Would the Minister be able to tell us how many houses have been built by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Land Trust, or has he any information as to how many are likely to be built?
Housing Bill, 1930—Committee and Final Stages.
The Dáil went into Committee.
Section 1 put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
On the 24th March last the number of houses actually completed and occupied was 2,183. There were 160 under contract, plans for 150 in several schemes were in course of preparation, and in respect of a further 55 houses the Trust was awaiting proof of the title to the land. They estimate that they will be able to build altogether 2,690 houses.
Could the Minister tell us anything about the distribution of the houses?
No, I cannot, but I would undertake to put that information into circulation for the Deputy. I might say that the Trust hope to be able even to go above that figure. In the meantime, on pages 12 and 13 of the report of the Committee on the claims of British ex-Servicemen, the Deputy will find the proposed distribution. On pages 13 and 14 he will find the actual distribution of something like 2,000 houses. If I find that the information is not complete in this report I will get further information sent to the Deputy.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
On this section might I ask the Minister if he could give us a definite idea, if he has any — let us take the problem of Dublin City alone — when the question of tackling the slum problem might be entered upon, tackling it in a serious way, and if he has any definite objective in view with regard to the date, anything even 10 years hence, when he thinks an impression of some considerable kind might be made on that problem. The Minister must realise that the policy of the Department has been in operation since 1924 and that so far as Dublin City is concerned in the slum areas no appreciable difference is obvious to the ordinary observer in regard to the housing problem. Surely the Minister and his Department must have given some consideration to that problem and to the possibility of seeing an improvement in these slum areas within a given time.
So far as these statistics go, and so far as observations go, no appreciable improvement — in fact, no improvement at all — is obvious in so far as the slum areas in the city of Dublin are concerned. The Minister must surely have some plan, even if it is not a plan that he would carry out directly through his Department, that might be put into operation by a local authority with his assistance and under the guidance of his Department. Some consideration must have been given to that very serious and very urgent problem and if the Minister has anything to offer us in the way of a policy to deal with it, or if he has anything to give the residents of the slum areas hope that in the near future an effort will be made to provide them with some sort of decent accommodation, we will be glad to hear of it. I expected to hear something from the Minister last night on that subject, but perhaps he had not time to attend to it then. Possibly he has a little more time to-day and he will give us the result of his own and his Department's consideration of this urgent and pressing problem.
Might I ask the Minister if he is prepared to open the Local Loans Fund to rural authorities and so give them an opportunity of borrowing money on the long-term principle?
And renting houses at what rents?
Give them an opportunity at all events of putting a scheme before the Local Government Department. They will have to get the sanction of your Department, but by giving them long-term loans I suggest it will afford them an opportunity of submitting schemes that might be fairly economic.
In reply to Deputy Mathews, even if the Local Loans Fund is not open to rural authorities at the present moment, all local authorities have the proverbial pens, ink and paper, and they can say, at least, what rents they would charge for labourers' cottages erected at the present building cost if the Local Loans Fund were open.
Would it help the Minister if a local authority informed him that they proposed to charge 6/- or 7/- a week for a labourer's cottage?
At any rate I would know something of what the local authority had in mind. I think that there is no use in talking about providing credit in an important matter like this if the very important aspect, that is, the rent, the amount of money that the tenant is going to contribute to the cost of that particular house, is not going to be discussed at all. I think local bodies might very well address themselves to that particular aspect of the matter. I do not think I am unreasonable in asking that. I think that people who suggest that that cannot be discussed until money is provided are unreasonable.
I think it would not be unreasonable if the Minister asked the De-rating Commission to report on the effect of charging economic rents for labourers' cottages.
Boards of health practically represent the farming classes directly. I would much sooner have an expression of opinion from half-a-dozen boards of health than an expression of opinion from the De-rating Commission. The members of the De-rating Commission are hearing evidence on very important subjects, pretty widely flung, and I would like to see them address themselves very closely to the subjects before them. If boards of health at the present moment want to erect cottages for labourers they might address themselves to the most important aspect of the problem, and that is the amount of money that the tenant going to occupy the cottage is able and is prepared to pay.
On the question of whether I am going to tell the House to-day that I have either the foundation of or a whole policy for solving the slum question in Dublin City or in other places in the country, I may say that I am not prepared to deal with that at the moment; but I can assure Deputies that that aspect of the general housing problem is getting my very closest attention and is getting the very closest thought, both on the part of myself, the Department and those who are responsible for the conduct of affairs of the City of Dublin, at any rate. Only eight years have elapsed since 1922. Yesterday I pointed out that in respect of 2,090 houses erected in 1922 the average cost of houses outside Dublin was £704 and in Dublin the cost was £859. Such was the condition of the building industry in the country that the State had to pay two-thirds of the cost of every house. Deputies would not have expected me to come forward, with the building industry in that condition in 1922, and say: "Here is a solution of the housing problem."
It is only eight years since 1922, but to-day we find ourselves in the position that if we are to take everything said on the subject at its face value, then the building industry is one of our main industries and ought to be. It gives a certain amount of employment. As far as wages go the complaint is made that the building industry pays higher wages than it ought to pay. Nevertheless, if everything we hear here is to be taken at its face value, the employees in the building industry are not expected to pay the full economic price for a house suitable for them and built by the industry that they live by. If that is the situation in respect of the building industry, which must provide whatever alternative accommodation is to be provided for the slums, and if they are not able to do that in respect of their own highly-paid workers, then with the building industry in that position I am not prepared to come forward and say that I have a solution of the slum problem. We are simply dealing with the housing situation in a way that it appears to us we can make a useful contribution in the direction of providing additional houses on the one hand, and in a way that we can further help the building industry to get on its feet. How long the building industry is going to remain as it is and be unable to face the task that lies before it in the country, I do not know, but that situation is being and will be kept very closely under review.
Might I ask the Minister if his Department has definitely decided, with regard to the reconstruction of houses, that it is not economic, or that it is not the right thing to do? Occasionally one hears complaints from people who have buildings on good enough sites. They have proceeded with some of the work of reconstruction, but yet there are no grants. I would like to know if the Department has come to any definite decision on this matter.
