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 40 - 19 November, 1931

Twenty-Seventh Report of the Committee of Selection. - Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1931—Second Stage—(resumed).

Question again proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

Mr. Briscoe: Might I ask a question of the Minister in order to correct a point in yesterday's debate? It was stated that the Dublin Corporation intimated by a letter to the Local Government Department that they would be content if they could borrow money at 3 per cent. I should like to know if the Minister is prepared to give the date of the letter, to state by whom it was sent or to produce it.

Dr. Ward: In so far as the Bill before the House deals with improving the slum conditions and getting rid of the insanitary areas in the cities and towns throughout the Saorstát it appears to me that it deserves sympathetic consideration, but listening to the debate since the Second Reading of this Bill began yesterday one would think that the only housing problem calling urgently for solution was the housing problem created by the slum conditions in the towns and in the cities, and more especially in the City of Dublin. Now the real housing problem is to my mind a problem of greater magnitude than even the problem of the slum dwellings in the city. If this Bill did not purport to deal with housing problems in rural Ireland and if it were frankly a Bill to deal with the slum problem alone the representatives of the rural parts of the Saorstát would, I am quite sure, be in full sympathy with it in so far as it is calculated to improve conditions. The rural population have every sympathy with the people who live in the slums in the cities and in the towns, but attention must be drawn to the conditions under which a very big section of the rural population themselves live. If one were to listen to the debate yesterday, mostly contributed [1766] to by the representatives of Dublin City, one would believe that the question of the housing of the working classes or the poorer classes in Dublin City was the one outstanding question in housing that had to be faced and dealt with.

I submit that the other side of the question, namely, the rural side, is calling even more urgently for solution. We learned from the Minister for Local Government and Public Health during the debate yesterday that since 1922 £2,500,000 have been contributed by the State in the form of free grants to public bodies, public utility societies and private individuals. Almost £2,000,000 of that 2½ millions which has been paid out of general taxation have been spent in subsidising housing in the cities and towns. I think it will not be disputed that the greater portion of that 2½ million pounds has been raised in taxation from the members of the rural population. We could not complain if the people who put up that amount of money to ease the situation in the cities and towns were living under decent housing conditions themselves. By the terms of the Bill before us now a further impost will be put upon them. The greater portion of it will be borne by the rural population, and in so far as I can understand the terms of this Bill for all practical purposes housing in the rural areas is going to be brought to a complete standstill.

If it can be shown that the housing conditions of many of the smaller farmers, more especially, are the most wretched under which human beings could be asked to live, I submit that this Bill should not get a Second Reading until the Minister makes some provision to solve that aspect of our housing problem. I was glad to see that at least one member of the Opposition in this House showed some appreciation of this housing problem. I have here a copy of a paper read by Deputy M.J. Jordan at a recent public health conference on this question of rural housing. I do not propose to burden the House with very much of that, but there are a couple of extracts I should like to read. Mr. [1767] Jordan said in the course of his statement: “The efforts of the central authority during recent years appear to have been concentrated on urban housing and no real attempt has been made to deal with housing in the rural areas.” I am glad to have that statement from a member of the Opposition Party. It takes the question away from the sphere of politics. That is from a member of the Opposition—

An Ceann Comhairle: A member of the Opposition? It is a little confusing.

Dr. Ward: I mean, of course, the Party opposed to us.

Mr. Davin: Intelligent anticipation.

Mr. Aiken: It will not be long until he is in opposition at any rate.

Dr. Ward: Yes, that remark was made in anticipation of what is to happen in the near future. Further on Deputy Jordan stated in the course of his paper:—“Delegates are familiar with the position of the boards of health to-day. At every meeting reports are read from medical officers of health and sanitary sub-officers condemning as unfit for human habitation hovels in which whole families are housed. A vacant cottage calls forth a host of applicants any one of whose circumstances shows the crying need of a house. So great is the need of each and so intense the desire to secure the tenancy that a canvass of the most vigorous and pitiable kind is conducted.” Again he said: “Unfortunately the major cause of the necessity for the creation of many health services has been consistently overlooked and still remains. Sanitary authorities have erected or acquired ambitious institutions for the treatment and cure of tuberculosis. Patients are treated in such institutions at the public expense. The disease is arrested and the patient discharged to return to the conditions under which the disease was bred and nurtured. He invariably falls a victim afresh, the second stage being considerably worse than his first.”

I think that is very sound sense. It is an extract from Deputy Jordan's address to the Public Health Conference. [1768] That address was given very recently, and I am sure I am not wrong in assuming that Deputy Jordan has not changed his views as to the urgency of the rural housing problems since he read that paper. Judging by the terms of the Bill one cannot conclude that Deputy Jordan has succeeded in impressing the urgency of this housing problem on the Minister or on the Party to which Deputy Jordan belongs. If his farmer colleagues on the Government Benches are satisfied with the terms of this Bill it is very hard to see how that attitude or frame of mind can be consistent with the views expressed by Deputy Jordan in his paper. If he and his colleagues are not satisfied I think they should press the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, even at this stage, to withdraw this Bill and to embody in it some reasonable conditions for remedying the housing conditions in rural areas. I do not think that (because of the fact that most of the public attention has been concentrated on the slum problem) the urgency and magnitude of the housing problem in rural areas are generally understood and appreciated. I find from the recent Census returns that the total population of the town areas including the cities, living in one-roomed houses, is 138,808 and in the rural areas 1,953,773. The average number per room in the urban areas is 1.17 and the average in the rural areas is 1.19. I think these figures show that the rural housing problem deserves and merits the serious consideration of the Deputies of this House.

The number of persons in two-roomed houses in urban areas including the cities and towns is 168,893 and the number of persons in two-roomed houses in rural areas is 279,236. The number of persons in three-roomed houses in the urban areas, including cities, is 136,226; in the rural areas it is 656,849. Obviously all these figures, and they are authentic figures and figures that can be relied on, show that there is a considerably bigger housing problem to be faced in the rural areas than in the cities and towns, including even the slum areas.

What I particularly object to in this Bill is that that whole big question is [1769] being brushed aside and for all practical purposes not dealt with at all. It would be a more acceptable proposition to me if this Bill did not purport to deal with the rural housing question at all. Most of the people in the rural areas who occupy these two-roomed houses and three-roomed houses and most of these people who occupy houses that are unfit for human habitation are small farmers. But the Minister has not given any indication either in the Bill itself or in the speech moving the Second Reading of the Bill how he proposed to deal with the housing conditions of the small farmers and uneconomic holders throughout the Saorstát.

I submit to the Minister that there is a housing problem in every county in the Saorstát as intense as the Gaeltacht housing problem and a problem that would require special legislation. But what do we find in the Bill in the way of a solution for that problem? What we find is that the Minister actually repealed the sections that gave a reasonable subsidy to private builders in rural areas and that gave subsidies to public utility societies for building in rural areas. The Bill sets out that in future the private builder in a rural area will get a sum of £20 in the form of a grant. That is to say £20 in lieu of the grant of £45 in the 1929-30 Act. That £20 will not be given in the form of a free grant by the State unless the local authority put up an equivalent sum out of the local rates. That means that for all practical purposes even the miserable £20 free grant that the Minister proposes to give to private builders in the rural areas will not be available towards the small farmer community.

The rural population and the farming community who have contributed upwards of £2,000,000 towards providing a solution of the housing problem, providing decent housing accommodation for the working classes in the towns and cities, deserves better consideration from the community as a whole and from this House than they are getting under the terms of this Bill. In the recent Housing Acts that are being repealed by this Bill the local authority was enabled to give a [1770] grant equal in amount to the State grant and the local authority was also empowered to give a loan to any private builder equal to twice the amount of the State grant. That power is also taken from the local authority under this Bill.

Anybody who is conversant with the economic condition of the small farmer down the country must admit the fact and face up to it that £20 or £40 is not any use in the form of a subsidy towards the building of a house. A man with a valuation of £10 or a man under a valuation of £10, and men with a valuation of considerably over £10, cannot build a house at the present time unless the subsidy is such as to supply him with the necessary building materials and in addition is sufficient to pay the tradesmen.

Such a subsidy would not be as large as the subsidy that will be provided per house in the city areas under the terms of this Bill. If a subsidy of such a size were provided, houses would be built in the rural areas at a minimum cost because there would be co-operation amongst the people. If a man has not a horse or a cart to draw sand and stones he gets one from his neighbour. There is a certain exchange of labour and houses could be erected at a minimum cost. If the State had to undertake the proposition of building houses for small farmers it would certainly have to pay three or four times more than the farmer himself can build at, provided he can get the building materials. The greatest difficulty these people are up against, and have been up against, even under recent Acts is the fact that they cannot get credit. Their credit is exhausted. Loans are of no use to them. Wholesale merchants will not advance building material because they are not sure if the houses will be passed by the inspector, and they are not sure that there will not be other demands on the grant if and when it comes to be paid.

Up to the present the Minister's policy has not contributed to any degree towards a solution of that aspect of the question. It is true that a large number of houses have been built in rural areas but it is untrue to suggest that we have got rid of the [1771] insanitary houses there to any extent as a result of the Minister's policy. The people who have been able to avail of the housing grant of £45 and who have built new houses are not the class who live in houses that are unfit for human habitation. They are very largely the class that can afford to build their own houses and that would have built their own houses, in any event, even if there had not been any State assistance.

