That must be taken under a number of different heads. The first thing to note is that there is no economy in the Minister's Department. There is practically a general all round increase in rates in the country. I have the Dublin Corporation estimates before me. Not only did the rates go up in 1948-49 as against the year 1947-48—that is, the rates have increased already during the current period of office of the Government—but we are now for the financial year 1949-50 to face another increase of rates for the citizens of Dublin. Purely from a balance-sheet point of view, therefore, local governernment—bu ment services are becoming more expensive. The Estimate for the Minister's own Department is up—that is the central government—and the citizens have also to meet increased expenditure and increased rates in the case of local bodies. One wonders when these increases are going to flatten out.
It is apparent, in the first case, that the promised economy drive by the Government, and particularly by the Minister for Finance, can have no relation to local government expenses. Now, on the other hand, it must be admitted that many of these items of increased expenditure are perhaps unavoidable. The only criticism that I would like to offer on that matter is that we are suffering now from some of the things that some of the Government's supporters have advocated. We would not have half the controversy that we have at the moment about what should be done or what should not be done, the credit for what has been done or for what has not been done about certain things if, when approaching these things, they had been approached objectively with a view to seeing what precisely the problems were rather than distorting them for political propaganda. However, perhaps it is not too late at this stage to get down and see where, exactly, we are in regard to this matter.
As Deputy Butler has pointed out, an increase in the rates is a serious burden on the citizens because it is, in effect, a form of taxation that is unavoidable. As he said, there are many forms of taxation which are, to some extent, avoidable or adjustable by the person who is paying. For instance, in the case of tobacco or drink, taxes imposed on such commodities are, to some extent, avoidable and automatically adjustable to the income of the person who has to pay because, without great hardship, it is possible to cut down the consumption of these commodities, and, in any event, there is some elasticity for adjustment. But, in the case of the rates, which affect a matter so essential as accommodation, no such adjustment is possible. A man either pays the rate struck or the consequences follow. It is, therefore, a very serious thing for the citizen.
The second factor in regard to it was, I think, mentioned by Deputy Davin. Deputy Davin, I think, rightly pointed out that, in many cases, the burden of increasing rates falls on the type of person who can least afford to bear an increase in that type of burden. I am not to be taken as agreeing completely with Deputy Davin's remarks. His theory as to the method by which a trader passes on his rates seemed to me to be overdrawn, to put it mildly, but the fact is that, very often, the incidence of rates falls more heavily upon the private householder than it does upon certain classes of the business community. That, perhaps, is a matter that might be adjusted on a proper valuation of property. Probably it could.
It is probably true to say that valuations, as they stand at the present moment in the City of Dublin, are nominal valuations and that they are largely fictitious and conventional, having regard to the change of values. Having regard to the actual burden, they are nominal valuations and, as I say, are largely fictitious and, for convenience, I will call them conventional valuations. Now, in the case of private houses the ratio of the conventional valuation to the actual valuation is very often greater—I think generally you will find it is greater— than the corresponding ratio for certain premises, and particularly big business premises. Take the actual valuations—I mean the actual value they are to the people who own them, that is, the income that can be derived from them. If we have regard to that fact, it is quite clear that an increase in the rates tends rather to hit the private householder more severely than the business concern, and from that point of view, as I say, I am inclined to agree with Deputy Davin's statement this evening and, by and large, and quite apart from a question of comparison as between the different interests affected, an increase in the rates represents a serious increase in the cost of living.
In a previous debate here I heard a certain figure mentioned. I have not had time to check up on it and I am open to correction on it but I heard it stated that the present Dublin rate represents 5/- a week on a house with, I think, a £9 valuation. I will give another figure to show how the incidence of rates is affecting property. In 1942, the rates on a £40 valuation house were about £41. Last year, the rates on the same house were over £55, and they will be greater in the coming year. An increase of £15 on a £40 valuation house in the period from 1942 up to last year is a serious matter. There has been an increase of £7 on a £20 valuation house in the same period. Now, houses with a £40 valuation downwards do not represent a luxury class in this city. When one has regard to the fact that the rates are a burden which can be passed on to the tenants by landlords it can be seen that it is a burden to be carried by all householders. Of course the people most seriously affected are the so-called white collar workers and those in lower grades of income.
