Sorry. There are resentatives of Clann na Poblachta, Fine Gael and Labour on that council. Consequently, I feel that the Minister, when he replies to the discussion, may again review the situation and ease the difficult problems facing some Deputies. Concern has been expressed about the financial position and the possibilities of a complete close-down of building activities, mainly because of financial difficulties.
My concern, frankly, is a concern as to whether houses and flats are going to be built and whether, in building houses and flats, employment will be given to building trades workers in their own country. This concern, however, is no new thing, because, by a peculiar set of circumstances, I am afraid I must join both the Minister and the ex-Minister, Deputy Smith, in regard to my views that everything possible was not done under their respective charges in connection with the building and providing of houses. The slow-down in housing operations did not commence this year and the holding up of plans did not commence this year. We also experienced that phenomenon when Deputy Smith was sitting in the seat now occupied by the Minister. I was not a member of the House at that time, but I have no doubt that members sitting behind Deputy Smith on that occasion were very frequently embarrassed by the situation the Minister and his Department had placed them in as members of this House and of the Dublin Corporation.
The peak output of housing in Dublin occurred in 1950-51 when we reached the target of houses and flats of 2,588. We dropped the following year to 1,900. There was a slight increase again in 1952-53 to 2,000 odd. In 1953-54, there was a substantial drop down to a total production of 1,353 and I am afraid last year and this year we will possibly face the situation where, if we build around about 1,200 houses and flats in the Dublin Corporation area, it will be about the maximum. The employment of workers on corporation schemes, by contractors or by direct labour, has dropped from the peak of almost 4,000 in 1951 down to a figure at the end of October of this year of 1,854. I do not intend to claim that the drop of almost 50 per cent. is due entirely to what has occurred or is entirely the responsibility of two Ministers for Local Government, but they must share some portion of the blame.
In the course of his remarks here, the Minister referred to two sites in respect of which approval was given by his Department respectively in November, 1955 and in June, 1956. I do not like to cast reflections on the Minister's advisers, but the two sites concerned were two sites included in proposed development for 1956-57, provided the corporation was enabled to meet its full housing programme and expenditure in the neighbourhood of £3,155,000. Because of financial difficulties in the early months of this year, in the case of one of the sites, which was the subject of a private contract, the officials responsible held up the issuing of that contract until the financial position became clear.
The other site is one to which the Minister has referred as being one for which sanction was given in November, 1955. Deputies most likely consider that when the Minister referred to sanction to build houses, there were tenders in the Department and that lay-out schemes had been approved. That particular sanction was a sanction in principle to prepare a lay-out scheme, to prepare subsequently house plans and so on, on a virgin site, a field in Walkinstown. Included in the problem there was the question of acquiring, if my memory serves me, a number of plots of ground in the possession of county council cottage holders. The Minister must be aware that, the sanction in principle being given in November, 1955, in the following month the road designs and lay-out designs were submitted in answer to the Minister's own request.
Therefore, we have one scheme. I am sure there are Deputies representing county councils throughout the country who know very well that a sanction in principle to build does not necessarily mean that, even with the best will in the world, the construction can take place for six, nine or 12 months afterwards. Sanction in principle was given, as far as I know, to build in a little area named Power's Court in the City of Dublin, ten years ago approximately; there is not one stone on top of another in that area, and as far as I can ascertain it is unlikely that there will be anything built there for another four or five years, but the then Minister could have equally with truth said: "We are prepared to agree in principle that you build houses or flats or cottages in that area."
Let us examine the position with which the Dublin Corporation was faced in July and August. I understand that, in the course of the discussion the other evening, the Minister referred to his disappointment that the corporation in June did not agree to provide £215,000 out of next year's allocation for S.D.A. As far as I am aware, the corporation were not, in June, in a position to say what would be the allocation for the year 1957-58, because the letter received on the matter was dated 6th July. Bearing in mind the statement which has been repeated so often here, I personally was very pleased to hear Deputy Smith repeat in this day's discussion that the housing of the working classes under the Housing of the Working Classes Act was a No. 1 priority.
I was pleased to hear Deputy Smith make that statement—I hope the Minister will repeat it—because, while people may talk about targets being achieved and tapering off, the position in Dublin is that if there is no T.B. in the family or the family does not come into a slum clearance scheme, then there must be six persons living in one room in order to qualify on the priority list. Targets may have been achieved down the country and there may be a tapering off in other areas, but that cannot be said in relation to Dublin.
