Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 35 - 12 June, 1930

Issues Out of Central Fund. - Housing Bill, 1930—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (General Mulcahy): I move: “That this Bill be read a Second Time.” The Housing Act of 1929 provided a sum of £200,000 for housing. The net effect of the present Bill is to provide another £200,000 in respect of houses that will be begun before 1st April next and completed before 31st October, 1931. Of the £200,000 provided under the 1929 Act about £16,000 was utilised to give grants in respect of houses that had been approved under the previous Acts but in respect of which there was no money. At present there is a sum of £18,391 left. The equivalent of that sum in houses would be 360 houses. In respect of the remaining sum of £166,000 under the 1929 Act, grants have been provided in respect of local authorities for 989 houses, private persons 2,097, and public utility societies, 188, so that the total number of houses provided under the Housing Acts from 1924 to 1929 is: — local authorities, 4,975; private persons, 12,906; and public utility societies, 991, giving a total of 18,872, to which we have to add 360 houses, being the equivalent of [972] £18,000 unallotted, bringing the total to 19,232. The sum of £200,000 now asked for will provide another 4,000 houses.

The Bill proposes to continue the terms of the 1929 Act with this addition: that whereas under the 1929 Act the Irish Soldiers' and Sailors' Land Trust was excluded as a person entitled to grants, we propose to include the Trust under the present Bill as being entitled to receive grants in respect of houses begun subsequent to the passing of this Bill and before 1st April, 1931. It will be remembered in regard to the Trust that complaint was made before the Committee which was set up to deal with the claims of British ex-Servicemen that they were not given the grants under the 1924 and subsequent Acts. The Committee came to the conclusion that it was reasonable to exclude the Trust. The general position in regard to the Trust is that when it was originally set up there was a definite amount of money allocated to it and a prescribed number of houses — 2,626 — were to be built. Since the passing of the 1924 Act, the British Treasury regulation governing the limit of the number of houses to be built, has been removed and there is now no limit to the number of such houses. They have already completed 2,187 houses. The number under contract is 260 and plans are ready for the building of 150 while they are waiting proof of title in respect of another 55. They estimate that, in all, they will be able to build 2,690 houses and their ambitions go further than that. Reconsidering the housing position and the urgency of housing needs, we have come to the conclusion that for the purpose of assisting the Trust in its endeavour to build more houses than the number originally intended and, for the purpose of inducing them to speed up their operations, we think that it is reasonable to include them in this Bill and to give them the same grants as given in respect of private persons in the case of houses that will have been begun subsequent to the passing of this Bill and [973] before 1st April, 1931. I quoted figures in the case of the number of private persons and local authorities that were allotted grants under the 1929 Act.

The position with regard to private persons is pretty well maintained. The following figures may be of interest to Deputies. During the month of September, 1929, grants were allotted in respect of 249 houses; in October, 171 houses; in November, 215 houses; in December, 183 houses and in January, 1930, 21 houses. The reason for the small number in January is that the figure is net and that a certain number of allocations, 66 allocations in fact, were cancelled because the conditions under which the allocations were made were not completed. That is, the houses were not completed before October 1929. In February grants were allocated in respect of 163 houses; in March, 161 houses; in April, 221 houses, and in May, 300 houses, making a total of 1,684 during the nine months. That is as regards private persons and public utility societies. As regards local authorities, the position is that in September, 1929, grants were allotted in respect of 493 houses, including 434 in Dublin; in October in respect of 17; in November in respect of 165 which included 75 labourers' cottages in Co. Dublin and 35 in Co. Cork. There was no allocation in respect of December. There was an allocation in respect of one house in January, none in February, 10 in March, 136 in April and 214 in May.

In dealing with the subject of housing on the Estimates, I mentioned the fact that we had made a census of the housing wants. I said that urban local authorities gave as their estimated requirements 42.880 houses. After having examined 34 of these districts, that is, having sent medical and engineering inspectors to examine the situation there, we reduced these requirements by about 27 or 28 per cent. We estimated the total requirements in urban districts as 31,000 houses. Since then local authorities, particularly as a result [974] of the Local Loans Fund being opened, and financial provision by way of loans being made, have got busy on their plans. Out of 93 authorities, 27 have already acquired sites and have had plans approved in respect of 1,591 houses. In the case of 22 others, sites are being acquired and plans are being prepared in respect of 363 houses. So that if you compare that movement with the position indicated by the figures I have quoted, from the tail end of last summer to the beginning of this year, we see that there is a very definite move on the part of local authorities to take advantage of the present loan facilities.

Mr. O'Kelly: As an instalment of the housing policy of the Government I have no particular objection to the proposed Bill, but I do think that, seeing the urgent nature of the problem of housing, the Bill is not at all adequate to the situation. We have had recently here, and in fact we have had for several years, frequent discussions on this question of housing. I have taken part in a number of them, and I have always emphasised that, with the possible exception of the question of unemployment, the housing question is the most urgent problem that faces the Government in this House. I think that it is realised on all sides of the House that the question of the provision of proper houses, particularly for the poorer classes, is a grave, urgent and pressing problem. While I think that is realised on every side and every Party has done its best to impress on the Government the urgency of the problem, the Government does not seem to have realised how necessary it is to do more than is being done to solve this problem, that is to do more than is being done by the provisions of this Bill, which proposes to provide a sum of £200,000 to help the housing situation here in the coming twelve months. I do not like to have to go back over the old story and to have to talk in what would seem an exaggerated way on this problem, but I think it is necessary to hammer at it, and to keep hammering [975] at it if anything is to be done and if we are to do anything to induce the Government to realise the seriousness of the problem and to face it in the fashion in which it must be faced if it is to be solved within a reasonable time.

Not long ago I read in the “Irish Independent,” dated 30th October, 1929, an article. I have no idea what could induce that newspaper to interest itself in the subject of the Dublin tenements. The article is headed “Dublin Tenements.” “The Word Inhuman Not Too Strong — Some Appalling Facts.” I will not read it all. It says here in the course of this alarming article: “An ‘Irish Independent’ representative who visited the Gardiner Street district saw for himself the conditions under which the people housed here have to live. A few minutes' walk from O'Connell Street, the principal thoroughfare of the City, and one is face to face with the appalling poverty of housing accommodation that the tenement system entails. Here every house, with its average of twelve rooms, shelters its ten families, many of them five and six in number, and the hall-doors, open day and night, give the occupants but little privacy,” and so on.

That is a condition of things that is known to the members of the Government, and probably ought to be particularly well known to the Minister who proposed this Bill. In that article — and I did not read much of it for you — strong language is used in describing the conditions. But that language or any language that any journalist sent by the “Independent” newspaper or any newspaper into that area could not exaggerate in describing the horrible conditions under which the people live in the constituency represented by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health amongst others. Nothing that has been done by this House since it was called into existence has in any way helped to eradicate the evil that exists in [976] that part of the City, without talking at all of the conditions that exist in other quarters of the City as well. As a matter of fact, these conditions have worsened in the last twenty years, and Bills of this kind, however useful they are or however necessary they are as a palliative, are not going to help to get rid of these abominable housing conditions in the City of Dublin.

The policy of the Government, the Minister told us recently, is enshrined in their Housing Bills. In the Housing Bills proposed by them here and adopted in the last six, seven or eight years their policy, he said, is enshrined. If that be so, God help the slum-dweller. God help the poor in the tenements in the City of Dublin and those in the insanitary dwellings in almost every urban area in the Free State. I say God help them, for there is no hope for them. This Bill and the other Bills introduced here and the Acts passed have not faced up to the question. The Minister gave us figures as to the number of houses that have been built. A considerable number of houses — nearly 19,000 houses — have been built. In the City of Dublin alone fifteen years ago a great deal more than that number were required in order to house the poor of the City of Dublin. In 1919 as many as 29,000 houses were required, and no attempt has been made to meet that situation adequately. I think the figure then given was 29,500. That was, I think, the exact figure taken from the report of Mr. Cowan, the inspector of the Local Government Board at that time. He said that 29,500 houses were absolutely necessary and urgently required in 1918.

If that were so in the old City of Dublin twelve years ago, what must be the conditions now, even taking into account the number of new houses that have been built in the meantime? There have been houses built that have been urgently required for people improperly housed, people with large families. But whatever has been done has not touched the sore spot in the City of [977] Dublin, which is the slum problem. Houses for the real poor have not been built. The Government has subsidised the building of houses in many cases for people who could well afford to build houses for themselves. But the poor are left, and they are left in conditions which are going from bad to worse. I do not know what the prospect is. The prospects are black anyhow for the slum-dwellers of the City of Dublin.

