I am certainly going to relate them to the Estimate. At column 690 of the Official Debates of the 5th July, 1950, the following statement was made by the present Minister for Finance, then Deputy MacEntee:—
"Any houses that were built in 1948, 1949 and 1950 derive entirely from the efforts of the Minister's predecessors over the years from 1945 to 1948."
It, therefore, seems that the sole credit for any houses that were built during these three years should be given to the Minister for Local Government who held office from 1945 to 1948.
In dealing with this Estimate the present Minister for Local Government told us the average number of houses built annually during the period from 1932 to 1940 and during the period from 1947 onwards. It is only natural that the Minister found pleasure in stating, in his introductory statement, that the average number of houses built annually between the years 1932 to 1940 was 5,073, as against an average annual number of 4,576 in the period from 1947 onwards. To the ordinary citizen reading that statement, it would seem quite obvious that the housing drive during the years 1932 to 1940 showed much better results than the housing drive from 1947 onwards. The Minister's statement gave the average number of houses built annually, but actually the number of houses built in the year 1951-52 was 7,195. In the year 1950-51, 7,787 houses were built. We had over 7,000 houses built in the year 1951, as against an average of 5,073 during the 1932-1940 period. That shows an extraordinary difference in the tempo of the housing drive. When the Minister for Local Government took over office in 1948 he could hardly be expected to show in the first year of office as high a percentage of houses built as was shown afterwards. Between January and December, 1950, 12,118 houses were built by private persons and local authorities. If these figures are correct the Minister must admit that during the three and a quarter years of the inter-Party Government in which a member of this Party held the position of Minister for Local Government progress was the keynote in the Department of Local Government.
In his statement the Minister said that during the 1932-1940 period 5,073 houses a year on an average were built. How does that statement compare with statements made by members of his Party when they were in opposition? They claimed that during the years from 1932 to 1939 there were at least 130,000 houses built. If that number of houses were built how does it compare with the average number supplied to us at this stage by the Minister? Whatever our views, whatever the views of any Government or of any Party which may form the Government, we must, if we are interested in the people of this country so far as housing is concerned, be prepared to do our utmost to give the figures as they should be given for the purposes of comparison. The figures must not be used solely for the purpose of being able to say that one Party did better than another. We should do our utmost year after year to build more houses than ever before.
The Minister, or any Minister for Local Government, has a long way to go before he can say: "I have made far greater progress than anyone expected." Housing is of vital importance to our people. In passing, may I say that the members of all Parties of the local council in the south Cork Board of Health area are at one when it comes to the question of housing. We never divided when it came to the issue of building houses, thanks be to God. We never went so far as to say that one Party was better than another when it came to the question of building houses.
The Minister made some reference to a ten year programme based on an average of 7,000 houses per year. I stand to be corrected but that was the impression I got. While we are improving the position in regard to housing in our country, I believe that an average of 7,000 houses per year in a ten year programme will not be sufficient. We are inclined to forget that there is always a tendency towards overcrowding. The number of persons requiring homes will not remain static. While we build houses each year that does not mean that the number demanding houses will be reduced by the number of people who are housed. In County Dublin, in Cork City and in Limerick, Waterford and many other towns where there is a big population, we must be prepared to admit that our figures must be set at a percentage higher than the amount submitted by the local authority. In a few years' time the figures are bound to increase.
As regards the percentage of the Estimate that is devoted to housing, it is well for us to remember that each year the Government finds it essential to apportion a high percentage of the amount of money made available by the Department to housing. In 1948, when the Minister was introducing his Estimate, he stated that approximately 85 per cent. of the demand was put into housing. As far as I can recollect, the Minister stated in 1949 that there was approximately 88 per cent. put into housing. If that is so is it not a clear indication that the Minister's predecessors, during the period from 1948 to 1951, realised that the Department had a direct responsibility for housing? When we were prepared to say in 1948 and 1949 that our policy demanded the construction of a large number of houses, then there is little use in the Minister trying to suggest by figures submitted to us that the average output of houses during that period was lower than in the 1932-39 period.
