Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Nov 1976

Vol. 294 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Dublin Employment and Housing: Motion.

Mr. Dowling

I move:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government because of its failure in the fields of employment and housing in the Dublin region and calls on the Government to initiate the necessary remedial measures.

It is distressing for me and others to come into this House and recite the various problems confronting the citizens of our capital city. Dublin is a city bursting at the seams because of neglect over the past three years. If we read the comments in the papers and make the same suggestions from the Opposition benches, we are told it is nonsense.

On the 4th October the Minister for Labour said that "Dublin is a major distress area in terms of job loss". We know that only too well. We made efforts in the City Council and in this House to bring this distressing matter to the attention of the Government. Now that Minister has admitted that Dublin is a major distress area. On the 5th November the Fine Gael Lord Mayor of Dublin said: "Dublin is a new distressed area. Up to 20 per cent of the people are out of work. The city centre is dying. The housing problem is getting worse." We are only too conscious of this problem and have been for some time making the necessary noises to attract attention.

In tonight's evening paper we read that a survey carried out last May on behalf of the Ballyfermot Community Association's educational subcommittee showed that 23.6 per cent of those included had no jobs at any time. That is the pathetic situation with which we are faced today. We are examining the problems of this city in relation to those three statements.

I want to present the House with figures dealing with the various problems that will be outlined in detail by many speakers during this debate when they point out the various replies given by Ministers when dealing with this problem. First, I want to deal with the housing of our citizens. It is all important that the social conscience of the nation and the Government be pricked into action. We must let them know the facts. No longer must we tolerate the bluff which comes from the Custom House and this House.

The Minister for Local Government could probably be described as the most conservative Fine Gael Minister in the Labour Party. During the last few weeks his actions horrified even members of his own party, who have referred to him in a variety of ways. One Member of the Oireachtas referred to him as "Big Bully Tully". We want to expose here the bullying tactics that have been generated in the Custom House over the last three years and the untruths that have been uttered in this House and outside by the Minister when dealing with the housing problems in this city.

I want to give some comparisons. In November, 1972, prior to the change of Government, there were 5,307 families on the waiting list in Dublin who were eligible for accommodation. We have been told that the past three years have been record breaking years and that the greatest possible number of houses have been built houses which were far superior to anything Fianna Fáil built over the years. I want to nail that lie once and for all. Today, November, 1976, there are more people on the housing waiting list than ever before. There are 5,402 families, this year on that waiting list, even after a very generous reduction of 20 per cent in respect of duplication, emigration or applicants who are no longer interested. It is important to note that the claim to record-breaking years does not stand up to reality.

For the last full year, 1973, 1,529 houses and flats were completed. This was claimed to be a record-breaking year, a year when Dublin was bursting at the seams with houses we cannot find. The official figures of Dublin Corporation show clearly that in 1969 1,993 houses were built; in 1970 1,850, a far greater number than had been built in any year by the Coalition. This explodes the lie which this House and the country have been subjected to over the years.

From the 1st January, 1976, to 30th September, 1976, 2,607 families applied for housing. The number of houses built in that same period was only 857. How can 2,607 families fit into 857 dwellings? Those are the facts. These are the figures Dublin Corporation are operating on. These are the houses the corporation know have been built. Of course, there may be other houses we do not know about. The Minister may be building castles in the sky, but the fact is that the housing programme is not as he stated on many occasions.

The Minister stated that a record number of houses had been built. Where are they? They are not to be found. The Dublin housing situation is very important and most distressing. The social conscience of this House and of the Government must be alerted to the growing problems that confront the citizens of this city. There are unfortunate women who are unable to obtain accommodation. They cannot live on promises. They want something to replace the promises, a more concrete proposition. We are faced with the serious situation of a deterioration in our local authority houses. In the maintenance section, because of lack of funds, there has been a considerable cutback in maintenance. Good houses are deteriorating because of a reduction in the numbers employed in the housing maintenance section. Again, we are told by the people in the Custom House that this is not so. The fact is that operatives have been removed from that particular section to another section and the houses have been allowed to deteriorate. There is, too, a marked reduction in the standard of maintenance and the Minister's circular in regard to maintenance clearly shows the attitude of the Minister towards the good housing stock we had, stock he is now allowing to deteriorate because he wants to reduce the cost.

