asked the Minister for Local Government whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a large number of men employed by the Dublin Corporation on site development work have just been disemployed, and that a further large number of men are about to be disemployed this week as a result of the failure of his Department to sanction site development work in different areas of the city; and, if so, whether in view of the serious hardship which this unemployment is causing in the city, and in view of the hold-up in the progress of housing caused by this policy, he will take immediate steps to rectify the position and to instruct the Dublin Corporation to proceed forthwith with site development work which has been held up.
Private Notice Question. - Dublin Site Development Work.
I am informed that the Dublin Corporation have, in the past month, dispensed with the services of approximately 50 men who had previously been employed on the development of housing sites and that about 30 men at present engaged on this work may lose their employment during the next two weeks. I do not accept the suggestion in the Deputy's question that my Department is responsible for holding up the housing work of the Dublin Corporation and causing unemployment by withholding sanction to site development works. In the case of housing operations to be undertaken by the corporation or any other housing authority, I have an obligation to this House and to the taxpayers, the rate-payers and tenants who meet the costs of housing, to ensure that reasonable standards of planning and construction are observed. I am not satisfied that such standards were observed in the cases now in question and I would not consider myself warranted in dispensing with the examination of plans or in authorising the continuance of development work commenced without my sanction and involving sub-standard environmental planning, housing layout and house design.
When satisfactory development plans are submitted to my Department by the Dublin Corporation, the Deputy may be assured that there will be no avoidable delay in dealing with them.
I may add that the all-over level of employment on corporation housing operations is higher now than at any time since June last.
Is the Minister not aware that as soon as the Finglas scheme is completed the men who are employed on it and also the men who are employed on the Walkinstown, the Ballyfermot and the Milltown schemes, will be disemployed, unless sanction is given to the development plans? Further, is it not a fact that the Minister's Department has issued an order refusing sanction to site development, as had been the practice heretofore, until the actual plans for the houses themselves have been submitted? Is it not a fact that that step was taken by the Minister as a result of a Department of Finance instruction asking the Minister to cut down expenditure on housing?
There is no truth whatever in the latter suggestion made by the Deputy. The Deputy may not be aware that it is desirable that housing plans should be submitted before the development works, to which he refers, are undertaken. The case which he has just cited of Finglas is proof of the need for the submission of such plans. The Deputy and the House will be surprised when they are told by me that, in the case of the Finglas development, the works proceeded and tenders were invited, and all this was done prior to the submission of housing plans to my Department. Surely, it is not unreasonable that the Department of Local Government would insist upon the necessary co-operation between the different branches of the Dublin Corporation and my Department in the consideration not only of development works but of lay-out plans, water, sewerage, roads and transport. All these matters are, surely, matters that must be co-ordinated, and should be seriously planned for in advance. The action that I have taken in this regard is action that was called for by me in the proper discharge of my responsibilities and, as I have pointed out——
Does the Minister not realise that, wherever the fault lies, a large number of men have been disemployed, and that a large number of men are being disemployed at the moment as a result of the policy of his Department? May I ask, further, arising out of the Minister's reply, whether the Minister suggests that the Dublin Corporation is guilty of dereliction of duty?
May I ask if the Minister is aware that members of the Dublin Corporation, three of whom are here at the moment, had an assurance recently from the City Manager that there would be no unemployment in connection with this site development?
There is unemployment now.
I want to repudiate again that there is any question of policy involved in this matter. I also want to state that the term which was used by Deputy MacBride in referring to large numbers is a term which is designed to mislead.
Surely 50 is a large number.
I have given the actual number involved. I have stated that 50 persons have lost employment. I have also stated that the amount of employment given in this month is larger than that given in any month since June last. I have also stated that it is my duty, and the duty of my Department, to see that what arose in the Finglas area will not arise again— that is that the development works to which the Deputy referred and the inviting of tenders should proceed on that basis after they have presented my Department with a fait accompli.
Will the Minister now take steps to ensure that no more men will be disemployed?
Mr. P.S. Doyle rose.
The Deputy will resume his seat.