In 1948 the then Minister for Local Government when he took office considered that he should travel around the country in order to remove the many doubts and uncertainties which prevailed amongst some local authorities in regard to problems confronting them which they were not able to overcome. The Minister considered that it was his duty to go around and find out for himself the problems that confronted these local authorities. What happened? In 1949, and even in 1948, Deputy MacEntee from the Opposition Benches drew attention to what he described as a series of royal progresses which were unwise and a waste of time. He considered that they were picnics at which luncheons and banquets were given. These "royal progresses" left behind them something which showed the sincerity of the man who undertook them. Time has justified his action in going around the country.
I am very glad that the present Minister has found it wise to fall into line with these so-called "royal progresses." I do not object to the present Minister going down the country to open housing schemes. I believe that these are not occasions for banquets and picnics. The people were glad to see their Minister coming amongst them. We were all proud to let the people see that a Minister realised the importance of opening a scheme of houses in any particular area. Even though members of the present Minister's Party objected to that in 1948 and 1949, I have never objected since I came to this side of the House to any Minister performing the important function of opening a housing scheme. He can then see the problems which may confront the people with regard to housing in these areas.
After all, three and a half or four years is a short period of time to show that the actions of the Minister in 1948 and 1949 and of his successor have been justified. Perhaps those people who attacked that policy then may see that instead of playing politics going around the country the Ministers for Local Government during those three years realised their duty to the people and fulfilled the obligation placed on them to encourage the housing drive in those areas. I believe that the present Minister is in favour of that policy and I am in favour of it. I wonder are there Deputies who may say that it is not a correct policy. I wonder will the present Minister for Finance say it is a wrong policy or will he say that the policy of the Local Government Department should be one of bellringing when the Minister enters the Custom House in Dublin?
We have to face these problems in local government as we see them and because no other Department has such a direct bearing on and such direct contact with the everyday life of our people we must be prepared to give and take perhaps, but certainly to give when the giving is deserved. Let us therefore hope that we will not drift back to the policy which was so noticeable in the period prior to 1948. Local authorities, county managers and officials are entitled to a little more consideration than a dictatorial demand from the Custom House. We have had enough of that and we do not want any more of it. I sincerely hope that the Minister is not thinking of reverting to that.
In introducing the Estimate the Minister, so far as I am aware, said there was to be a reduction of about £30,000 in the contribution towards houses for newly-weds. In my opinion, that is an unwise policy. One of the greatest handicaps which have been facing our people for many years is the problem that in the event of marriage they have no home of their own to go to. We know that in the cities and towns it very often means that another couple have to move into a room in a tenement or to pay an exorbitant rent for a room or two. It is not a very satisfactory beginning in life for any young couple that, instead of owning a home of their own or being able to rent a house from a local authority, they have to go to live in these overcrowded slums or tenements.
I believe that it should be the policy of the Government, while we know that it is not very easy to provide the additional capital required, to increase the amounts made available for these schemes instead of reducing them. Deputies who may be members of local authorities in city areas will, I am sure, voice their opinions on this important question on behalf of people who are continually asking them whether there is any hope of getting houses. Government policy in this matter should be fundamentally one governed by Christian principles.
Another problem that confronts us in country areas is the question of providing sites for housing. I have in mind various villages in the county from which I come in which there are derelict sites which, viewed from any angle, are certainly deplorable. We know that at times even local authorities are not able to get that co-operation to which we believe they are entitled from the owners of some of these derelict sites. I know the Minister may say that local authorities have power, under the Derelict Sites Order, to acquire such sites. That is true but it is only as a last resort that we desire to exercise such powers. It would be much preferable if they could be acquired by consent or even by arbitration.