I must say that the Minister's statement is most disappointing. It amounts to this, that they are considering the matter, but doing nothing; the matter is receiving their earnest consideration and attention, but nothing is being done. In the meantime the condition of the slum areas — I am speaking for Dublin, of which I know something — is going from bad to worse. I do not know whether other Deputies in the House for the constituency that I represent are satisfied with that policy. I would like to hear their views with regard to it. The condition of the slum areas on the north side of the City of Dublin are an eternal disgrace. I do not want anybody to take it from me that I intend by that to say that this House or the present Ministry is entirely responsible. This is not a problem of our time. It is an old sore, an old problem. But my complaint is — and I repeat what I said yesterday on this matter — that instead of anything being done to improve conditions, under the present Ministry things have gone from bad to worse. There is no appreciable effort made. The Minister himself admits that no effort is being made to improve the conditions. The Minister is responsible for the public health, and from the point of view of public health things are rotten in the area that the Minister himself represents. They could be worse, perhaps, but not much worse. The number of deaths, the infantile mortality rate in that area, is probably one of the worst in Europe. The present Medical Officer of Health in Dublin, as far as I know, is a good friend of the present Ministry, but he has called public attention on many occasions to the state of public health in Dublin——
Has he suggested any solution?
He has called the attention of the Department to the public health conditions in Dublin.
Has he suggested any solution?
The Minister ought to be aware if he has suggested any solution. It is his Department, and he is in close touch through his Commissioners with the Medical Officer of Health in Dublin. I have only the Medical's Officer's public statements to go on, and in these public statements he has called attention to the increasing evil. Recently when speaking at the Orthopædic Hospital in Merrion St. he stated that there are tenement dwellings — cellar dwellings — in occupation of families at present that were condemned by his predecessor. I do not know how many years the present occupant of the office has held his position; it is ten or twelve years, at any rate, and these dwellings, insanitary dwellings, abominable hovels and cellar dwellings are still occupied. These were condemned by his predecessor. In my opinion, it is not enough to say that the matter is receiving the earnest consideration of the Minister. It is not enough to say that the officials of the Department are daily attending to that matter and considering it and then to offer as an excuse for doing nothing that the wages in the building industry are too high.
I have not offered that excuse. I have not suggested it at all.
That, to my mind, is the substance of the Minister's statement.
Certainly not.
The substance of his statement was that the wages of the building operatives in Dublin are so high that nothing can be done.
Certainly not. Can the Deputy quote a single remark of mine that will bear that implication?
That is the substance of the Minister's reply. If I am misrepresenting him I am very sorry. I would like to hear again from the Minister what he did say.
I said that such buildings as are going to be built for anyone, including the buildings that are to replace the slums, must be built by our building industry here, and the building industry here admits that it is in this position, that although it says it pays its employees very high wages, it is not able to build houses that impliedly their own employees with very high wages can be expected to pay an economic rent for.
If what the Minister says is correct — and I am not satisfied that it is in all particulars correct — I believe that there is there a problem that the Minister ought to tackle. It is up to him and his Department to tackle that problem and solve it. We on yesterday offered one suggestion as to how the problem might be solved. We believe that the organisation of the building industry is wrong, and that with more efficient organisation, by taking in hand in a big way the problem of building these houses that are necessary in the Free State area, we could reorganise the industry, and houses could be built at a cost that would enable the problem to be solved on an economic basis, and you could provide houses at a rent that these workers, whether they be highly paid or not, could pay. There are thousands of these people who are living in these slum areas and who are not in the position to-day to pay an economic rent. For a number of these it is likely that houses will have to be built with some considerable subsidy to meet the costs. But there is a greater proportion of these people who could pay an economic rent, if the houses were built, not under present conditions, not under the present organisation or direction, but if they were built by a reorganised industry — built by an authority that could order all the materials in large quantities, in such quantities as are necessary in order to meet and solve this problem
We believe that houses could be built in Dublin, in Cork and even in the rural areas at prices which would suit the pockets of even the poorly paid workers, not to speak of what the Minister calls the highly paid operatives in the City of Dublin. The Minister's policy is a policy of laissez faire. He says the difficulties are so great that his policy is to let them right themselves in time — let the present conditions continue until through some good fortune some circumstances may arise that will bring down the costs of buildings and that thus the question may be solved. Efforts have been made through the Department of Local Government and Public Health by the giving of subsidies and the like to solve this question, and, as the Minister said, to put the building industry on its feet, and to re-start the wheels of that industrial machine. But as the Minister knows from his experience that has not succeeded in alleviating the problem. It has succeeded in building houses and in giving houses to many people — many of them not the people who are most in need, and not the people who are living in the most insanitary houses.
I certainly think that the present condition is unsatisfactory, and I think that there is no credit at all coming to the Minister or coming to the Government from their efforts to solve this problem so far, and the policy, so far as one can call it a policy, enunciated by the Minister just now to tackle this grave problem is certainly not giving any hope to the country or to the dwellers in these insanitary areas in Dublin or elsewhere. The Minister will have to do, as he said to us yesterday, some more thinking and some more sweating over this problem. After all, the problem is more his than ours. He is definitely appointed for such work, and I presume he has enough officials in his Department to deal with it. If he needs more officials he can ask for them. He has all the expert advice that can be got, and it is his duty to provide a solution. It is not suggested by anybody that this is a party problem. If the Minister has difficulties — and we all know there are difficulties — if he comes here and asks for a considerable sum of money, if he shows any real initiative of a constructive kind to tackle the problem of the slums in every part of the Free State, as well as in Dublin, every Party will be disposed to meet him. Every member of this House would be long sorry to suggest that this should be made, in any respect, a Party problem. It is a national problem, and it is a national disgrace, that not only in Dublin but in other parts, things have been allowed to continue as they are and allowed to get even worse. The number of one-roomed dwellers has gone up in ten years by 2,500. The number of occupants of one-roomed dwellings is 78,000. That is certainly a thing that should not be taken lightly, and we should not be satisfied to allow it to continue.
Mr. Byrne
What has been the increase in the population of Dublin?
Even so. Is the Deputy satisfied because the Dublin population has increased, that 78,000 people, young and old, with, in some instances, ten in one room, even in the neighbourhood in which the Deputy lives — that that should continue? He has not one word of protest to say about it. I would like every Deputy who has the interests of the city and of the country at heart, or who has any sense of the dignity of human life, to give his best energies to this problem. I do not want to be standing up here every time the question of housing is discussed to call attention to the inaction of this House on the question. I would be happy to leave it in the hands of the Party opposite if I thought they were doing anything to improve the situation. If the Party to which Deputy Byrne belongs, and Deputy Leonard, who is also a representative of the North city of Dublin, as well as the Minister, would take the problem in hands and show us that even a small attempt is being made to get rid of this gross scandal, I would not criticise the Minister or his Department.