I asked the Minister a considerable time ago if he had any records in his Department of the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis in rural areas as distinct from urban areas. The Minister had no such figures at his disposal. I presume he has not got them since. In so far as I have seen reports of the medical officers of health in the counties in which they have been appointed they go to show that pulmonary tuberculosis arises to an extraordinarily large extent in insanitary two-roomed houses. It is the experience of medical men who are working in mixed communities of urban and rural dwellers that there is a larger incidence of tuberculosis in rural Ireland than in urban Ireland. That may seem an extraordinary state of affairs, but when you take into consideration the conditions under which some of these people are living, the thatched cottages, consisting of two rooms with a clay floor, with a small window, inadequate ventilation and lighting purposes, one can readily understand it. When we take into consideration the cubic capacity of one of these little rooms in which the father, mother and the whole family have to sleep, one can readily understand why the incidence of tuberculosis should be greater in rural areas than in urban areas. It can at least be said for tenement houses in Dublin that they have a big cubic capacity of air space, that the rooms are large, that the light enters them and that they are capable of being ventilated. These conditions do not exist amongst the class of people concerning whose housing conditions there is considerable anxiety on this side of the House.

If medical officers report to a board of health, as they often have to report— [1772] they would report more frequently if alternative accommodation was available—that the house of a small farmer in the district was unfit for human habitation, what is the board of health going to do? What assistance is this Bill going to be? Is it of any use to that board of health to have legislative power to knock down that man's house? Who is going to provide him with a house? I hope the Minister will examine this aspect of the housing problem, which is really of first importance in any housing policy that any Ministry of Local Government should take responsibility for.

I understand that under the terms of this Bill 20 per cent. of the loan charges will be available to public authorities for the erection of labourers' cottages in rural Ireland. I do not know if the Minister stated what the terms of the loans to local authorities are to be. I understand them to be from five to six per cent. Assuming that it would be possible to build labourers' cottages for £200 or £250 does the Minister seriously think that a board of health could undertake to do so with the subsidy of 20 per cent. of the loan charges? They could build the cottages certainly, but I would like to know where they would get agricultural labourers who could pay anything from four to five shillings per week in rent. If this is the best that can be done towards solving the housing of agricultural labourers I think we had better make up our minds—and the farmers had better make up their minds—that the wages of these workers must be increased so as to enable them to pay such rents. If my figures are not correct, and if I have made my calculation under a misunderstanding I would be glad if the Minister would correct me.

As the Minister and as many Deputies know, public bodies and the rate paying community in the rural areas are burdened at present by the charges that have to be met for labourers' cottages that were erected in the past. If the Minister could introduce legislation whereby these people could become owners and could purchase their cottages it would relieve the local rates of these charges.

[1773] I think that would go a considerable way towards encouraging local authorities to avail of the terms of this Bill or to make a generous contribution towards the building of further cottages. There is not much inclination in the country at present to embark on further schemes of labourers' cottages. That will be the case until some method is found of relieving the burden that cottages already erected have placed on the ratepayers. I do not think the provisions in the Bill will result in the building of cottages by local authorities. I do not think it is an economic proposition. I believe that the solution would lie in making large subsidies available to the persons who are going to occupy the houses.

If boards of health and public authorities down the country were encouraged to acquire sites for labourers' cottages and if grants sufficiently large to supply building materials were made available, I believe that, with the co-operation of the farmer and his labourer, houses would be erected at the minimum cost. The labourer would be owner of his house and would be classed amongst that desirable section of the community described as having “a stake in the country.” If that would not contribute towards a solution of the problem, I confess that I am at a loss to know how it could be solved. The Minister's proposals in this Bill are not going to get us any further.

I suggest to the Minister and to the House that if the bogey of Communism we heard so much about in debates on another Bill is ever going to be a reality in this country, more especially in rural Ireland, it will be because of the inhuman conditions in which we ask the people to live and which we make no effort whatever to remedy. It is no wonder that the younger people in the rural areas are flocking to the towns. During the course of my experience as secretary of a building society in Co. Monaghan—we have built quite a number of houses for the rural population—I have repeatedly heard mothers express this opinion: “Since this house was built, there is [1774] no difficulty whatever in getting the young boys to come home at night. They have a comfortable home to come to. They do not mind how much they have to slave on the land. They are happy now because they have a room to sleep in and a decent home to come to.” I mention that from my experience in the construction of these houses. During the last year or so, we have built upwards of 70 houses in County Monaghan and, in that way, I have fairly intimate knowledge of the subject. The only other matter I wish to refer to is that of employing, as far as possible, Irish material in the building of these houses. It does not require emphasis to show that though the actual material may be more expensive it is an economy in the long run, because of the extra employment brought about by creating a demand for Irish material.

I heard here yesterday a discussion on the virtues of quarried slates and asbestos as roofing material. I was surprised not to hear any mention of the excellent roofing material that is being produced at Clondalkin by the Concrete Tile Company. The plea was put forward here that Irish slates are not, because of economic considerations, insisted upon in housing schemes that carry Government subsidies. Economic consideration cannot rule out the concrete tiles produced in Clondalkin. I have used these tiles during the past year. The Minister's inspectors have seen them in position and have expressed themselves as entirely satisfied with the result. They make an excellent roofing and the price is sufficiently reasonable to put them in a position to compete successfully with any of the asbestos slates on the market in this country. In view of my experience of that particular Irish product, I cannot see that any reasonable case can be made why that Irish industry should not get encouragement from the Department of State supplying money for the purpose of building houses. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that however desirable it might be to make certain amendments in this Bill that would secure, for example, the substantial grants for small farmers which I have [1775] mentioned as being both necessary and desirable, if this Bill gets a Second Reading, I do not see how that can effectively be done for this reason. This Bill provides that as housing subsidies under this head for private individuals there will be only £25,000 available during the coming year. You are confined within the limits of that £25,000. Everybody knows that £25,000 would not go very far in supplying subsidies of the magnitude I have mentioned. After 1933, if the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is still in a position to carry out the present policy, no further grants will be available for this class of the community. This is a very serious housing problem. I think that neither the Minister nor many members of this House realise how serious it is. I hope the result of this debate will be, at least, that pressure will be put upon the Minister to examine this question and to come forward with some solution of it. That solution is not to be found in the present Bill and I say it is unfair to ask the rural population who have put up £2,000,000 to house the urban workers up to the present, to continue to put up these millions of money if they do not get some indication that money will be provided to build houses in which human beings in the rural districts can be expected to live.

Mr. Law: I shall not trouble the House with many observations because I still hope, despite many indications to the contrary, that this Bill will be treated as a non-Party measure and as one in which all sections of the House are equally and honestly interested. Most of the points raised in this debate, so far, could be more conveniently and satisfactorily dealt with on Committee Stage. There are, however, three or four points of policy rather than of machinery with which I would be glad if the Minister would deal when he comes to reply. Take, for example, Part V. of the Bill, which deals with the provision of labourers' cottages. The Minister, in his opening speech, dealt entirely, if I recollect aright, with the effect of certain clauses dealing with machinery. It is within the knowledge of [1776] everybody that since 1914 or thereabouts there has been, for all practical purposes, a complete suspension of the work under the Labourers Acts.

It is within the knowledge of most Deputies, as it is within mine, that there are certain districts to be found up and down the country where for one reason or another very little advantage was taken of the Acts prior to the Great War—a most unfortunate thing because, of course, it is probable that never again, certainly it is most improbable within our lifetime, will money be obtained as cheaply as was then possible. It also seems unlikely despite the fall in building costs that we shall ever again be able to build at the prices which obtained before 1914. There is no use, however, in wasting time in vain regrets. There are districts in which quite a considerable number of labourers—and I agree with the Deputy who last spoke on this matter—are housed under conditions which can only be described as inhuman. I agree with him also that if we are to guard against the spread of what are called Communistic doctrines, we ought to remember that the propagation of these doctrines finds its forcing bed and its most natural and dangerous environment where people are living under such conditions. That, I think, is admitted. When the Minister comes to reply I would be glad if he would give us some indication as to what is the policy of the Government in this matter as distinct from question of machinery. Is it intended to stimulate the local authorities to enter again upon active work in this matter of the provision of labourers' cottages where that is deemed to be necessary? If so, perhaps the Minister would also tell us, in some more detail than he was able to do in his opening remarks, how far he considers the financial provision contained in the Bill will prove adequate for that purpose.

There is again the problem of the small towns referred to by Deputy Hogan last night. I listened to his remarks also with a considerable amount of sympathy and appreciation as regards many of them. I did so the more because of certain experiences of my own. Perhaps I might be [1777] pardoned for mentioning that between the years 1919-1922 I was myself engaged upon administrative work in connection with housing as a member of what was then called the Housing Committee of the old Local Government Board who were charged with the same functions as the Minister for Health in England in respect of the Housing Act of 1919. I had occasion not only to make myself acquainted at that time with what had been written on the subject, and with these reports in particular to which the President called attention last night, but also to pay visits from time to time to various places in which schemes under the Act of 1919 were in contemplation.

I recollect very clearly a visit I paid to the town of Ennis. Certainly I never saw even in Dublin such ghastly housing conditions as I saw in that place. As the last speaker stated, bad as many of the tenement houses in Dublin are, yet the houses in Dublin, having been built in days when architects had spacious ideas and when the wealthier class of people inhabited them, provided ample light and air and space. I remember Dr. Kirwan who was Chairman of the Committee, used to be very often fond of pointing out to the people objecting to the standard houses which the Board then required to be built under the schemes then in contemplation, that in actual fact many of the single rooms, especially on the first and ground floors of the old tenement houses contain far more cubic space, both floor space and air space, than was to be found in the maximum sized houses proposed under our scheme. I recollect that in Ennis we found frequently little one-roomed cottages behind other houses, up muddy lanes, with no backyards very frequently, and no sanitary accommodation whatsoever. I am not in a position to say how far that condition still obtains. It may be that in the interval of ten years or more which has elapsed these conditions have altered. I believe that is so, but then certainly I cannot doubt that there is a very real problem to be found in the small towns as well as in the large cities.