I think it would be well if the Minister, through the local authorities, could impress on the owners of derelict sites the many advantages that would accrue to these people themselves by co-operating with local authorities. I have in mind one case in a small village in South Cork in which there is a derelict site, occupied at present by five sheds or stables. The owners, who are business people, could not see the advantage which would ultimately come to them by giving this particular site to the local authority. Unfortunately, they have the impression which is held by so many people in this country, that one can demand a fabulous price from a local authority for any property in which they may be interested. They fail to realise that, in the long run, they themselves will have to contribute in the shape of rates or taxes to these fabulous prices. I think the Minister should endeavour to draw attention to the importance of local authorities being able to acquire such sites for the erection of new homes. Derelict sites are merely so many eyesores in various areas throughout the country.
The policy pursued by the Cork borough authorities in the acquisition of sites is one on which I should like to comment favourably—that is the policy of acquiring sites for eligible persons who may wish to erect houses themselves. I know that, in many cities and towns, some people who receive housing grants are prepared to build their own homes, but from the very outset they are confronted with the problem of trying to get suitable sites. They often find it very difficult to get sites, and frequently the annual rent demanded from them for such sites is prohibitive. That means that, in the long run, local authorities are saddled with the added responsibility of housing people in local authority houses who would be prepared to build their own homes if they got the necessary co-operation. I am not suggesting that each local authority should be prepared to acquire a large area of land for this purpose, but it would certainly be advantageous if local authorities, when acquiring land for their own housing schemes, included in the area acquired a certain amount of land which could be let by that local authority to persons who, with the aid of housing grants, would build their own homes.
If such a policy were put into operation it would mean that we would eventually come to the time when we could hope for a reduction in the amount demanded for this purpose from local authorities and which has to be found by them from the ratepayers. Our ultimate aim must be to arrive at the time when the demand on local authorities for this purpose will become less formidable. When we have done that we can, I think, claim to have satisfied, to a certain degree, the desires of those people. We should be prepared to look forward to the time when rate demands, which press so heavily on the people, and particularly on working-class people, can be reduced. We should encourage to the very utmost the acquisition of land for the purpose of renting it to the people. Otherwise, we shall have to house them through housing schemes.
There is another problem closely allied to that with which I have been dealing. It concerns reconstruction grants and the policy of inspection and of payments associated with them. This is a matter of vital importance to the people. I—I am sure the same is true of every Deputy—receive many letters from my constituents in regard to the final payment of these grants. They are anxious to receive them so that, in turn, they may hand them over either to contractors or suppliers to whom they owe debts in respect of the work carried out. I believe that if the payment of these grants was carried out more promptly there would be much more reconstruction work done throughout the country. Something ought to be done to remedy the delays that are taking place at present.
Cork is a very big county and a great deal of work falls on the official who has to carry out these inspections. I understand that additional duties have been put on him which take him into parts of Kerry and Waterford. No matter how hard he may work it will be impossible for him to cope with all the inspection work that is to be done. It is no pleasure for Deputies to be raising questions in the Dáil about the delays which take place, both in regard to final inspections and payment. The Minister himself was a member of a local authority and should be well aware of the difficulties that arise in this connection. We are the servants of the people who sent us here. They are our masters and it is our duty to make inquiries for them when they make these complaints.
This problem that I have been dealing with is, I fear, going to be aggravated in the future because of the present policy of departing from the practice that was in operation during 1948, 1949 and up to the time of the change of Government. During that period the necessary forms in connection with grants could go through the local authority. The Minister may believe that this policy of local administration was not a success. I do not know what his views on it are, but I think I am entitled to say that the policy of reverting back to the position of having all such grants and applications go through the Custom House is a very bad one. I do not think the Minister should adopt it.
