Do I understand that the housing motion will be continued until 9 o'clock?
Private Deputies' Business. - Housing of Dublin Workers—Motion (Resumed).
There are only 35 minutes left for the discussion in the ordinary way, but it is unanimously agreed by the House that it will be continued until 9 o'clock. The proposer of the motion will get a quarter of an hour to reply, at 8.45.
In connection with this motion——
Is the Parliamentary Secretary concluding?
No. The mover of the motion—Deputy Dockrell—will conclude at 8.45.
In connection with this motion, moved by Deputy Dockrell, I propose to make a few interim observations and I am in no sense speaking on behalf of the Government so far as their final policy is concerned. Deputy Dockrell made, on the whole, a very helpful speech in that he expressed the anxiety of himself and others as to what progress is being made in housing and as to what plans are being made for the future. I think that most of his observations were designed partly as criticism and partly in order to bring out the facts in order that they could be discussed usefully in the House. So, I am going to confine myself rigidly to replying to certain statements made by him, in the hope that the debate will pursue a more constructive form than it has pursued up to now.
Before the adjournment yesterday, we had a considerable contribution by Deputy McGilligan in which he adverted to all sorts of matters, such as the cost of living, theories of credit, and so forth, whereas, I take it, Deputy Dockrell intended this debate to be a technical discussion on how to increase the rate of housing, how to overcome the difficulties that will be experienced in the post-emergency period, how to provide houses at economic rents for persons of very modest income, and so forth, and I intend to treat Deputy Dockrell's speech in that light.
The first observation Deputy Dockrell made was in connection with the clearance of the Whitefriar Street area. He suggested that that clearance scheme had been under consideration for close on seven years. I have investigated this particular scheme. It is an entirely unusual case. The facts are as follows. In March, 1938, the Dublin Corporation made a compulsory purchase order for land surrounding Whitefriar Street. On 11th April, that order was submitted to the Minister for Local Government. The area was two-and-a-half acres. A number of buildings had to be demolished, and there was a proposal to build 100 flats. The estimated compensation worked out at £174 per flat.
On the 11th July, 1938, not long after the Order was made, the City Manager was informed by the Local Government Department that, in the view of the Department, the compensation seemed excessive, that the amount of light and air having regard to surrounding high buildings seemed not to be quite adequate, and the Department suggested that the whole tenement area, in other words the large area contiguous to the site, should be examined, as the site by itself, in its dimensions at that time did not seem to be ideal. In March, 1939, the City Manager asked for an indefinite postponement of the whole matter. On the 31st May, 1941, the Department of Local Government wrote to the City Manager and asked whether the corporation had finally made up its mind in the matter, and whether it wished to proceed with the compulsory purchase of the site. The corporation wrote in reply, that they had reconsidered the matter, and that they wished to include this site among those which they were examining for the purpose of building. The Order for the acquisition of the site was finally confirmed on the 16th March, 1942. A local inquiry was held some six months before, and the Order was confirmed, as I have said, in March, 1942. That was a rather exceptional case.
The Dublin Housing Inquiry report, in paragraph 598, states that slum clearance schemes on the whole are confirmed within six or seven months of the scheme being announced and the members of that Inquiry Committee observed that this seemed to be a reasonable period and that, so far as they could see, the time taken in this respect did not interfere with reasonably quick housing progress. Again, according to the Dublin Housing Inquiry, 14 months as a rule elapsed between the inauguration of a scheme and the entrance of the contractor on to the site to commence building. I have been advised that the corporation initiates the procedure in connection with a particular scheme sometimes in advance and before the scheduled date of operation. In that way the actual time taken can be reduced. It can be reduced as a result of planning, and it can also be reduced, very naturally, when the site has already been developed and prepared so that building can be rapidly carried out.
The next observation Deputy Dockrell made is one in which he suggested that the rate of progress in regard to Dublin housing was insufficient. He observed, as reported in column 2548 of the Official Report:—
"If one allows for the war, will this rate of progress solve anything? The corporation are doing their best but the Government will have to approach the problem from several angles. Many more sites than at present envisaged will have to be provided".