I am anxious that some progress should be made, and that some decent effort should be shown in this House and elsewhere to eradicate the evil. Until I am shown that something is being done I and others will have to continue to press and to urge upon the Government the immediate necessity of attending to what is a standing disgrace. I am not satisfied, and I think the House is not satisfied, with the policy initiated by the Minister. It is certainly most disappointing. There is nothing but discouragement and despair in front of those who have to live, and who will have to live for the next ten years, in surroundings that are in a shocking and in an insanitary condition, as is the case now with quarter of the whole population of the old city of Dublin.
Mr. Byrne
It would appear from the speech of Deputy O'Kelly that no member of this House, and no Party, has any sympathy with the slum dwellers in the city except himself and the members of his Party. The Deputy has made one of the most unreasonable speeches that, in my opinion, was ever made in this House. He has not allowed for the difficulties that have confronted the Minister, and he has given no credit to the Minister for the good work that he and his Department have done. His treatment of the problem reminds me of a conjurer who takes a rabbit from his hat in some mysterious way and presents it to the audience.
Deputy O'Kelly wants the Minister to put his hand in his hat, and to produce a solution of the problem that confronts the City of Dublin. Nobody knows better than the Deputy how impossible that request is. Deputy O'Kelly represents the North City of Dublin, just as I do. He did not give one word of credit for the colonies of houses that have been built at Croydon Park, Fairview, and in other parts of the city, and not one word of credit for the houses that were built after considerable difficulty at a cost to the State of a subsidy of two-thirds of the original price. Does the Deputy want the Minister to continue on similar lines? Does the Deputy think that the problem of the slums can be solved without the co-operation of all Parties? He says he does not want to make this a Party question. I say that the speech the Deputy has just delivered was an absolutely Party and political speech. It was not a speech that rang sympathetically as far as the unfortunate slum-dwellers are concerned. He stated that the Government were content to leave the problem as it is, and that nobody raised a voice on behalf of the unfortunate slum-dwellers until the Party to which he belongs entered the House. Was there ever such a travesty of the truth? On this side of the House we have continually urged the Minister to build a different type of house in the city from that already built.
Deputy O'Kelly knows conditions in Dublin as well as I do, and he knows that in a great many cases people who were taken out of the slums and put into some of the new houses built by the State have returned to the slums again. That is a difficulty that is not easily solved. When these people are put into the newly-erected houses, some of them return to the slums after one or two months. Deputy O'Kelly knows the psychology of the slum-dweller as well as I do. It is a difficult psychology. There appears to be an instinct amongst them to herd together. When they are taken out of the slums, and put into decent dwellings, they appear to be discontented. I do not want to exaggerate, but I would like Deputy O'Kelly to be honest and fair, and to give the Government credit for what it has done. As far back as two years ago, when the Housing Estimate came up here, the first thing I asked the Minister to consider was the advisability of erecting self-contained flats in the city. Deputy O'Kelly knows as well as I do that the slum-dwellers cannot pay 15s. or 16s. a week for houses; that you might as well offer Buckingham Palace as offer a man with £3 10s., £3, or less a 15s. house.
The new Corporation will be functioning shortly. I have already stated that if I were a member of the Corporation one of the first things I would put forward would be the building of self-contained dwellings which could be let at rents that the working class could pay. I pointed out over two years ago that self-contained dwellings of two or three apartments, with sanitary accommodation, had been erected in Leeds, Glasgow, and London, and that they were let at rents of from 7/6d. to 9/- a week.
Erected at what cost per room?
Mr. Byrne
I cannot answer that question, but I know that has been done. I say, and I have repeatedly said, that a certain proportion of the money for building that has been passed in the Estimates should have been car-marked for the building of this cheaper class of dwelling. The new Corporation ought to play a very important part in the solution of this difficult problem; they ought to see that a start is made with the erection of a type of dwelling which could be let at a rent which the working man could pay. In my opinion, the Minister and his Department have tried very hard, and in face of considerable difficulties, to deal with the problem, but Deputy O'Kelly and those associated with him have not given the Department the credit to which it is entitled. To anybody conversant with the building trade — and all my life I have been conversant with it — Deputy O'Kelly's solution of organisation and co-operative buying is one of the most futile suggestions that was ever put before any reasonable assembly. I do not say that in any Party spirit; I do not want to score off the Deputy in a Party way. I am as anxious to have the co-operation of Deputy O'Kelly and his Party in this matter as I am to have the co-operation of other Parties. But when Deputy O'Kelly says that building costs can be reduced by the organisation of the building industry and by mass buying he is speaking on a subject about which he has no knowledge. I wonder how he would overcome the difficulties from the labour point of view. I do not stand behind a Deputy of the mentality of Deputy Good, but Deputy Good gave us facts and figures yesterday which were not rebutted by members of the Labour Party. He put forward the cost of labour in Dublin and in other large cities in England and said that it stood at 136 here compared with 75 in England, and then we talk about building cheap houses! If we are to start to deal with the problem we must have the co-operation of the Labour Party.
Your solution is to reduce wages.
Mr. Byrne
No, it is not; I have already said that I do not want a penny taken off the wages of the workers, but I want the workers to give a proper output; I do not want them to receive 136 by way of wages and to give 75 by way of work. It is all very well for Deputy O'Kelly to criticise the Minister's efforts to deal with the slum problem. I suppose that Deputy O'Kelly is not really conversant with the difficulties of the problem. If he were I am sure he would not have made such criticism. In the case of the plastering trade in the city, you cannot get a plasterer to-day for love or money. They have so much work and they are so independent that they will tell the bosses to go to this, that, and the other, and they will not allow apprentices to be put to the trade. Deputy O'Kelly is probably not aware that such factors exist.
I desire to deal with this subject in a fair and reasonable way. I think we are making a mistake in continuing to build houses for which a rent of 15/- or 16/- a week must be charged, instead of building cheaper houses that the ordinary working man could rent. When the Corporation get to work one of the first problems that they ought to consider is the erection of these cheap houses, and I feel that they will consider that sympathetically.
There has been a good deal of talk about the speculative builder. I suppose no Deputy has more experience of speculative builders than I have. He is not a philanthropist; he builds for profit; he does not care twopence about the working man. He is in the business for his living, and the making of a profit is his main concern. But to suggest a co-operative scheme is only wasting the time of the House. The slum problem in Dublin and in the country has got to be solved. We need the co-operation of the Opposition, and we need the co-operation of the Labour Party. But so far as our policy is concerned we have something to show for what we have done, and any scheme that is likely to solve the problem will have our co-operation.