I know that the problem is a difficult one. We all know it is a difficult one. We all know that there are obstacles to be overcome, but we know that the Government have made no serious effort to tackle the obstacles in this matter. They have made no effort in the City of Dublin to tackle the problem of the slumdwellers. The Minister may say that is a local problem — a problem that ought to be dealt with by the local authorities. Well, that is so, to some extent, but the situation in Dublin City is peculiar, and if it were left solely to the ratepayers of the City of Dublin the burden would be very heavy, and it would be perhaps more than the City alone could bear without assistance. I think that will be accepted on all sides. The Minister had a peculiar opportunity of showing that the Government were serious about this problem and of showing that they intended to tackle it and to eradicate it when, in 1924, the municipal authority was abolished and the Commissioners — very efficient men, we are told — put in their stead. The Minister had an opportunity then, through his own officials, of setting a headline and showing what could be done. The best that has been done since is that about 500 houses per year on an average have been built in the City of Dublin. That is the best they could do. That is the best the Minister evidently could get his officials to do with the big subsidies that were at the disposal of the Commissioners in the City of Dublin.

It is not just to the Minister's own constituents; it is not just to Dublin, and it certainly is not just to the Free State that more has not [978] been done. If there is anything that would bring down the dignity and credit of this State, it is to allow the conditions that have existed here so long to continue — that is, the conditions that exist in the slums of Dublin. Visitors coming to the City of Dublin have been told what a wonderful change has taken place, and they have been told about the corners we have turned, according to the President, and the wonderful prosperity that is everywhere evident in the City of Dublin. I have heard some Americans, great admirers of the President and his Party, who visited the slums of Dublin last year, speak about these slums. Who brought them to these slums I do not know. But I met one or two of these Americans, and they certainly had their eyes opened, for like conditions of poverty and general insanitary conditions they had not seen even in the worst slums of New York, and there are some bad slums there too.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

These things are known, or at least they ought to be known, to the Government as well as to me or the other Deputies who represent Dublin. I only wish it was from that side of the House that speeches of this kind were made so that the Government might be pushed if they are not willing to tackle in a desperate way the desperate ills that exist in these slums. It is an ill that requires a drastic remedy. Light medicine of the kind that is prescribed in this Bill will not cure that ill. I have been over this ground before, but I will go over it again. In 1926, when the census was taken, there were 46,902 families living in one-room tenements, or 140,061 persons living in one-room dwellings in the Free State area. There were 44,131 persons living in two-roomed dwellings in Dublin City alone out of a population of 316,000 odd. There were 23,655 families or 78,920 persons living in one-roomed dwellings or one-roomed tenements.

That is on the increase. If it were [979] on the decrease, even if the decrease were slight, I would say nothing, because I know as well as others here know that the problem of housing in Dublin is not the problem of to-day or yesterday, or of the last ten years. This problem has been given to us to solve, but in eight years we have done nothing to solve it, and that is my complaint. In 1911 there were 21,133 families living in one-room dwellings, and in 1926 the number had increased to 23,655, or an increase of over 2,500 families. The fact is that 27.8 per cent. of the population of the City of Dublin now lives in one-room tenements. Over 50 per cent. of the total population of the City is now obliged to live in one or two-roomed dwellings.

That is an old problem, but instead of decreasing under the magnificent statesmanship of a Government presided over by that distinguished Dublin man, President Cosgrave, it is increasing. As a result of the rotten housing, he sees the infants of the poor of Dublin dying at an alarming rate. They are dying because of the rotten housing conditions that he and his Government permit to continue and to increase. If there is anything else that he can claim credit for in the Government of the country during the last eight years there is certainly no credit in regard to housing coming to him or to anybody in this House who has any responsibility — myself included. We all should hide our heads in shame, those of us who have the duty sometimes of visiting those areas. We should never talk of prosperity or of turning the corner as long as we cannot show, or clearly demonstrate, that we are tackling the problem and reducing the numbers of people who are obliged to live in these insanitary surroundings in our capital City. It is a disgrace to everybody. Whatever houses may be built elsewhere — and God knows they are necessary elsewhere, too — there is no place in the country, no rural or urban area, where conditions are so disgraceful, [980] so shocking or so inhuman as in parts of Dublin City.

I have a lot of cuttings here that I took from newspapers within the last six months or so. Different local authorities report on housing conditions in their own areas, and God knows they are bad. There is one cutting here dealing with housing in Bray. It is from the “Irish Times” of the 6th November last. One of the headings reads: “383 Houses Unfit for Human Habitation,” and another heading reads: “Ten Persons in One-Room Dwelling.” The report states that 39 were one-room houses which were occupied by 136 persons, and one of them was occupied by ten persons, and six by six or more persons. They considered that the conditions disclosed an appalling state of affairs, and they suggested that immediate steps should be taken to remedy the insanitary and immoral conditions of the housing. The Commissioner in Bray say they should get the Minister for Local Government to take up the housing scheme for the area. Over the whole Free State area you will find similar conditions reported. These reports were probably made in answer to the request of the Local Government Department or the Minister that a survey or census should be made. As regards Sligo, at a Corporation meeting Doctors Rouse and Moran reported that 269 houses in Sligo Borough were unfit and could not be made fit for human habitation. As regards housing conditions in Dungarvan, it was reported that 250 houses at present occupied were unfit for human habitation, and Dr. McCarthy, at a meeting of the Urban District Council, said there were 500 houses in the town which will be unfit for human habitation in five or six years, and 20 houses were in danger of collapsing.

In Thurles Dr. MacCormack, Free State Local Government Medical Officer, and an Engineer from the Department, made a detailed inspection of the town. To replace the houses which are unfit for habitation there it is stated that half the town needs to be rebuilt. As regards [981] Drogheda, at least 850 new houses are required to solve the housing problem, and it would take from eight to ten years to complete the programme, according to a report submitted to the Drogheda Corporation by Mr. J.J. Burke, Borough Surveyor. I could say a whole lot more about the conditions in Drogheda, but I think that Drogheda is making some effort to tackle its own housing problem. Dealing with housing conditions in Ballina, the “Sunday Independent” last October reported that housing conditions in Ballina were appalling, and in other towns in Mayo they were so bad that the surveyors' reports would touch a heart of stone. That statement was quoted from the remarks of Mr. McGrath, the Chairman of the Ballina U.D. Council. He added that if the conditions continued as they were in Ballina the cemeteries would soon be filled. Another extract deals with the housing problem in Cork.

I have a whole lot of other extracts here, but the conditions of houses are better known to Deputies from these areas than they are to me. What I have said with regard to Dublin is to some extent equally true of other parts of the country. Perhaps in many areas the conditions are not quite as bad as they are in Dublin. Others may say that their areas are worse off, but I can speak for the Dublin area and I can say that the conditions here are appalling. We have also the statement of Dr. M.J. Russell, Medical Officer of Health, Dublin Corporation. He bears out my remarks that conditions in Dublin are getting worse. Speaking at a city hospital recently, he stated that notwithstanding all the houses that have been built in or around Dublin it would be news to some to learn that there are more insanitary rooms in dwellings to-day than there ever were in the history of the city. He went further to say that many of the underground kitchen dwellings, though they were condemned by his predecessor, are still inhabited.

[982] That is the condition of the Free State with regard to housing. Useful as palliatives of this kind are, they are not going to touch more than the fringe of the problem. I would like to urge the Minister and the President, because the President, I believe, is interested in the subject and knows a great deal about it, particularly with regard to the City of Dublin, to make a serious effort to grapple with this problem. Let them get down to the root of it with the experts they have at their disposal from the Local Government Department; let them sit around a table and examine closely the number of houses that are required. Even as to the estimated number required you will find great differences of opinion. But whatever the number is, whether 40,000, 50,000 or even 60,000, let the Government get down to it and tackle the problem with a view to ending it within, say, ten years. That is not too early a date for the elimination of the slum problem in the City of Dublin, and it certainly would not be a day too soon. Even if the number of houses required properly to house the people in the Free State were 50,000 or 60,000 I believe it would be possible to have that number built in that time. People will say that there would be a difficulty in finding a sufficient number of skilled men to do the work, but in 1918 Inspector Cowan reported that to his knowledge 1,600 houses could be built annually in Dublin, and I believe that no more than 500 houses on an average have been built in the city in the last five or six years. If there were a sufficient number of bricklayers, masons, painters, carpenters, and all the other men required for house building in Dublin in 1918 to build that number of houses, there must be a considerable number of them unemployed at present, and as we have often emphasised before, by taking the course I suggest not alone would you eradicate the housing evil, but you would help to solve the unemployment problem as well. If I thought that the President and the Minister were really in earnest [983] about the matter I would not have said anything, but if this Bill is the only evidence we have of their sincerity it certainly is not very deep and does not go very far; it will certainly not make any more impression on the problem in the next twelve months than was made in the last five years.

