When the debate was adjourned last evening, I was dealing with one matter mentioned in the Minister's opening statement—the necessity to eradicate the slums. Perhaps the necessity for concentration on slum clearance is not sufficiently recognised. Perhaps we are not as fully aware as we should be of the slackening off which has taken place in all building activities over the last few years. The picture is a rather easy one to explain.
After the end of the emergency, an immediate all-out drive was entered upon for the purpose of continuing the good work which had been in progress before the emergency. Local authorities everywhere, and particularly in Dublin, were faced with a task which had grown so much greater because of the very slight building activity possible during the emergency years. In 1948 and 1949, appeals went out to building craftsmen working in England, Scotland and Wales to come home to Ireland to use their energy and skill and ability, to aid local authorities here in dealing expeditiously with this very serious problem. It was held out to building workers, skilled and unskilled, who had been forced to emigrate, that if they answered this call there was a reasonable assurance that a long felt want in the building industry would be fulfilled—the need of some continuity of employment. Among practically all forms of industrial activity, building construction work is almost the only one in which craft workers and unskilled workers do not have at least an assurance, when they start a day's work, that they will be working at the end of the week.
This call was answered in 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951. The tempo rose and the number of dwellings under construction increased rapidly. The employment given on building construction throughout the country, and particularly in the city areas, reached probably a level never before achieved. In the years 1951 and 1952 or thereabouts, on building construction in the City of Dublin between local authority employment and the parallel efforts of private speculative builders, building societies and persons engaged in providing homes for themselves, there was employment roughly of a nature of not less than 5,000 to 7,000, between craft workers and unskilled workers.
In 1952-53 some 3,000 dwellings were under construction and I think the output for the year was 2,500. At that stage we reached the apex of the ascending curve and we proceeded to drop fairly substantially. In the life of the present Government and that of its immediate predecessor we have had the picture, as mentioned by the Minister in his opening remarks, of a steady decline in building activities. The decline reached a point in the City of Dublin where at the end of May of this year a total of only some 430 houses and some 229 flats were under construction by Dublin Corporation. The total number of building workers engaged in that work was approximately 266. It is easy to agree with the Minister's statement that there has been a falling-off in building activity; in fact that might be described as a classic example of understatement.
Parallel with this falling off there has been a very considerable reduction in the demand for houses built under the S.D. Acts. This is the position on the constructional side but we see in the housing review prepared by the city medical officer and his staff, issued in 1956, there is a statement that 15,000 dwellings are still required in Dublin City. The local authority is faced with the problem of a decline in building activity while it still has a very substantial need for houses.
The Minister mentioned the need to concentrate on slum clearance but one of the many problems connected with that is the long delay that occurs from the time it is originally planned to acquire land, develop it and build on it in a city area. If it was as easy to build on a vacant site in the city as it is to build houses on the perimeter I have no doubt slum clearance could be speeded up but there appear to be innumerable difficulties. The Minister rightly indicated one of these and has dealt with it in this Bill. It arises from the necessity, in connection with the construction of flats, of closing roads and rights of way. Under existing procedure the local authority could be held up for weeks if not months. The Minister proposes to come to the aid of the local authority in this respect and his efforts are more than welcome.
There is one other factor that may still block progress in this field. When a local authority decides, with the approval of the Department of Local Government, to build a block of flats, 50, 60 or 100 or more in a city area, the problem of acquisition is on some occasions prejudiced to some extent by the fact that while they can get sufficient ground to build the flats there is also the necessity or desirability of getting proper approaches. On a number of occasions they run into difficulties in that way. In order to get these approaches they may come in conflict with proposals of the local authority under road widening schemes.
Although the development of a block of flats in or near a certain street might be considerably eased, if it were possible to have the acquisition of the sites for the flats and the road widening at the same time, up to the present it is necessary for the local authority to set two separate trains of activity in motion. The local authority must apply under the respective Acts for power to acquire property for building and they must apply separately for power to acquire property for road widening. The housing provisions make the problem relatively simple at least in the case of acquisition for slum clearance and it can be dealt with rapidly but, in the actual planning and construction of the flat buildings, the local authority may be delayed by the fact that there is a road widening scheme next door to the project for flat development and, under the provisions governing acquisition for road widening, they may be held up for two years. I would ask the Minister to look into this aspect of the matter.