We have a very serious situation in regard to rent arrears. The Minister has made numerous pronouncements about rent arrears. He has endeavoured to place blame. Blame placing is no solution to the problem. It is an immense problem. I have been a member of Dublin Corporation for 20 years. My colleague, Deputy Seán Moore, has been a member for longer than that. We tackled this problem until this Minister took office and he is the man responsible for the appalling situation we have today. Prior to the rent strike there was a total of £269,725 owing in rent arrears. Some of that represented differential debits of one type or another. The situation could be described as a normal situation. The amount owing was carried over to the next year and the debits were clear. The present deterioration is the result of interference not alone by Ministers but also by the former vice-chairman of the Labour Party and one time chairman of Dublin Corporation who assisted these people in rent strikes and squatting, who spoke from their platforms and encouraged them. Ministers in the present Government encouraged people to squat and break the law in regard to paying rents. We now have the situation where on 3rd November, 1976, no less than £1,412,420 rent arrears are due and I do not believe these will be collected within a normal life span. This situation has come about because of interference with the rent structure and rent arrears and rent fixing by the Minister for Local Government.

At one time the members of the Dublin Corporation housing committee had a duty and a function and it carried out that duty and that function without ministerial interference, without the kind of interference we have experienced over the past three years. Had the Minister not given a blank cheque to tenants to meet their commitments and permitting them not to pay their rents for two years we would not have the situation we have today. The Minister is responsible for that appalling situation. He is solely responsible. We do not want to have rent arrears and had there been no ministerial interference we would have been able to rectify the situation. The Minister is using outside organisations, like NATO for the purpose of putting up rents and making deals of one kind or another, functions which are not really his. He has interfered in rent strikes. He has failed to consult the members of Dublin city council. Now we are expected to bring in the sheriff to root out the people who are not paying their rents. That is the approach. We will not carry out that approach. By his interference the Minister has brought about the situation that exists in relation to rent arrears. Until such time as he takes his finger out of that pie and consults the members of the corporation—not at the last moment or behind closed doors and making deals with other organisations who are not public representatives—we cannot have a real interest in the serious problems of the city.

We are all aware that many people are unable to meet their commitments at present because of the appalling upward spiral in the cost of living and the way taxes have been loaded on to ratepayers and taxpayers. At the end of October £9.9 million was still due for rates. In the industrial sector £4.9 million was outstanding while in the domestic sector £5 million was due. When we see industrialists unable to pay their rates it is a warning sign and an indication that we must cry halt to the situation. The Government must take the necessary action to meet the problems of the city. Those problems must be examined in detail and we must be prepared to suggest remedial measures. In taking these measures we must ensure there is no victimisation, the type of victimisation we are now being prompted to carry out against people who merely carried out the orders of the Minister for Local Government in the past. They took advantage of the Minister's two years' stay which we said would be a disaster. Tenants of Dublin Corporation are as entitled to strike as any other people. They saved their rents and were prepared to pay them but the Minister said: "No; you have two years". In that two years the situation was not relieved to any great degree and the people, because of the upward spiral in the cost of living and wholesale unemployment, found it necessary to fall back on these reserves with the result that they find themselves in this difficulty.

With the rates, and the danger signals that are there, with the rents, and the danger signals that are there, we want to know what the Government and the Minister will do. At the end of the last financial year we had the serious situation in relation to rates where approximately £2 million was outstanding to Dublin Corporation. We have not got the houses the Minister states and we are unable to meet the demands in the city. The houses there are deteriorating because of the cutback in maintenance. The situation should be examined with the elected members of the city. As a result of the interference of some of the Ministers, a former vice-chairman of the Labour Party and chairman of the housing committee at the time, we have 867 squatters in £8 million worth of Corporation property. We are told to bring in the sheriff, to use the jackboot, when these people were encouraged into squatting by public representatives. I should like to point out that the Fianna Fáil group on the corporation constitutes one-third of the membership and we have made a responsible effort over the years to meet the squatting and rent situation. In tackling these serious matters we must treat the people with justice and understanding. I do not want to see any squatters in Dublin and I never encouraged anybody to squat, as was done by other members of the corporation and Members of this House. We met the various Ministers and the Attorney General to try to bring some reality into the situation and to offload the problems created by the Minister for Local Government and his friends over the past three-and-a-half years.

I want to point out the Minister's attitude to corporation tenants and I want to deal with recent increases in rent. We in Dublin Corporation were not consulted; we are never consulted until outside interests are consulted and until non-elected people who crow so loudly outside are consulted and make a deal with the Minister. The Minister is using the tenants' organisation, NATO, and has been using them consistently over the years. Is this the work of a socialist? Is it socialist policy? Is it the policy of the tenants' association to victimise the corporation tenants in relation to rents?