I know that outside of the City of Dublin, in agricultural districts, labourers' cottages are very badly needed. According to the figures that the Minister gave last night, 114 labourers' cottages were built between 1927 and March 31st, 1930 — 38 cottages per year, or one and a half cottages per year for each of the twenty-six counties. Men from agricultural areas are flocking into the cities who would be happy to remain in the country at agricultural work if they could get houses and get married, but they cannot. I know that there are financial and other difficulties to be overcome in that connection also, but my complaint is that no serious effort is being made to overcome them in the rural areas any more than in the urban. I certainly cannot congratulate the President, the Minister and the Government on the progress that has been made in house-building in the last eight years. I think that the present state of the City of Dublin is the most damning indictment of the Government that anybody who wished to get evidence to damn them could produce.

Mr. Hogan (Clare): This measure proposes to continue the old bad system of house-building that was introduced some four or five years ago. I did not quarrel with the Minister for introducing that system at the outset; I did not quarrel with him for having given it a trial; but I do quarrel with him because he has not made any analysis of the position consequent on the introduction of that system, and because he has not made an examination of it in the light of what the results have been with regard to solving the housing difficulties of the country. He gave us a set of figures on the Estimates, and [984] he has now given us a set of figures, but I suggest that if any figures are to be valuable in the examination of this problem they would be found in a comparison of the number of families that have been removed from insanitary houses into sanitary houses since the introduction of the measures for which the Minister stands. He told us that the local authorities had built close on 5,000 houses and that private people had built 12,906. I have no quarrel whatever with the giving of grants to private people for the building of their houses, but I suggested on the Estimates, and I want the Minister to examine it and see whether it is not true, that most of these grants went to the speculative builder. I suggested that we should examine the position to see how many new houses have been built locally, to see how far the erection of forty, fifty or sixty new houses in any district has contributed to the solution of the slum problem in that district.

I know districts where grants have been given and houses built, but in the main the building of these houses has not released one good house for a dweller in a slum, a lane or a side street in the town concerned. An examination of the number of families who have been taken out of insanitary dwellings during the five years in which these Acts have been operating would be useful, but the Minister has not given us any such information. We hear a good deal of talk about the City of Dublin and the slums in it. I know something about the slums in Dublin; I lived in Dublin for about ten years, and I know that the slums are disgraceful. But I also know that there are districts in Co. Clare where the housing conditions are as bad as, or probably worse, than what one finds in the Liberties of Dublin.

Mr. O'Kelly: Impossible.

Mr. Hogan (Clare): Not impossible at all. I have gone through tenement houses in Dublin on business and I know that they are wretched, but in some of the towns in my own country there are houses [985] just as bad, just as miserable, just as impossible to rear children decently in as in the case of these wretched tenement houses in Dublin. The Minister has not considered that problem at all. In my own county there are only two urban areas, but there are eight or nine other towns. What steps is the Minister taking to deal with the housing problem in these eight or nine towns? What grants are available for the County Board of Health to deal with them? What provisions are made for long-term loans for that purpose? The Minister is making no attempt to deal with the housing problem in country areas. The towns to which I refer vary in population from 2,000 to 4,000, and there are houses in them that are not fit for human habitation.

We have repeatedly suggested that the only solution of the problem for the whole country is a national housing board, with power to borrow and power to build. If such a board were working for a number of years it would make some inroads on the housing problem. This piecemeal method will not solve it, and the Minister knows it. It would be interesting to know how many of the 5,000 houses built by local authorities were built in the City of Dublin, and how many of them were built by the new disciples of administration who have been introduced as commissioners.

Of course the Minister is not making any efforts to solve the problem. That is the terrible difficulty. He proposes to hold a conference of local authorities in the near future. Is he prepared to submit to them a questionnaire as to conditions in their districts? Is he prepared to ask for their proposals for a solution of the housing problem? If not, he has no right to come here with this piecemeal proposal. He has a right to make some honest effort to solve the housing problem and not to talk about it as he does on some occasions.

Mr. Good: With much of what Deputy O'Kelly and Deputy Hogan said I am in agreement. I am quite [986] satisfied, and I have said so frequently, that we are scarcely keeping pace with the depreciation in housing, and scarcely dealing with the problem at all. There is common agreement between Deputy O'Kelly and Deputy Hogan and myself on that point. I do not know that there would be agreement with us on the Government Benches. But while we agree that far, when we come to the question of the cause — that is why no real effort has been made to deal with the problem — it is there and from there we differ. Deputy O'Kelly says that the reason we have made no appreciable effort, beyond making good the depreciation, is because the Government has not done enough. That is his explanation, — that the Government has not done enough and should do more. When we come to Labour we find that Labour has said quite frankly all the time that the present policy is an entirely wrong one, that a big housing board is wanted, a big authority to deal with housing. They want an authority that will have little regard for what the expense of building will be, the main object being to get houses, no matter what the cost. That solution is a very shallow one. If we are going to occupy houses we want to know what they are going to cost; we want to know whether we can afford the cost. But if we are going to adopt Labour's policy and erect houses regardless of cost the two items are going to clash and you will not get tenants.

Mr. Davin: We have converted Fianna Fáil to that policy.

Mr. Good: We will see what the conversion is and where the solution lies. I agree that what the Government has done during the last five years has been to alleviate the problem for one section of the community and one only. Let me be quite frank and quite fair. We have spent some millions — I do not know how many — up to date on an attempted solution of the housing problem. All that money has been [987] spent to provide houses for one class, and one class only, the well-to-do tradesmen. Nobody could afford to live in these houses, or to pay the rents except well-to-do tradesmen. Looking at the problem from that point of view, let us examine the Labour solution. Their solution is that they would provide houses at a higher cost and at higher rents.

Mr. Davin: No.

Mr. Good: At a higher cost and at higher rents. Is that going to solve the housing problem?

Mr. Davin: Deal with the profits.

Mr. Good: We will deal with the profits when the opportunity arises. There was an opportunity of dealing with them, but Labour would not face the situation.

Mr. Davin: Tell us what you know about it.

Mr. Good: I do not want a personal controversy, but there was an opportunity twelve months ago, when we had a conference on the subject, when the employers were prepared to put their books on the table, and to show the profits they were making, but Labour said “no.”

Mr. Davin: Put them on the table now for the country.

Mr. Good: I think I have said sufficient to show the hopelessness of the solution that has been offered by Labour. I said on many occasions that nothing at all has been done to deal with the problem of the slums. I have gone as far as to say that in dealing with houses we commenced at the wrong end, that we should have commenced at the slums, and that any money available, either through the local authorities or provided by the State, should have been given to those really in need of assistance. Those to whom it has been given are not as a class in need of assistance through subsidies from the State. We have been told by [988] Ministers that the slum problem is such a serious one from the economic point of view that it is almost impossible to touch it while building costs are so high. That is apart altogether from Labour's proposal to raise the cost still further. Even as the cost stands, we have been told here and outside by those in authority that it is impossible to deal with the slums from the economic point of view. If it is difficult from the economic standpoint it appears to me that any money the State can give should be given to those who are in need of it.

Let us face this problem. We have got to a stage in connection with housing when it is time to take stock and to consider whether the line we are moving along is a sound line, whether it is likely to solve the problem we have in view. Anything I have heard to-day from either Labour or Fianna Fáil goes to show me at all events — and I hope I am somewhat impartial on the problem — that the line we are moving on is not a line which is going to lead to a solution of the problem. We have been at it over eight years. We have burdened the local authorities as far as we can, and the State as far as we can, but still we have made no headway in connection with the problem. Therefore I think it is time to take stock and consider whether this is the right line we are on. I have said quite recently that in pre-war days housing was not provided by the State or by the local authority and still there were plenty of houses. I was reading a little while ago from an authority that knows the question that private enterprise in 1906 had provided so many houses that they got in excess of the demand. After 1906 the politicians got to work at the problem. They killed confidence; they killed the speculative builder and they stopped the production of houses. Now I am quite satisfied if we are going to get a solution of this problem, we are not going to get it through State grants or through local assistance or through the policy put forward by Labour. [989] The only one line on which we can hope for a solution of this problem, therefore, is a return to the policy that had produced, may I say, a sufficiency of houses for all classes of the community up to almost pre-war days. If we are to get back to that condition the very first step that is necessary is to make housing a sound and wise investment. Instead of having people investing their surplus earnings in motor cars and in stocks of a very speculative character in most cases — I will not say riotous living but living at a rate which they cannot afford — what we want to do is to try to get people to see that the homes in which they live and rear their families are possessions of their own and have a first claim on any surplus moneys they may have.

