During my few remarks yesterday evening on the subject of housing, I mentioned some figures which appeared to amaze the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government. Both by facial expression and consultation with the Department he appeared to suggest that the figures I quoted regarding the construction of houses by Dublin Corporation were incorrect. I must confess that I made a slight error when I referred to the year 1951-52 as the year in which there was the greatest production of dwellings by that particular local authority. I must apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary if I misled him. The correct year was the year prior to that, the year 1950-51.
I mentioned those figures to remind the House that over a period of 15 years the Department of Local Government could not claim any pride of achievement, either as regards the total number of dwellings constructed by the local authority or by anybody else. I shall now quote one or two figures from a little book. It is the diary for Dublin Corporation for 1964. The diary shows that in respect of 1951 2,253 cottages were completed and 226 flats and 109 dwellings reconditioned, that is, a total of 2,588 during the year 1951-52. I mentioned that there was a decline following those years. The decline was not just steady. There was a sharp drop and then a reasonably steady drop particularly during the term of the present Minister for Local Government.
In 1958-59 there were 294 cottages and 166 flats constructed, that is a total of 460 dwellings. In 1959-60 280 cottages and 225 flats were built, a total of 505 dwellings. In 1960-61 there were 94 cottages and 183 flats, a total of 277 dwellings constructed. In 1961-62 282 cottages and 110 flats were constructed, a total of 392 dwellings. The last figure that is shown in the diary is for the year 1962-63. During that year 372 cottages and 271 flats were constructed, that is, a total of 643 dwellings. It would take roughly the total of all those years together to equal the number of dwellings, houses and flats, built in Dublin in the year 1950-51— 15 years ago.
We are supposed to have for a number of years a Government who, according to their own spokesman, are a progressive Government and a Government supposed to be dealing with the problem of housing in city, town and countryside. If you look at the records in regard to other parts of the country you will find a somewhat similar picture to what I have given for Dublin. It is true that there are at present some improvements but that record will take a long time living down as far as the Fianna Fáil Government are concerned. There is no use in the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting in this House that a dismal record of this nature is the responsibility of local authorities because in this connection it is well to put the position correct and clear before the House and before everybody.
As far as local authorities are concerned sanction is required for the acquisition of ground, for the development of land, the laying of sewers, the issuing of tenders, the sanctioning of tenders, and the sanction of building contracts. The sanctions in all cases come from the Department of Local Government. The Department do not always refuse sanction. When it suits those in office and those in power they can delay matters very considerably. They can delay matters by holding up applications by local authorities under the compulsory purchase orders.
I have one particular place in mind in the city of Dublin, an area which the local authority was looking to acquire for a long time. They needed some ground in the Wolfe Tone Street area on which to build flats. The matter was referred to the compulsory purchase procedure. The Department decided there must be an investigation. Two years passed before any decision was issued by the Department on that investigation. Consequently, the local authority did not know if they were going to get permission to go ahead. Eventually it was decided by the Minister that permission should not be given to build dwellings in that particular area.
There are other cases in which compulsory purchase orders have been the subject of investigation and, again, because of Ministerial decision, the application of the local authority has not been agreed to in full. These matters, as I suggest, might not be quite so serious if it were purely a question of a number of houses or a number of flats or a number of sums in arithmetic, but they are serious because failure to provide dwellings for those who are constantly in need of such dwellings imposes a continuing and increasing hardship, and exposes fathers, mothers and children to continued existence in insanitary, unfit and unsuitable accommodation, and forces many hundreds of them to live in conditions, which, certainly in this country at least, should not be tolerated for any length of time. We pride ourselves in this country—to what extent we are entitled to do so I cannot say —on being a Christian community, a community of which the family is an integral part, a most important part, a community in which the parents are expected to exercise discipline and give guidance and help in relation to their children as they grow up.
I well remember some years ago in this House, and outside it, a former Minister for Health dilated at great length on the deleterious effects of providing meals for school children, that if a community were to provide hot meals for school children, this would interfere with the family as a unit, would be tantamount to bringing into our community all that the Minister says is bad in other communities in other parts of the world. So, consequently, the Government who represent that view have surely responsibility to secure by every reasonable and proper means that families will have adequate accommodation and that we will not be faced in 1966 with the position that hundreds of families are living in circumstances where the young father lives with his parents and his wife, and maybe one or two children, has to live with her parents for a prolonged period.