I think, therefore, I am justified in asking the Minister, in his approach to the Department's problems, to remember that this question of the incidence of rates has now assumed proportions that warrant attention, positive and specific attention, equally with certain other matters in his Department that require attention. In that connection, I would also ask him whether the financial relations between the local authorities, as they exist, and the central authority could not be adjusted in a manner that might enable the local authorities to reduce their rates. I cannot see specifically, in the case of Dublin, how that relationship has affected the increase in rates, because in getting the corporation estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1950, and the year ending 31st March, 1949, I find that they are in a completely different format and I find it practically impossible to relate expenditure in the face of these documents. It is very difficult to make the accounts presented in two totally different ways, apparently, tally, or to put them into tabular comparison, but the net effect remains that, according to these estimates, the municipal rate is to be 28/10 for the year ending 31st March, 1950. It has now got to be a serious problem. It represents a real increase in the cost of living where there has been no corresponding economy that I can find shown in the finances of the Minister's Department or in the finances of the accounts of the local body in which I am naturally interested as a Dublin Deputy.
I am not criticising the Minister on this matter of economy or pressing him too severely. I realise the numerous increases in cost are practically unavoidable and have been practically unavoidable. I would hardly have mentioned the matter of economy but for the crusade of the Minister for Finance and the facet one side of the Coalition puts on of economy, while the other side is putting up the plea for more expenditure. Were it not for that Janus-like aspect of the Government, I should not have introduced the matter here, but obviously when these matters are brought in on that side it is important that I should advert to them on this side.
Passing from the question of Dublin rates to the question of housing, that has been dealt with at some length. I should like to say, however, and in this I differ somewhat perhaps from my colleague, Deputy McCann, that even though it may be from a technical point of view undesirable, and from a financial point of view expensive, I think that the reconditioning of these Georgian houses in certain parts of the city was the only practical way of tackling the job in these areas, and that the corporation were justified in pursuing the line they have pursued. Dublin Deputies know, and country Deputies can easily find out if they care to walk down into certain parts of the city, that it is just in these areas where these Georgian houses are, the so-called slum areas, the areas which became congested because the fashionable upper classes had moved out, that one will find the most urgent housing problems.
Take Gardiner Street area, for instance—conditions are improved there now. Go up around Temple Street, the lower end of Eccles Street, Dominick Street and Henrietta Street in particular, and it is in these areas you will observe the dilapidated condition of the houses, coupled with the overcrowding. That is superimposed on structures which were essentially unsuitable for housing a multiplicity of families. There you will find that there is a real urgency in the problem of housing. If you go a little bit deeper into it you will find that the problem has been aggravated because the houses have fallen even more rapidly still into disrepair during the war years. Landlords had every excuse. Very, very often they were not in fact able to maintain the houses with any approximation to the standard that was customary, and that was poor enough. During the war years these houses became considerably worse.
One of the problems involved is that the people living in these houses do not want to be transferred any distance from the locality in which they have been brought up. Their environment, their employment and other factors make it desirable in their eyes that they should remain in these areas. In the majority of cases they do not wish to move to the outskirts of the city, if that can be avoided, to new building schemes. If one examines that further one finds that it does not spring from mere sentimentality on their part. The movement out to the outskirts of the city increases transport costs. Very often it increases rents too. Financially then these people feel they do not benefit, whatever may be said about increased comforts, more sanitary conditions and a healthier environment.
Having regard to the urgency of their problem, as distinct from other portions of the city, from a sanitary and from a health point of view, and having regard to their legitimate feelings, on the one hand, and to the economics of the situation, on the other hand, I think it is highly desirable that the present structure should be reconditioned or rebuilt as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. A maximum effort should be made to house these people in the area in which they have lived all their lives. Viewing the problem in that way, I think there is a good deal of justification for what the Corporation has done in the past in that regard. Furthermore, having regard to the effects of the war years, even though it is somewhat more expensive, I think it is justifiable. I take this opportunity again of pleading for these particular people.
