Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Nov 1976

Vol. 294 No. 2

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:
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.— (Deputy Dowling).

Last evening I concluded by outlining the effects of the Coalition's continuing crime against the young and the not-so-young unemployed citizen, a crime which can be absolved only by the provision of housing. I dealt in some considerable depth with the effects on the unemployed and with that aspect of the motion dealing with employment.

I had just broken into the question of housing in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. I had begun by giving a number of figures in relation to applicants on the housing list from 1972 to 1976. The number of applicants in the normal way in 1972 was 520 plus 58 old folk. In 1973 the number of applicants for housing in the normal way was 576 plus 70 old folk. In 1974 it was 620 plus 102 old folk. In 1975, 540 plus 80 old folk, and in 1976, there are still 618 applicants awaiting housing in the borough plus 87 old folk. Let us be clear about it—the number of applicants on the housing list in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire does not reveal immediately the number in each applicant's family. I am taking it that, once a couple have two children, their prospect of housing becomes a reality. The average four-member family multiplied by 618 gives a figure of 2,472 people in immediate need of rehousing in that borough. That is an appalling commentary on a Coalition Government who pride themselves on their housing record. When I say 2,472 people I am probably grossly underestimating the number of people in urgent need of rehousing in that borough.

The Coalition can take full credit for the building to date, in their four-year period of office, of 56 houses as yet uncompleted in the area. Twenty-seven of those 56 houses fall due for occupation in December next and 29 in May of next year. Of course, there is land in course of development for housing in the Ballybrack area. Nevertheless, the figures I have given are an appalling commentary on the Coalition's crime, as it were, against the people of that borough, in the first instance, on the employment front, the lack of job opportunity and, secondly, their entitlement, as a civic right, to housing. In 1974-75 there were 34 flatlets completed at Brookfield Lawn, Blackrock, for old folk. In 1976 there were 18 flatlets completed at Rochestown House for old folk. In relation to those two complexes, let me say that they are extremely well appointed. The officials of the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, architects, builders and so on, are to be congratulated for the thought that went into them.

There is another aspect worthy of repetition in the context of a discussion on housing, particularly during a housing crisis—and we have a housing crisis on our hands at present— there may be some people who pretend that they can get houses for applicants. They may be public representatives or others but the facts do not bear that situation out. In that respect let me pay tribute to the housing officials of the Borough of Dún Laoghaire and the Dublin County Council. They are people of the very highest integrity. Certainly they deal with public representatives' inquiries in the fairest possible way. However, all a public representative can do in relation to housing is make representations to the local authority involved. Then the points system operates—certainly in the Dún Laoghaire area— and when a person reaches an accumulated number of points he is entitled to a house. That is the reality of public representation on the housing front.

I hope the House and the people, who come to us looking for housing, will not be misled in relation to this very important principle. A Dáil Deputy or a public representative has an obligation, when a person comes inquiring about housing, to outline, before representations are made exactly what part he or she can play in the provision of a house for the applicant. That is the reality of the situation and it is as well to spell it out.

A quarter of the total work force, 25,000, in the building industry are unemployed, plus workers in the ancillary industries that supply the building and construction industry, because of Coalition housing policy. That is an ascertainable and stated fact. It is also an ascertainable fact that fewer houses were built in the public and private sectors in the first six months of 1976 compared with the same period in 1975. My figures indicate that a total of 1,800 fewer houses were built in the first six months of this year, compared with the same period last year. That also is an ascertainable fact.

The situation is not all doom and gloom. It is important to recognise that for the first time a man and a women can have their home in their joint names. This is a very important matter and the Coalition must take credit for it. We have heard of new instructions emanating from the Minister for Local Government in relation to housing maintenance grants. We have been told that county councils will have to take responsibility for the maintenance of houses. This is an extremely retrograde step. I have considerable experience in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire in relation to this matter. As well as the many people who come to me each month inquiring for houses many people come to me inquiring about maintenance. While it is important that we have new houses it is equally important that we do not let our older houses go into disrepair. The policy maintained by the Minister for Local Government in cutting back maintenance grants to the local authorities is bringing about a situation in which housing repairs cannot be conducted in the fashion they were before this.