I received a report on the present progress of housing development in Dublin and the number of sites that have been selected and developed will provide for 5,000 dwellings. That in itself is a considerable contribution. Compulsory Purchase Orders for 1,200 additional buildings are in course of preparation and Compulsory Purchase Orders are under consideration which will provide for 5,500 dwellings. I hope that will reassure Deputy Dockrell that, if progress is not as speedy as he would like, at least a good deal is being done.
The next observation of the Deputy to which I would like to refer is reported in column 2549 of the Official Report:
"It takes a year to plan a housing scheme, a year to acquire the site, a year to clear it and a year to build it. I do not think the ordinary person realises that there is so much preparation before the builder comes on the scene. Some people have jocularly said that the city is falling faster than it is being built. I would not like to say that that is quite true, but it is a picturesque description of a very undesirable state of affairs."
The Deputy is right when he says that is a picturesque description, but I am glad to be able to tell him and other Deputies that as a statement it is rather far from the truth. In the last five years, which include the war period, 603 houses have been demolished and 4,230 dwellings have been provided. The annual provision for ordinary obsolescence, as indicated in the Dublin Housing Report, paragraph 113, is reckoned as being 790. I think we may take it that, with the schemes in view, that particular fear expressed by Deputy Dockrell is not justified. It cannot be said that the city is falling faster than it is being built. I am unable to state what the exact numbers are in the present year, but I can give the figures for the last five years.
As reported in column 2549 of the Official Report, Deputy Dockrell also said:
"It is no use the Government saying they will have a wonderful building programme completed in 25 years. Can they start any scheme to-morrow?"
We have been advised in the Department that everything is ready at the present moment to commence building in respect of 5,000 dwellings, if labour and materials are available. I asked what exactly that meant from the point of view of time, and I have been assured that within, say, six or nine months, if we have the material and the labour, we can commence work in connection with 5,000 dwellings. Obviously, we could not begin on the 5,000 at once, but the scheme is ready, plans are laid, and even the contracts have been prepared, making allowance, of course, for the price of material.
Therefore, I think it can be said that the moment conditions become possible building will commence. The Deputy knows better than I do that there may be bottle-necks in connection with raw materials for which we have no responsibility. There may be bottle-necks in connection with labour because of the huge demand for labour in Great Britain. I do not want anybody to think that because I said we can commence 5,000 dwellings, we are likely to do so, because difficulties are likely to be very grave indeed.
The House will be aware that there is a number of committees under the direction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce attempting to remove these bottle-necks in so far as it is possible; committees for the collective purchase of timber; committees for the examination of the best way of using native raw materials; committees for examining the priorities that should be provided in connection with such raw materials as enter the country. I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Local Government together are doing everything possible to plan for a rapid commencement of building, if and when conditions permit.
The Deputy later on, in the course of his remarks, suggested that private enterprise had practically ceased in respect of smaller houses. He gave as one of the reasons, not as the sole reason, the increase in the valuation under Schedule A—what is known as the five-fourths assessment—and the withdrawal of the allowance for repairs to a man who owns his own house. The House will recall that in 1934 the allowance for repairs to a man who owned his own house was withdrawn. In 1935 the valuation under Schedule A was increased by 25 per cent. Since 1934, when the repairs item became operative, 22,000 houses have been built by private enterprise. Since 1935, when the increased assessment became operative, 17,000 houses have been built under private enterprise so that, although it may be impossible to estimate the exact effect of these measures on the rate of private building, we can at least show that a large number of houses were built in spite of those two particular measures.
Deputy Dockrell also adverted to the difficulties experienced by builders when asked to come in on a site and asked to start building, and found they were only able to get piecemeal delivery of the site. That is a problem which it is very difficult to deal with. When building commences on a larger scale, the difficulty will not be so great, as we have quite a large number of cleared development sites, as the Deputy knows. The difficulty is due to the fact that it is sometimes impossible to re-house persons whose houses have been demolished, and, therefore, the best way to carry out the scheme is to do it in a piecemeal way. I hope that, as far as it is possible, the Dublin Corporation will plan the work in order to give the builders the largest possible area of site at one time, and I can quite understand their difficulties when they experience this particular situation. All I can say is that, after the war, at least for some years, there will be a relatively larger number of development sites where that defect will not arise.