There must be an equitable system of rent assessment that will apply to people in similar circumstances and accommodation in the same way. But what have we? The differential rents which the Minister and NATO recently agreed embody substantial injustice. A tenant of the corporation unemployed before 17.9.1976 with a wife and three children would be drawing either unemployment or disability benefit in the sum of £26.80. He would pay a rent of 49p, a reasonable figure. If he had pay-related benefit he would pay £1.89. After the Minister consulted outside groups, if this man's next-door neighbour became unemployed after 17.9.1976 and had the same number of children and the same type of house he would have the same income of £26.80 but he would not pay 49p; he would pay £2.67. If he had pay-related benefit he would pay, not £1.89 but £5.23. One can see the tremendous increase with no sense of balance or justice as between two people.

A husband with a wife and four children with an income of £29.40 before 17.9.1976 would pay 53p, if getting unemployment or disability benefit. If he had pay-related benefit he would pay £1.95. If his next-door neighbour became unemployed on 18.9.1976, also with a wife and four children he would have the same income but he would not pay 53p; he would pay £3.44p and if he had pay-related benefit he would pay £5.51p. This is injustice for those who have become unemployed since 17.9.1976.

A man with a wife and five children and unemployed before 17.9.1976 would have an income of £32. He would pay 57p rent or, if he had pay-related benefit, £2. But if his next-door neighbour became unemployed on 18.9.1976, while he would have the same income he would pay £3.68p as against 57p or £5.75p as against £2 if he had pay-related benefit. Where is the justice in this system introduced by the Minister and backed up by the Coalition Government?

I have heard the Government described in a variety of ways but in a global assessment of them taking all views into account I suppose we could say that they are a Government of philosophers, thinkers and chancers, heavily weighted in the chancer section. When we examine this matter we can see how the Minister is yielding to pressure, how the people consulting the Minister are conscious of the situation at a given time but are not concerned about the man who becomes unemployed the next day. They are concerned about themselves alone. The Minister protects them. They are not concerned about the man with three, four, five or six children who becomes unemployed the next day. They will not pay the increased rent. Why should they not? Why should there not be equity in regard to rents when the benefits, the houses and the outlay are the same? Is this the socialist policy of the so-called socialists of the Labour Party? We hope that the Minister for Local Government will answer this question.

I have dealt with the problems in a very general way. Other speakers will deal with them in a much more detailed manner. I merely want to expose the hypocrisy of the Minister and the present Government in regard to the citizens of Dublin and in regard to their elected representatives when people go into the Custom House and, aided and abetted by the Minister, arrive at decisions which are satisfactory to themselves with no regard for the common good of the community or the good of the local authority. This is an appalling situation. If the Minister took his finger out of the housing pie and out of the rents pie and consulted the public representatives, we would be able to arrive at a more equitable system which would do justice to all. We would not have the situation of two neighbours watching each other, one paying 53p and the other paying £3.44p per week with the same income. This matter must be rectified.

The Parliamentary Secretary who is present now is a reasonable man. He probably did not know that an injustice was being perpetrated on tenants who have become unemployed and who, notwithstanding that, are now subject to the higher rents. They were also denied the recent social welfare increases to meet cost of living increases. People on unemployment benefit have not got those increases. On top of immense rent increases they are now deprived of what they were promised by the present Government, who have ratted on their responsibility.

I am sorry for the corporation tenants who are being ill treated by non-elected representatives who are feathering their own nests and by the Minister who is giving way to pressure. The day we get the present Minister out of the Custom House and get in another Minister, irrespective of party, the better. Whether he would be from Fine Gael or Labour he would not be any worse than the present Minister and would not give way to pressure in the way we have seen the present Minister give way in the past three-and-a-half years, making a farce of local authority and of public representatives. He comes in at the last minute and changes his mind on so many issues when protest comes from one group or another. Any Minister who yields to pressure as the Minister has done is no Minister. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to convey the points I have made to the Minister or, indeed, to the Taoiseach and to ask the Taoiseach to take the necessary action to ensure that our citizens are treated responsibly. Perhaps it is because the Minister does not come from Dublin that he wants to trample on the people here and wants to make second-class citizens of the Dublin Corporation tenants.