That was the position very largely as it existed in pre-war days, but it is not the position as we know it to-day. We give large moneys from the State; we support those in many cases with an equal sum from the local authorities. Still we find that we are not meeting in that way the difficulties of the situation. As far as my limited knowledge guides me in this matter, I am satisfied that there is only one likely road to a solution of this difficulty and that is to get back to the conditions that existed in pre-war days. To establish that confidence that I spoke of, where houses will become almost a first claim on any surplus cash that is available for investment, there is a long way to go. Housing as an investment has been badly shaken by politicians in pre-war days.

Mr. Davin: In the Labourers Act.

Mr. Good: Badly shaken; and nothing has done more to shake that confidence in housing as an investment than an Act that was passed in 1915 in the British House of Commons known as the Rent Restrictions Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Surely the Deputy is not going to take us into the question of rents?

Mr. Good: I am only talking of [990] the questions that affect housing and the difficulty we have in getting houses.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I do not want to have a discussion of rents in connection with housing.

Mr. Good: Of course rents are mixed up with the policy. The policy, as far as I understand it, is one of finance, and rents are finance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I do not want the Deputy to get too far from the Bill.

Mr. Good: Of course what I have to say may be severe.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I want the Deputy to understand that I am not concerned with the merits of what he is saying. I am merely concerned with the question of order.

Mr. Good: I want to show what are the difficulties that prevent us getting houses.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I want to make it clear to the Deputy that I am concerned only with the question of order, not at all with the merits of what the Deputy is saying. I want the Deputy to keep somewhere near the Bill.

Mr. Good: Am I in order in dealing with the difficulties that prevent us from getting houses?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Yes, but the Deputy would not be in order in going into the question of the Rent Restrictions Act.

Mr. Good: I will leave that other point for a moment. As I said a few moments ago, we have got now to the stage when we have to take stock of the problem and see really what the difficulties are that lie in our effort to get a sufficiency of houses. I have said that very largely the difficulties are economic ones. I go further and say that one of the greatest difficulties at the moment in that connection is the high cost of building in this country. I do not want to speak of this particular aspect of [991] the problem in any irritating way. I want to try and speak of it as a difficulty that can and ought to be solved, and that can only be solved by giving it calm and fair consideration, and I have spoken on more than one occasion on this problem about the importance of building costs. I do not know whether Deputies are aware that every four pounds additional of capital expenditure in connection with housing adds one penny per week to the rent — that is, taking a loan over 60 years. If rents are too high the cost of building is too high. That is a problem that ought to be calmly inquired into.

May I give one or two figures that have been given before to show the serious situation of the question of building costs in Dublin? In 1914 the tradesmen in our city received 4/2 less per week than was paid in a corresponding city in Great Britain. In 1930 those same tradesmen received 16/4 per week more than is paid in the corresponding city on the other side. Now let me look on this from another point of view.

Mr. Davin: Is that an average figure?

Mr. Good: No. It is the rate paid to tradesmen.

Mr. E. Doyle: Why not go into the profits of the builder?

Mr. Good: We will deal with that in time. I am not dealing with this in an antagonistic spirit, but, as I pointed out, we ought to try to inquire into this and make an effort to meet the difficulty. Let us look at this from another point of view. In 1930, the tradesman in this city of ours gets a wage that is 136 per cent. over pre-war level. A tradesman in a corresponding city in Great Britain gets at the moment 75 per cent. over pre-war. Now let us look at the cost of living in the Free State, according to the last returns. Deputy Lemass will correct me in this, as he has been recently inquiring into it. We are 168 over pre-war, [992] that is, 68 deducting the 100. In Great Britain the rate is 57. The increase in the tradesman's wages is 136. The increase in the cost of living is 68. In other words, that is profiteering, if I might use that term, in no antagonistic spirit, to the extent of 80 per cent. Herein lies, I am satisfied, a great deal of our difficulty.

Mr. Davin: What about the profits of the builders?

Mr. Good: Let the Deputy give those figures.

Mr. Davin: I cannot; you have them.

Mr. Good: I gave you and those you represent an opportunity of examining the figures of a number of housing schemes carried out by different builders in the city.

Mr. Davin: You know more about builders' profits than about the builders' labourers' wages.

Mr. Good: Herein lies one of the serious difficulties in connection with the cost of living, and if we can, without quarrelling over these figures and without throwing back corresponding difficulties or making further difficulties, get a calm inquiry into the situation, I am quite sure we could do a lot towards the solution of the housing problem. It is along that line that I would like to see something done. Wages, as I have pointed out in the past year in this House, form 50 per cent. of the cost of any housing scheme. They are the most material factors in connection with housing at the present time, and not alone do they affect the wages side of the problem, but also to some extent they affect the material side of the problem, because the influence of wages paid in the building industry extends to allied industries that produce the material for the building industry. So this is one of the real problems in connection with the situation that demands inquiry, and I am not without hope that in the near future some effort will be made by those interested in this particular matter to see if [993] something cannot be done to help housing in a most important direction.

Mr. Lemass: I thought when Deputy Good proceeded to tell us that, in his opinion, the various solutions of the housing problem suggested from these and the Labour benches were obviously inadequate we were going to get a cast-iron solution from him which could not fail and that, therefore, we would at long last commence the solution of the housing problem. I find, however, that his solution of the housing problem is that the Government and the local authorities should get out of the business altogether and leave it in the hands of the speculative builders and to reduce wages.

Mr. Good: I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but I said, I think quite clearly, that anything that either the local authorities or the State could give should be in the direction of helping the slum dwellers.

Mr. Lemass: And the direction in which the State is to help the slum dwellers is to get out of the business altogether, to induce the local authorities to do the same thing, and leave the whole matter in the hands of the speculative builders as it was in the great and glorious days before the Great War. The Deputy's solution is based on the fundamental error that the housing problem did not exist before the Great War. In fact, the housing problem that we are now faced with is not the creation of this Government at all. It is a problem that this Government inherited. It was undoubtedly aggravated by the cessation of building during the War years, but it existed almost to the same extent in the years before the great war when the speculative builder had the field to himself. In the year 1911 there were 21,123 families in Dublin living in single-roomed tenements. If the number has gone up since it has gone up only slightly in comparison with the total. It has increased by 2,500. The fact remains that in 1911 [994] the housing problem was there to an extent almost as great as it is now.

Mr. E. Doyle: Even though labour was cheap.

Mr. Lemass: Even though labour was cheap, and cheaper at that time than it was in England. The fact that we have got to face is that we have got a housing problem here that the speculative builder has failed to solve, and that the Government has failed to deal with in anything like an adequate way. We have, in fact, reached a position in which we are forced to the conclusion, as Deputy Good has apparently been forced to the conclusion, that we are scarcely keeping pace with the growth of the problem, much less wiping anything off the arrears that we inherited from the great and glorious days before the Great War. The Government came into existence with these arrears of housing there. Instead of having reduced the arrears, they have, in fact, increased the problem by not adequately tackling it. The number of houses for the construction of which they have been responsible has been apparently less than the number normally required by the population during that period.

Year after year we come here to the consideration of the housing question: we find similar arguments advanced from each side of the House; we find the attitude of the Government unchanged. However, we find ourselves in the position that our knowledge of the problem is growing, that the information available concerning its extent and the success that has attended the measures of the Government is greater than it has been at previous times. Since we discussed the 1929 Housing Bill we have had published the census returns. We have had also a census of the local authorities taken by the Department of Local Government to ascertain the housing needs in their respective districts. In the past the Minister kept telling us that 30,000 or 35,000 houses would meet our requirements. He took a census, and the figure which he ascertained [995] as a result of that census is something on which we can base argument. The local authorities estimated that on the 1st April this year 43,000 houses were required in the Free State for the accommodation of the working classes. The Minister discounts that figure by 30 per cent., but without having any good reasons to believe that they were exaggerating their needs.

General Mulcahy: In something like 35 cases there were joint inspections by an engineering officer and a medical officer.