Another point with which I would [1778] be glad the Minister should deal is this. He spoke with great feeling and evident sincerity, and yet with exceedingly good sense as I thought, of the excellent work that is done in another connection, in the matter of nursing, for our people by voluntary associations and philanthropic bodies. He stressed with great force and great good sense the desirability of enlisting the services of individual charitable, philanthropic and kindly people in such work. I do not know whether he will agree, but I think that what he said on that question is equally applicable to this. I would be glad to know if it will be the policy of the Government, as I believe and hope it will be their policy, and that of the Department to seek the help of such bodies of people in connection with housing work. I think such bodies could be of great use in what I think may well be a necessary part of the work of dealing with the slum problem, especially in Dublin. I refer to the reconditioning of old houses. I know that there are many technical difficulties, but I think myself, having regard to the experience of such bodies as I have in my mind in England, and having regard to the work done in this country by such bodies as the Alexandar Guild Tenement Company, that a good deal can be done towards helping the solution of the entire problem through the work of such associations as I have mentioned, not only in the initial work of reconditioning and remodelling individual houses or blocks of houses, but also subsequently in the care and management of those houses by people who will take, not merely an official interest, but also what the Minister stressed so properly yesterday—a human interest in their inhabitants.

I do not know that there is anything much else that I desire to say. The great purpose of this Bill, whatever effects it may have in other respects, is the abolition of the slums. In that I hope and believe it will be successful. It was one of the greatest disappointments of my life to find when I came to the work to which I have referred a short time ago, that the Act under which we then had to work, the Act of 1919, gave us no assistance whatever in tackling that problem. [1779] This is the first time that a really serious attempt has been made by way of direct attack upon the slum problem. I suggest to those who are inclined to be critical of it that, if there was nothing else but that in the Bill, it would be deserving of support. I hope the House will, in spite of some indications to the contrary, pass the Second Reading, and will then get down to business in Committee and see that the Bill is amended where amendment is necessary. And so far from treating the Minister and the Bill in the somewhat captious spirit which has been shown in some quarters, I think and I hope and I believe that when they get into closer grips with the matter, we shall recognise that we owe the Minister a real debt of gratitude and that this is really a serious and hopeful attempt to make a real inroad into what is absolutely the last and greatest of the social evils with which we still have to contend in this country.

Domhnall O Buachalla: Ba mhaith liom a rádh, a Chinn Comhairle, go bhfuilim ar aon intinn le n-a dubhairt Dochtúir Mac a' Bháird, Teachta, i dtaobh coinghilleacha comhnuidhthe fá'n dtuaith. Tá fhios agam féin go bhfuil ar fud Dáil-Cheanntair Chilldara a lán sean-tighthe nach bhfuil oireamhnac mar tighthe-comhnuidhthe i naon 'chor. Is eol dom tighthe díobh nach bhfuil ann ach dhá sheomra—nó cistean is seomra—agus go mbíonn i n-a gcodladh san aon seaomra soin naonbhar daoine—an t-athair, an mathair agus clann mórsheisear ! Naonbhar daoine i n-aon seomra beag amháin! Agus ní cás féleith é sin. Is eol dom sean-tighthe go bhfuil na ballaí dá gcoimeád i n-a seasaimh ag tacaí adhmaid ar an dtaobh amuigh; agus tacaí adhmaid ar an dtaobh istig ag coimeád an dín i n-áirde.

I dtaobh an deontas úd—an £45— níl a dhóthain airgid ann. Fuaireas an deontas san do dhuine i gConndae-Chilldara tamall ó shoin, ac ní raibh i n-a chumas an tigh do thógáil, de bhrigh nár bhféidir leis cáirde, nó creideamhaint, d'fhagháil. Fuaireas an cáirde dhó, agus tá an tigh tóghta [1780] anois aige agus tóghta go maith; ach muireach gur thug na comharsan conghnamh do ní bheadh airgead a dhóthain sa £45. Maidir leis na teighlíní straighne—atá dá dhéanamh i gCluain Dolchan—tá colas agus taithighe agam ortha, agus tá so le rá agam ortha, nach bhfuil a sárughadh le fághail. Teighlíni ana-mhaith is eadh iad, agus nílid daor. Tá súil agam go ndeanfaidh an tAire rud fóghanta chun feabhas tighthe do thabhairt dos na daoine bochta fá'n dtuaith.

Mr. G. Wolfe: I think that this Bill is an honest attempt to deal with a very long standing problem, a problem that has been growing to my own knowledge long and well long before the majority of the people in this House saw the light of day. It has been talked of by successive Governments that have been in power here under the British regime and nothing of any permanent utility resulted from the talk. It is a very big business that the Government have undertaken. It is not to be supposed that they have been idle during the time that they have been in office. We have been told that from 1922 to date over 26,000 houses have been built. But the slum problem still remains. Of course as regards the slum problem in Dublin, I have to speak as a layman, because I naturally only know of it from what I read and from what I observe when walking past these houses and through these streets that form the slum area of the city. It has often occurred to me, looking at these houses as I passed them by—extremely fine houses some of them are, houses that were built at a time when work was not passed over indifferently but was well done—it has often occurred to me that these houses, by reconstruction, could be made much better for the people who inhabit them than they are, and also that many more people could be accommodated in those houses by putting a couple of additional storeys on them. I do not see any reason why that should not be done, why two or three storeys should not be added to them, which would be a much more convenient process than removing the inhabitants into districts far from their [1781] work. While the alterations were proceeding there would be no necessity to remove the people already in the houses from them. When the new storeys were completed the people could be removed to them and then repairs could be undertaken in the lower storeys in which they had been.

Of course it would be a very good thing to buy out the derelict buildings and, as Deputy Sir James Craig said, in the meantime, if there was no money to go into building, the site could be used for children's playgrounds, of which unfortunately we have not nearly enough in the City of Dublin. As I say, I do not know very much about the slum problem, but I do know something about the rural part of the business. I was connected with rural administration for a good many years; and though, of course, alterations have occurred a good deal remains of what existed when I was engaged in the administration. There are, undoubtedly, a great many more houses required. As regards the bigger towns I do not know much about them though I have heard that the condition there is not very good either, but I know that in certain towns near my own residence the condition of the back streets is appalling. It is not that the houses are so bad, but that they want to be properly repaired and to have rooms added on to them. That is a matter that is extremely important. It occurred to me some time ago when going around that if many of these houses had additional rooms added on to them and were properly done up the conditions of the people living in them would be very different. Moreover, I am inclined to think that the rents in a great many cases are far too high for the accommodation provided. Deputy O'Kelly alluded to a certain slum dwelling in Dublin in which the rents of the rooms varied from 4s. 6d. down to 1s. 6d. That compares favourably, I am sorry to say, with some of the country districts. It also compares favourably with London and some of the other big cities. I saw in the paper some time ago a letter from a civil servant of the lower grade in London stating that for [1782] one room he was paying 25s. per week and that he and his family had to live in that room. I know that in the east end of London it is not uncommon for 25s. a week to be paid for a single room in which, perhaps, three or four families would be living. At least we are better than that. At the same time, I think that the rents here are in many cases out of proportion to what the people are able to pay, especially at present.

In my own county I think the reconditioning of the houses in the towns is almost more important than the building of new ones. A certain amount of accommodation has been afforded by taking over the vacant barracks at Newbridge and I think also at Kildare. There ought to be a very considerable amount of accommodation provided in that way. There are also in the county certain buildings that could be turned into flats for labourers and thus save a considerable amount of money in regard to material and the purchase of land. Adjoining where I live there is an old mill of five stories which has not been used for a very long time. The roof and the floors are fairly good. In fact the only thing wrong with it is that the windows have been smashed by mischievous children. This mill would be able to accommodate at least five families in flats and its conversion would cost much less than would be required to build five labourers' cottages. It often struck me as curious that it had never occured to anyone that this mill would be useful in relieving congestion. There are many buildings of that kind that could be reconditioned without the expense of purchasing land. I have in mind other places which could be used for the purpose. Now that everybody rides a bicycle of some kind, even the very poorest, there is no difficulty in persons getting to their work from any place in which they live. I think it would be a very good thing if the local authorities would buy up derelict and tumble-down places in villages and use them as playgrounds for children or as football grounds for boys. These playgrounds should be provided, if possible, in every village. There is nothing, I believe, so important as [1783] that for the youth of the country.

Deputy Ward said that it should be in the power of suitable people to purchase the houses in which they live. I am in favour of that. I wish there could be a sum of money put aside for that purpose. The more people who can acquire the ownership of their houses the better. It is not, of course, desirable in all cases, nor would they all wish it, but where they wish it I should very much like to see it carried out as far as possible. Of course the great difficulty in connection with this housing business is money. If we had two and a half million pounds to spend we could complete the whole job, but we have not got it and are not likely to have it for a very long time in the present condition of the money market. Even with things as they are, if we build houses for labourers to be let at 5/- per week I think that is too high a rent. It is too high to be as effective as one would like it to be. It will no doubt, be effective to some extent, but not to the extent that I would like to see it.

When the first Labourers Act came into operation in 1883 a certain rent was fixed for the cottages and portion of the real rent had to be paid by the local authorities or the State. The real economic rent of a cottage let at 1s. per week was 2s. 7d. or 2s. 8d., and the rates had to make up the remainder. While in these days I do not think that we can do that, a certain amount might be paid by the local authority so as to bring the rent down to the lowest figure, say 3s. 6d. I think the labourers could pay that, but 5s. per week, with the rates added on perhaps, is more than the average labourer can pay at the present time. In the present circumstances, of course, the farmers cannot pay the wages that they would like to pay. They have to contend with great difficulties. Prices are low and, of course, they have to live and with the best will in the world they can only pay what they can afford. I think that if under this new scheme a certain amount of the rent was provided out of the rates it would ease matters and extend it further than I am afraid it is likely to go.