This is not the only irresponsible act of the Minister for Local Government. I want to deal with other matters on which the Minister has been very vocal in recent times, whereby he endeavoured to blackmail the corporation into doing as he wished. However, we shall not be blackmailed by the Minister for Local Government or by any other Minister. Because members of the council stood for a principle the Minister made several attempts to attack them viciously. He endeavoured to distort a situation thereby conveying an erroneous impression to the public. The advice given to the corporation by three senior counsel shows clearly what is the Minister's position in relation to this infamous clawback. One of the questions we put to our legal people was whether the Minister or the manager had the right to impose new conditions by way of a clawback, a provision which was not part of the conditions at the time of the signing of a transfer order. In reply we were told that the Minister could impose conditions only relating to the sale or lease of dwellings to the tenant provided that the conditions can be said reasonably to relate to the sale or lease to the tenant. We were told that in so far as the conditions relate to anything else, payment to the authorities on a resale is unlawful. Despite this situation the Minister has endeavoured to act unlawfully in this manner and he has chosen to use blackmail for his purpose. Various suggestions have been made by the Minister and by some of his hatchetmen on the council and elsewhere in relation to the clawback.

What the Minister is seeking is a clawback of 30 per cent of the profit on a house. No consideration is being given to the amount of money that a person may have spent on improving that house or to the length of time that the tenant has occupied the house. We know that for long periods these houses were maintained by the tenants in a responsible way and that they did not fail in this regard when the local authorities would not or could not carry out maintenance work.

In relation to private dwellings there is an exemption in respect of capital gains tax on sales of up to £60,000. After that the rate of capital gains tax is 26 per cent but in this case the Minister is seeking 30 per cent from the sale of a local authority house. The scheme for the sale of local authority dwellings was drawn up by the Minister. Surely the price agreed between a tenant and the local authority is fair and equitable but as in relation to such matters as differential rents, the rent strike, squatting and so on the Minister has considered it necessary to change his mind so that he can come back again for a rake off. On most occasions the Minister's cry has been rejected by the Dublin city council while on other occasions they have agreed with it. The decision is their responsibility. The Minister has no function in the present situation but should he wish to have any function in the matter he should bring in the amending legislation necessary to change the situation. Instead, he wants to please everyone but in so doing he finds it necessary to run for cover behind NATO or some other organisation. Judging from the number of circulars that we in Dublin Corporation have received during the past 12 months, it would be remarkable if the Minister found it possible to send us even one more. The pattern has been one of circulars being received, then withdrawn, sent out again and withdrawn again. Consequently, one places no reliance on the first circular received from the Minister in relation to any matter but one waits for the withdrawal of that circular and for the production of the second one. We recall how untruthful the Minister was during the by-election campaign in Dublin South-West. I shall not deal with that aspect of the matter now but I hope to go into it at another stage when I shall illustrate some of the Minister's jackboot tactics.

Even at this late stage I call on the Government to do something to help all those people in this city who have never held a job. In Ballyfermot which is in the constituency I represent there is the highest rate of unemployment in the country—23.6 per cent. I appeal to the Government to bring some reality into the rents and rates situation so that local authorities can function as such.

While we are on the question of unemployment I might mention that when Fianna Fáil left office in 1973 there were 17,900 people unemployed in Dublin city while the figure for the country was 71,000. On 5th November this year, 32,000 people were registered for social welfare in Dublin city and 109,000 was the figure in this respect for the rest of the country. These figures do not take account of the vast number of young people who have never had a job and who are entitled to social welfare benefits but cannot get them. Neither do the figures take account of the various people—professional people and others—who, although out of work, do not apply for social welfare payments.

I would point, too, to the declining situation in the country generally in relation to redundancy and would emphasise that of all redundancies 60 per cent occur in this city. In 1973 the figure for redundancies was 7.504, in 1974 it was 11,202 and in 1975 it was 19,004. These figures show the ever-increasing spiral in the situation. I appeal to the Government to introduce some measure to alleviate this situation whether by way of capital works schemes or something else. Something is needed immediately to lessen the impact of the situation referred to by the Minister for Labour when he said that Dublin is a major disaster area in terms of job losses. The Lord Mayor of Dublin has said that Dublin is the new distressed area in which 20 per cent of the people are out of work. The city centre, he said, is dying and the housing problem is becoming worse. We agree that this is the situation but we are asking the Government to do something about it. The unemployed are facing a dismal Christmas. One of the worst aspects of the situation is that they can have no hope for the future. This appalling situation has been allowed develop by this irresponsible Government. Will they do something now to give some hope to the people regarding the future both for them and for the country generally?