Mr. Lemass: As a result of the inspection carried out by officers of the Minister's Department the Minister discounted the figure ascertained by 30 per cent. He now tells us that in spite of the efforts of his Department and the money the Government has provided since 1922 there are 31,000 houses required for the accommodation of the working classes. Does the Minister seriously think that this Bill now before us is going to provide 31,000 houses? Does he seriously think that if he introduces a Bill like this every year it will produce 31,000 houses within twenty years? That is a fair question. If the method which the Minister is working on at present is not going to wipe off the arrears, much less provide, in addition, for our normal requirements in twenty years, then the Government's policy stands condemned. The Minister told us that between the 1st April, 1929, and the 1st April, 1930, 1,960 houses had been provided. That figure represents a considerable reduction on the number provided in previous years. It appears, therefore, that not merely are we failing to provide the normal requirements of the people or to wipe off any of the arrears which the Government inherited, but we are, in addition, slackening our rate of progress, so that the problem is growing at a more rapid pace than heretofore.

General Mulcahy: On what figures does the Deputy base that remark?

[996] Mr. Lemass: The figures which the Minister himself gave some time ago in reply to a question. The number of three, four and five-roomed houses built in 1926 under the Housing Acts was 3,381; in 1927 it was 3,644; in 1928 it was 2,124, and for the last year, according to the figures which the Minister gave when introducing his Estimate, it was 1,960. These are the figures which the Minister himself gave me.

General Mulcahy: Houses built.

Mr. Lemass: The total number of houses built to the 1st April last was 14,774. That represents the number of completed houses. The number of houses approved by the Minister's Department in respect of which grants have been allocated was 17,830 up to the 31st March, on which date according to the Minister 31,000 or 43,000 houses were required for the accommodation of the working classes. Obviously to introduce a Bill of this kind to deal with that situation is like trying to bail out the ocean with a child's bucket. Even if we build at the rate contemplated by the Bill every year for twenty years, at the end of that time we will find ourselves with the same 31,000 houses required, because such legislation as this will only provide for the normal demand for houses caused by deterioration and the movement of the population into the towns. One thing is quite clear, that we have got to clear out the speculative builder. He has failed. We cannot rely on him to do the job.

His knowledge, his experience, his assistance will be very useful to us, but we cannot leave on his shoulders alone the provision of 30,000 houses. He could not do it. We have got to clear out the local authorities as well. The system of trying to build houses by giving small grants to private individuals, public utility societies and local authorities is not going to succeed. We are faced with a national problem and it is only by national [997] means that we can tackle it. In no other way can it be done.

The Minister's policy is framed upon a number of theories which he has announced from time to time in the House. He holds, for example, to the theory that he has succeeded in reducing building costs by reducing the subsidy. He thinks that, following each reduction made by him in the subsidy available to private individuals, he has succeeded in forcing down building costs. To a certain extent that is correct, but the Minister's theory is based upon a misreading of the figures. If you put in parallel columns the amount of the subsidy available each year and the average cost of building each year, you will think there is a correspondence between them. But when you relate both sets of figures to the number of houses built in each year, you find that the cost of building has been reduced, not because the subsidy was reduced but because the number of houses ordered by private individuals and local authorities was reduced, and consequently, there was keener competition between contractors for these orders.

The average cost of building various types of houses now appears to have become stabilised. According to the figures which the Minister gave, there was a slight increase in 1929 over those for 1928, in respect of four-room houses and five-room houses. The Minister could not give me the figures for three-room houses. The average cost of building four-room houses in 1928 was £374, and in 1929, £376. The average cost of building five-room houses in 1928 was £448, and in 1929, £530, which figures shows a more substantial increase. We may take it now that the cost of building is stabilised. Unless we proceed to tackle the root causes of high prices we have got to base our policy upon these figures, because it is useless to think of reducing building costs merely by carrying out sweeping reductions in wages or builders' profits. There are, undoubtedly, high prices ruling for building at the present time [998] which could be reduced, but they cannot be reduced so long as this system of subsidies to local authorities and private individuals is the basis of our policy. The only method by which a national problem of this kind can be tackled is by organising the resources of the State for that purpose. That requires leadership and organisation more than anything else. That leadership and organisation can be provided by the central Government and by the central Government only. It is not a local problem; it is a national problem. The provision of 30,000 or 40,000 houses for the accommodation of our people is a thing that should command the attention and energy of everybody interested in national welfare.

Some time ago, I asked the Dáil to contemplate the situation which would exist if we had enough houses for our people and if, as the result of a great disaster — a fire or flood, or an earthquake — 40,000 houses were demolished and that number of persons were forced to inhabit outhouses or similar dwellings considered unfit for human habitation. Everybody would agree that this, being a national disaster, all the resources of the State should be mobilised to tackle it. We have that situation here. There has been no disaster, but the need for 40,000 houses is there, and the State should tackle it as a State problem. It should not leave it to the local authorities who, in many cases, are unable to deal with it in an adequate way.

There is a lot to be said for Deputy Good's opinion that in this matter we have started at the wrong end. The houses that are resulting from the housing policy of the Government are being occupied not by the people in most urgent need of proper accommodation but, as he says, by the artisan class who can afford to pay the rents that are charged. The slum-dweller is being left untouched. In fact, the number of slum dwellings is increasing in Dublin and in certain towns. Nothing has really been done to tackle the problem of the slums at all. It is [999] useless to think that the problem of the slums will be tackled by anybody except the national authority. The speculative builder will not go in there; he never did and never will. That class of building is not remunerative. It cannot be carried out as a commercial proposition at all. It has got to be carried out as a social service in the same way as the State provides national health services and old age pensions and services of that kind. Here is a social need which cannot be profitably met by ordinary commercial enterprise, and which can only be provided by using the resources of the State for that purpose.

Deputy Davin claims that they have converted Fianna Fáil to the Labour policy, which reminds me of the story of the big man who married the little woman — the story of Mary and Pat. As they were walking down the church Pat said to Mary, “At long last you and I are one.” “Yes,” said Mary, “and I am the one.” The Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party are one on this question and the Fianna Fáil is the one. We believe there should be established a national housing board.

The President: And take control away from the Government?

Mr. Lemass: I believe there is a case for taking it away from the Government. The national housing board should be free from legislative interference. That is the only reason why we advocate the establishment of a board. That board could not effectually carry out the programme we are contemplating if it was liable to be continuously subjected to criticism here in the Dáil.

The President: And outside?

Mr. Lemass: And outside.

General Mulcahy: Would it charge an economic rent for its houses?

Mr. Lemass: First we must have the leadership and organisation which the present Government cannot provide.

[1000] The President: The Deputy is making sure he will never be called upon to provide it.

Mr. Lemass: Let us not get into the realm of prophecy. Let us consider the facts as they are. There is the obvious failure of the present policy of the Government. There is the obvious failure of Deputy Good's policy. There is the obvious success of the policy we advocate when adopted in other countries. With the establishment of a national housing board, financed and controlled by the State, equipped with the necessary powers to order supplies of building materials, and engage in the construction of houses either by contract or direct labour and planning so as to complete its programme of 30,000 or 40,000 houses within a definite period of, say, ten years, you would, in any event, get a move on. You might not provide houses at an economic rent — that is another problem — but you would be getting houses built as cheaply as at present, probably more cheaply, and that would be an advance on the present position.

The President: That is again entering into the realm of prophecy.

Mr. Lemass: It is, certainly, but the true prophet is the historian who looks to the future. I am looking at the success which has attended similar schemes abroad.

General Mulcahy: Where?

Mr. Lemass: I shall quote for the President an authority that I think he will not dispute. I have here by me “The Star,” a paper which describes itself as his paper. I do not know whether he reads it or not. In an issue of about six months ago — I did not take the date — they reprinted an article which appeared in the “Manchester Guardian” weekly concerning the method which was adopted by the municipality of Vienna to meet the housing shortage that existed there. They established a housing board. They proceeded along the lines I have indicated and these are the results.

[1001] The Vienna Town Hall calculates the rents in such fashion that only the cost of maintenance and not of amortisation are included in the rents. Even so, the rents appear remarkably low, especially if we take into consideration that building costs have increased 70 per cent. over pre-war and that the interest rates on loans are enormous: the official discount rate of the Austrian national bank is 8 per cent., so that no building loans can be had at less than 10½ per cent. But the new municipality is building those houses not out of borrowed money but out of taxes. This reduces the building costs. The real secret of the cheapness of construction is, however, the collective buying of building material and the direction of building operations through a central office. A director of the building department of the Vienna municipality gave me the following information concerning the low building costs: — “We buy wholesale. We ordered our brick supply for five years ahead and for so huge an order, guaranteeing the brickworks ample occupation for years, we got greatly reduced prices. We can order 35,000 windows and 25,000 doors at the time. Instead of consulting architects and incurring heavy fees we have twelve architects employed on salary and similarly we have one engineer on salary for every three buildings. Consequently the average cost during the last four and a half years of a flat of about 47 square metres surface amounted to 11,500 Austrian schillings or about £340.”