Dublin is an important place, but I think we have travelled a very considerable distance on Section 4.
I was very glad to hear from the Minister that the question of the slums is receiving the earnest attention of the Government, because I do not think there is any question that is so important and so pressing — unemployment perhaps excepted — as this question of the slums, not only in the towns, but in the country districts. It is common knowledge that the Government inherited this slum question, that for years not only Dublin, but all the other towns had this problem, that it was not tackled, that it has been accumulating for years upon years, and, of course, during the War nothing was done. I think the Government have taken very energetic measures in the matter of building houses, and the houses that they have built are a credit to the country, and anyone who goes around the outskirts of Dublin can see that the money has been well spent.
Overcrowding was not confined to one class when the Government took the matter in hands; every class felt the need for housing, and the Government have done extremely well with the money at their disposal. But the very bad slum areas still exist. They are not peculiar to this country; in every town in England and. I think, in a great many towns in America also, this question is very acute. In London, a great many houses have been built and a good deal has been done, but I have been told that in a certain part of London there are as many as five families living in each room—one in each corner and one in the centre. I recently read in a newspaper of a civil servant in the employment of the British Government who was paying 25/- a week for one room, in which were ten people. That shows that the problem is quite as difficult in England, which has much more money to deal with it than we have. Considering what our finances are, I think this question has been dealt with so far very well by the Government. There still remains this particularly bad slum question throughout the country. I am delighted that the Government are considering it carefully. It is not a matter that can be dealt with by a wave of a magic wand. Many things have to be considered, and no doubt it will take a long time to arrive at an economic solution of the matter, but that it will be dealt with I have not the smallest doubt.
I do not know much about housing in towns, but I know, in the country districts there is a tremendous want of cottages for labourers and these labourers cannot pay enormous rents. My own idea is that with wages and the cost of living what they are, about 3/6 a week is the utmost that agricultural labourers are able to pay in rent. No doubt if houses were built and offered to them at 7/6 a week they would take them, but I wonder when the money would be recovered. Of course money cannot be found to provide such cottages by the local authorities without assistance. Deputy Mathews suggested that the money should be lent on long term loans. I think that suggestion is worthy of the consideration of the Executive Council. There may be other plans but the more I consider this question the more I think it is a matter of very pressing need. Of course it is all very well to draw attention to these things but the question is to suggest a remedy. Only those who have all the particulars at their command and have all the statistics available can go thoroughly into the question of finance. For that reason I am very glad that the Government are thoroughly looking into the matter because as I say it is very pressing.
When the Labourers Act was introduced in 1883 there were a tremendous lot of labourers' cottages built and the houses were let at 1/- a week. Of course that rent was never economic. The real rent at that time, allowing for repairs and collection, was about 2/7 a week. The matter was viewed with equanimity by the Boards of Guardians because the land owners had more or less to pay. Things have altered since. We are now on our own, and we can no longer do uneconomic things. For that reason, of course, one must realise the difficulty that is before any Government when tackling this question. It must be done on an economic system.
In the country towns, also, there is great want of additional rooms in many houses. How that is to be accomplished I do not know, but the want is there and it should be remedied. I am sure that matter is also receiving the consideration of the Government. Considering the resources at the command of the Government and having regard to the difficulties that have to be contended with a very great deal has been done. I am very confident that as a result of the consideration given to those very pressing questions good effects will follow and I, for one, shall welcome any scheme that will do away with this appalling overcrowding in towns in the county boroughs and in the county towns throughout the whole country.
I would like to ask the Minister, so as to be clear as to the actual position in this matter, a question or two. Is he satisfied, himself, that with the present conditions it is possible to build houses at an economic rent? I take it that he has satisfied himself that that cannot be done under present conditions. If that is so, then comes the question along what is he waiting for? Does he expect the conditions are going to alter to such an extent that the time will come in which things will be so changed that he will be able to build these houses? Is he waiting for the conjurer that Deputy J.J. Byrne spoke of who is going to produce something like the rabbit out of the hat? Is that what he is waiting for? Or is his position that because he cannot, at the moment, get a solution which will be completely and absolutely satisfactory he is going to sit down idle and let this problem remain unsolved? As far as we are concerned, our attitude is this: we believe that, with a proper attempt to organise this as a national matter, the cost of building can be reduced to a point at which the difference between an economic rent and the rent that can be paid will be brought down considerably from the position estimated by the Minister.
What is meant by considerably?
Supposing we have got to the position in which we feel that nothing more can be done and that there is still a considerable difference, what is going to be our attitude? My belief is this ought to be solved at any cost. The moment we consider the cost of the loan it becomes quite obvious that one of the principal features is the period of time for which the loan is given. It becomes quite obvious that it is not the interest or rate of interest that matters so much as the period of time in which the loan is to be repaid. Taking it roughly, without dealing with compound interest, it is obvious that if the principal is to be repaid in 15 years one-fifteenth must be provided each year. If you stretch that out to the life of a house, say for 60 years, it is obvious that the amount that will have to be provided by way of reduction of principal would be only one-fourth as much, that is, leaving compound interest aside. When I was speaking on this matter before I showed that if the loan was procured for a period of 40 years the difference between the economic rent and the rent that the worker might reasonably be expected to pay would be comparatively slight. What is the insuperable barrier to getting a loan for a sufficient period that would enable the annual repayments of the principal to be cut down? Is it not clearly a case in which the credit of the State ought to be used for borrowing?
Our attitude on this side of the House is the attitude expressed by Deputy O'Kelly. We believe this question ought to be solved in the best possible way we can get. We are all satisfied there is no such thing as a perfect solution, and when I say solving I mean remedying the present situation not by some conjuring trick under which nobody is going to suffer. The question is: are we prepared to make the necessary sacrifices if sacrifices are necessary to effect that? We believe it is the duty, and the positive duty, of the State to remedy that situation. It is ridiculous to say that when the Dublin Corporation comes in they are going to do something, as Deputy Byrne suggested. If he thinks the Dublin Corporation can do it why is the present Ministry not doing it? Are the Corporation going to perform the conjurer's trick when they come into office? It is quite obvious that the elements of the problem remain for them too. Inasmuch as there are none of these conjurer's powers to be found on either side in the Dáil, then we have to face the problem as best we can. There is a definite grievance to be remedied, and we have got to try and produce the remedy at the least possible cost. We are prepared to give any assistance which our votes and our help can give in the solution of this problem. We do not want to deal with it as a Party question. The fact that we have been talking about this as one of the things the Ministry has not attempted is because we believe there is a public grievance that ought to be remedied, and that it is the duty of every Party in the House to assist in trying to find the remedy. It is the immediate duty of the Ministry in charge at the moment to bring forward some scheme forming the basis of discussion here in this House and let amendment come from whichever side is able to amend that scheme.