I do not have to stress the social need of a house for a man, his wife and family. It appears that before a young couple can even think of obtaining a house they have to produce a certain number of children. I know it is proper that they should have a family but the circumstances in some cases are such that a man or woman has to live with his or her father and during that time, which may be three, four or five years before they can get a house, they have a family of two, three or four children. The new family, the man, his wife and children, are additional to the existing family in that house. In some instances in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire ten and even 12 people are living in some houses which are suitable only for a family of five or six. The people of Dún Laoghaire are entitled, as of right, to both housing and work.

I am glad to be afforded the opportunity this evening to speak on this motion. One must be amused at the hypocrisy of the Fianna Fáil Party in putting down this motion. One should examine our record in housing since we came into Government in March, 1973. Housing in the centre of Dublin was completely ignored by Fianna Fáil. In 1965-66 Dublin Corporation, after considerable expense, assembled a first-class site in City Quay, an area deprived of housing for many years. People felt that we would get life back into the centre of the city and things would start moving.

When the CPO came before the Minister in 1968 he flatly turned it down and said: "No. No housing for the centre city of Dublin, wherever else we might build them." We must compare that with what is going on now. The first thing the Minister did after taking office was to appoint—he saw the shambles left by the Fianna Fáil Party—a housing co-ordinator for Dublin city, county and the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. The present City Manager, Mr. Molloy, a first-class official, assembled the site in City Quay which, if it had been confirmed the year before, would have saved the Exchequer millions of pounds on development. The Minister, although he realised that the land was dear, recognised a great social need. He confirmed that CPO. That site is in the hands of the architects to design not sub-standard but first-class, well designed houses. In this area in the centre of the city the doors were thrown open for the first time to all architects to play a meaningful role in housing development. A total of 85 architectural firms entered this competition. As a result, we now have well designed and properly developed housing for the future.

We must compare that with the type of housing provided by Fianna Fáil, which they called low cost housing. It was low standard bad housing., on which we now have to spend a fortune repairing. This is a typical example of cutting back in areas we should have been concerned about. In Dublin city we got £11.7 million last year for local authority housing and this year we got £23.7 million. I cannot understand how the Opposition have the gall to put down this type of motion. I suppose when you are an inept Opposition and short of ideas you tend to grasp at any straw.

The Minister promised 25,000 houses a year, a figure he has exceeded each year. The facts and the figures are there. Under this Government houses did not fall down on people and kill them because we are concerned. The same cannot be said for the far side of this House. There is talk about jobs in the centre city. Who is responsible this House. There is talk about jobs in the centre city. Who is responsible for the down-turn, for the lack of investment in the city only the Fianna Government who denied any incentive to people to come in and develop employment? This Government saw the need and there are now grants available and people can come in and it is worth their while to set up industry in Dublin. The Leader of the Opposition as far as I am aware spoke against this when it was mooted; some members of the Opposition spoke in favour of it—to be fair. There was a deliberate policy over the years to neglect Dublin city. It was denuded of houses. They were allowed to fall down or were knocked down with no attempt made to replace them except to let in their Tacateer friends to develop office blocks with no regard for community interests. The same applied to industry. That is why we have a serious unemployment situation in Dublin—because of neglect over the years. Fianna Fáil could well ponder their mistakes but let them not try to encumber us with them. We are at present in the process of rebuilding the centre of Dublin city. Because of our grants scheme we are in the process of bringing back industry and giving the city centre real life again. We must deplore the hypocrisy of Fianna Fáil. The present Government have served Dublin well. They saw its needs and are looking after it. I should like to speak for longer but my time is limited.

How much time do I have?

