I merely want to make a few brief remarks on the motion which is before the House. I do so mainly because I feel that, at the present time, a crisis is developing in regard to the building trade, which, though incipient at present, still requires some consideration owing to the fact that it will develop to greater proportions later. It is already apparent that the City of Dublin, which constitutes the backbone of the effort to provide houses for the masses of the people, namely, the provision of houses by the local authorities, is already running into very grave difficulties. I do not want, on this motion to-night, to go into detail in regard to the problems in Dublin because we may have an opportunity of doing so another time. However, it is well known already that the problem, in so far as Dublin Corporation is concerned, is one of growing seriousness, so much so that by next year we may have to face what will be regarded as a most serious, if not a castastrophic situation in regard to housing in Dublin. That would be regrettable because during the last three years in particular a very great contribution has been made by the local authorities in Dublin and district towards breaking the back of the exceptionally grave housing problem which Dublin and this nation as a whole inherited from the past.
So much progress has been made that those of us who try to assist ordinary citizens to secure a house from local authorities in the city and district find that our quest has become much easier within the last 12 or 18 months. Nevertheless, even allowing for that improvement, there are still very large arrears to be wiped out. In the course of his speech in support of the motion, Deputy Belton said that a figure of 30,000 houses would meet the present needs of the City of Dublin. Of course, nobody has the slightest idea as to the needs to-day of the City of Dublin in the matter of housing. We are all aware that the Corporation of Dublin has recently carried out a housing census. This gives a figure of some 13,000 or 14,000 actual applications, but the number of applications has to be judged in relation to the whole background of housing in Dublin over recent years. Many families in the City of Dublin think that unless they come within certain well-defined categories, there is little possibility of their application being successful within any reasonable period of time. The result is that there are a large number of families living under conditions which, though not overcrowded and not wholly unhealthy, are, nevertheless, unpleasant and objectionable. These people have refrained from making applications at the present time. It is equally true that no matter how fully the local authority advertises a census such as the one made by the Dublin Corporation some people fail to put in their applications for houses. I feel there can be no quarrel with the figure of 30,000 houses. As an actual definite figure measuring the housing needs of the City of Dublin in the immediate future, it is as good a guess as anybody could make, though it is not in any way a definite indication of the size of the problem that has to be faced in Dublin. Everyone who knows Dublin is quite aware that whole blocks in the city are to-day regarded by the corporation as not justifying an immediate consideration as far as rehousing is concerned. Yet one knows quite well that, from the point of view of modern standards and from the point of view of what is now looked upon as the minimum and proper needs for a family, there should be widespread clearance of whole sections of the city. The clearance of these buildings should be replaced by new structures.
If the problem in Dublin, which, to a large extent, represents at the moment the main extent of the housing problem in the country as a whole, is of such great dimensions, then we have got to concern ourselves with another factor which is bringing about a setback in the rate of the building of houses. I feel it is true to say that, in many of the provincial areas, very rapid progress has been made by local authorities, so much so that, in certain counties, the minimum housing programme has been almost completely met. They are reaching the stage in many counties of making available a higher standard of living accommodation to those who are already in occupancy of accommodation, which does not qualify under the Housing Acts. One-sixth of the population of the whole country lives in Dublin. Not merely has Dublin the greatest concentration of bad housing cases, but, because of the volume of population, it is numerically the largest that has to be dealt with. So long as that problem continues in Dublin we will continue to have a housing problem local and peculiar to Dublin and also a national problem which has to be dealt with on a national basis. It is from that point of view that any factors which at the moment are making for a slowing down in the rate of building in Dublin become of very serious import. Those of us who are acquainted with the position will agree that, for one reason or another, there has been a slowing down and that we are now facing, within a short period of time, a drastic reduction in the number of dwellings being made available for applicants. At present this reduced output is not making itself felt so far as the building of dwellings by the Dublin Corporation is concerned. That is a future problem which is appearing on the horizon now, and which will, I believe, regardless of any steps which we can now take, make itself strongly apparent within the next nine or 12 months. Apart from building by the Corporation of Dublin, there is also the large volume of building that is being carried on in Dublin City and the immediate neighbourhood by private builders, almost all of which has been financed on the basis of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts.
It is already apparent to those associated with the building trade that a large number of small private builders, those to whom we refer in the trade as speculative builders, have been meeting with ever-increasing difficulties, particularly from the point of view of finance. We have already had reference in the House in other debates to the question of bank credits, and I do not propose to dwell upon that except to remark that there is quite clearly on the part of the small private builder much greater difficulty to-day in acquiring financial accommodation for his particular type of activity than he experienced some time ago. But on top of that difficulty from the point of view of our credit structure, there has also grown up within the last 12 months, because of changing prices, wage rates, and the thousand and one factors that affect the ultimate cost of a house, the problem that the actual provision by way of financial support made available through the Small Dwellings Act and through Government grants to enable the activity of the private builder to be carried on, has become less and less adequate to meet the actual problem.