[1784] I have no doubt it will be a great success and I hope it will. The more contented the people are the better it will be for everybody, and the more people can be helped to lead cleanly and decent lives the better it will be for the general good of the whole country. These improvements can only be brought about, in the first instance, by decent housing. I think, in the circumstances, and seeing the great difficulties that are in front of us, that the Government have tried to do their best in very difficult circumstances and I, for one, wish them success and I feel certain they will get it.

Mr. Everett: Like other representatives of rural constituencies in this House I have been somewhat disappointed with this Bill in view of the promises we received from the Minister, and the Press reports of the intentions of the housing Department to solve the problem in the Saorstát While I admit that the Bill makes some little concession to local authorities in regard to derelict sites, the improvement of areas, the clearing of insanitary slums, and the fact that we have not to go through the unnecessary and expensive procedure hitherto entailed in connection with these problems, still the Bill has failed to make any effort to solve the real question in the rural areas.

I have appealed, on many previous occasions, to the Local Government Department to extend long term loans of 60 years to the boards of health. It may be said, as the President pointed out last night, that when public bodies make appeals and send out resolutions they only mean half what they say. That will be a guidance for me when I receive circulars and letters from the Local Government Department in future, that they only mean half what they say in their correspondence. The Minister pointed out last night that his intention and the intention of this Bill, is to give houses to the poorer paid men. He pointed out that it is the fault of the board of health now if houses are not built. The Minister is aware that the majority of the members of the board of health are continually complaining about the high rates they have to pay and of the amount that [1785] has to be borne on the rates for the support of the unemployed so that they refuse to strike any additional rate to provide houses for the working classes. When we consider that the majority of the farm labourers have 9/- a week and their board or £1 or 25/- a week with perquisites, how can we expect that with such small wages men would be able to pay 5/- or 6/- a week for a rural cottage. In our rural area we have 300 or 400 plots marked out for the past 20 years but, owing to the failure of the Local Government Department to extend long term loans, or to give Public Boards the slightest facilities such as they give urban authorities and corporations, we had been unable to build houses other than in certain places in the poorer areas. The condition of some of the rural areas, and the housing accomodation in them, are a disagrace in the particular counties in which they exist, and they are a disgrace to the Saorstát. The public Boards have not the finances to build houses and the Minister, in this Bill, does not give any encouragement or inducement whatever to the local bodies to build houses on 30 years' loans. The Minister may state probably that he has reason for not giving 50 years' loans for houses built of concrete as they may not last. I am interested in the building of houses. I have seen houses built with Irish material and roofed with County Wicklow slates and built by direct labour at a cost of £250, while contractors wanted £290 for the same house.

The President last night, as is usual with him, when he did not want to consider the Bill, or to speak of the Bill, began to twit the Fianna Fáil Party and the Labour Party as to their policy and their various programmes. He also read some accounts in connection with housing from persons connected with the English Local Government Department. My point is that if any good was going to come from it he can claim credit for the Fianna Fáil policy, and the Labour policy as well, if he will only put them in operation.

General Mulcahy: They have no policy.

[1786] Mr. Everett: The Minister has taken some extracts from them and tried to make them his own. Although the President pointed out that it was the policy of some other person, yet he came back with an English report of 1905, which contained some of the policy with which he twitted us last night. His whole talk was about the other two Parties. He never attempted to prove that this Bill would solve the housing problem. The Minister in charge of the Bill never referred to it at all in his Second Reading speech except for propaganda purposes. His great point was that the way to solve this question was to build houses for poor men. While there may be some good points in the Bill and while some concessions are given to urban areas for the clearing of sites and the demolition of insanitary dwellings the Bill will be of very little benefit at all to the rural areas. As Deputy Ward pointed out we have reports from medical officers and dispensary doctors at every meeting of Boards of Health condemning various insanitary houses. We also find that wherever there is a vacant cottage there is 15 or 16 applicants for every one, which shows the urgent necessity for providing houses for the working classes in rural areas. Deputy George Wolfe pointed out that we have not got the money. That of course is one point and has been the cause probably, of the Government, and the Boards of Health, being unable to do what they would wish to do in the past 5 or 6 years.

You are in the position now that if Deputy Wolfe wants two and a half million pounds he can get it through sweepstakes. Sweepstakes are being used for hospitals to alleviate the sufferings of people. Why not have a sweepstake so that people will have healthy homes and will not require any hospitals at all? County Medical Officers report that if you had less bad houses you would have less consumption in the country. Seventy per cent. of the complaints is attributed to insanitary houses and bad housing accommodation. That being so what is the use of spending money on county doctors looking after tuberculosis? [1787] People are sent to sanatoria for 13 weeks and are sent back to where the disease is contracted. The British Government in the Slum Clearance Act provided for apartments to be built and paid for in 40 years, the public body receiving £12 10s. 0d. a year. The scheme is as follows. In 40 years they receive £134 for a two-apartment house. They receive £123 for a three-apartment house and they receive £112 for a four-apartment house. So much for the City of Dublin. We realise here and outside the House that Dublin gets its share of any Act of Parliament. I suggest to the Minister and his Housing Department that they should go into the country and make themselves familiar with the housing conditions there. If they are really in earnest the question of finance will not interfere with them. They will bring in an Act to solve the problem and thereby have more peace and contentment in the country.

Mr. Good: Why are houses so dear?

Mr. Everett: Because the contractors are looking for too much profit.

Mr. Good: Will you tell us something about the labour charges?

Mr. Everett: I will in another place. I can tell the Deputy that the labour charges in rural areas are not 10d an hour. I would like to know what the contractor charges per hour. I would ask the Minister to bring in an amendment in the Committee Stage of his Bill extending the period from thirty to sixty years for cottages for the rural worker and to give a subsidy of at least £60. That will be the first stage of providing houses for the poorly paid labourers we have in the Saorstát.

A most important man at the present time is the agricultural worker. As Deputy Wolfe pointed out he is not receiving a wage sufficient to enable him to pay an economic rent. With regard to the question of the clearance of insanitary houses I am rather nervous about it from my experience of the Minister's Department. The question of the clearance of insanitary houses would be left to an inspector to report to the Minister. I have had [1788] sad experience of reports of the Minister's inspectors. When I was advocating the building of houses for the rural workers and the agricultural labourer the inspector put in a different report. I would like in this Act that any report put in by an inspector should be based on the evidence submitted to an Inquiry and not on the evidence of any secret organisation outside the Inquiry. I have experience that the inspector based his whole evidence on information which he obtained in an indirect manner outside the Inquiry, and the Minister justified his argument in that particular case, by saying that the field was not suitable for labourers cottages owing to the railway line. The Minister has since sanctioned £100 for that Association for the building of houses in the field. I hope that the Minister's inspectors will not make any report like that in connection with slum clearance or insanitary houses, and I hope that the evidence must be submitted by a local authority. That case has always made me suspicious in connection with Inspectors' reports.

I am sorry that the Minister had not the courage to decide on what he knew to be facts, and not on the report submitted to him from second-hand sources. I would like to know why grants were given to certain people on sites that were condemned, and which would not be allowed in the case of a public body. Public bodies are going to receive opposition from the Department. You are going to give public bodies endless trouble in trying to acquire plots and sites. Then there will be a wait for twelve months. In urban areas at the present time I would like to see the subsidy fixed. In connection with the reconstruction of houses I am aware of people with small means who were to build small houses convenient to their old residences. A grant has been refused by the Department on the grounds that it was only a reconstructed house. I would ask the Minister in these cases that the spirit of the Act should be considered, and that the intention to do the best thing under the particular instance should be taken into consideration. I would ask him to help [1789] in having the reconstruction grant renewed at the present time.

On the question of conditions for private persons building, I am satisfied that no private persons are going to receive any grant. The Minister may take this particular clause out of the Bill, because no public body is going to give a special grant to private individuals. If he does not, I see no hope of any private individual receiving any grant for the building of houses. I wish I could congratulate him and welcome this Bill. There are a few points in it which will have our support, but I do not think it is going to solve the housing problem. It is not going to do what we thought it would, judging by the Minister's address at the Public Health Conference. We thought then that he was going to bring in a long-term Bill. When people read this Bill they will be sadly disappointed. If the Minister has no better Bill to offer to solve the housing problem, the sooner the General Election comes and other people take charge the better.

Mr. Aiken: Deputy Good asked a very interesting question: “Why are houses so dear?” One reason why houses are so dear is that we have a Government whose only solution—the best solution they have to offer—for the housing problem is this Bill. Deputy Good might think, in his ignorance, that houses are dear because Deputy Morrissey wants 1s. 4d. an hour or 2s. an hour instead of 7d. an hour or 1s. an hour for the people working at house-building. If Deputy Good would go into the thing, he would see that the wages paid to workmen, and Deputy Everett would see that even the money that goes into the contractor's pockets, if combined, have really less influence on the rents people have to pay for houses than 1 or 2 per cent. increase or decrease in the bank rate has on those rents or on the prices of houses.

Mr. Good: May I just interrupt for a moment? The Deputy seems to have a better knowledge of these matters than I have, but I may inform him that out of every pound spent in the building of houses 15s. 6d. goes into wages.

Mr. Aiken: I want to say to Deputy [1790] Good that if the labourers worked for nothing, and if, in addition, they paid for half of the cost of the materials and gave these to the contractor for nothing, all this would have less influence on the price the tenant has to pay for his house than a three per cent. difference in the bank rate. If the labourers worked for Deputy Good for nothing and sent round the hat for their wives who are drawing the outdoor relief, and gave the collection to them also, it would still have little influence on the rents the tenants have to pay. Take a £500 house. The annuity, interest and sinking fund at 5 per cent. on a 20-year loan on that £500 house would amount to 15/5 per week. If that loan were extended to 60 years at two per cent. interest, the rent would only amount to 5/2 per week. From that the Deputy will see that the rent is put up to three times 5/2 because of the interest and sinking fund. That is altogether outside the control of the workers who demand a few shillings a day to enable them to get food for their families. It is also outside the control of Deputy Good, who as a contractor is entitled to a decent return for his energy and outlay on his capital.