The President: That paper was not printed in vain.

Mr. Lemass: I grant you that, but they got that article from another paper. Nevertheless, the fact that they did print it justified its existence; it can now cease.

General Mulcahy: Will the Deputy [1002] say when the Vienna people began that policy?

Mr. Lemass: It was after the war, anyway.

General Mulcahy: It was not their immediate after-the-war policy?

Mr. Lemass: It was the post-war problem they were dealing with. I cannot give the date, but I have taken that article from “The Star,” and Deputies can see it. There is a file in the library where the President can look at back numbers if he so desires. The problem of the high cost in building is the big problem we have to face. We can get organisation and leadership subject to a change of Government, but no organisation will be able properly to tackle this problem unless it deals first with the question of cost. There are two main factors contributing the cost. As Deputy Good told us, the net cost of a house is represented as regards 50 per cent. by wages paid, and 50 per cent. price paid for materials.

The Deputy represents a class of the community which cannot see any way of increasing building costs other than decreasing wages. But the remedy is not to decrease wages. Nobody wants to get back — not even Deputy Good I am sure — to the wages that prevailed here pre-war. The Secretary of the Dublin Master Builders' Association stated in the Press some time ago that the average wage for a carpenter in Dublin in 1914 was £1 17s. 6d. He complains that the wage has now gone up to £4 3s. 8d. I am very glad it has gone up and I hope it stays at that figure. To ask a skilled workman to give 50 hours work for £1 17s. 6d. would be contrary to the engagement which this State entered into when it approved of the international convention for the abolition of slavery. We can reduce building costs in other ways than by reducing wages. It is a question of output. I believe there is a certain restriction of output by workers engaged in Dublin. Under present conditions I do not blame them for restricting [1003] output. The average worker knows that when he finishes building the house on which he is engaged he is going to be unemployed and that he will not be able to provide all the requirements of his family on the amount he will get under the Unemployment Insurance scheme—

Mr. Davin: What section of the building workers does that refer to?

Mr. Lemass: I do not know. I am only stating my belief. It is only human nature that a worker knowing the termination of his present task is going to mean his unemployment should endeavour to make that task last as long as possible. If that worker can be guaranteed continuous employment, then the incentive to restrict output is removed, and we can get from him as high an output as is got from workers in other countries. The position is that we have a large and growing number of building trade operatives unemployed. The number of skilled building workers unemployed on October 4th, 1926, in Dublin was 891. That number has since been increased by 44 per cent., until, on November 4th, 1929, it had reached 1,286. According to figures made available by the Department of Industry and Commerce there are in the Free State some 24,000 persons normally engaged in the building trade. If we could give these 24,000 persons continuous employment and double the present output over a period of ten years, we would still leave ourselves with the present housing problem not fully solved.

If that could be done we could abolish for a very long time, at any rate, the prospect of unemployment in the building trade. Unemployment exists at present because of lack of organisation, because the building of houses by local authorities and others is spasmodic, with long stretches of inactivity intervening. If there was a national board carrying out a programme designed to construct a definite number of houses in a definite period, it could give permanent and continuous employment [1004] to the 24,000 building operatives that there are at the moment in the Free State. If these persons knew that they were in the permanent employment of the housing board they would have no incentive whatever to restrict output. They would, in fact, have an incentive in the opposite direction, because any man engaged in a job likes to get that job done well. We would have building costs, the 50 per cent. which represents the wages paid to labourers, reduced in that way.

We have, in any case, the fact that the building trade representatives who attended the conference which met following the deliberations of the Unemployment Committee, of which Deputy Rice was Chairman, stated their willingness to give a guarantee that labour in this country would give at least as good a return in house building as is obtained from labour in England, if the jobs were organised in a similar manner, and if the general facilities for efficient production were equal. That guarantee was given by the representatives of the building trades unions. The fact that continuous employment would be available should give us reasonable ground to hope that if this job were properly tackled in an organised way the factors operating at present to make building costs high would be removed. We would then contemplate houses being constructed here at a total cost equal at least to the existing total cost in England.

Mr. Good: I think there is a fallacy there in the Deputy's argument if he will allow me to point it out. At the moment tradesmen here receive 16s. 4d. per week more than tradesmen of the same class receive in the English cities. Even if the output be the same, there is still that extra charge of 16s. 4d. a week to be met.

Mr. Lemass: According to the figures put before the Department by the Secretary of the Building Trades Association in Dublin, a carpenter here gets £4 3s. 8d. a week, while in English cities a carpenter gets [1005] £3 11s. 6d. I hope that the Dublin carpenter will succeed in maintaining that position.

Mr. Good: There is a difference there of 16s. 4d. per week.

Mr. Lemass: Undoubtedly, but I still believe that if you can guarantee continuous employment you can get as good output as is got in England in consequence of the fact that continuous employment is guaranteed, if the jobs are properly organised.

Mr. Good: Is there any industry that the Deputy knows of in which there is a guarantee given of continuous employment?

Mr. Lemass: In quite a number of industries that I know of there is a guarantee of continuous employment. It is much easier to give such a guarantee in relation to such an industry as this, than in the case of other industries, because in this case there is an obvious demand for the products of the industry. Even with production at its maximum all the houses that are required could not be supplied in ten years' time. You have spasmodic unemployment in certain industries at the present time in consequence of what economists call over-production. There is no over-production in houses and will not be for a decade no matter how hard we work producing them. That is our guarantee. I think that is the surest guarantee that anyone could ask for, that it is possible to give continuous employment over a ten-year period.

Let us turn to the other 50 per cent. of the total costs for houses represented by the cost of building materials. I think it will be obvious to anyone that a reduction in the cost of materials could be effected by the combined purchasing of them. There must be a certain amount of waste at the present time due to the fact that you have one authority in Cork buying materials for the erection of 40 houses, another in Dublin buying materials for the erection of 500 houses, a person [1006] somewhere else buying materials for the erection of ten houses and a number of private individuals buying materials for the erection of single houses. In that way there must be a certain amount of waste going on. Even if the builders' providers were anxious to restrict their profits there would still be higher costs involved in consequence of the fact that they were sending out their goods in small quantities and irregularly. If we could get the building trade properly organised and could arrange for the combined purchasing of the materials required, then I think it is obvious, too obvious to need demonstration, that a certain reduction — it may not be a very substantial reduction, but it will be some reduction — could be effected. It has been effected in Vienna according to the quotation I read.

That is the idea which is behind rationalisation, the process that is now going on in certain European countries — the idea that by mass purchasing and by dealing with these problems in a big way economies in overhead charges can be effected. I think it is quite obvious to anyone that with proper organisation economies could be effected in overhead charges if you had rationalisation in house building by the combined purchasing of materials. Incidentally, we can get a number of these building materials here at home. In 1926, the year in which the census of production was taken, we produced here bricks, certain stones, rough or only partly prepared, slates, certain paints and varnishes. With the exception of timber, we could produce most of the articles required here for the construction of houses.

Mr. Good: If you use them you will not reduce the cost of building houses.

Mr. Lemass: I doubt that. Undoubtedly at the present time there are very few brickyards in the country that could be worked economically. At the present time building [1007] materials are purchased in a spasmodic way by individual purchasers.

Mr. Good: That is because there is a cheaper form of construction in the market.

Mr. Lemass: I do not know about that.

Mr. Good: If the Deputy knew as much about the problem as I do he would agree with me.

Mr. Lemass: At any rate, in 1926 the number of bricks produced here was double the number that we imported. We get that information from the returns that were published that year. In 1926, we imported 4,654,000 bricks, while the home production was 9,364,000. These figures are taken from returns furnished by the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Good: I can tell the Deputy that in pre-war days we had four brickyards working in the immediate vicinity of Dublin. The position to-day is that we cannot keep one working the whole year round.

Mr. Lemass: The reason for that is, I think, quite obvious. We get a remarkable illustration of it when we turn to the question of slates. I think I mentioned here before that the Glasgow Corporation, in the case of a housing scheme that it recently embarked upon, a scheme that provided for the erection of 2,000 houses, specified the use of Irish slates.

It did not merely indicate that it was prepared to consider the use of Irish slates, but it actually specified Irish slates, and the contractor undertaking the building of the houses had to bind himself to use Irish slates. The Minister for Local Government, I understand, is prepared to make recommendations to the Dublin Commissioners and to ask them to consider the use of Irish slates. There is a difference between these two attitudes. The Glasgow Corporation has no concern about the state of employment here, or the development of Irish industries. [1008] It is using Irish slates because it considers them the cheapest.