With regard to housing generally I would like to make a suggestion to the Minister. It arises largely out of those statements made by Deputy Davin and Deputy Con Lehane as to the slowness and the prohibitive cost of building schemes and the controversy about direct labour and so forth. Frequently statements like these are contradicted by subsequent speakers. I think the best way to clear the matter up would be by getting the Minister to have this problem examined objectively in his Department. Certainly I have never been able to get enough positive information to enable me to come to a positive definite conclusion. Other Deputies seem to have quite a facility in forming an opinion, whatever the grounds. I personally have never seen a complete set of factual statistics which would enable one to make a balanced judgment. I would like to see the Minister present us with something in the nature of a White Paper. I would like to see a comparison made between direct labour and contract labour, paying due regard to such matters as Deputy Lehane mentioned, builders' providers and builders' profits, and in regard to prices of materials, availability of materials, segregating them into those which are produced here and those which have to be imported. That distinction is important because in one case there might be some control as to price while in the other there might be no control. There should, too, be some relationship of profits by means of some uniform standard—the profits of builders on the average before the war and their profits now. That was a point suggested by Deputy Davin. Then the average output must be considered coupled with increases in wages. Output must be taken in two ways. There is first the question as to the builder's output. That is the contractor's end. The matter must be examined from the point of view of holding him responsible but it would also be interesting to know what the availibility of labour is and the output of that labour in comparison with pre-war. Labour, in turn, might be segregated into trades. That, of course, would depend on the type of information one could compile. In that way one would ultimately reach an exhaustive examination of the problem.
I put the matter in that way because many Deputies come in here and make allegations. Some facet of the problem attracts them and they emphasise that particular facet and forget that there are others. Worse still, they seize on some particular person, or group of persons, who may appear to have an insignificant vote in order to make that person or group of persons the scapegoat; or they go out after a group which appears to them to have a big vote in order to attract them. If the Minister and his Department carries out an exhaustive examination along the lines I have laid down he will be doing a great service. This is a problem out of which certain people have attempted to make political capital. It is important that we should be accurately informed on this subject. Until such time as the Minister can give us the results of that exhaustive analysis I must reserve my judgment because, quite frankly, I would never commit myself to statements such as have been made by some other Deputies.
Quite obviously there is a difficulty in providing all the houses that are needed. Output is slow. That is perfectly obvious. It is perfectly obvious because the Deputies who support the Government are very critical and are very agitated about the problem, thereby confirming those Deputies who do not support the Government. Another reason why I ask the Minister to make that examination is because of the probability that the causes do not lie in the places suggested by certain Deputies. For instance, we have left a war behind us. Adjustments had to be made after the war. Difficulty arose in getting skilled men, materials and so forth. I do not know how far that difficulty extends into the present time but I would be slow enough to criticise the Minister for not reaching the desired output immediately. I think it would be justifiable for me, however, to criticise the Government of which the Minister is a member for having made so many rash promises without having examined the problem. But that is beside the point. Looking at it objectively, there must be difficulties inherent in the situation. Because of that I think it is very important that the Minister should present us with a balanced statement covering all the matters I have mentioned upon which we could judge the position, intelligently criticise and offer suggestions for the housing programme of the future. I shall leave it at that.
I do not think it would be helpful to make any comparison between the pre-war housing output with the output during the war and output at the present time because there are three totally different economic phases involved. There was considerable progress in housing before the war under peaceful conditions. During the war there was practically a close down. That was under wartime conditions. Shortage of material was the main cause of that. One might reach a certain stage in the construction of a house and suddenly find that certain essential components were unprocurable. That caused a complete stoppage of work. That was a particular period in itself. Therefore, one could not make a fair comparison between the pre-war period and the actual war period. Post-war one was faced with a period of transition during which time one passed from the difficulties with regard to unavailibility of material and shortage of labour to a normal situation. Again, one cannot compare the latter period with the pre-war or war period. I do not think we can say that we have yet wholly passed away from the perturbations of war. For that reason I do not think such comparisons would be helpful. When certain people, however, seek to distort and misrepresent the situation, as has been done so frequently in the past and continued up to the present moment, then it is legitimate for one to give an answer.
Having asked the Minister to furnish us with a balanced statement and with some comparison to enable us to form definite opinions in regard to this matter, I would like to add that in such a comparison there would be need for some uniform standards. I would suggest that when calculating the difficulties of the present time the pre-war standard should be taken objectively as a basis for calculation. Some particular period must be fixed upon; in other words, if one is going to compare costs at the present moment with pre-war costs, whether on direct labour or contract schemes, one must compare them with some definite pre-war period. One must do likewise in regard to wages, materials, prices, the output given by the workers and the output given by the contractor.