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government (Mr. O.J. Flanagan)

A motion such as this should lead to a commonsensical and very intelligent debate. It is extremely regrettable that the mover of the motion should have expressed the sentiments he did express in a personal attack on the Minister for Local Government which must be deplored. Personal abuse of that kind adds nothing to common sense and intelligence in debate. Deputy Dowling spoke on a number of topics: unemployment, housing in Dublin, the rates and rents situation. He dealt with the active manner in which the Minister for Local Government has been participating in housing affairs, rents and other matters pertaining to his Department. I could not help feeling Deputy Dowling was displaying envy and jealousy because of the manner in which the Minister for Local Government negotiated so successfully with NATO on rents. During the discussions the Minister had with NATO there was a commonsensical and most intelligent exchange of views. Those who represented NATO understood the problems of the Minister and of the local authorities in general, and the Minister understood their problems.

Naturally enough, Deputy Dowling was extremely worried and gravely disappointed because there was not a serious clash between NATO and the Minister. When Fianna Fáil were in office there were rents strikes throughout the length and breadth of this country. Vast sums were unpaid to local authorities. Tenants organisations were organising non-payment of rents because there were serious defects in the rents system operated by Fianna Fáil. It is well to point out that the new national differential rents scheme met the demands of the tenants and was widely welcomed after the Minister took office. It applies in the same way throughout the country. For the record, the principal features are unlike those of the Fianna Fáil rents scheme which they operated unsuccessfully, and which was rejected by the tenants and rejected by most local authorities as unsatisfactory and unworkable from the point of view of the tenants.

Under the new scheme overtime, shift allowances and bonus payments are no longer taken into account for rent purposes as they were by Fianna Fáil. Income tax on basic pay and social welfare contributions are allowable as a deduction in assessing rents, unlike the situation which prevailed when Fianna Fáil were in office. There is a revision of the maximum rent at three yearly intervals as a result of the agreement in 1973. Tenants on a basic income of £25 per week, or less, are assessed on a graded scale to reduce the rent to a reasonable level. That did not prevail when Fianna Fáil were in office. A review of tenants' incomes is normally carried out at yearly intervals. A householder who has been paying rent as the principal earner for at least a year before the tenant dies, and who succeeds to the tenancy, may do so without change in the differential rents scheme applicable to the dwelling. Many pensioners and others in receipt of social welfare payments are required to pay only a nominal amount, in most cases 5p per week in respect of rent and rates. That is different from the situation which existed when Deputy Dowling's party were in office.

Deputy Dowling expressed his displeasure at the Minister's intervention in the activities of local authorities. It is correct to say that under Fianna Fáil numerous houses were built with neither fireplaces nor chimneys. Substandard houses were provided for the people. The Minister altered that situation. To show the serious blunder in providing houses with neither chimneys nor fireplaces, the taxpayers were obliged to foot the bill for the provision of grants at the rate of £200 per house to put fireplaces and chimneys in schemes erected by Fianna Fáil and found to be unsuitable by the tenants.

Deputy Dowling referred to unemployment in this city. Nobody denies that there is a serious unemployment problem. Nobody denies that the Government and every Deputy on this side of the House are seriously concerned with the unemployment problem. Deputy Dowling seems to forget that when his party were in office there was also a very serious unemployment problem. As usual, Fianna Fáil had the remedy. I recall one of the remedies they had, a plan announced in Clerys ballroom on a festive occasion where Fianna Fáil openly and publicly declared they had a plan to provide 100,000 new jobs. Not one single new job was provided under that extraordinary plan announced at a dance.

Deputy Dowling must realise that, while Fianna Fáil were in office, the unemployed marched to the gates of this House and throughout the length and breadth of this city. On one occasion in one constituency there were enough unemployed to elect an unemployed representative as a Member of this House. He went on to paint an extraordinary picture of the deplorable situation in which many of these people will find themselves during the winter. Nobody likes to be unemployed. We are all concerned about unemployment. Every effort is being made to increase the number of jobs.