Deputy J. J. Byrne is one of these people who go on to say that the only difficulty in the way is labour. He speaks with the same voice as Deputy John Good. Both of them attribute all the difficulties to labour. Labour on every occasion here has offered to cooperate in any way to solve the housing problem. Deputy J. J. Byrne referred to the cost of labour but he too, like Deputy Good, did not in any way give way with regard to the price or the profits of the builders in this country. If all men were like Deputy J. J. Byrne we would have no house building in this country. He says the builders must have profit and they build for profit. If the housing problem is only going to be solved by people of the disposition of Deputy J. J. Byrne we will have no such thing in this country as decent housing conditions for the people because while you allow private builders to have their last pound of flesh out of the people and the nation the housing problem will still be left unsolved. It is a problem that deserves the serious consideration of every party in this House. The housing problem to-day is a national peril and it is most injurious to the health of the people who are cribbed, cabined and confined in one-roomed tenements. In these the little children are weak limbed, nerveless creatures, and as it has been proved by the highest medical authorities where you have too many people living in one room the children will be small, and it will cost millions of pounds to remedy the ills which they contract. This is all due to the lack of housing facilities. There is no question that there are towns in Ireland, some in my own constituency, of 2,000 inhabitants and over which will not in any way benefit by this Bill. Unless the Minister in some way attempts to alleviate the position of people in towns of this sort the housing problem in these particular localities cannot be dealt with. If internal troubles break out how is it we can arm every man in the country with a gun and provide him with a uniform and pay him a weekly or a monthly rate of wages in a peril of that sort? Yet this is a more important problem for the health and happiness of our people and we cannot find money to solve it. I think something ought to be done very soon. I do not blame the Government entirely for this problem. There has been a housing problem in Dublin as long as I can remember, but as the Fianna Fáil, the Labour Party and the Government are all here in this House I think it is near time something ought to be done and that we should not put off until to-morrow what can be done to-day.
If a serious attempt is not made in connection with housing there is no hope for the country. The population in the rural parts of Ireland is not what it was some fifteen or twenty years ago. Deputy Wolfe stated that there are problems in America, England and other countries where the population has been increasing considerably. Our population has been declining. We had houses built fifty, sixty and eighty years ago. I do not say that they were what we call real sanitary dwellings, but at all events we had more houses and people in the country, and yet to-day, when we have less people, the housing problem is unsolved. I would ask the Minister for Local Government and the Deputy to consider this serious problem. It deserves their consideration. I sincerely hope all the Government Deputies are not like Deputy J. J. Byrne, who contends that the building contractors, like Deputy Good and himself, must have their pound of flesh at any cost.
We are having a Second Reading debate, which I hope will conclude very soon. We are repeating yesterday's debate in every particular.
I do not believe that this House is going to solve the building difficulties on the basis of erecting buildings at an economic rent. I have heard suggestions from Deputy de Valera, but, as usual, they are indefinite, and he commits himself to nothing. I do not say that the builders are altogether at fault. Some of them might be. If Deputy Good were here in time he might have heard some flattering things.
Do not tell him.
I am sorry I missed them.
In recent years I have known a fair number of efficient contractors and builders to go bankrupt, so it cannot be all profit. I would not like to see the labourers' wages reduced to contribute to an economic house, but I think what could be done is the output might be increased a little, more especially in certain classes of houses. That is if we are ever to get houses built for the very poor and the down-and-out. These people suffer from two things—one, more or less chronic unemployment; and, secondly, when they do get employment, from physical unfitness to do work.
Therefore, you may always regard it that you will have these sections in the community who, in any circumstances, will not be able to pay what might be regarded as an economic rent. I think the Government might make a special effort, now that its financial conditions are improving, to bear a little of the loss. I do not see why both contractors, if they are making all this money that we hear about, and labour in the matter of output, might not also make their contribution. I believe that, unless we proceed on these lines, the housing problem as far as the very poor are concerned will remain unsolved.
I would like to hear something definite with regard to this problem and would be grateful to the Minister if he would say whether he has made any analysis of the different factors which make up the present high cost of building. Would he say, for instance, how far is the cost of money a serious factor in the problem, and if a reduction of even one per cent. would mean any appreciable reduction in the cost of building under local authorities. In dealing with this problem it is time that we got down to definite factors. As I am sure the Department must by this time have made a thorough analysis of the problem, I hope the Minister will favour us with the results of the investigations made. To-day and also in the discussion on the Estimate for his Department the Minister referred to the question of building cottages for rural labourers at an economic rent. I think he may put that out of his head for a very long time. There is no prospect, I think, that agriculture is, in the lifetime of the present Government at all events, going to be in such a condition that farmers can pay a wage to their labourers which will enable them to pay an economic rent for cottages built for them under present-day conditions. If the Minister asked me what increase in price it would mean I could not answer, and I think nobody in the House believes for a moment that an economic rent is possible according to the wages that are paid at present. I know that in many of the tillage districts some of the best farm labourers are working for 10/- a week, plus board. That is to say, they have 10/- a week to pay rent and keep a wife and family. If the Minister thinks that out of 10/- a week, or even granting that they had 12/- or 15/- a week, a farm labourer could pay an economic rent for his cottage, then I think he is expecting something that is not likely to take place.
I desire to ask the Minister a few questions with regard to cottages that were struck out for building in 1914. In South Tipperary a start was made at that time with the building of about seventy labourers' cottages. The South Tipperary Board of Health notified the Minister of that and asked what provision was being made this year to have the erection of the cottages proceeded with. They got no reply to their communication. The people who are waiting for these cottages are living in insanitary dwellings. Their houses were condemned as unfit for human habitation in 1914. That being so, what must their condition be to-day? When we speak on this subject here we are asked where is the money to be got to solve the housing problem. I think that is a very easy question to answer. There is something like £250,000,000 belonging to people here invested in foreign securities. If the people who own that money had any interest in the housing of the poor in their own country they could do a good work by selling out their foreign investments and investing the proceeds in housing schemes at home.
