outlay from the tenant in ten or fifteen years?

Is it trying to recover the capital?

Yes. So far as I am concerned, I would not be in favour of that, but if a local authority starts out on a big scheme which works out to be uneconomic at the beginning it means that they would have soon to stop building or else incur a heavy loss. I know that so far as the working classes are concerned it is not a good principle, but unless you can make each scheme pay you will find yourself in the position that you will have to stop building altogether. Deputy de Valera made a statement with which, in ordinary circumstances, I would agree, but I wonder does Deputy de Valera know the actual position that has prevailed for the past three or four years, and that it has been the custom of local authorities to build G 1 modified standard houses. When he speaks of decency and all the rest of it he is looking at it from the point of view of bed-room accommodation. What is happening is that there are only two rooms being used as bedrooms, even though it is a four-roomed house. I am not suggesting that a workman should not have a parlour in his house, but it is not right that one room should be used as a parlour when there are seven or eight children in that house.

Hear, hear.

My remarks may be misunderstood, and I do not want to be placed in that position. I am speaking from actual experience, and I believe that the difference would be £50 and not £20. I do not know whether Deputy Good would agree with that view or not. The reason I say that is this: Take the two houses the Wexford Corporation have considered. One house is 30 feet long and the other house is 23 feet 7 inches. Deputy Good or anyone else will know the difference in roof, rafters, slates and other things would mean considerably more than £20. Taking that as a basis, we are able to procure money which will make that difference. I think you will find I have made it out accurately. I have been dealing with the question for the last three or four years, and it comes to this, that on a fifteen years' loan it will be 1/9 a week, and on a ten years' loan it will be 2/4 a week.

I understand from Deputy Corish that he would prefer a four-roomed house to a three-roomed house. His difficulty is a difference of £50 as between the four-roomed and the three-roomed house. Would he agree that if the grant were increased for a four-roomed house to £30 it would make the difference less?

No. I calculated on a £60 grant.

For both?

Our amendment proposes to give an increase on the four-roomed house.

What your amendment does is not to increase anything, but to reduce it on the three-roomed house. The point about it is, up to this we have been building houses the economic rent of which is anything between 11/- and 12/- a week. The fact is, the people we are supposed to cater for have not been getting houses at all, and the tendency is that a great many local authorities are not able to let houses, but to sell them, and they fall into the hands of people who do not want houses to the extent that the working classes do. We have had to do that in Wexford. We had a scheme in 1924. We borrowed £3,000, sufficient to build 12 houses. We sold the first 12, some for cash down, others on the weekly instalment system. The result was that for the money we borrowed for 12 houses we built 24 houses, which we were in a position to let at 6/6 a week, which we consider reasonable under the circumstances. At the moment we have something like that on hands. I hope it will not be necessary to sell any of the houses, but I fear it will be at the moment. At any rate you can do something to do away with the present shortage. That is a candid statement of fact. With the experience I have had as Mayor of Wexford during the last four or five years, I suggest in all seriousness that the President has not studied the matter as one would expect the President would study it when he says the difference is only £20. I believe Deputy Good will agree with that view. We do not often agree on matters of that kind, but with the difference in frontage, one is 30 feet and the other is 23 feet. £20 would certainly not cover the difference in the roof.

Deputy Corish speaks of feeling rather awkward in discussing this particular matter and of being liable to being misunderstood. I sympathise with him. It arises out of the fact that he is asked to take part in a rather unreal discussion. What we are discussing is provision being made for the expenditure of £200,000 to provide approximately 3,000 houses. We are asked in these circumstances to take a shadow that is supposed to be there. I think Deputy Briscoe spoke of building 5,000 or 6,000 three-roomed houses. At any rate, we are asked to take it that there is, at present, some force driving towards the building of three-roomed houses when in fact there is no such thing; when, if we from these benches want to state any principle in connection with proposals here, the principle would be that we desire to have less five-roomed houses built in the present circumstances of the amount of money available, the cost of building, and the type of people going to be assisted.