Perhaps I am a very naive politician but I had hoped that when this motion was put down we would have had contributions from the Government side aimed at solving the problems facing Dublin and not merely trying to shift the blame to Fianna Fáil when they governed the country. I am very much aware of the problems of this city but I share this concern with the Minister for Labour, Deputy O'Leary who has said that in terms of job loss Dublin city is a distressed area. Recently the Lord Mayor of Dublin who, no doubt, is aware of the city's problems said that Dublin is the new distress area with up to 20 per cent of the people out of work; the city centre dying and the housing problem getting worse. Here we have the Minister for Labour, a colleague of the Minister for Local Government, saying this and the Lord Mayor of Dublin also speaking on the same point.

I do not agree that the city is dying but it is very ill. Some of that illness is due to Government ineptitude on social problems. Whether the Government accept my word or not they must take cognisance of statements by a Minister and by the Lord Mayor of Dublin. I am sufficiently optimistic to hope that if the Government will now look at the problems we are trying to highlight and take immediate action the city can be made a place that is no longer a distressed area or a city of which the Lord Mayor will say that its centre is dying. If there was sufficient goodwill on the Government's side we could have got together to work out solutions for this ailing city where thousands of youngsters leaving school cannot get jobs, where the housing list is growing, where young couples and old couples are on the waiting list without much hope of being rehoused in the immediate future.

We have many social problems for which I do not blame the Government although these problems may be caused partly by poor housing. Generally, the picture of the city is not improving and its problems are becoming greater. Instead of getting a solution to these problems we have to sit here and take abuse from the Government side. I shall not try to make political capital out of this situation but I want to show that we are concerned and we are showing that by raising that matter in the House. I do not want it to be thought that I am speaking only for those who believe in my party because the poverty of the city—poverty of houses and employment—is shared by all citizens, the under-privileged ones who have no proper housing or jobs or even proper educational opportunities, irrespective of their political allegiance.

I must take the Minister for Local Government to task. He has a black mark against Dublin. At the same time, I do not blame him entirely because the collective responsibility of the Cabinet is a big factor in a democratic government. If the Minister has failed to do certain things, we must also take his colleagues to task in the hope that they will impress on him the need to do something for the greater Dublin area which has one third of the total population and must, therefore, get some special treatment. The Minister may say that he has sanctioned schemes here and here but the point is that enough has not been done. The housing waiting list is growing according to official figures.

The city council has been treated pretty badly by the Minister for Local Government. A week ago last Saturday I read about a new directive given by the Minister on the capital moneys programme for Dublin city under which the Minister was withdrawing some £3 million we had expected. This would mean that the city council would have to seek a further increase of 75p in the rates. I could not get a copy of the Minister's statement anywhere as it was Saturday morning but I expected to get it in the post on Monday. It was not in Monday's post either. I went over to the City Hall to the Dublin Corporation housing department and asked for a copy of the Minister's statement. I got it then. I want to point out to the Minister that some members of his own party even up to Wednesday were not aware of the contents of his circular and I understand also that this circular was not sent to the City Hall before closing time. How are we to run a city if we are not told what is going to happen unless we read it in the daily papers? If the Minister has to cut back on housing moneys or on any capital moneys for any city——

I do not want to interrupt Deputy Moore, but there is a difference between capital and subsidy and he is talking about capital.

I tell the Minister that I did not mention any subsidies.

The Deputy is talking about subsidy money in fact and talking about it as capital.

The Minister is splitting hairs. I did not mention the word subsidy. The Minister mentioned it.

I am sorry for interrupting the Deputy.

It was the Minister's statement I mentioned, not subsidy. I will generalise and say OK, the Minister's statement was issued on Friday night. Had the Minister been in trouble financially and brought us in and said: "Look, the situation is bad. I have got to cut back on all cities, towns and villages. Let us see what we can do", that would have been all right, but we were told: "No, you take that. It worked out at 75p in the £."