Deputy Dockrell also adverted to the difficulty of providing for people whose houses were being demolished, and who desired houses in areas near them; in other words, people who were being displaced from their normal place of residence and found it difficult to reach their work. There is a great problem in trying to allocate the right site to the right person in the right area. It is very hard to meet everybody's requirements, but we have been assured that the Dublin Corporation authorities are co-operating with the Planning Committee in order to see that this difficulty will be met as far as possible. It would be impossible for me, without much further inquiry, to give an idea as to how far the problem is being solved. All I know is that the machinery is there for dealing with it.
Deputy Dockrell also adverted to the necessity of building more houses on the outskirts of the city, until the cost of sites, he said, in the centre of the city falls, or until industry takes up such sites. The Dublin Housing Inquiry Report, among its recommendations, stresses the desirability of building as many cottages as possible, as compared with flats. In fact, so far as we can ascertain, the number of sites in the centre of the city likely to be acquired for housing is very small, and more and more of the sites are being acquired on the outskirts. This is likely to take place even more in the future.
One very important suggestion of the Deputy was that the Government should, by construction of one-roomed sanitary dwellings, go half way towards the solution of the Dublin tenement problem. Deputy Dockrell said, as reported in column 2554:
"Supposing they used the product of two years' tenements as single-roomed dwellings, look at some of the benefits that would accrue from that temporary measure. That would enable the corporation to clear away unfit rooms and would allow the corporation to get a much higher rate of profit that is at present going past them to the owners of unsanitary dwellings; it would enable them to see where the population is tending, and would cheapen rents all round."
So far as I can gather, the officers both in the Housing Department and the Housing Section of the Department of Local Government and Public Health and the Minister and most experts believe that that proposal would not be a desirable one. One could relate the speed with which a building becomes a slum partly to the existence of one-roomed dwellings, and I am informed and advised that the only result of this proposal would be to create very rapidly a new series of slums. I put that to the Deputy, and if any other member of the House has any view on it, it would be very interesting to hear it. As far as I can gather, it is a most undesirable proposal, if we wish to prevent new slums being created.
Lastly, the Deputy referred to reconditioning of the larger type of tenement house in Dublin and he suggests that this has not been very successful in its results. He remarked, as reported at column 2555:
"It only means swapping a house which was probably getting near the border line of unfitness, or was frankly unfit, and the corporation making it fit."
There again, we have been informed that, on the contrary, the reconditioning of these houses has been a definite contribution to the problem of housing during the emergency. We are assured that the houses—for example, those in Gardiner Street—are of good and solid construction, that separate sanitary conveniences have been supplied to each tenant, and that they have been successful and that we are not merely putting off the evil day. In other words, the house is not simply becoming a slum again in a very short time. The reconditioning of these houses is a very useful measure temporarily, and I think it would be a very good thing if we had the views of other Deputies in the Dublin area on this matter. So far as I can gather, these reconditioned houses have been highly approved of by all persons concerned.
I do not propose to go any further into this question, except to advert once more to the necessity of following Deputy Dockrell's own method of approach, namely, dealing with this question in a technical way and trying to estimate what should be done to bring the organisers, the contractors, the workers, the materials, the architects and technicians together, to find the best possible way to produce the largest number of good houses and to do all that in a way which will benefit the people who need the houses from an economic and human point of view. It is a very big problem. I hope that all Deputies interested in Dublin housing will read every page of the Report of the Inquiry into the Housing of the Working Classes in Dublin. This volume alone offers a field for very useful discussion on this question. Deputies could very easily read this document, to see how far they regard any criticism as being laid at the door of the Dublin Corporation or of the Department of Local Government and Public Health or of the Government as a whole. The members have made suggestions of a most interesting kind. It is not for me to express any particular view on its provisions, either in general or in detail, but certainly it offers a most useful method of examining this motion of Deputy Dockrell's and, with that, I will ask that, as far as possible, the suggestions that are made should be of a helpful and constructive character.
This motion introduced by Deputy Dockrell is a very important one, dealing with a question affecting the housing of the people of the State. I was sorry that many Deputies on the opposite benches saw fit to see or to pretend to see in this motion an attack upon the Government. Others thought there was a political twist in the second part of the motion. What Deputy Dockrell had in view was to ask for the Government's opinion and intentions, as regards the housing problem when this war is finished.