Deputy O'Kelly would almost make it a principle not so much even to give a reduced contribution to three-roomed houses as to make it a principle not to have three-roomed houses at all. In the proposals that will be agreed to a discussion will take place between the Ministry and the local authorities in so far as the local authorities are concerned in the matter, and the needs of the locality would be taken into consideration in any discussion that goes on there. I doubt if local authorities in the country have built very many three-roomed houses at all, and I see no tendency there that would dictate to us that we should tie ourselves up even by a reduced grant, but as to the principle that it was undesirable at present to build three-roomed houses if there is anything to be read out of our attitude on the matter it is that it is undesirable that five-roomed houses should be built at present when the principal needs that require to be supplied are so great and when the four-roomed house will most adequately, in our opinion, supply that.

A reduced grant in respect to the three-roomed house is going to have this effect. Yesterday we had Deputy Colohan from the Labour Benches asking me to interfere to prevent the Naas Urban District Council raising the rents of houses that in Naas are let at from rents of 1/-, 2/-, 2/6, up to 6/- or so. That is the Minister was called on to interfere to prevent the urban authorities adding a slight increase in rent. Labourers' cottages have been built round the country. Deputy O'Reilly thinks you might easily put on 10½d. to the rents. The position is in the country that labourers' cottages were built with very generous financial assistance and loan terms that would be regarded as magnificent at the present day. Local bodies in the country complain that they are labouring under a big debt because of charges falling on their shoulders arising out of labourers' cottages, let at an average of 1/1; less, say, than 1/6.

If there was a proposal to-morrow on behalf of local authorities in the country to put an extra sixpence on the rent of labourers' cottages, I suggest that it would get over a lot of the difficulties that they are complaining about at the present moment. But is that going to be lightly accepted by the public? That is what we are asked to do in connection with a small number of three-roomed houses that local authorities will carefully consider and want to put into their schemes. We are asked to say to the person who is going to get the three-roomed house that his rent must be anything up to a shilling a week higher. You have forces dictating to the local authorities that they should build four-roomed houses. They can get a better rent for them and they can fix up their finances better, I believe, with the possibility of the rent they are able to get out of a four-roomed house than the possibility of the rent they are able to get out of a three-roomed house. I cannot agree with Deputy Flinn that there is any significance or any value in the discussion that is going on here in a general way and really taking away entirely from the consideration of the amount of money we are dealing with. The system under which these schemes will be carried out will be examined and also, possibly, the forces that are driving people in the country at the present moment, whether they are public utility societies or local bodies, to build three-roomed houses.

Before the question is put, I would like to point out that the Minister did not deal with one point at all. That is what is his defence for giving the same grant for a three-roomed house as for a four-roomed house, when the costs are different? Why is there a relatively higher grant for the three-roomed house than for the four-roomed house? There is a definite inducement in this grant to local authorities to build three-roomed houses.

The President has quoted the difference in the building costs of a three-roomed house and a four-roomed house as £20. In Drumcondra, in June, 1927, the cost of a three-roomed house of 623 feet floor area was £393 18s. 3d. The cost in the same month of a four-roomed house of 707 feet floor area was £413. That is approximately £20 of a difference. I agree with Deputy Corish that the difference would probably be something more than that in a rural area where they were able to reduce the standard of a house they were building. The capital charges that go to wiping off the cost of these particular houses are contributed to by the rent. The local authority will find itself in the position of having to charge a considerably higher rent than is advisable or desirable in respect to three-roomed houses if it does not get the same grant as it would get for four-roomed houses.

Therefore, we are dealing with something that is very real and not a shadow. Your policy is to help the three-roomed houses, to give half a loaf rather than no bread, as you put it.

No. Our policy is, where we can control the scheme, not to differentiate with the present high cost of building as between a three and a four-roomed house. That is that the local authorities are under no restrictions with regard to floor space. A public utility society is under an obligation to have its floor space between 500 square feet and 1,250 square feet. There is no case, in my opinion, to step in there and to say in the case of a four-roomed house with 800 square feet: "We are going to give you £60, but in the case of a three-roomed house, with the same floor area, we are only going to give you £45." When you come down to considerations of the area you must come down to consideration of the figures that are in the First Schedule. I have quoted certain figures for public utility societies in respect of a certain number of houses built up to 31st March, 1928. About 52 per cent. of the houses built were four-roomed houses; the others were five-roomed houses. Since 1928, in respect of public utility societies there has been no tendency at all to build four-roomed houses; the tendency is to build a bigger house because the rent-producing capacity of the bigger house invites them to do so. In the same way, in the case of the local authority the rent-producing capacity of the three-roomed house is so reduced that they require, if circumstances demand that a few be built, the additional assistance that is necessary. At any rate, it is not our attitude to subscribe to the principle that the three-roomed house is undesirable.

took the Chair.

Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 73.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Colohan, Hugh.
  • Cooney, Eamon.
  • Corkery, Dan.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Everett, James.
  • Fahy, Frank.
  • Flinn, Hugo.
  • French, Seán.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Broderick, Henry.
  • Buckley, Daniel.
  • Carney, Frank.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Clery, Michael.
  • Kerlin, Frank.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Mullins, Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Thomas J.
  • O'Kelly, Seán T.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sexton, Martin.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Tubridy, John.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Aird, William P.
  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Carey, Edmund.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cole, John James.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Connolly, Michael P.
  • Cooper, Bryan Ricco.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Crowley, James.
  • Daly, John.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • De Loughrey, Peter.
  • Dolan, James N.
  • Doyle, Peadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Egan, Barry M.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis J.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Heffernan, Michael R.
  • Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Henry, Mark.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
  • Kelly, Patrick Michael.
  • Law, Hugh Alexander.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
  • McDonogh, Martin.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Murphy, James E.
  • Nally, Martin Michael.
  • Nolan, John Thomas.
  • O'Connell, Richard.
  • O'Connor, Bartholomew.
  • O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
  • O'Hanlon, John F.
  • O'Higgins, Thomas.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
  • O'Reilly, John J.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, William Archer.
  • Reynolds, Patrick.
  • Rice, Vincent.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Shaw, Patrick W.
  • Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • Tierney, Michael.
  • White, Vincent Joseph.
  • Wolfe, George.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Boland and Allen. Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.

I beg to move amendment 4:—

In page 3, line 9, Section 3 (2), to delete the word "not" and substitute therefor the word "only" and in line 10 to delete the word "save" and substitute therefor the words "or letting."

This is only a drafting amendment to meet the point raised by Deputy Good the last day when he suggested that the phrasing of the sub-section as at present might indicate that there was a prohibition against the disposal by way of sale or lease.

Amendment agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

With the leave of the House, I beg to move: "That the Bill do now pass."

May I ask the Minister, in connection with the new section arising out of Deputy Rice's amendment, how moneys that will be raised by the rate to be struck will be used? If, for argument's sake, Dublin raises £57,000 with a shilling rate, would they have to put that £57,000 into the building of, say, 200 houses, or could the money be distributed over a greater number of houses by giving a certain portion as a grant and holding the remainder, say, to the proportion of one-third?

I am glad Deputy Briscoe raised this matter. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a municipal authority had a housing scheme for twelve houses, and that they could only build six this year, would the Minister insist on the full shilling rate or would it be spread over a period?

Assuming that a local authority has a scheme for twelve houses and is only able to build six under the Acts, there is no time limit on local authorities in regard to the building of houses.

On the other hand, a local authority might say that they were about to build 18 or 20 houses when they really intended to build only ten. How would the Minister deal with a question of that kind?

Under the Bill what is required is that a scheme be put up for which a shilling rate will be struck. No rate less than a shilling rate is contemplated in connection with any particular scheme. The shilling rate will bring in a certain lump sum of money which will be used in the financing of the scheme in the same way as a Government grant is used. There is nothing to restrict the Minister in approving of a scheme in which the local authority's contribution will be only 75 per cent. of the Government grant, and on the other hand, there is nothing to restrict the Minister in insisting that the local authorities should put up 110 per cent. of the Government grant.

In answer to the general question, if the Dublin Commissioners impose a shilling rate for a scheme, then the whole of that scheme comes under review by the Minister in connection with the giving of the grant, and there is to be taken into consideration the amount of money provided by the Commissioners and the rents at which the different types of houses that are being put up under the scheme will be fixed. There would then be the fitting in of a number of houses in the scheme so as to have a scheme in which a fair rent would be fixed in respect of each house, plus the shilling rate, plus the Government grant, and that will completely close financially the scheme of x number of houses. The amount of money provided by the shilling rate, and the rents that will be required and that will be considered fair in connection with these schemes, are going to determine, in consultation between the Ministry and the local authority, the number of houses that will be erected under the scheme. Therefore, the details of the finances of the scheme will have to be considered as an actual proposition.

Question put and agreed to.
Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.
Barr
Roinn