The Minister is making people cynical of the role that local government plays in running a city or county. People are looking on the city council now as a mere tool of central Government. The only power they had was to strike the rates and they felt they had some power. They were able to strike a rate, or on one occasion not to strike a rate and pay the penalty. Next Monday the city council meets to strike a rate or look at estimates. We have not seen the new estimates yet and this is Wednesday evening, but we will probably get them in a day or two and we will make up our minds by Monday what we will do then. The fact is that the Dublin City Council will not be striking the rate. They will be striking the rate dictated by the Minister, and the Minister may well plead that because of the financial emergency of the time he has got to take steps to correct the situation.

Let him remember that we as elected members—and there are members of his own party on the city council and I pay tribute to all the members there—try to do a good job on this city of ours. The Minister is preventing us from doing a proper job by his attitude in many cases. We on the city council are being criticised by the country generally because we are owed £1½ million in rent. Unread again the Minister acts. He does all the negotiations with the tenants' organisations. We are not consulted. We have to accept the settlement made. A lot of these arrears arose because when the Minister made a settlement two years ago—he can correct me if I am wrong—he gave the impression that arrears were not a thing of great priority with Dublin Corporation.

I did not. I will be dealing with this later on. None of the Deputy's colleagues made a comment about this.

The impression in the city is that the Minister had intimated to the people that they could clear off their arrears in two years. Of course the arrears went up and up. At the time I met some squatters whom I have opposed all the time and I said that under no circumstances would I aid them in any way, that they would have to leave the houses they squatted in. One person told me the Minister also had the same view about squatting, that people would squat.

They all said that the Minister had said the same about squatting.

Would the Deputy tell me who they were? If we are dealing in generalities it is difficult to follow. Could we have the names of the people who said this?

Let me finish. A group——

Who were the group?

There are groups every day of the week.

Who were they?

I said that I am sure the Minister did not say any such thing.

I do not think that Deputy Moore should be allowed to make generalised statements unless he is prepared to identify the group or the people he is quoting. If you say you see something in a newspaper you must quote the newspaper.

It is not a newspaper. It is an encounter I had with some people.

I do not believe it.

The Minister is annoyed now. We are coming to the point.

I am not annoyed. I do not believe it.

What I am trying to show is that because of the Minister's attitude to the city in general he is leaving himself open to such accusations.

I look after myself, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Moore can do the same I am sure.

The point I am making is that this is the impression felt because of the Minister's attitude to Dublin city. The people who quote him quote him wrongly at times and, indeed, they quote us all wrongly at times. But even at this late stage the Minister can do a lot for Dublin by at least telling us of his intentions as regards the help we get from central funds in good time so that we can prepare a proper rate. We are being attacked in lots of places because we have such huge arrears on our rents bill. It is wrong that we have this, but it was not of our making. Now we have to try to collect this money when a lot of our authority is gone in the eyes of the people because of the Minister's attitude to us.

The Minister boasts then of the number of houses he has built. How many houses were built? I welcome every house that is built whether in the centre of the city or outside. But I do say that on one occasion the Minister gave a planning permission which means that eight family groups are under notice of eviction because of that permission—not eight full families, there are one or two individuals in it.

I would like Deputy Moore to give particulars.

Look at Percy Place.

Deputy Moore is not telling the truth.

I am telling the truth.

He is not telling the truth.

Let the Minister check the position.

I know what the position is.

Let the Minister check.

I have checked, and what Deputy Moore is saying is not true.

It is true.

It is not.

Of course, it is true. Let him check in all fairness to both of us and he will see who is telling the truth.

I know who is telling the truth.

I am telling the truth. I have been down very often in that area. I represent it both here and on the city council and this is the truth. If the Minister could rescind that I would be behind him 100 per cent. This is the type of thing that is happening. Even though houses have been built we are losing houses by that kind of decision.