From that point of view the terms of the motion asking that the grant be increased to the figure of £350 and that the ceiling would be raised from £2,000 to £2,500 is of immediate importance. There are to-day—and this is a new factor in our situation in this country since 1945—considerable numbers of skilled building workers idle, not merely in Dublin, but in other parts of the country. How many builders' labourers are idle it is better not to venture a guess, but there is an immediate problem of lack of sufficient employment for building trade workers. Up to the moment in this House, we have had to concern ourselves with the question of the provision of finance for house-building, the provision of materials, the clearing of sites, and finally, the securing of the necessary labour force. Now we have all these factors present except that the finance is not present in sufficient and adequate measure, and it is, as I say, being reflected in this problem of unemployment in the building trade.
We should have regard to the men in the building trade, many of whom, not in response to any particular call from either this Government or the last Government, returned and took up employment in this country and made their contribution to the achievements that have been made in the last few years in the erection of houses. Many of those are already becoming extremely nervous as to what their future holds. There was, of course, a period before the war when we had a set-back in building activity in 1938. When in 1948 it was possible to envisage an extended housing programme, the suspicions and the doubts that were present in the mind of building trade workers gave rise to many practical difficulties when approaches were made to them seeking their co-operation and their assistance in overcoming certain problems in regard to the supply of labour in this country. We should bear in mind that employment in the building trade is one of continuous casual employment, of uncertainty for the men, of hardship for their families, irrespective of whether they are skilled or unskilled workers. I should recall that as recent as 1930 the average wage of carpenters in this country, allowing for broken time, was a little more than 32/- per week.
Because of these factors it is most important that we should take every possible step to maintain the level of building that has been reached in the last three years. When we find, as it is clear now, that, because of the rise in prices and in labour costs, the financial provision being made to enable the people to enter into the ownership of their houses and the basis of mortgage under the Small Dwellings Act are no longer sufficient to assist in maintaining that building activity, we should review the matter on the lines set out in the motion.
I notice that the last night the motion was under discussion Deputy Gallagher did feel that a little more effort should be made by the building worker. I feel that this is not merely a suggestion; it is an innuendo that has been repeatedly made in public by public men and it should not be allowed to go without some comment. I would point out that, not in this House but before the Labour Court on one occasion, the same suggestion was made by representatives of the Master Builders that building trade workers were not making an adequate contribution from the point of view of output. That complaint or charge was publicly withdrawn by the representatives of the Master Builders completely and without qualification so far as builders' labourers are concerned, and they were completely unable to sustain it so far as skilled building workers are concerned. It is not proper or fair that these statements are continually repeated and particularly by a Deputy like Deputy Gallagher who has some knowledge of the building trade and who has some close association with it. When he goes on to suggest that because we are now in what he regards to some extent as a slump in building activity that the building worker should, as he said, put a bit more into it, I am afraid he is forgetting the background of the building worker who has many unhappy recollections of the days when for every hour worked harder he spent another hour unemployed.
Our purpose should be not to speak in terms that raise fear in the minds of building workers but to try to take steps to ensure that those building workers we have available in our own country will be retained in full employment so long as it is within our capacity to do so. That can be done at the present time because we are assured that we have the necessary finance. We can within reason obtain the materials and we will certainly have an adequate labour force, so that all we require to do is to apply our attention to the solution of the kind of problem raised by the motion.
The particular importance of the motion from the point of view of this House and of local authorities is that with every day that passes we find a growing problem concerning local authorities in regard to the cost of providing houses for citizens and the growing difficulty on the part of the tenants in meeting the rents that have to be charged; we have growing agitation in regard to the differential rent scheme, and it seems to be a reasonable proposition as set out by Deputy Rooney supporting the motion that we should do everything we can to make it readily possible for the citizen who wishes to purchase his own house to undertake that responsibility rather than throw the whole of the burden on the local authorities.
With the present cost of housing and with the limitation at present existing in regard to grants and a ceiling in respect of loans, the problem has, within the past six months anyway, grown beyond the capacity of the ordinary private individual whether he be the skilled manual worker or the white-collar worker. To the extent that these sections of citizens are the very sections that normally are not catered for by the local authorities, while at the same time they are the sections of citizens who are prepared to make very often very heavy sacrifices to try to obtain their own home and in time to secure the ownership of that home, we should, on our part, recognise their willingness to shoulder that measure of responsibility and to make that sacrifice.
For these reasons I support the motion because, as I say, it is necessary that we should immediately review our present system of housing finance, that we should review it in the light of the still existing needs on the part of wide sections of the citizens for proper housing accommodation, sections of citizens who are prepared to make their own personal contribution financially and otherwise to meet their own problems. We should review it from the point of view that we are already in the position where, to some extent, a crisis is developing in respect to private building and the employment arising from it, and we may well find, unless we deal with the position promptly, a very grave situation on our hands in the course of the next 12 months.
