I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This is only a continuation Bill. It is the same Bill as last year, the provisions are the same, and it is merely a question of extending the provisions for a further year.
Committee on Finance. - Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1940—Second Stage.
The Minister's remarks are, no doubt, correct but it is rather a disappointment that the Minister has not something more to say on the housing question. I think there were some thousands of men usually employed in the building industry, and I am afraid that the number is now down to hundreds. I suppose the Minister will not accept responsibility for the whole of that position, but I think that a very large part of it can be laid at the Minister's door. I would like to ask the Minister if he is going to make any pronouncement on the housing question because the present time, when this Bill is being introduced, seems to be opportune for the Government to tell us what is the position of the building industry for, at any rate, what I might describe as the war period.
Might I suggest that that would be more relevant on the Minister's Estimate? Pardon me, I just recall that that Estimate has been passed.
I am asking the Government to say what the Government policy with regard to housing is. I would like to suggest to the Minister that the present state of the building industry has been largely brought about by the Government cutting down the housing grants 18 months ago. That brought a corresponding reduction of all the building stocks held in this country and it has helped to produce some of the difficulties that are at present confronting the industry. Many builders are just hanging on at the present time and I think some of the workers, who cannot hang on any longer, are going across the water. I do not know whether the Minister regards that position with equanimity or not. Certainly there is a housing problem here. The Taoiseach, I think, told us that, as a result of the war, urban areas would need assistance much more than rural areas. It seems at the moment, at any rate, that that remark is very true.
There is another matter arising on this Bill which I would like to put to the Minister. The Report of the Housing Commission was promised by the end of April. I think we are within an hour and a half of the end of April so I would like to ask the Minister when we are going to see the Housing Commission Report and if it is going to have an effect on the housing problem? Another matter which was placed before the Government—I think it was mentioned at the Housing Commission, but it has also been put before the Minister's Department—is the suggestion that the American system of mortgage insurance be put in force here.
Does the Deputy suggest that that matter too arises on this Bill?
I suggest that the Minister should give us some statement as to the Government policy on housing, and that this is possibly the last appropriate occasion that we will have of reminding him that if they have a policy they might produce it to advantage. Otherwise he might as well hand out tickets, not only to the workers, but to some of the builders and contractors, to go across the water for the period of the war and, I suppose, to come back here like migratory birds at the conclusion.
In regard to this Housing Bill, the Minister refers early to the fact that it is the same as the last one. I take the Minister's word for that, but there is really very little about housing in it except the title. If one goes through the Bill it appears as if everything had been considered except the really vital and pressing question in the urban areas. I notice paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932, has been revived. That is in regard to any person (other than an agricultural labourer) who derives his livelihood solely or mainly from the pursuit of agriculture.
That is not a very big section of the community and I think the Minister was quite safe in offering to continue the subsidy to that class. Sub-section (d) of the same Act is also revived which refers to an agricultural labourer. The Minister is going to subsidise an agricultural labourer who wants to build a house. I hope I will not be accused of casting any aspersions on the agricultural labourers, but I would like to say that the agricultural labourers who are prepared to put up houses are few and far between.
There are some.
Not at the present cost of building.
I think one could put them in a bus or a taxi. Paragraph (e) of the same Act, which is also revived, refers to any person other than a person who would come under (c) or (d), and (f) refers to any public utility society erecting a house for occupation by a person who derives his livelihood from agriculture. To boil it all down, it really seems as if many classes in the community have been provided with subsidies except the people in the urban areas.
Another point arises. The housing problem is exacerbated by the inclusion in it of people whose circumstances are very different. I think it is not so very long ago that we had people in this House who contended that there was so little labour available for housing that a certain section of the building industry would have to be closed down. Now, I think, it appears as if the supply of labour is ample for any kind of houses that it is required to erect.
The boot is on the other foot now.
Yes, quite. I would like to point out to the Minister that there is first of all the very large need of the section of the community who are entirely unable to provide houses for themselves. I move the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Wednesday, 1st May, 1940 at 3 p.m.