If we give the Minister more figures he can examine them too. Regarding SDA loans, I admit that in Dublin city there is very little land left from the sea boundary for SDA loans. At the same time, in 1975 there were 182 loans given for new houses in the city area. For nine months of 1976 there were 42—a big drop. On old or previously occupied houses last year 590 loans were given. For nine months of this year 200 loans were given. In the county last year there were 446 loans for new houses and this year for the same period there were 290. I tell the Minister that we do not glory in these figures. We are trying to bring home to him that there is something wrong in this city that people cannot for some reason avail of the money that is there. The Minister said that he is able to take money out of SDA funds and apply it to sanitary services. I accept his word on this but why was he able to do it? Because people could not afford to take out loans because of the restriction on a loan up to £4,500 and the income limit of roughly £46 per week.

I believe that if the Minister were to raise the loan and income limits he would give the building industry a shot in the arm which it needs and give couples and families generally the opportunity of acquiring a house, old or new. If it is a new house so much the better. In an industry where there are so many unemployed the Minister should convert his colleagues to the view that the construction industry in Dublin especially needs an injection of capital and initiative. If he does that he will have done a good day's work for this city. The building industry is not in the best of health. It will not improve unless we, the national Parliament and the local authorities, bring about some improvements. I believe the will is there to overcome our financial problems. We should convince the people that we are in earnest in trying to improve the housing and employment situations.

There are other problems for other agencies to solve. I do not avail of every opportunity to attack the Government by saying that everything is wrong in this city. Everything is not wrong. We have our problems certainly, but we will overcome them. In my view, we should not have to go through a period of political attrition because the Coalition are in power.

The Minister has the biggest part to play in giving this city a fair break. Although he may trot out official figures he should bear in mind the statement by the Minister for Labour that Dublin is a distress area in terms of job loss and the statement of the Lord Mayor that the housing problem is getting worse and the centre of the city is dying. Fianna Fáil cannot be accused of saying that, although we may repeat it. I do not believe the centre of the city is dying but I believe it is very ill. Because our school leavers for the past three years have not been able to get any jobs, and we may be sitting on a social bomb, I will not indulge tonight in any form of Government baiting. I used official figures here and everything I said tonight was a plea, on behalf of the people who are not properly housed or who do not have jobs that the Government will recognise that they have a man-size problem on their doorstep. They must do something to change their policy towards this city.

As I mentioned earlier, next Monday night we will meet to review the new estimates brought about by the Minister's action. Last week he promised that a further letter would issue to the corporation. While I do not expect him to divulge the contents of that letter, I want to put on record that I am avidly awaiting a sight of that letter in the hope that it will mean extra help for this city, otherwise, many families will find the new impost on the rates impossible to bear. So too will many small businesses. A small businessman will immediately start to economise, perhaps by letting one or more workers go. It will especially affect young people buying new houses. I know one young man who at the moment has a loan—not an SDA loan —and his repayments are £25 a week. That does not include rates or ground rent.

What is the age of the house?

I think it was a previously occupied house. This young man will now have to meet the new rate. It gives me no pleasure to recite this litany of sadness about the people who have to meet the new impost which the Minister's decision will create.

Even at this late hour the Minister should impress on his colleagues in Government the need to come forward with a bold policy of efficiency to cure the ills which his colleague, the Minister for Labour, and the Lord Mayor say exist in Dublin. They were more critical of the Minister than I. Both men have access to statistics which are not available to me. As I said, I am quoting statistics received from the Department of Local Government and the local authority. They all add up to the fact that this old city—one of the oldest in Europe—is going through a very bad time. When I say "the city" I mean of course the people.

I hope the Minister will give the people in the greater Dublin area some hope that we can tackle the major housing and unemployment problems. Each year 6,000 young people come to this city from the provinces and we welcome them. Unless the Minister takes effective measures the illnesses of this city will grow worse and next year whoever takes his place will have to face the more difficult task of trying to cure the illnesses of Dublin city in particular and the greater Dublin area in general.