Listening to Fianna Fáil, one would imagine that unemployment was a serious problem in this country only. In its entire history Britain has never experienced such a large number of unemployed. The same goes for Germany, where there was a great economic recovery. The same applies in most European countries. In the EEC there is an extraordinary number of unemployed people. The EEC are not alone in that. During the recent presidential election in the United States, in every part of that country reference was made to the growing numbers of unemployed. The whole world is in the grip of a serious inflation problem, and inflation has had a very serious effect on jobs. In comparison with the size of the United States, and in comparison with the extent of the unemployment in Britain and the remainder of the EEC, we have fared reasonably well under this Government and much better than we would have fared under a Fianna Fáil Government so far as jobs are concerned.

There is one consolation for Deputy Dowling and the Fianna Fáil Party. The unemployed will not have to march through the cities. They will not have to line up for soup kitchens. They will not have to carry black coffins through this city as they did when Fianna Fáil were in office. The best Fianna Fáil could offer the unemployed while they were in office was a miserable unemployment allowance of £9.30 per week for a man and his wife. This Government, realising its social obligations to the unemployed, increased that to £18 per week. Even if these people are unemployed—and it is regrettable that they are and every effort will be made to provide employment for them—they are at least kept away from the verge of starvation to which Deputy Dowling referred. If this country has been affected by inflation, as the remainder of Europe is affected, we have had the courage to provide adequately for those who are affected by unemployment.

Is Deputy Dowling serious when he says no progress in housing has been made in the city of Dublin? No responsible public representative or responsible citizen could support that statement. However, he winds up on the subject of rates, and I do not wonder that he winds up on that subject, because he supports the Fianna Fáil policy of wiping out rates on all buildings in the city, which would cost £60 million for the Government and £16 million for Dublin Corporation. But neither Deputy Lynch, Deputy Colley nor Deputy Dowling has told us where the Fianna Fáil Party, if returned to power, would find over £70 million to fill the gap which would result from their policy. If Fianna Fáil say they intend to abolish the rates, it is only fair to ask them if they intend to put 10p in the £ on income tax in order to rake that in. Now is the time for Fianna Fáil to tell us where they will raise the money for this.

May I also say, for Deputy Dowling's information, in relation to County Dublin that in 1975 a sum of £20,600,000 was provided as part of the Government's capital expenditure on housing. The best that Fianna Fáil could provide in their last year in office, for 1972-73, was £4,969,000. Deputy Dowling says the Dublin Corporation housing programme has not been accelerated. In the present financial year Dublin Corporation have been given an unprecedented sum for housing. In 1975, £13,663,000 was provided as against Fianna Fáil's £7,699,000. There has been a serious backlog in housing in this city, because of the neglect of Fianna Fáil, because of the serious problems in regard to housing married couples, those who are living in flats or condemned housing. No serious effort was made prior to 1973 to reduce that backlog in the provision of housing.

If many local authorities have been critical in recent months of the amounts allocated for housing, although the allocations are an all-time record, it is because additional millions of pounds had to be provided by the Minister for Local Government to Dublin Corporation last year in an effort to break the back of the housing problem in this city. If Deputy Dowling and other Deputies like him had been as vocal when they were in office as they are in Opposition, then the Government and Dublin Corporation would not be facing this serious housing problem. The Government have consistently treated housing as a priority. If we accept that the family is the fundamental unit of society, each family must be provided with its own house. When the Minister for Local Government took office he set a target of 25,000 houses a year. Not alone have the Government achieved that target but have provided 26,000 houses last year. This compares with an average of 15,600 houses a year completed during the five-year period up to 1972-73 by the previous Government.

Despite the economic situation, which affects not only housing but every other section of the economy as well, public expenditure on housing last year and this year is to be more than £122 million compared to £46 million provided by Fianna Fáil in 1972-73. Who does Deputy Dowling think he is fooling? Does he think he is addressing a community of deaf people? Does he realise that people are listening and noting what he says, knowing it to be untrue and believing it to be a foolish utterance? There is no comparison between the present Government's housing policy and that of Fianna Fáil. How could the housing backlog of this city be tackled and the 2,500 applicants who are awaiting housing in this city be accommodated with a housing provision by the previous Government of £46 million for the entire country for 1972-73, in comparison with the £122 million spent by this Government? For the information of Deputy Dowling, who seems to be unaware of these facts, 14,765 local authority dwellings were built in the last three years of Fianna Fáil Government. In the first three years of National Coalition Government 21,488 local authority dwellings were built. The difference between these two figures indicates a reasonable effort to break the backlog created by our predecessors. A total of 36,444 houses, mostly private, was built in the three last years of the previous Government. During our first three years in office 54,345 dwellings were built. The total number of dwellings built in the last three years of Fianna Fáil Government was 51,239. One would expect Deputy Dowling to thank the Minister for Local Government for a successful job despite the most serious economic difficulties. We are fortunate to have a Minister who is concerned with housing.

