• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Seanad Éireann - Volume 13 - 19 June, 1930Public Business. - Housing Bill, 1930.—Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: That this Bill be read a Second Time.
Mr.ConnollyMr.Connolly
Mr. Connolly:
In the arguments put forward last evening by SenatorJohnson in criticism of the apparent attitude of the Minister to movegradually in his policy of meeting the housing shortage in the FreeState, he gave us some very interesting figures and some veryinteresting economic data. It seems to be that year after year we willhave extension measures like this coming on, and that may continueindefinitely. On the basis of the production of houses, Senator Johnsonargued that if we were to double the number of houses we are erectingat present it would take us twelve years to meet Dublin's needs, andthat apart from making good the wastage due to decay. That means, sofar as the City of Dublin is concerned, that, in the matter of the erectionof houses, if the present rate of building only is maintained, we will nothave the number of houses admitted necessary by the Minister'sDepartment for 24 or 25 years. In reviewing this whole housingbusiness we have had put before us three different points of view. Wehad the point of view of the Minister, who is, no doubt, extremelyanxious to have this problem solved. We had the point of view of Senator Johnson, who is equally anxious to have the problem solved,and we also had the point of view of Senator Sir John Keane, who, inspite of his plea for an economic rent, is, I am quite satisfied, alsoanxious to have this housing problem solved. I want it to be understoodthat when dealing with this I am not trying to make any debatingpoints, nor am I trying to score any Party advantage whatever.
1656
I could not help being intrigued somewhat when I realised that the
[1656]
Minister had to come to us with this extension Bill. The fact thathe has to bring such a measure before us is an admission that due toforces over which he has no control, he is likely to have to go on doingso for the next 24 or 25 years, without even making allowance for thedecay in property or what might be a possible increase of the populationin Dublin which would lead to a demand for more houses. As I have saidI was intrigued, and for one reason, mainly, that it so happened withinthe last fortnight the Minister in charge of this Bill, deputising for theMinister for Finance, came to this House and questioned somearguments which I made with regard to the cost of money and theprevailing system of financial control. In my arguments on thatoccasion, I specifically and deliberately made it clear that the wholeeconomic future of this country, all the social services of this country,the lives and well-being of the people are entirely and completelyinvolved in the one great fundamental problem, namely, the control of money. I would suggest to the Minister that if he analyses carefully, andI have no doubt he will, the different factors that make it necessary forhim to come here year after year with these extension Bills he willrealise that with the difficulties under which he and his Departmentlabour it is going to be quite impossible for him to finance or to carryout building on anything like the scale commensurate with the needwhich he admits exists in his own reports. Let us look at the problem asit is. In this country we have workers idle in most industries and in mostbranches of employment. They receive unemployment benefit as long asthey are in benefit, but they are a charge on the State in one form oranother. They are an uneconomic and a losing holding for the Statewhen they are unemployed. As regards building, most of the materialsrequired are available.
1657
 
The big problem is: what is the Minister going to do between these tworesources that we have at our
[1657]
disposal, one of which is lying idleand the other of which is going to waste unemployed. We have on theone hand citizens living or trying to live out of work, partially supportedin a state of semi-starvation by the State, and on the other hand wehave tenements and hovels. Senator Sir John Keane, of course, thinksof his economic rent. Last evening Senator Johnson analysed certainstandards of living. I am not sure whether he took the soldier's ration orthe workhouse ration, but he gave us a figure which included aneconomic rent of 14/- out of a weekly wage of 61/5 in the case of a manwith a wife and three children. The Minister must realise, if he takesSenator Johnson's argument to heart, and the deeper purpose of myargument, that the object I had in raising this whole question of therental of money is because it is the rental that works down through theeconomic system in this country and leaves us without houses andwithout any other thing. I do not think the Minister will make theargument that the country can afford to wait until the building tradeadjusts itself. I do not know what possibility there is going to be for thebuilding trade or any other trade to adjust itself under our presenteconomic system. On the other hand, Senator Johnson can hardly hopefor a sufficient wage increase to enable the worker to pay what one maycall Senator Sir John Keane's economic rent, while Senator Sir JohnKeane can hardly expect an economic rent of 14/- a week from theaverage wage in Dublin of 50/- a week.