Roughly one-third of the total population live in this area. Therefore, whether it is agreeable or not, this area must get special treatment. All the members of the city council, the corporation, the county council and the Borough Council of Dún Laoghaire are playing their part. Unless we get generous Government help, or even fulfilment of their promises, the Minister will see social problems unlike any seen in Ireland heretofore.

The last speaker will begin at 8.20 p.m.

I understood I would be called at 8.15 p.m.

The Chair has no power in the matter. The debate did not commence until after 7 p.m.

I gave the Minister a few minutes.

I thought it was normal practice that the speaker replying would be given 15 minutes.

There must be three hours for a Private Members' Motion. It is usual for the Member to get 15 minutes.

We are wasting time. This is the third such motion in a short period and all I can say is that Fianna Fáil must be gluttons for punishment. Their record is so bad, particularly in respect of Dublin housing, that I did not think they would dare to come back with a motion of this kind. As well, they sent in people who completely misstated the case. Perhaps the Deputies who made these statements thought they were right. Perhaps their think-tank went wrong again. All I can say to them is that they should get a mechanic to look after it because some of the material they trotted out here was so ludicrous that it does not help their case one iota.

It was with some reluctance that I decided to intervene in this debate and I should like to commiserate with the House for having to listen to the same old trite misstatements by Deputies opposite on the same old hackneyed topics—comments which have done, and can do, nothing to add one house to the national output or put one extra man into employment.

I am speaking on this occasion only because I feel it is necessary once again to substitute the truth for some of the false statements made, particularly by Deputy Dowling, and to call his bluff on a number of topics. I will deal in detail with these statements.

Deputy Dowling referred to 1,850 completions by Dublin Corporation in 1970. This is not correct. The official quarterly bulletin gives the 1970 calender year figure of local authority houses built by Dublin Corporation as 785, fewer than half, and a rather different picture. Deputy Dowling has again been confused. As far as I can see he has used a total figure-for the financial year 1969-70, not the calender year 1970—of both local authority and private package deal dwellings which were not corporation dwellings. The latter included such private estates as Donaghmede, and the less said about these by Fianna Fáil spokesmen the better for them.

The Deputy said: "The Minister stated that a record number of houses had been built. Where are they? Where are they to be found?" Does the Deputy charge local authorities with falsification of returns? The record-breaking figure of 8,794 completions last year is the total of the dwelling completions recorded by local authorities in their official progress reports for the year 1975. No doubt they would all be happy to direct the Deputy to the location of the individual houses in the 8,794 if he wants to count them house by house.

Deputy Dowling might have been more correct if he had said that Dublin city centre was dying during the two 16-year periods of Fianna Fáil rule. Now hopefully the city centre can look forward to a new life. Shortly after taking office as Minister, I arranged for the appointment of the Dublin housing co-ordinator, with particular responsibility for the rehabilitation of the central city area. The housing co-ordinator and his successor developed plans for expanding housing output in the Dublin area as a whole in close personal consultation with me and paid particular attention to the restoration of living communities in the old central city area.

On the recommendation of the housing co-ordinator, Dublin Corporation adopted the central city housing development programme in January, 1974. The programme has been augmented since then and now provides for the acquisition of 150 acres of land on 36 centre city sites for redevelopment for housing purposes. Such redevelopment visualises the provision of new dwellings on cleared sites and the conservation, where possible, of all existing housing stock.

There is already visible evidence of the advance of this programme. In the Liberties area—Newmarket and the Coombe—work was started in March, 1976, on the first phase of 36 dwellings, five shops and a community centre. The planning of the second phase of 120 dwellings in this area is progressing. Also under the central city programme, work is expected to commence shortly on 149 dwellings at Pigeon Road, Ringsend, and on 139 dwellings at North Circular Road.

I wonder if somebody could be found to talk to Deputies Dowling and Moore to draw to their attention in fact that in this city in 1972-73, apart from Dublin County and Dún Laoghaire, the total allocation from the State for local authority houses was £10,245,000, including an additional 10 per cent, bringing the gross amount £11,269,500.