If the Minister and his Department consider that this is the type of family life that should be supported, I would be very much surprised to hear it. Yet, the facts are there. We are told in the Minister's report that the total output of local authority dwellings under his leadership for 1965-66—and remember this Government have been back in office since 1957—for the whole country was 11,000 and yet in 1951-52 the Dublin Corporation could provide more than 25 per cent of them purely as local authority dwellings. In or around the same time private enterprise, with the assistance of such grants as were available, provided as many as, if not more than, Dublin Corporation in the area. From 1951 we have had this situation.
I do not tire of pointing these things out to the Minister and to the Department because unless they are continually reminded of the facts of the situation, they may well retire again into that slumber they appear to have been in for a long time.
As I said yesterday, as far as Dublin is concerned, there were under construction at the end of September, aside from the Ballymun project, only 1,000 dwellings. Of those, it is estimated that 278 would be handed over by approximately the end of this year, and in the years that lie immediately ahead, there is no programme to any great extent because of the activity, or inactivity, of the Department of Local Government for any great expansion of the production in that sphere.
I said yesterday, and I remind the Minister again, that he repeatedly said that this project in Ballymun was to be supplemental to the local authority's programme. It appears today that the project at Ballymun is in substitution to a great extent for this particular programme.
Perhaps I might refer to another aspect of the Minister's statement. The Minister is a very capable man, a man who can be very persuasive. He evidently has persuaded a number of local authorities that they should introduce a differential rents scheme for existing dwellings. But he referred to the standard of local authority houses in the course of this debate in column 51 of volume 224 of the Official Report and said:
Far too many schemes have, in recent years, had to be entirely re-planned because proposals were formulated on an over-optimistic basis in relation to available resources, and there has been a continuing tendency to submit proposals for house types which are too large or too elaborate to be economic for local authority housing.
I should like the Minister to give us a little more information on what he means by "too large or too elaborate". From my point of view, and I think from the point of view of any Deputy here, the essential purpose of a house, or any dwelling, is to provide adequate accommodation for the family living therein. As I said yesterday, some 25 per cent of local authority houses built in Dublin in recent years are five-roomed. "Five-roomed" refers only to the number of rooms. They cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as large. Having regard to the large families in the Dublin area, it is rather surprising that the Department is still think in terms of a superficial floor area of somewhere around 780 square feet as adequate accommodation for a growing family.
If any efforts to secure the improved education of the children of this nation are made, if any efforts are being made to improve the standard of accommodation for them, surely one basic thing that is required is that these families have not only roofs over their heads, not only a number of rooms, but rooms in which they can have some degree of comfort? One can go out to the housing estates in Dublin and discover bedrooms which from wall to wall are occupied by two or three beds—four beds would not fit in any of them. The possibility of these families living in any degree of comfort is limited by the size and inadequate nature of the dwelling. I would therefore recommend that the Minister look at this question again of not only standard but size. The standard of dwellings, as far as planning is concerned, may have improved in recent years. The standard of material used and other standards cannot be said to have kept pace with modern developments.
I referred yesterday, when the Minister was having a deserved rest, to the fact that he felt he was being misrepresented on the question of rents. I repeat here today that it would be far from my desire to misrepresent him but he has indicated quite clearly and in no uncertain terms, by circular from his Department and otherwise, that, in his view, realistic rents should be enforced by the local authorities. That, of course, means by the city or county managers. At column 58, volume 224, No. 1 of the Official Report of 27th September, 1966 the Minister said:
I am, in particular, impressed by the fact that the Association of Municipal Authorities at their recent annual conference passed a motion, by a large majority, favouring the introduction of the differential rent system to all the local authority houses within the next five years.