1658
We had three divergent points of view on this question. These divergentpoints of view are represented by Senators in two cases, and by theMinister in the other, who want a really decent social organism in thiscountry, who want people to have houses and not hovels, who wantfamilies to have houses and not rooms and who know and feel as we allfeel that something has got to be done. I am not prepared to propose asolution. A couple of weeks ago
[1658]
I tried to outline what in my judgment—I may be quite wrong—is the fundamental root evil. I wenton to say that in my opinion, and I say this now quite seriously to theMinister, there is going to be no progress in the direction of housinguntil that issue is tackled. This is a problem that we ought to try andface and not put it off for 24 or 25 years. We ought to sit down andtackle the question. The question that we have to consider is, are wecontent to wait for 25 years to solve this housing problem? Most of us, Iam afraid, feel that when that time comes we will not be worried aboutthe housing, the Seanad or the Ministry. The position at the moment isthat we have to realise that we are in a vicious circle—in a cleft-stick. If we are content to sit down and admit that the thing has beaten us, thenthat is our decision, but if, on the other hand, we want to realise ourresponsibilities and feel that we have a duty here and a problem totackle we ought to try and see if there is any way out. We ought to tryand see if the best brains and intelligence in the country cannot be gotto come together to help to solve this great social problem that we havebefore us. This housing problem is a very big one, but it is only oneproblem. There are many others to be faced as well. The standard of living in this country, on the basis of the analysis made by SenatorJohnson last night, is certainly not encouraging. I wonder if any of usever sit down and consider, take it home to ourselves personally, whatit means to live even on 50/- a week, and consider further what itmeans to live on 24/- a week, which is the general rate of wages paid toagricultural workers at the moment. In cases where they are getting24/- a week they are expected to pay 4/-, 5/- and as much as 6/- aweek for a house.
1659
 
The result is that they are living in lean-to's and in sheds. Rememberthis is Christian humanity that we are supposed to be administering tothem. I do not want to labour the matter unduly, but I merely take
[1659]
this opportunity of adverting to the discussion that took placehere a few weeks ago on what I regard as the fundamental rental. Thewhole question of housing resolves itself around the question of theeconomic rent. If you borrow £400 at 5½ per cent. you know what thatamounts to. You know that that is a big item in what is called aneconomic rent. I do not suggest that the Minister can get over thisdifficulty by fighting for special terms in regard to housing. It will not,and it cannot, be tackled in that way. What I do suggest is that this is aproblem for the Minister and for the present Executive. It is going to bea problem for any Executive, no matter what Executive comes intopower. I say that no Government is going to solve it unless it isprepared to get down to the economic root, and that, in my judgment,is the cost of money and the mal-administration in the banking systemthat we are living under. As I have said already, to deal with theproblem we have the men available and the materials available. It is upto the Minister to say what he would suggest that we ought to do aboutit.
Mr.Farren Mr.Farren1660
Mr. Farren:
In connection with this measure we have no option but tosupport the Second Reading of the Bill. I have again to express mydisappointment that a Bill of this character does not enable us to dealwith the dreadful problem of the slums. This Bill only deals with thenormal requirements in connection with housing. The Minister, inmoving the Second Reading of the Bill in the Dáil, said that provisionwas being made under it for a grant of £200,000 to subsidise thebuilding of 4,000 houses. Not to think of the slum problem at all, thenormal requirements as regards new houses would be about 4,000 ayear in this country. There are at least 4,000 families in this countrysetting up new homes every year. The Bills that have come before usduring the past few years have made no provision whatever for dealingwith the slums. For that reason I have complained
[1660]
repeatedly thatwe are not handling the situation as it ought to be handled. When theCensus returns were published it was admitted in them that the housingshortage in the Free State was 43,000 houses. The building of 4,000houses a year is not going to meet the problem that has to be met.Taking into consideration the circumstances of the country, it is anappalling state of affairs that the deplorable housing conditions we haveshould be allowed to continue as they have been for such a long period.The housing conditions are worse in this country than in any othercountry. Notwithstanding our dwindling population, there is thetremendous shortage that is revealed in the census returns. In countrieswhere populations are increasing there might be some excuse for ahousing shortage, but here where we have a dwindling population thatexcuse cannot be put forward. This housing question is not a partyquestion and should not be considered on party lines. It is a tremendousproblem that has to be faced. We must support the Bill, because eventhough it will not bring about the solution of the problem that we alldesire, still it will help to do a little in that direction, and I suppose wemust be thankful even for small mercies. The question of an economicrent was referred to by a number of Senators. When that question isexamined one has to realise that if an economic rent is to be paid for ahouse, then an economic wage has to be paid so as to enable the wage-earner to pay that economic rent. The giving of subsidies for house-building is not subsidising the workers. What it amounts to is a subsidyto employers to pay wages. If a man is not paid a sufficient wage to
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...