This year the figure is £33,332,000 for Dublin, Dún Laoghaire and County Dublin. In Dublin city alone the figure was £11.7 million last year and this year it is £23.7 million. Deputy Moore said the Minister for Local Government was neglecting Dublin, but I do not know what he expects. I do not know whether he is under the impression that we are one of the oil producing states who can roll out fantastic sums of money whether they are needed or not. in the recession in western Europe housing production has been reduced in every country, but the number of houses being built here has increased and the number being built in the city has increased very substantially.

With regard to Deputy Dowling's comment about the number of people on the housing list, I should like to state that I do not know how he got the figure of 5,402. I am sure quite a number of people are now looking for rehousing by the corporation in view of the immensely improved quality of the houses now being built. Those on the waiting list know that with the National Coalition in power they can expect to be rehoused in a reasonable time. Take the comparative figures for the last three years of Fianna Fáil rule and the subsequent three-year period up to March 1976. In the three years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 the corporation completed 821, 978 and 1,394 dwellings, a total of 3,193 dwellings. In the following three-year period under the present Government, they completed 4,318 dwellings—in 1973-74, 1,447, 1974-75, 1,544 and the 12 months to the 31st March 1976, 1,327, an increase of 35.2 per cent. I do not know where Deputy Dowling got his figures. I am not blaming him for using them if he got them but he either got the wrong ones or if he got the right ones he did not read them properly. The figures that I have given have been taken from the Department's official records, based on Dublin Corporation's own returns. They present a very different picture to what Deputy Dowling was putting across last night.

Deputy Dowling said that from the 1st January, 1976, to the 30th of September, 1976, 2,607 families applied for housing and only 857 houses were built. He is hardly naive enough to think that houses are built and left waiting for applicants to apply for them. His experience of corporation housing should mean that he knows that there is no co-relation between housing applications and completions. However, taking the Deputy's own figures as a basis it would be fair to deduce a very considerable improvement in the housing situation in Dublin. If there was 5,307 in November, 1972 and 5,402 now, and if applications this year exceeded houses available by 1,750, we must have built a lot of houses to keep the waiting list more or less at the same figure in spite of the huge number of new applications. If this is what he intended to prove, I would, of course, agree with him.

Deputy Dowling said something else which rather surprised me, that the quality of the housing has not improved. He said that in spite of the disastrous Fianna Fáil low cost houses, including Ballymun. Perhaps the simplest answer is to ask him to go and look at the Fianna Fáil low cost houses in the Tolka Valley, Finglas, and then to have a look at the recent completed corporation houses at Corduff, Blanchardstown, and the houses nearing completion for the corporation by the NBA at Cappagh Avenue, Finglas, and the schemes in progress in Ronanstown.

What is the Minister quoting from?

The Deputy had his say. He may not have been very subtle in putting it across.

Deputy Dowling must not interrupt.

I am entitled to know what the Minister is quoting from.

The Deputy is not entitled to interrupt when the Minister has limited time.

What is the Minister quoting from?

Last night's speech, and I do not blame the Deputy for not remembering. Deputy Dowling and Deputy Moore criticised me for discussing renting policies with NATO. I make no apologies to Deputy Dowling or anybody else for discussing with a national body representative of about 120,000 families either renting or purchasing local authority houses a subject matter which directly concerns them. Why should I apologise for doing this? Why should I answer to anybody? They are people with a point to make and they made that point very plainly to me. It was precisely because Fianna Fáil's Ministers for Local Government refused to have any meaningful discussions with the tenants' associations that the rent strike took place early in 1971 and continued until the present Government took office and introduced the new national differential rents scheme, an action which Deputy Dowling condemned yesterday as "interfering in rent strikes".