Mr. Good: If the Deputy would allow me to interrupt him for one moment, I would point out that the trouble is this: We want to get houses for people in the slums at rates that the people in the slums can afford to pay. Can they afford to pay 5/2 a week?

Mr. Aiken: That is exactly the problem, and what I want to say is this: that the Government in this Bill have made absolutely no attempt to deal with that problem.

Mr. Corish: Hear, hear.

Mr. Aiken: Deputy Wolfe said that the difficulty was the money, and talked about two million pounds as curing the situation or going a long way to cure it. The fact of the matter is that we have £200,000,000 invested abroad. A large portion of this money is lent to gamblers in the London Stock Exchange at about 1¼ or 1½ per cent. [1791] We have here a situation that everybody in this House has got up and stressed the importance of housing. They stressed how important it is to the people's health, to their welfare and to their moral well-being that they should have decent houses. Anyone examining the figures can see that what we want here is a large amount of money at a long period of repayment and at a low rate of interest. You have the moneys of the Irish people invested in gambling in the London Stock Exchange at a very low rate of interest. Money cannot be got by the local authorities for housing except on a fifteen years' redemption period at 5 or 6 or 7 per cent. interest, while foreign gamblers can get the money at 1¼ or 1½ per cent.

People here who want to build houses, the need for which is admitted by everybody and stressed by everybody here, can only get money on a fifteen years' term at 6 or 7 per cent. interest. That is the situation. The period of redemption is very important, just as much as the rate of interest. If you take a £500 house and take the interest at 5 per cent. and say, the loan is for 60 years, the weekly rent which will pay interest and pay the sinking fund would amount to 10/2 a week. But if the period of redemption is 40 years the rent would amount to 11/2 a week; if the period is 30 years the rent will be 12/6 a week, and if the period is 20 years it will be 15/5 a week. These figures are not putting the case as badly as it could be put. As a matter of fact, I have been informed that it is difficult to get money lower than 6 per cent. on a 20 years' period. The local authorities have found it so. Take that £500 house, and if the interest was at 2 per cent. and if the money could be got for 60 years that house could be let at 5/2 a week instead of on the 20 years' period at 5 per cent. interest, 15/5 per week, or three times the amount. If we take a £300 house and the period is, say, 20 years at 5 per cent., the amount that the tenant would have to pay would be 9/3 a week. That is more than double the amount that a person who secured a £500 house at 5 per [1792] cent. for 60 years would have to pay. A £300 loan for 60 years at 2 per cent. would work out at a rent of 3/4 a week, as against 9/3 for the 20 years at five per cent. That is the crux of the situation.

The present Pope, in dealing with this matter, pointed out that it was very wrong that people who are in control of credit should be using it as they are at present, in gambling. I will read to you what he said:

In the first place, then, it is patent that in our days not alone is wealth accumulated, but immense power and despotic economic domination is concentrated in the hands of a few, and that those are frequently not the owners, but only the trustees and directors of invested funds, who administer them at their good pleasure.

The power becomes particularly irresistible when exercised by those who, because they hold and control money, are able also to govern credit and determine its allotment, for that reason supplying, so to speak, the life-blood to the entire economic body, and grasping, as it were, in their hands the very soul of production so that no one dare breathe against their will.

That is exactly what the people who are in control of the Government have been doing with the Irish people's funds. That is what the people in the Government have been doing; they have been lending money at 1¼ per cent. to gamblers on the Stock Exchange, while, if Deputy Good comes to them for a loan, he will be asked to pay 6 or 7 per cent.

General Mulcahy: What has the Deputy been reading from?

Mr. Aiken: From the Pope's Encyclical on Social Order. The Dáil in this Bill have cleared the ground. They have arranged for the clearing of sites but they will have to pay something more before they get the houses built on them. If they are not going to saddle the State, which is the taxpayer, in any form or make the contractor do without any profits or make the worker do [1793] without any weekly wage, they will have to do something to get houses built at an economical rent—a rent which the worker can afford to pay. Members of the Government, in outlining this Bill and in the speeches they have made in support of it, have not shown that they realise the situation or that they are going to do anything to get money at fair rates of interest for the purpose of building houses.

Mr. Bennett: Deputy Everett said that this Bill will not solve the housing problem. I do not think that any Deputy suggests that it will solve the housing problem. Rome was not built in a day and the housing problem will not be solved in a day or even in a year. To my mind, it would not be desirable that it should be solved even if it could be solved in a day or a year. That may seem a very strange statement to make. But if during the coming year we could solve the housing problem, we would create in doing so a situation in future years that would be as bad as the existing situation.

The difficulty of the housing question, as most Deputies here know, is that houses cannot be provided economically to suit the needs of the lower-paid labourer—the man who is earning a small wage and other men of his class. Houses have been provided with State assistance during a number of years, but they have been mainly occupied by men in a better position than the average labourer. Until we arrive at a time when the bone of contention between Deputy Good, Deputy Davin and other Deputies as to the reason for the excessive cost of building is removed, or until we arrive at another set of conditions, as instanced by Deputy Aiken, when money can be borrowed by the State at exceedingly low rates of interest, we shall not have arrived at a time when houses can be built to be let at a sum that the average small-wage labourer can afford to pay. Deputy Aiken said, with some semblance of accuracy, that the variation of the rate of interest, if a big variation, would have a greater bearing on the cost of houses than the delinquencies [1794] of either contractors or workers. That is right, but he elaborated his argument rather too much. He proceeded to demonstrate the effect on the rental of a difference between a 5 per cent. rate of interest and a 2 per cent. rate of interest. When he went so low as 2 per cent., I was rather surprised he did not go to 1 per cent., or even a free house, because that would be just as feasible as a rate of 2 per cent. To talk of a 2 per cent. rate for building houses or for any other form of activity in which this State may engage at present, is ridiculous.

Mr. Aiken: How much would you get from the bank?

Mr. Bennett: If you go to the bank and get money at 2 per cent., I shall pay you the greatest compliment I have ever paid to any Deputy.

Mr. Aiken: What rate of interest would you get if you deposited money in the bank?

Mr. Bennett: I am not in the habit of lending money to the bank. Deputy Aiken knows more about lending money to the banks than I do. My place is on the other side of the ledger. I do not know what they pay people for the loan of money but I know what they charge for the loan of money. I know that neither the Minister or any other person in this country can borrow money at present at 2 per cent. About 50 years ago, it was possible to borrow money around 2 per cent. When we get back to that position, we will be able to get over the difficulty of building houses to let at suitable economic rents. If we were in a position to solve the housing problem at present rates and if it happened that later these questions of interest and cost were more satisfactorily adjusted, we would find that the houses built under the less advantageous circumstances would be unlettable. The Deputy says that we could increase the number of years of repayment. We could of course give 100-year loans for the building of houses. But we would find in many cases that posterity would be paying for houses which were not in a habitable condition or which, perhaps, did [1795] not exist. There must be a reasonable limit to the number of years of repayment for such a project as house-building. As everybody knows, houses did not last for ever. This Bill will not solve the housing problem but it advances us on the road towards a solution. This Bill comes on top of other Bills which the Government has introduced during the last 4 or 5 years. Whatever Deputies may think, this Government has done a good deal to assist in the building of houses. We are advancing at a fairly level rate, considering the financial condition of the country and we are accelerating the building of houses at a desirable speed. I congratulate the Minister on bringing in this Bill to advance us further on the road towards a solution of the housing problem.

There are one or two points to which I would like to allude. I know the difficulty of providing money, and I do not want to make any suggestions that would cause the Minister for Finance to put his hands very deeply in his pockets. Section 23 deals with the reconstruction of buildings let for habitation. A certain section of the community who occupy very bad houses would not come into that category. Some small farmers, and farmers who are not so small, live in houses which could be very easily compared with some of the slum houses in the cities and towns. You have only to get on to the by-roads, or indeed on to some of the high roads, to observe here and there farmers' houses in which some of the slum-dwellers would be loth to live. To my mind, a provision for the reconstruction of houses is in some instances even more desirable than a grant for the building of new houses. It would certainly be more desirable in the case of farmers. Grants have been available to enable them to build new houses, but grants have not been available for the reconstruction of old houses—a much greater necessity in many cases. If the Minister could insert some provision in the Bill to make that possible, I think most Deputies would be gratified. I make that suggestion to the Minister, and I hope that he will see his way to comply with it.

[1796] There is one other matter to which I would like to refer. Talking again of the small dweller, or the poorly-paid labouring man, I welcome the suggestion in this Bill of building smaller houses than have been built. Many people would be glad to get a three-roomed house. While I say that the populace will be glad to get these houses—which I hope will be let as cheaply as possible—a three-roomed house at the best is not a very good house; but many people have far worse houses and would be very glad to get such a house.

I suggest that, if possible, what is commonly called a loft might be provided in the three-roomed houses. It would give a little extra privacy to a large family. I am credibly informed by a contractor of more or less eminence that such an addition to these houses could be provided at a very small cost. A loft is quite common in many houses in the country, and farmers and others are very glad to avail of the accommodation. It is an extra room provided at a small cost, and while it is not elegant it suits the need of the people. I know many houses in which there are lofts, and this contractor informs me that they could be provided for about £10 or £12. He states that it would only need an extra window on the gable, and a stronger ceiling to provide such a room which would be a boon in houses occupied by large families. We know that poor people with a large family like to segregate the younger from the older children. I believe that this is a very honest effort towards solving a great problem. I do not believe the housing problem is going to be solved to-day or to-morrow, but I congratulate the Minister on brining us further on the road towards a solution.