The housing problem in Dublin city was so bad under Fianna Fáil that Dublin Corporation found it impossible to cater for the large number of people seeking houses during the last few years of their administration.

In October, 1973, the Minister had to consider the special circumstances of Dublin Corporation's housing problem. He appointed Mr. Molloy as housing co-ordinator for the area. In January, 1974, Dublin Corporation adopted the housing co-ordinator's new programme for central city housing development. I should like to pay tribute to the housing co-ordinator. His efforts made progress possible. He foresaw the need for the provision of 847 dwellings on 15 city sites comprising 82 acres. The programme was aimed at correcting the imbalance created by the enforced departure of many people from the centre of the city. It is hoped that dwellings in older areas of the city will be repaired and that shops and other amenities will be preserved.

In March, 1975, Dublin Corporation supplemented the original programme by including eight more sites totalling 27 acres. They intend to add more sites when the necessary surveys have been completed. They have an advanced programme for the development of nine city centre sites on which they hope to build 580 dwellings. The total expenditure in the Dublin area for 1976 is an all-time high of £33.3 million. Dublin Corporation's allocation is £23.7 million, an increase of £11 million on the previous year. This increase is in pursuance of the Minister's policy to concentrate resources for local authority housing where they are most urgently needed and to relieve the backlog of applications on the city's housing list. The allocation ensures a high level of activity in the housing programme. At the end of 1975 2,341 dwellings were in progress, 1,543 at tender stage, 10,233 at planning stage and 27,945 available on additional sites or being acquired, making a total of 42,062 dwellings. From 1973 to 1975 24,900 new houses were completed in the Dublin area in comparison with 16,600 in Fianna Fáil's time. The Minister for Local Government can be congratulated on an increase of 50 per cent in housing in the Dublin area.

For the information of Deputy Dowling, the sale of concrete for housing in the Dublin area in the first nine months of this year was increased by 78 per cent on the previous year and 6 per cent on 1973. This is evidence of progress in relation to housing. The most reliable indicator of the level of activity in the private sector is the demand for loan approvals. The total value of loans approved by the four main agencies reached an all-time record of £158 million in 1975. These points prove that the Minister is providing record sums for housing from very limited resources. I challenge Deputy Dowling to produce statistics from local authorities, particularly county and county borough councils, that they have not received more money for sanitary services, and housing and development, than they ever got from Fianna Fáil. The anxiety shown by Deputy Dowling and many of his colleagues is a display of jealousy and envy of the high level of progress in housing. We are providing good quality houses. Fianna Fáil provided substandard houses at unrealistic rents. This was unsatisfactory for the local authorities and the tenants. The Minister for Local Government will continue to show his great interest in the provision of houses.

Mr. Andrews

It is quite clear that the trend of the Coalition argument in relation to this motion is that they will all stand up together and congratulate the Government, the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the unemployment and the housing crises. According to the last speaker there is no unemployment or housing crisis. He has been engaged in the wonderful art of juggling statistics to suit his own argument. It is a well known form of selectivity of argument. Subsequent speakers on this motion will indicate the error of the previous speaker's ways.

I am contributing to this debate because of the social problems that the unemployment situation creates. This resolution confines our observations to the critical situation which has befallen the Dublin region, in relation to employment and housing. Young school leavers and older more experienced people are the main categories affected by the unemployment situation. The older people have experienced what in Coalition terms might be considered the luxury of employment and now find themselves in massive numbers on the unemployment queues. The bulk of these people are genuinely unemployed, they are seeking but cannot find employment. The social consequences of this state of affairs is that a man is seeking a job on a week in week out basis for perhaps a year or longer; he is continually questioned by his wife and family as to his success and he loses esteem in the local community and within the family. Family rows might arise owing to the straitened financial circumstances resulting from the lack of a job, marital breakdowns occur, and sons and daughters must leave the country to seek employment elsewhere.

Another serious consequence in relation to the school leaver who has not had the privilege of finishing out his full schooling, is that in a situation where a young person is genuinely looking for a job but cannot find it, bitterness, frustration and revolt sets in. These young people revolt against the democratic institutions of the State. They want to know why the Government cannot provide them with jobs and what the Government are doing about the provision of jobs for the young. What are the Government doing in relation to employment, which is what I consider to be a civil right and which young people believe to be a civil right? If this Government cannot do something immediately for unemployed young people they will have social revolution on their hands. Young people with no jobs, with no money relying on their parents, become bitter, they have time on their hands and nothing to do.