I do not think it was Deputy Dockrell's intention at all to refer to what had been accomplished by the Government during the last ten or 11 years. Deputy Butler thought fit to treat the House to a long litany of what the Government had accomplished during those ten years. We all know that and we have paid tribute to it on many occasions, but what we want to know is what is going to be done in regard to future housing. It would not be much use if I, as chairman of the urban council in my native town of Dundalk, were to say that that council built 1,000 houses in the past ten or 11 years when there are people to the number of about 500 in that town who want houses.
I think the motive underlying this motion of Deputy Dockrell is to get a clear-cut statement from the Government as to their plans for the erection of houses in the future. This is a motion on which there ought to be plain speaking and no hedging. We are all aware that this is a poor country and that we are not in a position to erect houses at a cost which is prohibitive, the rents of which will be prohibitive on the type of people who will occupy these houses.
This country cannot afford the progressive increase that has occurred in that respect, that is occurring and, it is to be presumed, will occur, unless checked, in the years to come.
It is a well known fact that the rents of houses that have been built in Dublin as well as all over the country have shown an upward tendency. Houses that could be rented at 4/- per week some eight or ten years ago cannot be rented now under an average of 9/- per week. One can easily understand how difficult it will be for people, some of whom are only in receipt of a few shillings from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, or of unemployment assistance, to pay 9/- per week rent. That, possibly, explains why it is that we have an increase in the incidence of disease, strange as it may seem, in many of the new houses that have been built.
Now, Deputy Dockrell wants this statement from the Government and I think it is about time that the Government should take their courage in their hands and convene a meeting of those who are engaged in the building industry—representatives of the builders, the workers and the builders' providers—the same as has been done across the water. I may say with all respect to the proceedings taking place at the Industrial Court across the street that there you have a small army of people deciding how many apprentices shall come into the bricklaying trade when they would be better occupied in devising ways and means of erecting cheap houses, for the working classes especially. If a meeting was called of all parties interested in the building trade something concrete could be done. I would suggest that the Minister for Local Government should take his courage in his hands notwithstanding any objections that may be made by the Department of Industry and Commerce in regard to the tariff policy. I am not expressing any opinion one way or the other in regard to that policy, but I do say that if the Government is going to make any headway so far as the erection of houses is concerned, especially in regard to the cost, they will have to do away with any and every tariff that tends to increase the cost of all materials incidental to and ancillary to the building trade.
It is the height of nonsense to be quoting statistics and giving figures when, as a matter of fact, we should get down to the hard facts. We talk about the different types of houses from the health point of view—the brick house as against the concrete house. What is the use of talking about brick houses when the cost of bricks manufactured in this country is £8, £9, £10 or £12 per 1,000?
If you take an average of 15,000 to 20,000 bricks for a small house, then at the prevailing prices it runs to an average of £150 or £160 for bricks alone as against the £130 or £140 for which the same house could be built in 1914. The same thing applies to the other items that go to make up a house—the fittings, etc. If the Minister for Local Government is going to compel the builders of this country to use only materials produced in this country it is going to increase the cost of building beyond what the country can afford to pay. The sooner we recognise that fact the better. I know there may be a furore and that people engaged in industry may think that this is the thin end of the wedge, but the fact remains that in relation to housing we are dealing with something which is unprecedented and unprecedented measures will have to be taken by the Minister and his Department. If I may say so, he ought to receive the co-operation and the help of everyone who is engaged in the building industry.
Another suggestion which I would make is that the Local Government Department should relax in some way the conditions which they impose upon local authorities especially in regard to the lay-out of houses. I believe that the costs of building can be considerably reduced if the Department do away with the conditions laid down for the public bodies in this country in the lay-out of houses. They should let the various councils rebuild on the site of the old houses which had been demolished. Everybody knows that in the cities, and in every town throughout the Twenty-Six Counties, four, five and six houses have been demolished, possibly, in one row, and two or three in another row; those sites are derelict, yet we are forced to go out and purchase virgin sites. I believe, if the Government will allow public bodies a little freedom—and, after all, local people know their needs in the matter of how to lay out houses —a great economy can be effected in the cost of erecting those houses.