Mr. Harris: Deputy Wolfe stated that this Bill was an honest attempt to solve the housing problem. I do not agree with Deputy Wolfe. Many things must be done in the constituency that Deputy Wolfe and I represent before this Bill could be of any advantage to the people in the urban and rural districts. We have an unemployment problem in Kildare, although we got a promise from the Minister for Local Government that [1797] the county deserved special consideration. We never got that special consideration.

General Mulcahy: When did you get that promise?

Mr. Harris: It was given to a deputation in 1925 by the Minister for Local Government. Kildare never got that special consideration. In 1929, 46 per cent. of the population of Kildare was living on home assistance. The great proportion of these people are living in slums in towns, although Deputy Wolfe stated that he did not know very much about slums.

Mr. G. Wolfe: I said in Dublin.

Mr. Harris: You said you did not know much about slums.

Mr. Wolfe: In Dublin.

Mr. Harris: I am sorry if I misunderstood the Deputy. I thought he said he did not know much about slums. He could know a good deal about slums in Kildare, because we have a slum problem in all the towns there.

Mr. Wolfe: I distinctly stated that there was a slum problem in the towns in the country.

Mr. Harris: The people in the urban areas who are most in need of houses are those who are at present living on home assistance. The average rate of home assistance paid to families in Kildare is between 7/- and 12/- a week. It is impossible for them to pay anything like an economic rent. I do not see any hope for them. Before the housing problem can be solved the unemployment problem must be solved. It is sad that we cannot see any hope in any direction. Some of the vacant military barracks in Newbridge were made available for housing, but the people who were in the worst houses there are still living in them. These people are unemployed and are receiving home help. I believe that certain attempts were made by Naas Urban Council to secure the military barrack in order to meet housing needs in that town. In view of the promise made in the past by the Minister, I think Kildare is entitled to special consideration owing to the hardships that towns in that county have suffered from the [1798] evacuation of the British military, and the neglect of the Government in coming to their relief in a permanent way. At least the vacant barracks in Newbridge should be made habitable, and these unfortunate people should be taken out of the back streets, from the slums and hovels in which they live. The same should be done in Naas in justice to the county, in order to make up for past neglect. I see no hope from the Bill for what I consider to be the most important section of the community, the people who produce more than three-quarters of the wealth of the nation—the small farmers and agricultural workers. Under the 1925 Housing Act Kildare County Council, although the county was already heavily burdened, put up grants of £45, and quite a number of houses were built by small farmers. I think that a scheme of that kind or in that line should still be provided for agricultural workers and small farmers.

This reduction of the grants to 20 per cent. means that there will be really no houses built at all. Deputy Wolfe seems to approve of the Government embarking on a scheme of building labourers' cottages again. He states that 5/- would be too high a rent for the agricultural workers and that 3/6 a week would be a fair rent for such a worker. If Deputy Wolfe understood the conditions of the agricultural worker at present he should realise that the agricultural workers throughout the country were in a better position to pay 1/- or 1/6 per week before the war than they are to-day. Their conditions are very bad. Their wages have been very much reduced and very many of them are unemployed owing to the agricultural depression. In view of the fact that the burden imposed on the rate-payers of Kildare to try to cope with the distress due to unemployment throughout the county, has been practically twice the average for the Saorstát, I do not think that local authorities would be very favourably disposed to the advice of Deputy Wolfe that they should put portion of the cost of building labourers' cottages on the rates. I do not believe they are prepared to give any grant whatsoever [1799] for the building of these cottages as they are already overburdened in trying to cope with the distress due to unemployment. I must say that as far as my county is concerned, I believe that the people are very much disappointed with the Bill and I am very much disappointed. I cannot say that I like it at all.

Mr. T. Sheehy (Cork): Notwithstanding the criticism that has been levelled at this Bill, I rise to support it. I was terribly disappointed at the speech delivered by Deputy O'Kelly. I thought that a few years' experience in this Dáil would give him some common sense, but I find that the speech he delivered last evening was exactly the same speech on housing that he delivered a few days after he came into the Dáil. There is no chance whatever of improving his education with regard to the mass of the people. The only thing he is concerned with is the general election. That is the point with him. His mock anxiety for the improvement of the slums of Dublin is all “bosh.” His chief anxiety is to see whether the electors from one end of the Saorstát to the other will send up a body here to plant him over on this side to finish the State.

I am done with him, and I turn to the speech of Deputy Lemass. He had not a word in favour of this Government. They were put into the pillory and charged with nine years of utter neglect of their responsibilities to the State. How can Deputies opposite make a statement such as that in face of the fact that the President last night said—and it was not contradicted from the other side—that there were 26,000 houses built and £11,000,000 put into the project? Still the Government were doing nothing! It is deplorable that whenever a Minister on this side introduces a Bill for the welfare of the nation he is attacked and put into the pillory. Ministers are charged with neglect for nine years.

The same course is adopted on every other Bill introduced here. When the Safety Bill was introduced the other day they were attacked exactly in the [1800] same manner. However, Ministers have stuck to their guns, and four-fifths of the nation are delighted that that Bill is on the Statute Book. Again, when the Finance Bill was introduced we had the same opposition, and the same criticism of the President and the Executive Council took place, because the Minister for Finance was endeavouring to safeguard our honour amongst the nations and to prove that we were able to balance our Budget and pay our way. In everything they do they are attacked. I would like to know if Deputy Aiken, who has such a knowledge of finance, would tell the Minister for Finance where he would get a few million at 2 per cent now. It would be a great matter if we could find that out. Such nonsense or talk of that description will not build our houses or carry out our schemes.

I, for one, hail with satisfaction the building of houses and this Bill coming to the rescue of the poor farmer and agricultural labourer, and artisans in the towns. I remember fifty years ago that if an unfortunate farmer put half a dozen slates on his house his rent was raised. He had no alternative but to remain in his miserable thatched cabin. If he took any other step it would raise the rent. Our brave, hardworking and industrious agricultural labourers were housed in miserable cabins until the Labourers Act was passed. I stood with Dr. Tanner on many platforms advocating the passage of the Labourers Act. I also went to the British Parlimant on a deputation from the Cork County Council, and I pressed the Chief Secretary, Mr. George Wyndham, in his Labourers Bill not to leave out the fishermen, the artisans, the weavers, the shoemakers and carpenters that were scattered all over the country. “Include them in your Bill,” said I, “and you will confer a great boon on the workers of Ireland.” George Wyndham took my advice; and I was afterwards congratulated in Cork by that most distinguished prelate who has since passed away, the great Dr. Kelly, Bishop of Ross, when he said that Tim Sheehy had the greatest courage to dictate to a British Chief Secretary how to deal with this country.

I may tell you that I have a recollection [1801] of a sad condition of affairs in Skibbereen. I was a ratepayer fifty years ago, and I saw the poor people there paying ground rents on their thatched cabins. There were lords of the soil getting ground rents from the unfortunate occupants of these houses of £1 and 15/- a year and these landlords would not put a straw on them. To the honour of the citizens of Skibbereen be it said, that when the ground landlord would not do anything, they tried to fill the emergency themselves. I was one of those citizens and I had very limited means at the time. Out of the first money I earned out of honest toil and industry, I had some small slated houses and some five-roomed slated houses erected. I let the three-roomed houses to tenants at 1/3 a week and their descendants are in these houses to-day without a penny being raised on their rent. The descendants of the tenants of the five-roomed houses I built occupy these houses to-day at 2/6 a week.

I would like to hear some of the Deputies on the opposite side as to what philanthropic work they have done for the last half century. Deputy O'Kelly is nearly my own age. It is years ago since we were on the Board of Technical Education for all Ireland and he looked very ancient then. I think I am wearing better on the whole than he is, because I am diving into the grievances of the country and giving credit and acknowledgments to the men who deserve them. Notwithstanding all the adverse criticism they are still sticking to the job. Although this Bill is not all we desire, and although the labourers in the country will not get all they desire, I have every hope and confidence because last year the Board of Health of West Cork, of which I am chairman, was able to build houses for the labourers and were able to let them at 2/- a week with the consent of General Mulcahy, Minister for Local Government. Down in Skibbereen in the last three or four months, Dr. Michael Bourke, an eminent, qualified and capable officer, sent in a report to the Urban Council stating that there were forty to fifty houses unfit for human habitation. What did we [1802] do? Was it talking we were? No, we immediately purchased 40 acres of land on a beautiful site close to the town and we put up an application to the Minister for his consent to raise money to purchase the site and he sent it down freely and readily. That is practical work. I am tired listening to the empty eloquence on the other side of the House.

As far as the representatives of Labour are concerned, their criticism is honest in its way. They mean no harm to this Bill, and we shall find them marching solidly into the Lobby assisting us in the first step that will sweep all the bad houses out of the Saorstát before five years have passed.

Mr. Fahy: Deputy Sheehy spoke of eleven millions having been given for housing.

Mr. Sheehy: Spent, I said.