There has been an increase in vandalism throughout this nation and that has occurred basically because people do not have something constructive to do with their time. They are entitled to jobs and they are not receiving their entitlement. We on this side of the House hold the Government responsible for this social tragedy. I as a public representative and other public representatives also receive hundreds of letters from people looking for employment. In these letters people generally say they will take anything, with the result that many young people fill positions to which they are not suited and find themselves in dead end jobs for the rest of their lives. That is another evil of the present unemployment situation. People are being put into jobs for which they were never intended. Let us stop talking about the 109,000 unemployed. They are the official figures, but we know very weil that in addition to the number of people on the social welfare register thousands of people are not in receipt of social welfare because of their sex.

There is a definite bias against women under the social welfare code. Many young women cannot register for unemployment benefit because of various circumstances set against them and they are not included in the register. There are many professional people, engineers, architects and so on, who are out of work and they are not included in the register. Let us stop talking in terms of 109,000 unemployed. That is the official figure but the unofficial figure is up to 150,000 people, if not more. That is the reality of the situation.

The leader of our party on a number of occasions appealed, particularly in relation to the young, for the introduction of community work schemes. The Government are notorious for borrowing money from abroad and, in a good direction, we urge them as a matter of extreme urgency to borrow money which would commit in the first instance not less than 5,000 young people to community work schemes. Those schemes are readily available and I do not think they should be seen as a permanency from the point of view of those who would be asked to participate in them. That should be made clear to the young citizens involved. Such schemes would give young people a feel for work, would take them off the streets and would occupy them. It would also commit them to a respect for the institutions of the State. Community work schemes are a matter of urgency. They can be put into effect as a practical reality in a space of not less than two months. They are an investment in the future of the country, in the future of our youth. I believe the taxpayers would accept that, if such schemes were introduced, the Government should borrow money to ensure that the young generation will take over responsibly in the future.

It sickens me to listen to members of the Labour Party parliamentary group speaking about the unemployed. We had the spectacle recently of the Minister for Social Welfare announcing increases to less than 50 per cent of those entitled to benefits of one description or another and they received an increase of only 5 per cent, effective from 1st October. However, the largesse of 5 per cent did not extend to the unemployed. I am not talking about those who abuse the code; I am talking about the majority of our people who are genuinely unemployed and genuinely looking for work. Certain members of the Labour Party elected to this House said outside the House that if the social welfare increases were not reasonable by present day standards and in line with the cost of living index they would put down motions and resolutions asking the Government why they did not discharge promises given specifically by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare on 11th March. Those promises were given but not discharged. The action those members said they would take has not been forthcoming. We had a debate on the economy a short time ago, after the increase of 5 per cent was announced, but those members did not mention any motions. It will be interesting to hear those people justify themselves at the Labour Party Conference this weekend.

Where are those Members now? Would the real Labour Party stand up? There is a vital need for a good Labour Party here. We need a Labour Party concerned about the unemployed, one that does not go around wearing their concern on their sleeve and telling the people how sad the unemployment situation is and that they must do something about it. It is clear they cannot do anything about it. They should either shut up or put up. I believe there are honest members of the general body of the Labour movement who will put these questions to these individuals this weekend. The answers given will be interesting.

We heard recently of the alleged 4 per cent increase in growth rate. I hope there will be such an increase; indeed that the increase will be greater than the predictions. However, it is my belief that the 4 per cent increase will be due entirely to the devaluation of the British pound. The devaluation of the British pound means that imports will cost more with the result that costs for industry will rise. When we hear about a prospective rate of growth nobody ever tells us what will be done about unemployment. I have never heard that mentioned in the context of that growth rate. We want a growth rate not financed by inflation. In this respect Fianna Fáil's proposals are to increase employment and reduce inflation to 5 per cent per annum by 1978. That is not an idle boast.

In my concluding remarks tomorrow evening I intend to deal with housing in the Dún Laoghaire Borough. In that context I hope to tell the House the reality of the appalling housing situation which exists in the borough. I intend to deal with the fact that in 1976, 618 families applied for houses. In addition 87 old folk are awaiting houses. The number of families waiting for houses does not take into account the number in each family.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 17th November, 1976.