It will be impossible, either now or in the future, to erect houses in this country at a price that will enable the people to pay the rents that will have to be imposed upon them if the cost of those houses is to be paid off by the public authorities. It will be almost impossible to do so unless the subsidies are increased very considerably, and, therefore, I would impress upon the Minister the urgent necessity, if he thinks it feasible, of calling together in conference everybody who is engaged at the moment in the building industry. I think that is the motive underlying Deputy Dockrell's motion. We should encourage, above all, private enterprise to take its proper share in solving this great problem. I know there has been a tendency here during the past eight or nine years to look to the Government and to public bodies for everything connected with the provision of houses for the working classes. I think their efforts will be considerably increased if they have the help which private enterprise can contribute. It is a well-known fact that many of our housing schemes, throughout the length and breadth of the land, were initiated by private enterprise. It was only when building costs became so high, and as a result of restrictions and the taxation imposed upon people of that type, that the number of houses built by private enterprise was reduced.
The Minister should pay particular attention to that aspect of the situation, as was pointed out by Deputy Dockrell in his speech on this motion. I should like to say, as chairman of the Dundalk Urban Council, that that council has done its share in providing houses for the working classes and we will give the Minister all the co-operation possible—and he will need it. This is not a political question; it is a national question and it is one which, in my opinion, should command the support and active co-operation of all those who are engaged in the building industry—the builder, the builders' provider, as well as the workers engaged. They must take their share, too. These houses are, in the main, built for the class to which the workers engaged in that business belong, and every increase put on the cost of a house, in 99 out of every 100 cases, is borne by the poor people, the people who are least able to afford to pay these increases.
I think the time has arrived when that aspect of the situation has to be driven home to our people—that the Government, by itself, cannot solve this problem; that it requires the united efforts of all concerned. If Deputy Dockrell's motion does nothing else than induce the Minister to call the conference which I suggest he should call, then I think it will have done good work in so far as the housing of the working classes of this State is concerned.
I always feel at a considerable disadvantage when I speak to a motion which has been put down by a member of the Opposition, because I always try to be relevant. When a topic is put down for discussion, I always try to adhere as closely as possible to what would appear to be pertinent to a discussion on that issue. The motion which we are supposed to be discussing is in simple terms. I do not think it would present any undue difficulty to any person of ordinary intelligence to see what it means. But its meaning does not seem to have been clear to its proposer. The motion is:—
"That the Dáil is of opinion that the provision of 20,000 more working-class dwellings for Dublin is a major post-war problem, and that the failure of the Government to announce its decisions with regard to some of the aspects of this question is holding back the plans of other parties who must necessarily share in the solution of this vexed problem, and accordingly asks the Government to make an immediate pronouncement in the matter."
I suppose there is no one will disagree with the premise that the provision of 20,000 more working-class houses for Dublin is a major post-war problem. We accept that. The whole housing policy of the Government has been based on the fact that it was the first Government in this State to realise, ten years before the war, that the provision not only of 20,000, but of 40,000 houses in Dublin was a major social problem, pre-war or post-war, and that a large part of that problem still remains with us for solution.
So far as that part of the motion is concerned, there can be no difference of opinion on either side of the House. Then the motion goes on to say:
"...that the failure of the Government to announce its decisions with regard to some of the aspects of this question is holding back the plans of other parties who must necessarily share in the solution of this vexed problem, and accordingly asks the Government to make an immediate pronouncement in the matter."
It is when I come to discuss that part of the motion that I immediately find myself in the difficulty which I referred to at the beginning of my speech. I cannot say I am on the horns of a dilemma, because a dilemma has only two horns. I find myself in this position, that I must either deal with the speech of the mover of the motion, Deputy Dockrell, or the speech which Deputy McGilligan found it necessary to make on this motion last night, or I must deal with the motion itself. I am in this difficulty. If I reply to Deputy Dockrell or to Deputy McGilligan, I certainly shall not be addressing myself to the motion.
Let me remind you again, even if repetition is wearisome, of the terms of the motion:—
"...that the failure of the Government to announce its decisions with regard to some of the aspects of this question is holding back the plans of other parties..."