I do not know who gave any representative of Dublin Corporation authority to support a motion in these terms at the conference of the Association of Municipal Authorities. I do not know to what extent the people who attended from the various bodies got a mandate from their respective bodies to do so, but it seems to me, without reflecting too much on that august body, that at times resolutions appear on the agenda and are passed at their annual meeting which are never discussed by the respective councils and for which the representatives have received no prior mandate. As far as my local authority is concerned, I know no authorisation was given to any of its representatives to support a motion of that kind. We are not entirely unimportant, having regard to the fact that there are some 20,000 corporation tenants on standard rents and a resolution of this character would mean that a policy was being adopted by elected representatives—not by the Minister or by the manager—whereby existing tenancies would have the basis upon which their rents are calculated changed within a period of five years. I would have very grave doubt as to whether any representative of any local authority who attended that meeting had any mandate to swallow this Departmental policy, because it is Departmental policy to apply differential rents, just as it is Departmental policy to apply increased rents. The circulars to the managers make that quite plain. Some of the managers have operated in accordance with the terms of these standards and have introduced increased rents, without the support of the local authorities. That is the value the county managers are in our present system of local government. They get certain powers which give them the right to override the expressed view of the elected representative.
There is one further matter I should like to refer to. It is the position of those families who have been prepared to consider entering into agreements to purchase homes for themselves. As I said yesterday, much lip service is paid to these young men and women, shortly to be married, who are prepared to accept the burden of providing themselves with accommodation. In the early 50s, it was possible to obtain a dwelling for around a few thousand pounds. It was possible to get money by way of loan or grant and we had a situation where young people would have to find no more than £100 or £150 as a deposit. What is the picture today? People contemplating house purchase today are faced with the problem of finding £500, £600, £700 or £800.
The prices of these houses have gone up and, while the Minister talks about maintenance costs, we have never seen any great activity in his Department towards helping to keep the cost of these dwellings down. The prices have gone up, and local authorities are entitled to make increased loans—they have even been entitled to increase the level of the supplementary grant—but have this Government given one half-penny more in hard cash to help these people? They say they are fine citizens; they removed responsibility from the local authorities of having to provide them with subsidised dwellings. We are aware, of course, that to some extent people who buy their houses do get a form of subsidy by way of remission of rates or by way of State or supplementary grant from the local authority but there has been no adjustment in this to correspond with the increase in costs. Consequently, the problem of these people is becoming increasingly difficult and all they get is a pat on the back.
The Minister pats them on the back and says: "You are a good little boy; it is a nice thing to save at tremendous sacrifice to yourself or your wife-to-be or, if you cannot save yourself, maybe get your relatives or friends to help you by making a loan of a couple of hundred pounds by way of deposit, but we do not propose to give you any more help; we will let the local authority do that." Appeals have been made to lift the level at which loans have been made. The gap between the loans payable by the local authorities and the amount required to purchase a house is very steep indeed.
It is true that some of these people may apply to building societies or banks to get greater loans but, primarily, there is no additional help given as far as this Government are concerned. I am aware, of course, that at one stage it was indicated that the grant given—of £275, or whatever was the figure for these houses—was not primarily to help the people to buy their houses; it was to help the builders who were engaged in building construction. Therefore, as it was felt that the builders engaged in building construction were now able to look after themselves, there was no justification for increasing the grant. This is a matter to which I have adverted before and it is one which should engage the attention of the Minister.
In conclusion, may I say that as a result of the Minister's circular, the City Manager in Dublin—and no doubt the managers of the various counties throughout the country—has already submitted proposals for an increase in the rents of tenants of local authority dwellings. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that these proposed increases are objectionable, that their concept is wrong, and that the intention to foist on the local authority tenants, or on the backs of the ratepayers, sums of money that would have been contributed by the Exchequer had the subsidy on house-building been continued as the increases arose in the cost of housing, is, to say the least of it, deplorable.
The maximum price at which a subsidy is given is £1,650, whereas local authority houses are costing £2,700. The result is that there is a gap of £1,000 and in the repayment of loans, the interest and everything else, either the tenant or the ratepayer will have to make up that gap. It used to be operated on the basis of a three way system: the State, the local authority and the tenant; but the State has slipped out gradually and passed the burden over either to the tenant or the local authority. The State is advising managers that they in turn should pass it over to the tenant. The Maximum price at which a subsidy is given on flats is £2,000. The cost of a four-roomed flat in modern conditions is around £5,000—and for the life of me I do not know how that cost is worked out. There is not a penny of State subsidy on the £3,000. It does not qualify for a single penny of State subsidy. Yet we are told there is a contribution.
May I recommend to the Minister that these matters should receive his attention? When he is replying to this debate, he should enlarge somewhat on his remarks in introducing this Estimate on the cost and standard of dwellings. He should tell us whether those remarks are to be taken at their face value and if, in fact, there is to be no improvement in the standard of of local authority dwellings in the future.