While there is no considerable amount of building taking place on the perimeter now it is no harm to mention one of the difficulties that has cropped up and may crop up again in the future. That is the problem of vesting property. Once the corporation acquires a large area for development, from 50 to 200 acres, they are entitled under the Acts to have the property vested in them on, I think, two weeks' notice, but if any of that land is required for school sites the two weeks' notice does not apply and there is interminable delay in having the property and possibly, the representations, examined and the land finally vested.
One of the problems facing local authorities and the citizens of Dublin for a long time is the inordinate delay in arranging for the provision of adequate schools. A scheme of 800 houses was completed at Coolock, Raheny, and it is only now, after a period of two years, that a site for a school has been made available there. Perhaps the Minister would use his good offices in regard to that problem.
There is a second problem which I am sure will engage his attention. In the course of the development of the City of Dublin in recent years, very large stretches of rural areas have been taken into the city, and quite a considerable number of cottages that were vested in the tenants under the Labourers Acts are now within the city boundary. It can happen that when a local authority decides to prepare a building scheme, and requires a small portion of the land on which such cottages stand, it finds that the land cannot be sub-divided under the Labourers Acts.
We realise that security of tenure is an important matter, but in the City of Dublin any residence or industrial property can be acquired or sub-divided, if it is essential for the building of dwellings under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. There are, however, anomalies and in certain areas, even within the older part of the city, the local authority cannot enter upon any portion of ground, unless it takes the whole plot. In many cases the local authority does not want to take the whole plot, or to disturb the owner, except to the least possible extent, but as I understand the position, there is no provision for subdivision. If the local authority wants an area 15 yards long by two yards wide, it must, in those cases, take a man's house from him because it is not legally possible to divide the plot of ground on which it is built.
Another problem which must engage the Minister's attention is that of houses vested under the Labourers Acts which can be transferred only to agricultural labourers. That is quite a proper procedure in rural areas, but I would suggest that the Minister might examine the position in cases where these cottages are situated in what have now become urban areas. He should see whether such cottages might be transferred by agreement to members of the working classes.
Housing finance is one of the basic problems facing us in Dublin. It must be freely admitted that successive Governments have been as generous as circumstances allowed in affording local authorities, including the local authority of the City of Dublin, assistance under this heading, but the position to-day is that the local authority is building houses that qualify for slum clearance and certain ancillary grants subsidised to the extent of 66? per cent. of the interest loan charges up to a minimum of £1,500 on a house. The bulk of houses built in recent years by Dublin Corporation have been four-roomed houses, and a few of them have cost more than £1,500. The local authority is allowed 66? per cent. on a maximum of £2,000 in the case of flat dwellings, but the cost of a flat, even of a three-roomed flat, is well in excess of £2,000, and perhaps the Minister would examine that matter while this Bill is under discussion.
I should like to welcome the provisions in the Bill which make it easier for persons to seek repair and improvement grants. That situation has been very difficult in the past, and the provision made in this Bill should be of great value. The increase in the amount of grants under this heading will be welcomed and a fairly successful attempt has been made to simplify the machinery dealing with them. One difficulty still exists and I do not know how it can be surmounted. It is still necessary that, to qualify for the grant, the Minister must be satisfied the works are for the purpose of providing suitable housing accommodation. The wording: "suitable and essential housing accommodation" can have very wide and very diverse meanings. There are many hundreds of houses in the City of Dublin that require repair and the provisions in this Bill, as they exist, will be exercised by the local authority.
A very large number of these houses have been constructed over the years with various architectural features. Some of them have quite adequate bedroom accommodation and excellent reception rooms, but they are very inadequate in relation to those rooms in which the housewife has to work most of the day. In many cases you will find a house that is quite ample in other respects with a miserable kitchenette—a little box of a room maybe 8 feet or 9 feet long and about 5 or 6 feet wide. I have no doubt that if the owners or occupiers of such houses were sure that they would qualify for assistance in making this room, or excuse for a room, more suitable for its purposes and thus make the life of the housewife a little more comfortable, they would make application.
Is there a danger even under the present Bill that an inspector of the Department of Local Government will come along and have a look at a house; see that it is very nice on the outside and say that the house is a perfectly fine house suitable in every way and that he will not agree it is eligible for a repair grant? I would ask the Minister to look into that aspect of the matter.
I would ask the Minister to keep a close eye on what happens in regard to the problem of tenements in our city. Tenement dwellings under the Act are those dwellings in which there are three families or more, although, strictly speaking, there is a very wide divergence in regard to what might be defined under the Acts as tenement dwellings. We normally understand tenement dwellings to be dwellings in which people are compelled to live in one or two rooms. There are quite a large number of dwellings which might legally qualify for the same description but they have been converted into decent flats and provide very decent accommodation. It is with the first type of dwelling I am concerned.