At what per cent.?
If they are not prepared to do that, then I think it is the duty of the Government to tax their investments to such an extent that the money will be brought back.
We are supposed to have a very big housing problem, and a big part of it is supposed to be the slum problem, particularly in Dublin. This House appears to accept it that the agricultural industry on the one side, and urban industry on the other—the two constituting the complete industry on which the country lives—are in such a condition that the workers in both cannot be expected to pay out of their wages an economic rent for the houses they live in. In a country whose resources are such as are indicated by that suggested state of industry, we are asked to solve a big slum problem as well as the problem involved in providing houses for the workers in the agricultural and urban industry.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
The solution of the problem suggested yesterday by Deputy Lemass and to-day by Deputy O'Kelly is to scrap the present organisation of the building industry and have it taken over and carried on by the State.
If necessary.
That is the suggestion made.
If no other arrangements can be arrived at.
That was the suggestion made as a start-off yesterday. To-day we are told that this is a State matter, that this is a non-party matter and that, therefore, we ought not in reason to expect any contribution in thought from any bench in this House except the Front Bench here. I do not accept it that either our agricultural or urban industries are in such a condition that they cannot be expected to pay the labourers in these industries such a wage that they will be able to pay for their housing. If we do not make some kind of attempt to stand over that ground and not be driven into the position of accepting the position as otherwise, then not only are you not going to solve the slum problem, but you are simply going to go deeper and deeper into it. Borrowing money for sixty years, as suggested yesterday, or for forty years, as was suggested this morning, is not going to rid the people of to-day of their problems or protect the people of to-morrow against having their problems. Deputy de Valera says that he wants answers to two questions that he put to me. The first was: Am I satisfied that in the present position it is not possible to build houses at an economic rent. I do not know what the question means. The second question was: What am I waiting for?
Perhaps the Minister would permit me to elaborate so that he may understand. Is he satisfied from the analysis he has made that it is not possible to provide the necessary houses at a rent which he may expect the labourer with his present rate of wages to pay? In other words, is it a problem that is uneconomic at the moment?
I must say that I do not understand it. As far as I know, it is accepted here that workers cannot pay an economic rent for the houses that are being built.
That is not an answer to my question. Is the Minister's Department satisfied that that is a fact, or is it a mere statement without proper basis?
I am not satisfied——
That it is a fact.
That as a foundation of our policy for the building of houses we should accept the position in which we say the workers in industry cannot be expected to pay for the houses that are being built for them.
That is not the question. Let us be clear on the matter. Is the Minister satisfied on analysis he has made that it is not, as it is commonly called, an economic proposition to build houses for workers at rents which they can pay? Let the Minister give us the opinion of himself and his Department on that, and remove it from the range of one man saying this and another man that.
The Deputy can get his own tables and figures and work them out.
What I work on is not a matter on which this House is going to take action. We have to take action on propositions brought forward by the Minister, who is responsible for providing the information. Is he going to give the information or is he running away from it? Has he made an analysis which satisfied him and his Department that this thing cannot be done on what is commonly called an economic basis at the moment? Surely he can tell us that at this stage. Let him say whether that can be done or not.
I am not going to come into the House and say: "You can frame a housing policy here for the country and do it on the basis that the workers cannot be expected to pay an economic rent for their houses."
I am not asking that question, as the Minister knows perfectly well.
I am saying what I think about the housing policy and some of the most important points on which it must be founded.
I want a straight answer to a straight question. My question was put in perfectly good faith. I want to know the attitude of the Minister's Department on the question.
May I ask Deputy de Valera is it fair that the building workers, in view of the housing situation, should demand in Dublin the highest wages in Europe?
I have not gone into that problem.
Will the Deputy confine his attention to that problem, as it is at the bottom of all this?
If we had the responsibility at present placed on the Ministry we would endeavour to get building employers and labourers to come together and see what could be done, and if we could not get them to agree on reasonable terms then we would start out to do it ourselves no matter what the cost.
The House may be sure that the present Government will proceed in a more prudent way. A considerable amount of work has been done to get the building operatives and employers to discuss the problem. That has not got as far as it might have been hoped it would. I would like to emphasise again that the point that industry is in such a condition that neither in agriculture nor in urban industry are the workers able to pay an economic rent for their houses is not going to solve the problem. There was a suggestion yesterday to set up a housing board which would be detached from Government interference. The scrapping of the speculative industry and the giving of the building of our houses, or the handing over of our normal housing wants, into the hands of a housing board is not going to solve the situation. Our minds have been directed to Vienna, and we have been asked to consider an article that appeared in the "Manchester Guardian," and which was transferred from that paper to the "Star," as showing how the thing could be done. I do not want to elaborate the matters, but yesterday I noticed that the "Evening Herald" referred to certain steps that have been taken in Holland to deal with the slum question. Why is it possible in Holland to deal with the slum question? Because in Holland they have insisted that the building of houses shall be done in such a way that the normal workers in industry would pay an economic rent, and by setting their minds definitely to bringing about that situation, they have succeeded. Within five years, from 1922 to 1927, they have brought about a situation like this: Whereas in 1922 there were 41,000 houses built, in which there were both State and local grants, and 4,500 built without a grant; in 1923 there were 34,500 houses built with public assistance, and 8,500 built without it. In 1924 24,500 houses were built with public assistance and 22,000 without it. In 1925 less than 20,000 houses were built with public assistance and 27,000 without it. In 1926 less than 3,000 were built with public assistance and 46,000 without it. In 1927 there were less than 2,000 built with public assistance and 48,000 were built without it.
I mention these figures as showing what one country, with a population of more than double ours it is true, but one of the smallest countries, that we might keep in mind when considering the possibilities of what can be done. I think we have to make up our minds here that the State cannot give public assistance indefinitely for the provision of houses for the normal workers, because if we are doing that the industrial side simply has a hole in its pocket, and we are going to come to the end of our resources very quickly, so that if we are going to have any money to tackle insanitary houses and the slum problem generally we must bring about a situation both in the building industry generally and in our attitude to the necessity for normal workers paying an economic rent for their houses. We must bring about that definite change if the poorer houses and the insanitary houses are to be properly dealt with here. In reply to Deputy de Valera's question, we are not waiting for anything. We are doing what we see is the right thing to do at the present moment with our limited financial resources with the type of house one wants to provide and with the position of the building industry as it is at present.