There is another matter which has been raised by other speakers. As a city Deputy I am interested in it. I do not want to go into the detail into which some Deputies have gone but I must confess myself somewhat confused on this question of housing grants. That confusion arises from the difficulty of getting the actual summarised accounts. The first difficulty is that adverted to by Deputy McCann and other speakers, the question of valuations of houses for the purposes of loans on the one hand and grants on the other.
Two particular matters require specific mention in that connection. Firstly, I have come across cases—I cannot say how representative they are but I have definitely come across a number of cases myself—where, at a certain period, people contracted in respect of the purchase of a house and paid a deposit on the expectation, at that time—sometimes more than the expectation, actually as a result of preliminary negotiations and practically on some kind of assurance—of getting a certain grant, not a State grant, but a loan from some source or other and then because of the restriction in credit, which has been so much talked about, these people were not able to get the same loan that they had anticipated. In fact, in some cases, they have not been able to get a loan at all. Meanwhile they had paid their deposits and there was a question, therefore, of forfeiting the deposit. How far that represents what I may call a public problem, I do not know. They may have been merely individual cases, but difficulties of that nature have arisen.
There have been a number of complaints about the difficulty and the slowness of acquiring grants. Personally, I have found it difficulty sometimes to find how far the difficulty in acquiring a grant resulted from the present form of legislation—which would put me outside this debate—or how far it resulted from administrative friction, but people dealing with these matters have found that there have been difficulties arising from the payment of grants of this nature, and if the Minister could give us any information on the matter, I should be grateful. The Estimates and the Appropriation Accounts are not very enlightening. The Appropriation Accounts for 1946-47 are the latest I could get and, as I say, they are not very enlightening. In the Estimates, there are provisions for grants and there is an increased provision for expenditure under sub-head I (1)—Contributions towards Loan Charges under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932. There is an estimated increase, but having regard to the Appropriation Accounts for 1948-49 which we have not got, it would be interesting to know what relation the actual expenditure is likely to bear under that heading to the Estimate. Similar remarks might be made on the other headings but in any event, I think I can safely say that there have been complaints and difficulties both about the machinery of getting the grants and about a certain slowness in having grants made available. If the Minister is in a position to comment on that, I should be grateful.
There is a general question which arises that is one of some difficulty—the relation of the Minister's Department to public authorities generally. I must confess that I feel personally very like a child groping in the dark in these matters. I have spoken to various people, amongst them Deputies who are members of local bodies, and while you will get conflicting views, they are all very much of the opinion that it is not only essential to have local authorities but that they should be as autonomous as possible. On the other side, one feels that the Department had been constrained from time to time to advise the Minister to seek further control during the period of office of the Government's predecessors and that that culminated in the County Management Act which, many say, has worked quite satisfactorily. Meanwhile the tendency is becoming very noticeable for the Government to take action, place the responsibility on the local authority and while acting in, so to speak, a mandatory fashion towards that authority, whether through legislation or by reserved powers exercised by the Minister, nevertheless, to disclaim all responsibility for the particular actions as actions which do not directly concern the Department. That situation does suggest that the matter requires examination because one cannot help feeling that having regard to all these things, particularly in regard to legislation going through, that as time goes on, the burden that the citizen has to bear in rates and the burden that he has to bear in taxes, are becoming administratively so associated, that these two categories are merely degenerating into subheads of one general taxation.
As I say, I feel I am very largely groping in the dark and I should not like to risk any suggestions, but it seems that the other systems as they worked in the past were more favourable financially to the citizen than what we are tending to at the present moment. At the time when the Dublin Corporation was abolished and was administered by commissioners, I understand that the rates took a very favourable turn from the point of view of the citizen who had to pay them. In the time when the Dublin Corporation was completely autonomous it also seems that the citizens were pretty well served, but it seems that where the impact of legislation which is inter-linking the central Government's function and the public authority's function is becoming more noticeable, and a greater tie-up between the two is becoming more apparent, the burden the citizen has to bear financially is also becoming an increased factor.
I hope the Minister does not take me as offering these remarks in the sense of criticism either of himself or his Department or anything else. There is a very difficult problem indeed involved in all these matters. We must realise it and realise also that all that the Minister or any Government can do is to take the best steps they can to deal with such problems. Nevertheless, I think it is no harm that they should be registered. I think I heard Deputy Larkin whispering about services.