Let us be fair to our local officials. At our local meetings we may sometimes not be fair to them. We may abuse them at times because we try to get the best out of them. At the same time, we know in our hearts that they are doing their very utmost to discharge their duties and responsibilities in a competent and efficient way. When this work that I have referred to was being done under the local bodies it imposed a heavy task on the local officials. In my opinion they did the work well. When there is a glut of work in the offices of the local bodies, the local officials are surely entitled to the same consideration as those in the Minister's Department. They should be given every support to prepare their course of action for any new duties imposed on them. I contend that when these forms in connection with the grants were being dealt with in the offices of the local bodies the work was well done by the local officials. In view of that, is it not a strange thing that there should now be this desire to centralise that work again? The word "centralisation" must again ring in the ears of members of local authorities and officials of local authorities. Apparently the people down the country must again send their applications to Dublin if they want land down in the heart of South-West Cork or Kerry or even down in Deputy Corry's area, East Cork. They must send up their application here to the Custom House whereas, for a few years, they had the much more direct line of approach of sending it to Father Mathew Quay in Cork City. Members of local authorities were in the advantageous position that if people asked them to inquire how their applications were being received and dealt with they were able to go into the local authority office and to inquire there about the position relating to that particular grant.
What happens now? We get a letter from some person in the country who has sent his application to the Custom House. He may get the usual acknowledgment but, after that, the dread American wake begins. The letter is transferred from one table to another in the office and from one corner of the room to another corner of the room. Even if a Deputy finds time to go to the Department, it is still a difficult matter. I have no desire to blame any official in the Custom House. I will never say a word against the ordinary staff in any office. A young man or a young girl from the heart of Donegal may be dealing in the Custom House with an application from someone in County Cork for a reconstruction grant. No matter how perfect the filing system in the Custom House may be, the man or girl in the office in Cork who is familiar with the areas from which the claims come, and who may even know the person or the family by whom the claim is made, is far more suitable from that point of view. The ambition of the local person is to ensure that these applications will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The local authority officials did a good day's work in the time allowed to them for dealing with these cases. If there was any hold-up or any weakening, at times, I say that the responsibility for it must not be laid solely at the door of the local authority officials. The fault cannot be theirs in all cases. I believe that time will justify the policy of letting applications for local grants go through these channels rather than through the Custom House.
I come to another problem which people in these areas must face. I have mentioned derelict sites. I come now to another side of this problem. I want to keep the views of all sections of the community in mind, realising my obligation to act fairly in the interests of all sections of the community. I wish to draw attention to the delay in dealing with arbitration reports. I have put a question down in connection with this matter as I am awaiting information on a particular issue. I consider, however, that when an inspector of a Department travels down to Cork, or elsewhere, the problem is the amount of money being allowed to arbitration.
These houses having been built, the problem is an interesting one in this respect. The tenant of a local authority house is paying rates and at the same time the landowner is paying rates. I know of some farmers in South Cork whose case was before arbitration many months ago and yet they are paying rates on the bit of land that has been acquired by the local authority. The tenants of the local authority houses built on these sites are paying rates. Surely there is an injustice there. We know that the incoming tenant must be prepared to accept his responsibility in the matter of paying rates. Surely, however, the delay is unjust to the man giving the land—even though the Minister may say that if there is delay in payment the man will get interest on his money. The delay, in itself, is not satisfactory to people down the country. Many a man with a few acres of land is, at times, very much in need of the hard cash he may be expecting from his local authority. I consider that this matter is not being dealt with expeditiously by the Minister and his Department. It is a further point in justification of our claim that local authority means nothing in this country so long as the vicious control is held by the central office in Dublin, no matter what Minister or what staff may be there. The policy must be either local government or central government. In this case, as in other cases, we have a further proof of the weakness of the everyday policy carried out by central government. Certainly, these matters should be expedited. Officials dealing with them are, to a point, correct when they say that they have other duties to perform and that their time is occupied with other problems also. The fact remains that public representatives have placed on them the duty of going out and asking for sites from some of these farmers who, to our knowledge, have not yet been paid for sites for which arbitration had been arranged so many months ago. I consider that it is not fair to the landowner or to the member of the local authority who has to meet him in the course of his work.