When will the present shortage be met at the rate the Minister is going? How many years will it take?
That is a question for figures which the Deputy can work out. We are applying ourselves in a practical way to the situation and making a not inconsiderable amount of progress. Deputy O'Kelly criticised the Dublin position. I think he quoted figures yesterday without his notes. He said that in 1919 there were 29,000 houses wanted in Dublin. In the report on housing published in 1914 it was stated that 14,000 houses were wanted. In 1919 the Corporation estimated their housing requirements in connection with the taking of a general census on housing throughout the country as 21,780 houses. When the Commissioners in October 1929 were asked to state their housing requirements they gave the number as 17,590. I give these figures for the information of the Deputy.
I think I mentioned that my figures were based on the report on Dublin housing made, I think, by the then Chief Engineering Inspector of the Local Government Board. It is dated 1918 and it states on page 8, paragraph 15:
"Nearly four years have passed since these figures were adopted, and during that time 956 tenement houses, in which 3,989 families lived, have been closed by the Corporation under the Public Health Acts or the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. In the same period only 327 new houses have been erected by the Corporation, and a very much smaller number by other agencies. Moreover, in four years dilapidation in old tenement property in the absence of efficient repairs makes rapid headway, and as such repairs have been rendered more difficult and expensive than in normal years on account of the war, it is almost certain that some of the buildings which were deemed capable of satisfactory improvement at the end of 1913 are not so now. It seems quite safe, therefore, to consider that if 14,000 new houses were necessary four years ago, at least 16,500 are now, or will soon be, required."
It is also stated that 13,000 houses require reconstruction. That makes up my figure of 29,000. I will quote the other paragraphs if the Minister wishes.
At any rate, it was estimated in 1919 that the number of houses required in Dublin was 21,780, and the Commissioners stated last year that 17,590 were required. Prior to 1922, the total number of houses for the working classes built in the city was 2,251, but excluding the 641 houses which are at present under construction, there have been built in the city since 1923, 3,853 houses. If we include the 641 houses which are going ahead and the 150 additional houses now on the eve of being gone ahead with by the Commissioners, it will be seen that the Commissioners have built 4,644 houses, as against 2,251 since the time that the housing for the working classes was first introduced up to 1922. We are not, therefore, quite waiting. We have to bear in mind that some of these houses were built in the city at a time when the building industry was in such a condition that the State had to contribute two-thirds of the cost of the houses. Deputy Byrne said something about the necessity for building a cheaper type of house and self-contained flats, so that workers who desire to live in the heart of the city rather than outside may be able to do so. The question about which we have to make up our minds is, if wages are going to continue as they are at present and if the output of the building industry is to continue as it is now, whether we can afford to retain our present outlook on the standard of houses required for workers. So far as the Department is concerned, particularly in regard to houses in small urban districts, we have done everything possible to reduce the standard of houses to a reasonable point.
A question was raised yesterday as to whether there was any stabilisation in building costs. The costs appear to have somewhat stabilised in the city here. I think that on the last occasion that I dealt with the question of building costs in terms of square feet I quoted a price for the lowest standard house as 8s. 3d. per square foot. Recently we have had quotations to show that houses are being built in certain places, such as Monaghan and Tipperary, at a cost of 8s., and in one place at 7s. 8d. One quotation shows that it is proposed to build houses at a cost of 6s. 10½d. per square foot, but I am not satisfied that that is a figure that would stand. We have to make up our minds as to whether we can afford to continue building houses of the type which we are now building. I do not know that the standard of the houses can be very much reduced. When we made it possible under the 1929 Act to give the same grants in respect of a three-roomed as in respect of a four-roomed house, many Deputies charged us with setting out on a policy of family restriction. Deputies will have to make up their minds as to whether it is not unreasonable that a larger number of three-roomed houses will have to be built. In regard to flats in the city, I pointed out before that where we built apartment houses the cost ran into the astounding figure of £190 per room. The building industry, again, must bring itself into a condition in which it would build apartment houses at a cheaper cost before we can solve the problem of the housing of the highly-paid worker, not to speak of the poorly-paid worker, by providing him with a department house. Generally I would seek to base the housing policy, for the purpose of recommending it to the Dáil and the country, on the condition, first that the building industry must build the houses, and not the State. Secondly, that the houses that will be built must be houses for which our normal worker, in a normal industry, can afford to pay an economic rent. That is what I think we should build on.
I am quite satisfied to be in the position before Deputies on the far side and those on the Labour Benches of not propounding a housing policy. I am quite satisfied to be in that position before them, because I would like to leave their active minds a virgin field to work on, so that they can get down a little more to earth in their approach to this problem than by simply saying: "Set up your National Housing Board, and buy your doors by the 27,000, and your windows by the 28,000." I do not think that Deputies do themselves credit in their attitude to the housing problem by suggesting that. I cannot, however, say that they are unhelpful to me in the matter by that suggestion, because they help to drive me very far along the road of saying, "No national housing board to take over our building industry, and to provide houses for the general run of our people."
Would the Minister not vouchsafe to say what is wrong with the idea of bulk purchasing? I think that that has been recommended by another Minister. At any rate, it is not a matter to sneer at.
Why not a State bulk purchase of potatoes, clothes or boots for the ordinary people of the country? Where are you going to stop if you bulk-purchase your houses?
It is not complained that very many thousands of families cannot get potatoes, for instance.
Oh, yes it is.
It is complained that there are very many thousands of families who cannot get shelter, and the Minister holds that there is no great prospect, according to his speech to-day, that that situation will be brightened in any way in the near future.
Is the Deputy going to make a speech?
I understood we were in Committee.
I understood the Minister was concluding. I suggest there must be some finality, even in Committee.
I did not understand that. The Minister has handed over a problem to the building industry and to the labourers, but he has not given his own fundamental view as to whether he is handing over a problem that is solvable by them.
Just a moment. We want to get clear as to whether the Minister is concluding or not. I understood that the Minister was concluding on Section 4.
Must the Minister necessarily conclude in Committee?
I take it the Minister must conclude some time, even in Committee.
I do not want to conclude, even in Committee. I hope I have made myself clear.
It is not a question of what the Minister wants. I agree that under Standing Orders Deputies can speak in Committee more than once, but there must be some finality. I do not want to curb the discussion in any way.