Now the corporation received a communication that £4,000,000 would be made available for certain purposes next year. I take it housing of the working classes will be No. 1 project. It was No. 1 in the Minister's reference last week. Then we have capital works, such as main drainage, No. 2, and the provision for housing under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. The officials were asked to submit an estimate. It was estimated that should housing continue at its normal maximum speed a sum of £3,155,000 would be required by the corporation this year. That means we will be in overdraft, provided we get sanction for the overdraft, to the tune of £500,000 at the end of the year.
I will be fair. I am sure the Lord Mayor and every other Deputy wants to be fair, too. Our officials also submitted an estimate showing in what way the corporation should confine itself to a total expenditure of £4,000,000 next year. The first step required the cutting out of the new contract for the Finglas area. That has been approved by the Minister, but now we will have to tell the contractor: "Sorry, we cannot continue with this contract now." That involved a reduction of £61,000 in the estimate. The next item was in reference to the direct housing scheme for the Finglas area. That scheme was not to be proceeded with either. It was also suggested that there should be a gradual diminution in employment on direct housing schemes and a gradual laying-off of the workers concerned. The next suggestion was that the Corporation would delay the giving out of other schemes or proceeding with them, which would result in a cut in the estimate of £69,000. Finally, proposed development works this year and next year would have to be reduced by approximately £158,000.
This, then, was the problem facing the corporation, its finance committee and its housing committee. If the corporation were to confine itself to an expenditure of £4,000,000 this year and act completely contrary to declared policy over the years, that could only be done at a certain cost. My colleagues in the corporation were not prepared then, nor do I think they are to-day, to accept that. The Department was informed that in order to keep housing of the working classes at its present level this year the corporation would have to go into overdraft. The Minister sanctioned that.
I was relieved this year when the Taoiseach and subsequently the Minister for Local Government indicated that housing could continue and that the Government would accept financial responsibility to assist the Corporation planning future schemes. But, while I was satisfied, I was concerned as to whether that financial assurance would mean that housing could continue at its normal rate. I was concerned because on a former occasion I had seen a scheme for 600 houses in the Ballyfermot area held up when the Minister's predecessor was in office for at least, if memory serves me correctly, six months, at a time when unemployment in the building trade was also acute as a result of a recession in building. It is true, I think, that no Government ever before indicated in advance that they would provide finances up to a certain figure for housing. I do not think the problem ever arose before in quite the same way as it has evolved during the last 12 months. Nevertheless, we must mention the fact that the Corporation never financed their own house-building activities of themselves. Over a period of some years, out of a total sum of £20,000,000 raised by loan, only approximately £6,000,000 was subscribed by the public, the remainder being guaranteed by successive Governments and by the banks. I think that Deputy Briscoe will agree with me that is a statement of fact.
I do not think that anybody in this House or outside it believes for one moment that Dublin Corporation or any other local authority in the country can finance house-building out of its own resources. The policy of building houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Act or under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts has been laid down by successive Governments, and we have carried it on up to the present. This is where I found myself in some difficulty in recent months.
Reference has been made to the site at Hogan Place. The ground on which to build flats there was acquired by compulsory purchase order, confirmed by the Minister, and this ground is very costly. The problem of building flats on that restricted site is also aggravated by very poor foundations. Let us be fair. The first tender received—the issue of invitations to tender was approved by the Department—came to the Corporation Housing Committee, and, on the advice of their technical officers, when the tenders were opened, they directed that the plans be re-examined to see whether there could be any savings because the original plans in their opinion at that time provided for expenditure that was too heavy. At least two very conscientious attempts were made to reduce the cost of building on that site.
In dealing with that matter, I may be permitted to make a general reference. The corporation in accordance with the Town Planning Act has indicated 60 sites in the City of Dublin which will be required in due course for the building of houses and flats. Many of those sites may contain some of the characteristics that apply to Hogan Place. One of the main points about Hogan Place was that there were two public houses and a pawn shop in it. It is quite clear that when you are dealing with a problem of building in a central city area, you face a completely different problem from that involved in building on virgin soil. One must take into account that in order to get a site sufficiently large on which to build flats, you may have to acquire property in good condition, and you are likely to have to pay for it. I would like to take this opportunity of suggesting to the Minister and his advisers that, in dealing with proposals to build flats, they should separate the question of acquisition from the question of the actual building costs. We might then get a realistic approach——