There are two things that immediately come in question there, first, whether the Government has failed to announce any vital decision in relation to this problem of housing, and, secondly, whether in fact, by reason of such a failure on the part of the Government, the plans of other interested parties have been held back. That is the basis of this motion—that we have failed to announce decisions and that the plans of other parties have been held back.
I do not want to deal in detail with Deputy Dockrell's speech, but he proposed the motion. On him was cast the responsibility of making a case for the motion, and not once, except in one minor particular of no significance whatever, did he ask the Government to make any announcement in regard to any aspect of this housing problem. He did suggest that perhaps, instead of trying to clear the tenements out of the city, we might allow them to exist, and quite inconsistently with that request, in a later part of his speech, condemned us, not because we are allowing tenements to exist, which he seemed to think would be desirable, but because we were taking tenements, the fabric of which was still sound, reconditioning them and making out of these festering holes habitations fit for human beings. We are urged to say that we will allow people to have one-roomed tenements and we are condemned because we are converting tenements which have still a useful life in them and providing habitations— three or four-roomed habitations— with the necessary domestic services in which families can live in decency and comfort.
How can one deal with a speech which proceeds on these lines? The extraordinary thing about the speech, however, was the fact that it was taken to be an authoritative pronouncement upon the state of the housing problem in the City of Dublin by a leading newspaper. I must say that I rubbed my eyes when I read the editorial which the Irish Times based on this speech, because I challenge anybody to show me one statement of substance or of fact in that speech which is well-founded. We were told by Deputy Dockrell that there is no use in the Government saying that they will have a wonderful building programme completed in 25 years. “Can they start,” asked Deputy Dockrell, “any scheme to-morrow?” Clearly, of course, this was a rhetorical question, so phrased as to convey the suggestion that we had been so laggard in preparing our plans that there was no possibility that, even if the war were over to-morrow and supplies were released, we would be able to push forward with our housing programme.
I think Deputy Dockrell is a member of the Dublin Corporation. If he is not, he has at least the good fortune to know very well a very effective member of the Dublin Corporation. If, however, he had been at pains before he made that speech, which I am sure was made in all good faith, but which was in fact a very disturbing speech, to ascertain the facts, surely he would have seen that not merely—the Dublin Corporation are naturally the authority with initial responsibility in the matter, but we are the people in fact carrying the responsibility because we are the people who have made the law and who provide the Dublin Corporation not only with facilities for carrying out a housing programme but with the finance to carry it out—are we not waiting until to-morrow to begin our housing campaign, but we have never ceased to conduct the housing campaign launched by the Housing Act of 1932, one of the first measures to be passed by a Fianna Fáil Administration. Notwithstanding the terrible difficulties the almost insuperable obstacles, which world conditions have imposed upon us, we have year in and year out, helped, induced, urged and persuaded the Dublin Corporation to continue to build houses in the City of Dublin.
There are at the moment in progress in the city 762 houses. There may be 20 or 30 more or less, but that was the position according to the latest figures available to me in December last. There were then being reconditioned 19 flats, and right down through the year the average number of houses in progress was 762 and the total number of houses completed 653 and the number of flats and cottages reconditioned 184. As I said, that has been done at a time when, as we know, timber and metals are scarce, when all sorts of building requisites and building materials are scarce.
I find I have been unjust to the Dublin Corporation in giving the figures for December, 1944. The actual position on 9th of this month was that 873 houses were in course of construction in the City of Dublin and the number of flats being reconditioned no fewer than 515. In addition, there are in contemplation—I could almost say there are actually in course of construction, because in most cases the preliminary works have already been carried out—no less than 4,926 dwellings.