There must, of course, be some finality, but we thought that this was an opportunity on which, instead of making formal speeches, we could get down to the facts of the problem.
I took it that when there were no amendments proposed that the House would agree to the Committee Stage. Perhaps if we took the remaining stages of the Bill we could discuss anything that is left to be discussed on the Fifth Stage.
If the Fifth Stage is to be taken to-day nothing can be discussed on that stage but what is in the Bill. Let us be perfectly clear on that. The procedure usually followed, even in Committee, is that the Minister concludes on a section, and if there are any questions to be asked afterwards the Minister can reply to them. I think the House will agree that we should not start that all over again and have the Minister concluding again and again, perhaps having the same process repeated a third time.
I am not going to break in. I agree that much of this discussion has not been strictly in order, as it has gone very wide away from the particular section. However, an occasion like this gives us an opportunity of trying to understand the scheme and the Minister's view on the whole problem. As far as we can see, the Minister is simply handing it over to the building industry and to the labourers to settle. Is he satisfied that they are able to do that, and that this is a problem that they can solve? If he is satisfied that they can solve it what steps has he taken to bring them together to arrive at a solution? Deputy Good asked me a question a few moments ago as to whether I would consider a certain thing fair. I know the vicious circle into which this whole matter has gone. I understand the view of the labourers, who say there is a terrible lot of unemployment. The result of that is that there is probably a restriction on output. I very much regret that it should be so.
On a point of order, let us be clear about this point. I want to know is there such a thing as a restriction on output?
That is not a point of order.
The thing should be made clear.
Deputy de Valera is in order.
I am not saying Deputy de Valera is out of order.
I deliberately refrained from expressing my view as to whether a certain thing was just or unjust because I had not the amount of data to enable me to determine whether it was or was not. When you compare this country with others in regard to the cost of labour, the cost of living has also to be taken into account with a number of other factors. If you want to form an accurate judgment as to whether a thing is fair or unfair, you must have all these factors before you. I do believe that in the nature of things we have got into a vicious circle in this particular matter. In respect to the building trade and to the labourers if they are not able to settle immediately whatever differences there are between them, I think it is the duty of the Minister to see what can be done. There was an offer made some years ago I think by the then leader of the Labour Party in respect to housing. I remember that a report or pamphlet was issued by the Labour Party, containing a definite constructive suggestion for the tackling of the problem. That indicated that labour was prepared to make a very big contribution towards the solution of the problem. What is the position to-day? Deputies in Opposition are not in a position to bring the representatives of the building trade and the labourers together to see what can be done. It is obviously the duty of the Minister. To hand it over to them and say—"I cannot do anything; I do not think such a thing should be done; we will hand it over to the industry and let the present position in Dublin and elsewhere stand," is not doing the duty that is naturally imposed on the Minister.
Has the Deputy any suggestion to offer? As I said we are living in a poor country and we are called upon in that poor country to pay the highest wages in Europe for our houses. Is that fair or reasonable?
I am afraid Deputies are forgetting that we are not on the Second Stage of the Bill. We are in Committee, and I suggest to the House that there should be some finality.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 5 and 6 and the Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported without amendment.
Perhaps the House would agree to take the remaining stages of the Bill now, in order that it may go to the Seanad next week.
Agreed.
I would like to put a question to the Minister.
Is the Deputy objecting to taking the Report Stage now?
I am, unless I get an opportunity of discussing it.
The Deputy will get an opportunity.
I interrupted Deputy de Valera, and I was going to put a question to the Minister regarding the matter of output.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I would like to ask the Minister whether, with the information at his disposal, he is convinced that such a thing as restriction of output exists here in the City of Dublin
Ah, now!
It has been stated. I am speaking now for the rest of the country and I can safely state here that in the rest of the country, as far as I know, that no such thing as restriction of output exists. I am as anxious as any Deputy in the House to solve the housing problem, yet I know from experience that you can get as good men in the building line here in the Free State as in any part of the world. I am not one of those who would ask the Government to solve this problem wholly themselves. It is only by the co-operation of all the interests involved that it can be solved. As one who knows something about it, my experience is that I, personally, never got an easy day in the building industry. I mention that to show that so far as the building industry is concerned that I am not aware that any such thing as restriction of output exists. If restriction of output does exist anywhere, then the responsibility for that must rest wholly, or at least partly, upon the employers themselves.
Surely Deputy Good and every other employer in Dublin in the building trade have foremen to look after their works and it should be their duty to see that the men give a fair day's work. Just saying that restriction of output exists without giving some concrete proof that it does exist is doing no good. It is creating suspicion and distrust amongst the workers and they will naturally say to themselves: "No matter how hard we work the suspicion is there that restriction of output does exist." My opinion is that it does not exist in the country. It may exist in Dublin, but it certainly does not exist in any other part of the Free State that I know of, and I trust the Minister will not penalise the rest of the country, simply because it is stated that a certain position exists here in the city of Dublin. That has not been proved. You can get as good tradesmen in the building line in the Free State as in any other part of the world. There is no use in belittling them. What is wanted is co-operation and a little more sympathy, and I do suggest to the Minister that with the limited means at his disposal he should do all he can to provide houses for the people in the rural areas.
I know for a fact that at every meeting of the board of health whenever a cottage is vacant there are at least fifteen or twenty applicants for that cottage. I think it is one of the hardest things that the members of the boards of health have to decide which of these fifteen or twenty applicants is to receive the house. It can be given to only one applicant, and while you may make a friend of the one who gets it you make fourteen enemies. It is heartbreaking for the members of the boards of health to send these men away, some of them with large families. I can appreciate the argument put forward by the Minister here to-day that the Government cannot definitely go on subsidising houses. I believe that the time must arrive, and must arrive quickly too, when the building industry must stand on its own legs. I am quite in agreement with him on that point. In the meantime I am afraid that the Minister pays a little too much attention to the housing problem as it exists here in the city. I would like to assure him that as far as the rest of the country is concerned the men engaged on the building trade are quite prepared to do a fair day's work. I do not know where any of them here have been allowed to slacken. I say it is the fault of the employers here in Dublin if they are not getting a full day's work out of the men employed and if they are not keen enough in looking after the men employed by them. In fact from what I have heard here I envy the workers in the Dublin building industry who apparently have such fine times as the statements made by Deputy Good suggest. In my early days, and I am not very old yet, restriction of output did not exist in Dublin. I ask the Minister to see that his Department should have some regard for the housing of the rural workers.
Question put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.