Mr. Good: That is where the fallacy exists. Has the Deputy ascertained whether they can get a cheaper cover in Glasgow than Irish slates?

Mr. Lemass: We are using artificial slates here.

Mr. Good: They are cheaper.

Mr. Lemass: They are cheaper, but they are guaranteed water-tight for only twelve months, whereas the Irish slates are guaranteed for 100 years, and should they prove not to be so they will be replaced free of charge by the producer.

General Mulcahy: If he can be found.

Mr. Lemass: The difference between twelve months and 100 years is considerable, but the mere fact that you can buy these paper slates which last twelve months at a lower initial cost than Irish slates that will last 100 years is something of importance, for we must consider the slate in relation to the houses, which, if they are not built by a jerrybuilder, will last for sixty years. It is proved that we can produce slates. We can also produce bricks, and we used more bricks in 1926 produced here than we imported. If we had a scheme in hand for the building of 40,000 houses in 10 years, orders could be given for Irish bricks that would enable the four brickyards to be worked economically.

Mr. Good: The houses would cost more than the houses constructed to-day with cheaper material.

Mr. Lemass: That has to be demonstrated. I say that with no housing board in existence in 1926, or any housing scheme planned, we used double the number of Irish bricks as compared with the number imported, and presumably that would not have been done except they were cheaper. Anyway, we have to take into consideration more than the [1009] actual cost of the houses. This should be a State service, and the State must reckon as against the cost of imported bricks the amount it has to pay in unemployment insurance benefit or home help to those unemployed people who could be employed in producing bricks here.

Mr. Good: That is another policy to increase the subsidy.

Mr. Lemass: Not necessarily.

Mr. Good: That is what it would amount to.

Mr. Lemass: It is a policy of giving employment on home production, and using the money now spent on maintenance in that way. We can produce cement, but it is not produced at present. There is a cement works at Skerries which is remembered at every general election.

Mr. Good: I do not know that there is one at Skerries.

Mr. Lemass: I do not know that there is, but we expect after every general election that there will be one. There is lime there which makes it possible to produce cement, and the same thing applies to Limerick. I understand that the German firm that bought the deposit in Skerries approached the Tariff Commission, but when they saw them they decided to give the enterprise up as a bad job. We can produce stone, and do produce it. We can and do produce paint, and we can even produce glass, but we are not producing that. With the exception of timber, there is nothing that we cannot produce. Although I am not advocating that we should embark on the building of houses for the sole purpose of promoting the production of building material. I maintain that a national board, adequately financed and organised, with this market for houses available, can so organise its requirement of building material as to make possible the economic production of these materials within the country, and consequently provide a considerable [1010] increase in the number of persons employed.

The combined purchasing of building materials is going to reduce the cost in any case, and a guarantee of continuous employment will increase the workers' output and also reduce the building cost, if properly organised. We are going to continue as at present with a decreasing output and a growing number of houses needed so long as the policy of the Government is to be represented by the repeated introduction of Bills of the kind we are now discussing. We have also to consider the question of money. Since the last Bill was introduced the Government made the Local Loans Fund available to urban authorities for housing purposes, and they are lending money at 5¾ per cent. for 35 years. Deputy Hogan asked as to the position concerning towns without local government. These places are, in many cases, as badly in need of houses as towns with local government, but they cannot avail of the facilities offered in the Local Loans Fund. Although the fact that a local authority can now borrow money for 35 years will enable it to reduce the rents it must charge for the houses it constructs, at the same time 35 years is too short a period. If we are going to have houses that we can rent at a figure the average workman can pay we have to get money for a much longer period than 35 years. According to the leaflet issued by the Civics Institute of Ireland a house costing £465 to build could be rented at a total weekly rent of 17/6, exclusive of rates, if the money was borrowed for 15 years at 5½ per cent. If borrowed for thirty years, at 12/6; if for 40 years, at 11/6; for fifty years, 10/11, and for 60 years, 10/7½. The 2/- difference which is represented in the rent of houses on money borrowed for 35 years in one case and 60 years in another would make all the difference in the world to the persons who live in the houses. If longer term loans for the building of houses were available that would automatically reduce the rent, but so long as they are to borrow money for 35 years at 5¾ per cent. they have [1011] to continue charging 12/6 per week for an average four-roomed house.

We have to get money cheaper, that is, less than 5¾ per cent., and longer term loans than for thirty-five years. Only the State can do it, and the State, I think, cannot possibly lend to local authorities at a cheaper rate than at present, at the price it has to pay itself, but the State can borrow money on more favourable terms and make that money available for the building of houses, and a reduction of rents in the houses constructed can be effected. If a subsidy is to be given by the Government that subsidy could better be given in the way of an annual contribution than in the way of a lump sum at the beginning. I think there is possibly something in the Minister's theory that the giving of a building subsidy keeps the cost high, not because of an economic but a psychological law. If a local authority gets instead of a lump sum an annual contribution representing the interest on that amount towards the rent of that house it would result in costs and rents being reduced. I am not certain whether that is so or not, as I am not an authority on the matter, but I think the suggestion that has been advanced in quarters more informed than I am should be adequately considered. Certainly, we should build for the artisan houses at an economic rent which he can pay. For the casual labourer, the unskilled labourer, the man who got 30/- a week on the Shannon scheme, we cannot build houses at a rent they can pay unless we are prepared to lose on it. We must be prepared to lose on it. We must recognise that the provision of these houses is a social service to which the State must contribute, just as it contributes to unemployment insurance, to national health insurance, and to old age pensions. We have, as I have frequently stated here, 68,000 people in Dublin living in dwellings which are unfit for human habitation, and to put these people into proper dwellings is a task to [1012] which the whole State should be asked to contribute, and contribute fairly substantially if necessary. Most of these people cannot afford to pay more than 5/- or 7/- per week in rent, and some of them cannot afford even that. A large number of them are subsisting on old age pensions, unemployment insurance, or, perhaps, disablement pensions under the national health insurance, and a rent of 5/- or 7/- per week is a big proportion of their total income.

If we could provide three or four roomed dwellings, either in flats or separate houses in Dublin and similar cities throughout the country for five or six shillings a week we would have gone a long way towards solving the problem. That cannot be done under a Bill of this kind. The State will have to contribute fairly substantially in the majority of cases and it is the duty of the Government to do so. The people are maintaining the machinery of government here, in order to tackle problems of this kind and, if those who are responsible for the running of that machinery hold up their hands in despair at the magnitude of the problem we must either abolish the machinery or get people with more courage to use it. Such people are there. They may not be in this Party. I do not say that we are anything but common clay. We are not like Deputies opposite who are inspired by archangels. If the present Government will not tackle the problem we will have to get people who will do so and who will run the machinery because the job has to be tackled somehow.

Mr. Davin: Deputy Good this evening delivered part of the speech which was recently made by the Minister for Local Government at the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. I presume that that is not accidental. I presume that it is because two great minds think alike as a result of conversations between them, both before and after that meeting.

Mr. Good: Does not the Deputy think that that is not fair to the Minister?

[1013] Mr. Davin: The Minister can deny my interpretation of the Deputy's speech when replying to this debate. So far as I remember, the Minister has not so far stated definitely in this House that he is opposed to the proposal to set up a national housing board to solve the problem of housing. After so many discussions here, I think it is only fair that we should expect him to express his opinion one way or another on that matter.

General Mulcahy: On what matter?

Mr. Davin: As to whether he is absolutely and definitely opposed to the proposal to set up a national housing board to solve the housing problem.

General Mulcahy: We have heard a lot about a housing board and we have had all kinds of figures. Is this housing board going to deal with the slum problem or with people who have 30/-, 35/- or 40/- a week? What is the board to be set up for? We have not heard a single word about that aspect of the case.

Mr. Davin: The housing board would have to take on the job of providing on a national scale the 43,000 houses which in the opinion of the local authorities, who are the best judges in such matters, are required for every type of citizen. The Minister appears to have a holy horror of dealing with national problems in a national way by the Government. Does he forget the fact that when the dairy industry was almost dead the Minister for Agriculture came here with a socialistic scheme to hold it together, and he induced the majority of the House to vote a huge sum in order to save that industry? Surely the Minister for Local Government does not forget that when the Government wanted to supply light and power to the citizens of the State, even those who live in slums as well as houses occupied by carpenters and other skilled tradesmen, he did not disapprove of that scheme.

[1014] General Mulcahy: Does the Deputy suggest that the Electricity Board is not selling electricity at an economic price?