Perhaps the House would be interested to know in detail the actual position in that regard. In Cabra West there are 253 dwellings about to be built, for which tenders were invited on the 20th February, 1945. In Rutland Avenue, 40 dwellings are to be added as extra to the contract. In Donnycarney 870 dwellings are proposed. All the development work is completed, and Deputy Dockrell, who is familiar with this industry, knows very well what that means to a building contractor in terms of expedition. Building is to begin with 204 houses. The whole scheme is to be carried out in five sections and bills of quantities are being prepared. In Sarsfield Road, 712 dwellings are proposed. The development work again has been completed. The scheme is to be carried out in four sections and bills of quantities are being prepared. In Rialto and Donore Avenue we are to have 389 and 280 flats, respectively. The foundations, roads, sewers and water mains are laid and the contract drawings and bills of quantities are ready for tender as soon as materials, such as steel reinforcements, etc., become available. In Sarsfield Road we have 884 dwellings. Development work is complete, except for the Ring Road, which is to be divided into four sections, and the plans are being prepared. In Crumlin South, 802 dwellings are projected. Ninety per cent. of the development work has been completed and arrangements for building will be made in due course. In Crumlin North, 74 dwellings are contemplated; all development work is completed; the foundations and the rising walls constructed, and the erection of the superstructures has been deferred until a dump there has been removed. In Ellenfield and Larkhill, 409 dwellings are projected; the preliminary development work has been completed and the building arrangements will be made in due course. In Terenure, 213 dwellings are projected; the development work has been completed and the building arrangements will be made in due course.
There are 4,926 dwellings in respect of practically all of which the development work has been completed, in respect to some of which substaintial tenders are being asked for and in respect to most of which the plans and the quantities are being prepared, and Deputy Dockrell, who could have ascertained that fact, if he had only read the Report of the Dublin Housing Committee, says:—
"It is no use the Government saying that they will have a wonderful building programme completed in 25 years. Can they start any scheme to-morrow?"
We are told in this resolution that more than 20,000 houses are required for the City of Dublin. There is 25 per cent. of that programme ready for launching to-morrow if we get the materials. Is that a satisfactory answer to the Deputy? Whether it will satisfy him or not to the extent that he will not put this motion to a vote, I cannot say, but, at any rate, I think it is sufficient answer to the editorial in the Irish Times.
Have you fallen out with the Irish Times now?
Since they started to feed your cat, I have very little use for their sagacity.
That is a bad sign for international amity.
Not merely have we 4,926 dwellings in that advanced state of preparation but, in addition to that, there are 5,585 further dwellings projected—5,585—which will carry us, I should say, more than half way towards the completion of the programme. Where, in the light of that, have the Dublin Corporation been held back by the failure of the Government to make any announcement?
Not merely have I to deal with the Dublin Corporation, however, for there are other parties who are interested in building in the City of Dublin. We have been told that private individuals have been held back. I take a great interest in the housing problem and, naturally, wherever I see a housing project referred to, whether it is under the ægis of a public authority or of private enterprise, I try to get all the information I possibly can. I was glad to find, therefore, in a report of Associated Properties, Limited, this statement—
"What has been done in the past year in preparation for a post-war drive to house these families may be of interest. To begin with, the Ballymun estate, which will take 532 houses, has been cleared and excavations for two and a half miles of the roads have been made. More than two and a quarter miles of sewers have been laid and the contractors expect to commence actual laying of roads in three or four weeks. I am glad to say that the Department of Local Government, the Department of Supplies, and the County Dublin Commissioners' officials are operating to the fullest extent in order to speed the work preliminary to providing the houses. Work on another estate, which will take 140 houses, will soon commence. A third estate will take 582 houses. That will be three estates taking in all 1,200 houses for post-war development."
I do not think I have a case to answer, in the light of the figures I have given to the House and in the light of that statement on the part of private building enterprise. I am only sorry that I have not the opportunity of referring to Deputy McGilligan's speech. I understand the mover of the motion will probably like to get in now. All I want to say in relation to that speech is this, that I want to put it on the records of the House that Deputy McGilligan, when he referred to this housing report and particularly when he referred to Appendix No. 17, deliberately misled the House, when he implied that the statement in paragraph 133 of the report based on the Appendix No. 17 of the report covered 165,000 persons. These figures are in black and white in his own speech, and when he made that argument and that speech, a speech which has nothing to do with the motion, a speech which was an attack on the Government, a speech which had only the slightest relevancy to the motion, I say he deliberately misled the House and that, I hope, will go on record as Deputy McGilligan's contribution to the solution of the housing problem in Dublin.