On the subject of the classification of sites, there is also the problem of general sanction of these housing sites. The Minister may say that his policy is the same as the policy of his predecessors, but that is no answer to the problem. Let us, as we are discussing an Estimate, treat it as an Estimate and deal with the problems affecting the Twenty-Six Counties instead of the problems affecting our respective constituencies. I consider that the problem of sanction in the case of requests from local authorities for the general acquisition of sites for building should be speeded up, bearing in mind the fact that, by law, we are compelled, from the date of first publication, to wait roughly five weeks before submitting the matter to the Minister. In addition, a certain period must be allowed lest the owner of the land should wish to oppose the acquisition by the local authorities. He is allowed a period during which he is entitled to take action against the decision either of the local authority or of the Minister. I consider that that period should be sufficient, without permitting months to elapse before a local authority can get general sanction. When people in the country see an advertisement in the paper to the effect that houses are being built in a certain area, when they find the delay that occurs they come to the conclusion that the members of local authorities are not doing their duty. They believe—who can blame them— when they see the advertisement that in a matter of a month or so tenders will be asked for, contracts will be placed and the building of the houses commenced. The policy of giving general sanction for the acquisition of these sites, therefore, should be accepted to the fullest possible extent.
When local authorities, through their responsible officials, through the co-operation of their members and through the employment of qualified architects, request sanction in globo for the acquisition of sites, covering a general area or sites covering a particular area, there should be no necessity for such sanction being delayed down in the Custom House for many months at a time. We want houses built, no matter what Government is in power. No matter what Government or what Minister is in power they wish to see to it and to have it to say that so many houses were built in their time. If the present Minister can increase the number of houses built in South Cork, if he can double the number as compared with the number built in any previous year, I do not begrudge him the credit if he so wishes to take it. I will co-operate with him, as will any member of the local authorities. We can take pride in the fact that we are improving in the case of house-building. In the case of the general sanction for the acquisition of sites, it is important to give that co-operation to local authorities to help them in their problems. After all, members of local authorities are not paid officials. Very often they get great abuse from people who are not aware of the facts, from people who do not realise the problems and who are never willing to give praise to the members of local authorities for the work they do. From my experience of those members of local authorities, I can say that I found them a decent body of men willing to serve their own particular district and their own particular county to the best of their ability. Why should they be held up in their work due to delays in the Custom House in Dublin, which means disappointment to the people who are waiting for houses and also annoyance and disappointment to the members of local authorities.
What I have said in connection with general acquistion sanction also applies to sanction of tenders. I realise that it is most important when these tenders are forwarded by the manager of a local authority to the headquarters that these figures should be studied carefully and that it is incumbent on the responsible officials to do so. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that there need be this undue delay in examining these estimates which is so noticeable. The Minister may point out various delays which can be accounted for. The officials in his Department may point out the impossibility of dealing with these problems of tenders more speedily, but from my own experience in the building industry and my own knowledge of matters appertaining to checking of tenders, it is not a problem that should hold up officials for months on end. We want these matters expedited. We cannot do anything unless the Minister is prepared to see that in his Department these matters are not held back for a period longer than we believe, and the Minister himself should believe, justifies that delay.
There is another problem which, perhaps, is not the Minister's fault, yet it is a problem which is very noticeable in country areas. When the members of local authorities go to landowners, and ask their co-operation, ask them to give an acre or two for the building of cottages, they tell the people, naturally, that they will be compensated by the local authority. Sometimes we in the local authority receive that splendid co-operation which is so pleasing to us. Other times we may have a struggle before we can strike a bargain with the landowner. Eventually, we get that site and ultimately the landowner is told how much he is going to get for that site, but the difficulty arises, as Deputy Corry is so well aware, having taken a prominent part in trying to solve this problem as all of us have done in the board of health areas, that while the houses have been built and occupied many of these landowners, simply because of the problems relating to proving of title are not yet in a position to say that they are safe in getting the few pounds, whatever it has been arranged to give them.