Mr. Fahy: Spent for housing during some years past. I should like to remind him that six millions of that was private capital, two and a half millions being a Government grant and two and a half millions being contributions from local bodies. And as regards the houses that were provided, I do not think that they met the needs of the poor. I do not claim to be a wealthy man, but there are others more deserving than I am, and I have one of those houses which were built with the assistance of these grants. These houses did not meet the needs of those who most needed houses. Deputy Sheehy need have no fears that we are not supporting this Bill, but, as he himself said, the Bill is not as good as it might be. We maintain that it does not meet the problem of the poorly paid wage-earners through the country, and particularly the need of the dweller in the Dublin slum. I have no solution to offer, but I may say this: Deputy Sheehy spoke of my colleague, Deputy O'Kelly, making the same speech now as he made four years ago. I have a document here turned out by the Dublin Corporation in 1915. I believe the President was a member of the Corporation at that time. The document deals with the Dublin slums. I remember [1803] twenty-three years ago or thereabouts canvassing through South West Dublin with two men who have since died in America to get certain men into the Corporation, and in the course of that canvas I visited the slum tenements in that area. With social workers I have since gone into the same slums, and I found them worse despite twenty-three years of Corporation and Dáil activity. It may be well worth reading a few extracts from this report. They are not very long, but they present a problem which, in the interests of public health, it would be well to go to great expense to try and solve-the problem of the slums. I had some connection with the Pigeon House Sanatorium some years ago. I met the nurses and the medical officers there. I asked them what was the cause of this tuberculosis in the slums of Dublin, and they said bad air and bad housing. If you can eliminate these features you are removing a great deal of the cost of public health measures in the matter of sanatoria and other things like that. This report which I have referred to is signed by one who was a one-time colleague of the President, Alderman Tom Kelly, than whom no man is more qualified to speak on the Dublin housing problem. The report is dated 1915. I just take three extracts. One is:-

“If the Corporation is prevented from carrying out to completion the great remedial work which it has undertaken in discharge of its duty, mischief will, inevitably and immediately, ensue. The physical, social and moral disorder which will then surely arise must not be laid at the door of the Municipal Council.”

Another extract is:-

“There is a limit to all human endurance, and if, on humanitarian grounds, their tragic appeal will not be listened to, passions may be aroused of menace to those in happier circumstances who turn a deaf ear to their clamour to be allowed to live under decent conditions.” The third extract is:—

“We must insist on the responsibility for delay being no longer placed on the Corporation, as evils [1804] more serious and costly to the City of Dublin and the Government than those which brought about the Housing Inquiry of 1913 may arise out of the despairing condition into which the poorer working classes have been plunged by the Government's inaction. Let it be made in this document clear that the Housing Committee truly apprehend the situation, should their appeal be presented unavailingly. In no other city of the United Kingdom are the housing conditions of the poor more pitiable, and the Corporation would be false to every principle of civic responsibility if they failed to implore again and again consideration for those whose condition of existence is unparalleled in any other community of people, and is a disgrace to any State which lays claim to civilisation.”

As I say, I have no solution to offer. I am not canvassing or looking for votes in Dublin. But I can tell the Minister that any solution that he has to offer, no matter how costly, will receive support from these benches and, I am sure, from all the members of this House whenever the problem will be faced. We cannot have an instantaneous solution, and all I say is that any Bill which even would give promise of solving the problem in ten years would meet with the approval of members from all sides of the House. At present we support this Bill because it is better than nothing. And I would appeal to the Minister that if there is any method, however costly, by which we can face a true solution of the problem, it is worth trying, and I assure him that it will receive the support of all sections of this House.

Mr. Reynolds: This Bill will do a great deal to solve the slum problem in Dublin and other cities and in the towns, but I am sorry to say that in my opinion it will do nothing at all to relieve the housing problem in certain rural areas. The rural areas which I refer to are the areas which Deputy Dr. Ward and another Deputy referred to-areas in Monaghan and Cavan. In these areas the land is fairly good [1805] and the farmers are fairly comfortable and get a decent living from the land and can afford to build with a free grant of £20. But there are parts of Leitrim, Cavan and Sligo where it is very hard for the people to live at the present time.

The housing problem in these areas seems to be nobody's job. The Gaeltacht Housing Act excludes the people living there. In the Gaeltacht areas facilities are given, grants of £80 for new houses and of £40 in cases of reconstruction; and the Minister for Local Government seems to think that they are not to be considered. The fact of offering a £20 free grant and getting £20 from the county council means nothing. Heretofore the Housing Act gave them £75 of a free grant. Under that Act there were a large number of houses built in these congested areas, but when the grant came down to £45 the number of houses that were built decreased by half. I certainly must say that these Acts did a great deal to remedy housing in these areas, but now when the grant is reduced to £20 I am in a position to state that there will be practically no houses built under this Bill. The County Council will not give a £20 free grant and I as a county councillor would not ask them to do it. The rates in the County Leitrim are large enough and they are probably too much for the people to pay. I think it is not too much to ask the Minister to insert a section in this Bill that would make the same provision for these congested areas as is made for the congested areas of the Gaeltacht, that is, Donegal, Mayo and Galway and parts of Kerry and Cork. There is no doubt at all that the greater part of these counties are in a better position to build houses than we are in the County of Leitrim and part of the County of Cavan which is as congested as Leitrim. I think it is not too much to ask the Minister to insert a section in the Bill to enable the people in these districts to carry on housing on the same basis as in the other congested areas in the West. The houses are very bad in these areas. They are all three-roomed thatched [1806] dwellings. This year the oats crop is a failure and there will be no straw for thatching. There will also be a scarcity of rushes, and I do not know what can be done to remedy the housing conditions if the Minister does not accede to the request I am making.

Mr. Maguire: Undoubtedly this Bill gives large power for dealing with the slum problem. The provision dealing with the demolition of unsuitable dwelling houses is very necessary, and will have very good results. For some years as a member of public boards I have had experience of reports being frequently received from the medical officers that certain houses were unsuitable for human habitation. In these cases an order generally was made to the effect that certain action should be taken by the owner, but generally it got no further than that. The Bill, so far as it recognises that the housing problem is of vital importance and of national interest, is all to the good, but I am afraid its application will not work out satisfactorily. I agree with what Deputy Lemass said last night, and with what the members of this Party have often stated here, that this is a matter of national importance, and can only be dealt with as a national question by the Government. From what we have heard of the discussion, we must come to the conclusion that the present effort will not solve the problem, because nobody contends that the buildings erected under this Bill can be rented at such a price as will meet the requirements of the poorer classes. If this problem is recognised to be of national importance, and if the State considers it advisable to use public money to finance the scheme partially, surely it is only common sense to say that the subsidy given should be adequate to make it a complete success, so that the poorer people will be provided with houses to live in.

So far as this Bill proposes to deal with the housing problem it is confined to the cities. I know the Bill makes it compulsory on local authorities to undertake the work in various areas. It is one thing for the Minister and various Deputies to imagine that this [1807] is a fairly generous effort, and that the local authorities will have to take a part in the responsibility. It is quite a different thing when you attend a meeting of a county council, to which men come knowing the realities of life on their farms, and the difficulties of paying their present rates without involving them in the possibility of a further increase. These men will take quite a different view of the situation. Many of them are living in houses as bad as any of the houses that this Bill aims at improving, and they are powerless to provide themselves with better houses. These people will take to this work very reluctantly. Although it is compulsory on them to undertake it, it will be done in a manner that will by no means secure that co-operation and enthusiasm which the Bill requires, if it is to be really effective. There is no use saying that local authorities may not be saddled with increased taxation. I admit that the Bill leaves it optional with local authorities as to whether they will give a subsidy or not. The building of houses in the haphazard manner in which it is tackled in this Bill makes it inevitable that a risk will have to be undertaken by the authorities, whether the Municipality in Dublin or the County Council in County Leitrim.

This Bill is wrongly conceived. It only deals with one of the national problems that are vital and fundamental to the life of the people. Good houses are essential to our people, but so are food and other things. I hold that this question should be approached in conjunction with the still more vital necessity of providing the people with the wherewithal to live. After nine years of office surely the Government had time enough to survey the possibilities of this country and see in what way they could make an advance industrially and otherwise. If they had set out on a national policy for the development of the agricultural and industrial resources of the country they could then set about bringing in a housing scheme such as this when they knew that the houses built would be [1808] in a neighbourhood where work could be found for those occupying them. You have here in Dublin to-day a large population for which there is no work and that population is increasing. Similarly in the towns all over the country you have a large part of the population out of work and the population of these towns is increasing. What possibility is there of building houses for people who are living upon home help or the dole? Is that a sound economic policy? Naturally it would be too much to expect from the Government who have no economic policy, a sound well-thought-out policy for housing. As long as there is no fundamental national policy for developing the industrial life of the country we cannot have a well-conceived scheme of housing. It is there that I say the Bill is at fault.

I can see no prospect for the successful working of this Bill unless things change very much. If things go on as they are the municipalities and local authorities who will be forced to undertake great expenditure in the carrying out of this scheme will have the houses left on their hands as so many white elephants, because the experience of the last nine years is that each year is more depressing than the preceding one. The wage earner is getting less and less employment. Consequently, when these houses are built local authorities at least will be responsible for the collection of the rents and the repayment of the loans. If the depression we have been going through is an index of what we are to expect in years to come, every pound spent on these houses will ultimately have to be borne by the local authorities who must take responsibility in the first instance for their erection. The Bill is wrongly founded because it does not carry with it a considered policy which is fundamental and is not based on an economic survey of the country. It is an unsound and dangerous undertaking.