There are still a large number of these tenement dwellings in the city and either the Minister's Department or the local authority should be very careful as to the basis upon which public money is expended in putting a facade of repair on some of them. Some might be made appear suitable for accommodation by the expenditure of money, when the dwellings themselves might be structurally unsound. In addition, it has been generally accepted that families should not be expected to reside four or five storeys up from the ground level, unless there is some form of lift. While it is true that the local authority in Dublin have built a considerable number of four-storey flats in recent times, the concentration has been upon three-storey flat blocks with a maisonette on top, which gives a maximum of four storeys, but there are still a large number of four-storey buildings in the City of Dublin. I do not think they are suitable for families where there are young children and old people. Neither do I think it is suitable for them to live in basements. There is a very great strain on the young mother carrying an infant and on the older people whose arteries are beginning to harden because of having to walk up the stairs. Whatever provisions there are in the Bill, an effort should be made to ensure that these repair and improvement grants will be used to benefit owners, tenants and occupiers and benefit those who, through widowhood or loss of employment, have been forced to utilise their dwellings as a means to supplement their low incomes.
I should like to say a word or two with reference to the proposed variation in levying rates. Everyone agrees that the present system is one which imposes hardship on a growing family. After a period of seven years, just when the children are reaching school age and when costs are becoming heavy on the family, the local authority, under the present system, says: "You must pay full rates instead of two-thirds." The proposal in the Bill may ease the situation but I do not think it will bring very great comfort.
In the case of the average couple getting married, possibly the first ten or 12 years are the most difficult. I think, as the Minister has recognised some of the difficulties, that he might consider if it is possible to go a little further. I do not suggest that we should return to the old system—the idea of one-twentieth for the first year and so on and the person should not pay full rates until he has been 20 years in the dwelling. We have got to retain some sense of balance in these matters. We have to recognise, too, that the peak of building, even under the Small Dwellings Acts, has been passed. Had this proposal come in a few years earlier under whatever Government happened to think of it at the time, it would have been very much welcomed indeed by the thousands of people who provided houses in the past ten years. The number—at least in the urban areas—who will benefit by the proposal will not be very large. Nevertheless, I suggest to the Minister that he might look at this proposal again and see whether it would be possible to recommend a slightly more generous approach. I know that that is all he can do in the matter because the local authorities will have to meet the cost. Nevertheless, I ask that the Minister should make some recommendation in the matter.
Finally, I should like to say that, in general, as I said in opening, this Housing Bill is an improvement on present legislation. It would be no harm to say, as a city Deputy, that we welcome the provisions in the Bill to encourage rural housing. I do not know whether if, in the past 20 or 30 years, more adequate housing had been made available in rural areas, it would have encouraged the people to remain in those areas. I think it is a good thing that the Minister has decided to help the rural areas in this way.
I do not think that the provisions of the Bill, while they are generally welcome, will have any substantial effect on unemployment in the building industry, whether in the urban or rural areas. The Bill, to a great extent, deals with repairs and improvements. Repairs and improvements can be carried out, in many cases, by people working after hours, if they are lucky enough to have jobs. Certainly these repairs and improvements would not be carried out under conditions that normally apply under substantial local authority or private enterprise building. Therefore, I think, without being in any way critical of the Minister, that the Bill will make no substantial change in the employment position in the building industry, particularly in the cities, or even in the rural areas.
I would ask the Minister to deal with the points I have mentioned and to bear in mind, in particular, the points I have mentioned in regard to the difficulties facing my own local authority. Might I conclude on one point on which I may not be supported by my own local authority or by the Department? I am convinced from my experience as a member of a local authority that it is most desirable to have flat buildings limited in number in any scheme. I think, speaking from a personal point of view, that when you build 200, 300 or 400 flats, you may create a situation which tends to cause other expenses than are necessary by way of repairs. The damage has been done in the years since the emergency and possibly even before that and now it is likely that it cannot be repaired. The mistake was made of having too great a concentration on the one type of building.
Perhaps, in Dublin, we were inclined to overlook the fact that no community consists of people drawn from the one wage-earning class. If you are anxious to have a community which will protect the property, and advise the children to protect it, that can best be done on the basis of a community drawn from different sections of society. We are a little late in dealing with that matter now and I only mention it for the examination of the Minister in respect of future flat building schemes. That is a personal view only. I think that a scheme of flats of 50 or 60 dwellings has been proved to be a much more attractive scheme than one which contains very many more.