Mr. Davin: I would be glad to have a definite assurance from the Minister that the present price of electricity is economic or that the Board at present is paying its way out of revenue.

General Mulcahy: I think I could give that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We are not going to discuss the Electricity Supply Board.

Mr. Davin: We were told to-day by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that it was hoped that it would be able to pay its way in 1932. From that, I suppose, we may conclude that it is not paying to-day. At any rate, a national board was set up to supply cheap light and power to all citizens of the State, and to that board, and not to the Government, was left the duty of fixing economic prices. What, then, has the Minister to fear by the setting up of a national board for dealing with a problem which is equally urgent and which cannot be tackled by any outside body or individual citizens of the State?

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

Mr. Good: What rate of wages do they pay?

Mr. Davin: The proposal to form a national housing board was, so far as Labour is concerned, first adopted so far back as 1918. A scheme in detail was submitted to the Conference presided over by Deputy Rice, who, I regret to say, is not here at present and who is not often here when these discussions take place. The proposals were submitted and turned down.

Mr. Good: They were submitted three months after the Conference closed.

[1015] An Ceann Comhairle: I wish we could close the discussion on this Conference.

Mr. Davin: I would be glad to close the discussion if the Chairman who was appointed by the Government to preside over that Conference would give a report of its proceedings to this House and to the country. Deputy Rice has, so far, only contradicted the different versions given by different individuals who were associated with that Conference as to what took place inside it. He has never come before the House to tell us what the decisions of that Conference were and who was responsible for its failure. We challenge Deputy Rice to do that, and we are not afraid of any statement he may make regarding that Conference. Deputy Good may say, as he previously said, that the scheme to which I am referring was submitted three months after the closing of the Conference. I am not sure that the Conference is yet closed, because we have heard nothing from the Chairman about it. So, I suppose, we may take it that it is still alive and kicking but doing no work. We are very glad, of course, to recognise that the Fianna Fáil Party, which is a much bigger Party than ours——

Mr. Lemass: And more intelligent.

Mr. Davin: That is a matter of opinion, really. We are very glad that the Fianna Fáil Party has, so long after we adopted that particular scheme, taken it over and agreed that it is the only sound way of dealing with this particular problem. I am delighted that Labour and Fianna Fáil are in agreement as to the manner of solving this question of housing, and I am hopeful that between the two of us we will succeed either in driving out of office the Government that has refused to adopt that scheme, or we will force the scheme on them. The people of the country are taking a much more intelligent interest in the matter of housing now than heretofore, and that will, in the long run, mean the forcing out of office of a [1016] Government which refuses to deal with this question seriously, and the putting into office of a Government that will deal with the problem in a way in which the country desires it should be dealt with.

I am very glad to know that in my own constituency there are two very progressive boards of health which are extremely anxious to get the necessary assistance to build the houses that are urgently needed there. We all know perfectly well, if we only admit it, that a local medical officer of health does not exaggerate the position locally so far as the housing needs of the district are concerned or so far as it affects the number of houses in his area that are unfit for human habitation. The medical officer of health, generally speaking, is at the mercy of the slum owner and he does not like to condemn the houses of the local slum owner because he knows that if he does so he will lose the income which he had from that particular individual and his family. That is the reason that I am prepared to back every time the appointment of a county medical officer of health, because I know that such an officer will pay special attention to the sanitation of an area and will express an independent point of view and show the facts as they are in regard to the housing position.

In one county in my constituency 400 houses are urgently needed and in the other 600 houses. Both boards of health have applied to the Minister — Deputy Boland, who is a member of one of them, will bear me out in this — for reasonable facilities to enable them to carry out a scheme for the provision of the houses that are so badly needed. They were told to make the best possible terms they could with the local treasurer but the local treasurer is not prepared to give them a loan for more than fifteen years. Everybody knows that houses cannot be built and let at an economic rent by local authorities on the conditions offered by the local treasurer.

I heard of a case quite recently and I think it was mentioned in this House where the North Tipperary [1017] Board of Health prepared a scheme for the building of a number of houses in their area and made application to the Minister for facilities for a loan. They were told to negotiate with the local treasurer and that whatever terms would be offered would be sanctioned by the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. They declined to proceed with the scheme on those terms and the Royal Liver Friendly Society, which is only a partly controlled Irish society, has since offered them a loan of £18,000 to be paid off in 60 years at 5 per cent. Here is a Government that in regard to urban areas will sanction a loan to be paid off in 35 years at 5¾ per cent. and a semi-Irish insurance society can offer money for 60 years at 5 per cent. A Government of the day that cannot give better terms for the building of houses that are badly needed all over the country than a semi-Irish controlled company, should get out of office if it is unable to offer as good or better terms. It is a shame at any rate that the particular body to which I refer is going to get from an insurance company better terms than it can get from a home Government.

Deputy Lemass has expressed in general terms the view of the members of his Party in regard to the whole question of housing and of the methods which should be adopted to provide the houses which, in the opinion of the Minister and everybody else, are sadly and badly needed. The Minister, in the address which he delivered to the Chamber of Commerce, appears to have a holy horror of local authorities becoming bigger houseowners than they are at the moment. He quoted the exaggerated case, I suppose, of Tralee, where, he said, a very high percentage of houses were controlled or owned by the Tralee Urban Council.

General Mulcahy: No.

Mr. Davin: He has apparently more faith in the speculative builder in the country than he has in the local authority. He has no hope of [1018] extending any greater facilities to local authorities to enable them to do the job to the best of their ability. Deputy Good, of course, talked about figures so far as they affect the wages of the workers employed in the building trade. However, for a very good reason, I am sure, he never gave us the other side of the story. He never told us about the average profits of the speculative builder in 1914, and the average profits for a similar builder in 1930. If Deputy Good is prepared to submit the average balance sheet of one of the biggest builders in the city to the housing conference, over which Deputy Rice presided, I am sure he would not be ashamed to submit the balance sheet to the House for the information of those who are interested in the question. There is no use in Deputy Good presenting a side of the case to the House about which he knows nothing, and in refusing to tell the House and the country the side of a case about which he knows more than anybody else — that is, the question of the profits of those engaged in the building trade. He wants an inquiry as to why the wages of those engaged in the building trade are so much different from what they are in Great Britain. Is he prepared to demand a general inquiry, and are he and his colleagues in the building trade prepared to submit their side of the case to a general inquiry which might be held for the purpose of endeavouring to find a national solution to this whole question?

There is no use in demanding an inquiry into one side of the case without submitting the other side of the case with the balance sheet for the information of everybody concerned. Perhaps he will answer that question. Perhaps also for the information of a person such as myself who knows very little about the question of building costs, he will give the House in plain English the terms of reference of the inquiry that he would like the Government to set up to inquire into this.

General Mulcahy rose.

[1019] An Ceann Comhairle: I take it that the Minister is not concluding now?

General Mulcahy: No. I am just intervening to answer the query addressed to me or to Deputy Good. It seems to me that the terms of reference of an inquiry that would get at the heart of the whole problem would be something like this: to inquire what is wrong with the building trade in this country which although it pays high wages to its employees, cannot build houses for which these employees can pay an economic rent. I think that would bring out the whole heart of the situation. Until people look at that aspect of the problem we should be very careful as to what particular direction we should step off to solve this great problem. We have listened to a lot of talk here, and we have had it pointed out that there is a very great problem to be solved, but if we were to depend simply on the talk we have had this evening to suggest what the problem is, we could back about nine or ten different horses. It may be a question as to the clearance of the slums in Dublin or of the insanitary areas in different parts of the country or a question of the provision of houses for a worker who is paid 30/- or 36/- a week or, it may be the problem of providing 43,000 houses throughout the country together with the problem that would arise as a marginal problem to that, as to who was going to provide houses which came outside the particular classes you are serving there. Deputy O'Kelly had nothing particular to say to the situation except that the Government should hammer at the problem and should deal with it. Deputy Lemass suggests a housing board and he goes into statistics about different aspects of housing, but he leaves us with the idea that his solution of the problem is to set up a housing board. He is not quite as specific as Deputy Davin about the housing board and as to how they are to set about providing the 43,000 houses that are required.

[1020] Mr. Davin: I have been quite specific.

General Mulcahy: I would like Deputy Lemass or other members of the Fianna Fáil Party to say what the Board is to do. What is the problem that they are going to tackle? Is it the slum question? Is it a house for the 30/- a week man or for the £2 a week man, or is it a house for the £3 a week man? I suggest to the Fianna Fáil Deputies, and to the Labour Deputies, we are not in the Garden of Eden. One would imagine from the talk of some Deputies, and some of the parties and their followers, that we were.