The scheme as regards the rural areas is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Government to make life in the country as unpopular as they can [1809] and to attract the people as far as they can, by means of greater facilities, to the towns and cities. What have they to offer in the towns and cities except increased expenditure for the taxpayers to provide for these people out of home help or unemployment benefit or some such fund? There are no industries being established in any of these centres, except, perhaps, in Dublin. What is the reason for attracting the people from the land, which is the foundation of our economic life? Would it not be a better policy to draw the people back to the land by giving them increased facilities in the form of housing and home life there rather than bringing them to the towns and cities? If, side by side with the housing scheme, they gave powers to acquire land wherever it was available and to build a colony of houses on that land, and gave an allotment of land to the people living in these houses, they could say to them, “If you make the best use possible of the land you will at least be in a position that you will not be dependent on home help for your breakfast, dinner and tea.” Such a scheme as that might have something to recommend it, and would be much better than attracting people to the provincial towns, at any rate, which gradually are becoming poorer because the business is going away from them and there is no prospect of employment. I cannot see any sound economic idea behind that. I can only see a slipshod, ill-conceived and dangerous proposition underlying this. Housing schemes, so far as the rural parts of the country are concerned, are killed by this Bill. The Minister had full knowledge of that fact when he prepared his Bill. He knew that under previous Housing Acts, while it was optional for the various county councils of the country, if they wished to give a subsidy to people who wanted to build houses in addition to what the Government could give, how many public bodies did give that assistance. Under this Bill all grants from the Government for rural housing are given on the condition that an equivalent amount is granted by the local bodies. The Minister knows perfectly well no such grants will be forthcoming. [1810] He knows that the £25,000 which is set aside under the Bill will not be used up. Perhaps there will be a few counties in the favourable position to avail of it, but in the counties that most need assistance for providing suitable houses there will be no grant forthcoming, and in that case the effect will be to discourage building. I ask him to explain his dislike and a hatred of the people of these counties. Does he understand that there is a necessity for improving the houses of the small farmers? I was delighted to hear the speech of Deputy Reynolds, who comes from the same county as myself. Our county was originally included in the old area known as the congested districts. It was scheduled as one of the congested districts that had to receive special treatment under the British Government. Very considerable sums of money were spent in that county, together with the other scheduled counties in the old congested areas, to improve houses.

As Deputies know, this Dáil, some years ago, began to tamper with the operations of that department, and finally destroyed it in the last Land Bill, which took away our last hen-roost. Since that not one penny of money has been given to the County Leitrim in lieu of the withdrawal of this vast sum of money originally provided by the British Government for the development of this county. In this Bill the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, with that knowledge before him, draws his blue pencil through the last hope that can be held of any improvement in that county. Deputy Reynolds asked him to introduce some section into this Bill that will give facilities by way of a grant for the improvement of the existing bad houses owned by small farmers in Leitrim and similar counties, and also a subsidy to enable those people to continue to build more accommodating houses where that is possible.

Now, as regards the agricultural labourers, as far as I know, no labourers' cottages will be built in the County Leitrim under this Bill. I cannot understand why the Minister should give a grant of 40 per cent. for the erection of labourers cottages in [1811] Dublin while reducing that sum in Leitrim by 50 per cent. I cannot conceive what his motives are, except that the Minister has got in mind the deliberate motive of injuring the people living in that county. What conceivable viewpoint can there be for such action? He must have a direct hatred against the people who live there. I was delighted to hear Deputy Reynolds protest against it. Unless the Minister wants deliberately to show his dislike for the people of County Leitrim he will, at least, concede what Deputy Reynolds asked for, namely, that reasonable treatment should be accorded to the poor people in Leitrim and that the labourers in Leitrim should be provided with facilities proportionate to their needs as is given to the labourers in the County Dublin, County Meath and elsewhere. It is not asking too much to simply ask for justice. Again I say this Bill is not a Bill that can ultimately solve the housing problem on a national basis. It is wrongly conceived, it is slip-shod, and I am afraid the Minister has indicated in it something more sinister still, namely, an entire neglect of the vital interests of the agricultural labourers and small farmers, who are the foundation of the State.

Mr. S. Brodrick: I welcome this Bill, particularly because by the Bill honest efforts can be made for the improvement of the housing conditions in the cities and the larger towns. I have no great knowledge of the slum problem, but what I heard of it year after year since I came into the Dáil. I believe the Minister is now making an honest attempt in this Bill to deal with it. As to the rural areas, I do not think the Bill will be of great benefit. I say that for this reason that a grant will not be given by the Government unless a grant is also given by the local authorities. From what we know of the local authorities throughout the country, they are not inclined that way, and they will make no attempt whatsoever to deal with the housing question under such conditions.

I would like when the Minister comes to reply if he would let us know the amount given either in grants or loan [1812] by the local authorities in connection with past Housing Acts. I think, from my knowledge of them, some of the local bodies will go so far as to make the Bill impossible. I know what they have done in connection with relief grants for sewerage and water schemes where fairly big grants were given by the Government. When they were asked to contribute they refused, and held up several schemes. The same will happen in connection with this Housing Bill. I would not like to see the building industry in the rural areas hampered, because certainly the Government deserves great credit in connection with their last Housing Acts for the work that was done. In the West of Ireland I know the face of the country has been changed. The country is dotted with new houses, and they have not been built, as some Deputies say, by wealthy people. Most of those I have seen were built by small farmers who availed of the grant. I would like if the Minister could see his way to allow that work to go on. It would be of great benefit in the future.

During this debate I have been waiting to hear some statement of the Fianna Fáil policy on housing. I have heard from their platforms, for the last year and a half, and at the cross-roads, that there should be a ten-years housing policy. What have we heard from them in this debate? The only thing I heard was from Deputy Aiken as to the Fianna Fáil policy in this matter. He says what we want is (1) a large amount of money; (2) long-term loans; and (3) a low rate of interest. Certainly if that were possible we need have no further talk about the housing problem. Fancy a Deputy getting up after four years' experience of this House and telling us that what he wanted was, first, a large sum of money; secondly, long-term loans; and, thirdly, a low rate of interest. I believe that if that was possible the housing problem would be solved, but, as every Deputy knows, at the present time that is not possible. Deputy Briscoe comes along and tells us that there is no attempt under this Bill to solve the housing problem, and that the Government has made no attempt for the last nine or ten years to solve it. He has taken no account whatever of the 25,000 houses [1813] or of the eleven million pounds spent in building them. Deputy Briscoe knows as much about housing as he has been able to learn from a penny tram ride.

The question of Irish material has also been mentioned in this debate. We would all like to see Irish material used as far as possible, but when you go into the cost of materials produced in this country you have very few different kinds, and there is a big difference in the cost of Irish materials as against imported materials. In the case of a person with £400 or £500 who wants to build, if you go any further with the question of Irish material than to insist on Irish slates—which are superior to any other—it will mean £100 more for that person. I do not believe in putting up the cost of building. Coming to the question of labourers' cottages — cottages which were built for the genuine labourer-they are being occupied at the present time by people whose wages are as high as £4 a week. I think that is most unfair. Those houses should be given to the people for whom they were built, and those men should get the benefit of the 1s. 3d. or the 1s. 8d. If houses are to be built, let the man earning the £3 or £4 a week pay the 5s. a week rent.

Mr. Little: I have an uneasy feeling that this Bill however well-intentioned, is not going to help the people in Waterford city, because this Government have not faced up to the question of the cost of building materials, the prices of contractors and the price at which credit is to be obtained. The valuation as the Minister for Local Government knows, is extremely high in Waterford. A most unfortunate experiment was tried in Waterford, and the result is that its valuation is higher than any other area in Ireland, considering the amount or lack of prosperity there is in Waterford, and when a deputation met the Minister on a recent occasion the Minister had no consolation to offer the people in Waterford. How can you expect a city like Waterford to raise its rates by 2/- to deal with the lack of houses? There are required 20,000 houses in Waterford, and the problem is as serious there as it is in any other city [1814] or town, almost as serious as it is in Dublin. The major difference, apart from the question of giving larger grants in agricultural areas lies in the question of controlling the costs. The policy of the Fianna Fáil Party is to subordinate private interests to the common good in a matter where common needs are so overwhelming. The attitude of the Government is to give a free rein to free competition, and to the individualist efforts of private enterprise. The Bill is almost entirely a copy of the British Bill, and it emanates from a country which holds these doctrines of individualist enterprise, dominating over the common good of the people.

It was a humorous piece of bluff on the part of the President yesterday evening to suggest that our ideas upon the housing question, and our solution of the problem, were to imitate the British, when he himself was fathering or shall we say foster-fathering the Bill which was a copy of the British Bill itself.

General Mulcahy: I humbly suggest that the Deputy knows a lot more about copying the British Bill than we do on this side.

Mr. Little: I am glad that the Minister is aware of this fact, because there are certain matters where I certainly am not ashamed to copy the British Bill. If I am copying a British Bill I frankly admit it, but I do not charge the other side with copying the British when I am doing the same thing myself. The point I want to bring out is, it is not the British I object to, but because it is a policy which is wrong, namely that policy which is known as the laissez-faire policy, or the Manchester School of Economics, liberalism which has been condemned, as the Minister will see if he reads the Encyclical on Social Order by Pope Pius XI. It is because it embodies that, that I object to it.

After all it is perfectly obvious that Britain is following the laissez-faire policy more than any other country in the world. There we get to the root of the difference between our attitude and theirs on this Bill. We say on this side of the House that the need for housing is so supreme that the common [1815] good must come first, and that we must tackle in a direct way the question of the price of credit, the price of materials and the contractors' prices.

Mr. Good: Why stop there?

Mr. Little: I am sure Deputy Good would admit himself that it is hardly a business proposition unless with the aid of the Government—certainly it is not a business proposition to tackle the building of houses for the very poor. Why should the State intervene with the assistance of money out of the ratepayers' pockets and out of the taxpayers' pockets? Why should they intervene to make it a business proposition for the contractors? After all it would be a far better thing, and even the contractors themselves, who are a worthy body of men when earning money honestly, would not object to see a housing scheme for the poor where it would be regarded as a sacred trust that the cost should be as low as possible and that there should be less profits made out of it, because of the terrible misery in which those poor people live. The contractors would lose nothing by it, because it is not in these lines of business that their money is best made. The Fianna Fáil Party's attitude is that this should be so regarded as a sacred trust. I regret very much that the President was not here when I was making certain remarks about him. I do not want to waste the time of the House by repeating them now.

The President: Hear, hear.

Mr. Little:<