It is with a sense of diffidence that I rise to conclude this debate because, first of all, I should like to point out that some Deputies spoke about what was not in the resolution and others drew conclusions from my remarks which I certainly did not intend. I am sure I will not be accused of prejudice in quoting to the Minister an extract from paragraph 457 of the report of the inquiry into the housing of the working classes in the City of Dublin, where it is said:—
"In further confirmation of the results of the system we note that out of the 33,000 families surveyed in 1938-39 over 21,000 occupied dwellings of one room (Appendix No. 10). Nearly 11,000 of these 21,000 families were occupying ‘unfit' one-roomed dwellings..."
Is that a desirable state of affairs? Most of the speakers seemed anxious to dissociate themselves from any blame and to show that they at least had done everything in their power. The Lord Mayor, Deputy M. O'Sullivan, very modestly and very apologetically, said that he thought I was too pessimistic. I hope the Lord Mayor is right. Of course, if there are any bouquets to be handed out in this debate, certainly, the corporation ought to get a bouquet because they have built the houses. I made comments which were referred to as criticisms. I should like to say that in a subject as vast and as complex as this is one could not see eye to eye with other people all the time. Deputy Butler said that the second half of my resolution was not frank or candid.
Mr. Corish
He said that it was tricky.
Yes—tricky. Thanks. It is curious, but in framing that resolution I tried to draw up a resolution that was absolutely noncontroversial and approach it in an uncontroversial, helpful spirit. I purposely refrained from going into the question of how many houses the Fianna Fáil Government had built and how many houses the Cumann na nGaedheal Government had built. In an argument you can prove almost anything. Deputy Butler contended that, owing to the war, the Fianna Fáil Government could not be blamed for slackening off in housing. I shall leave that to Deputies to decide for themselves. Of course, very conveniently, he omitted to mention that the Fianna Fáil Government started where the Cumann na nGaedheal Government had left off; that the Cumann na nGaedheal Government prepared the framework for all this housing procedure and that the Fianna Fáil Government certainly got a number of years' start owing to that. I make the Dáil a present of that, because I do not think it really matters.
Coming to the 11,000 houses that are unfit for human habitation, I really think that from one aspect, namely, the housing by the corporation of the class of individuals inhabiting these houses, the progress made has not been at all bad. But everybody seemed to bristle, as if some dreadful accusation had been made against some body with which they were connected. What I really was getting at was that a whole lot of other avenues were practically unexplored or stopped up. I should like to point out that, under the Acquisition of Small Dwellings Act, which was put into operation by the corporation, a number of houses were built. But only a certain amount of money was made available and every time a grant was made that sum was eaten into and eventually that class of building stopped. I think that somebody on behalf of the corporation said that they did not want to have that class of building going on in competition with the houses that the corporation were putting up. From the point of view of the corporation, I think it was very fair to say: "We want to house the very poorest of the citizens and we must bend all our energies in that direction." But that is no answer from the point of view of the Government who, in my opinion, ought to take up the attitude that everybody who builds a house for himself in Dublin or its surroundings moves on and leaves a vacant house for somebody else to move into. I notice that the Northern Trust are to build better houses and thus move the people from the poorer houses into the houses that will be vacated as a result of that. But the number of dwellings in Dublin let at a cheap rate which could be vacated in that way is giving out. When I referred to the turning of tenement houses into one-roomed flats by the corporation, I certainly did not recommend that as a desirable proceeding, but rather as a desperate expedient.
I certainly agree with all the temperate remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary when replying to me. He quoted very extensively from what I said. There was only one thing that I could find fault with and probably from the text he was quite entitled to say what he did say, namely, that I was objecting to the corporation's efforts in reconditioning houses. But that was not the angle from which I approached it. I regard those reconditioned houses as having been excellently reconstructed by the corporation; I could not say anything else. But my point was that I would rather see the money expended by the corporation in a different direction.
This housing problem has many aspects and I am not responsible if some Deputies did not keep strictly to the motion. The Minister professed himself to be in a dilemma as to whether he ought to discuss my motion or the speeches of some other Deputies. I rather thought, Sir, that I should facetiously tell the Minister that he ought to be guided by you in that respect. However, my motion has provoked a good deal of thought and has resulted in a good deal of criticism. Everybody spoke from a different angle, but a great number never approached even remotely the problem as I see it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 28th February, 1945.