It is wrong to suggest that, as a condition for settlement of the rents strike, I agreed that striking tenants would be permitted "not to pay their rents for two years". Deputy Moore did not say that; he said the correct thing: that those who had a lot of arrears could pay them within two years. Deputy Dowling was not content with that and he had to say something which he must have known was wrong: that I told them they did not have to pay for two years. The agreement made worked very well. Where substantial arrears were owed the agreement with NATO was that this should be paid off gradually over a period, but not longer than two years. There was never a suggestion that no payment should be made off arrears until two years had elapsed.

At the end of April, 1973, rent arrears owed to Dublin Corporation totalled £1.3 million. On 1st November, 1976, £1.421 million was still owed. This is far too high and I have told the city council that they owe a duty to the general body of ratepayers to recover as much of this as possible. There was a reference by Deputy Moore to squatters and a suggestion by Deputy Dowling about an unknown person. The Deputies were careful about referring to people in a nice way without giving names so that there would be no way of tracking down whether what they said was correct or not. I am not aware of any member of the Labour Party advising people to squat. I have always condemned squatters but I found a ridiculous situation with Dublin Corporation some time ago. They had people who were squatters, whom they freely admitted were entitled to a house, were on their housing list and would be rehoused but for the fact that they were squatters. This situation, that they had to get out of the house they were in and go into some other house in order to satisfy some official, was wrong. Dublin Corporation can do a lot more to rectify the position.

It is nonsensical for Deputy Dowling to accuse me of failing to discuss renting or other matters with local elected representatives. I have no hesitation in claiming that I am far more accessible as a Minister for Local Government than any of my predecessors. In particular, I have rarely refused a request by any local authority to meet them. In the past two months, for example, I have received representations from elected members of Dublin County Council, Dublin City Council—twice—Wexford Borough Council, Wexford County Council and Drogheda Borough Council. I have met and talked with representatives from Tipperary town, Tramore, Tullamore, Wexford, Dublin County, Cavan, Dundalk and Donegal and I attended the Annual Conference of the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland.

There must be a lot of problems in the country.

Unlike the Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government I did not go and hide and lock the door if a problem arose. If a problem arises I prefer to talk to the elected representatives about it rather than hiding in the hope that it will go away. I pride myself on being as familiar with thinking of elected representatives as anybody else and that is the way a Minister for Local Government should be.

Deputy Dowling spoke about the different methods of calculating rent which were applied to tenants who were unemployed and continued on to 17th September, 1976, and those who became unemployed subsequent to that date. I do not know whether I was correct in taking Deputy Dowling's complaint to be that those who become unemployed after the date concerned were continuing to pay the high rent while those who became unemployed before that date were paying a lower rate but it appeared to me that he was urging that everybody who was unemployed on 17th September should be on the one rate. I do not agree. My opinion is that somebody who was unemployed for a period but who had been used to paying at a certain rate should be allowed continue at that rate but that somebody who was new to the scheme should, as announced by the Minister for Finance in the budget, be put on a figure that would give him 85 per cent of his pre-unemployment wages. Perhaps Deputy Dowling was a bit mixed up about that too.

I said it was inequitable that one man should pay 49p while another was paying £2.67, or that one should be paying 53p while another in the same circumstances and in a similar house should be paying £3.44.

Which side is the Deputy on?

He is on the side of Justice.

The Minister. Deputies must cease interrupting.

As usual Fianna Fáil have a foot on each side of the fence hoping to come down on the right side when the fence falls. The Deputy was dishonest in his reference to the infamous clawback.

(Interruptions.)

Interruptions must cease: otherwise, I shall have to ask those interrupting to leave the House.

Deputy Dowling has no wish to hear comments on the bunkum that we had to listen to last evening. I must point out that the clawback was a Fianna Fáil invention, having been incorporated first in the Housing Act of 1966. Fianna Fáil sought the surrender, not of one-third of the profit from the sale of a local authority house but one-third of the resale price. Of course, those dwellings affected then by this provision were only labourers' cottages but the matter has become important now since it concerns some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies. It was different when the ordinary fellows around the country were being asked to surrender a third of the price of their houses.

Our provision relates to a sale within a five-year period whereas their provision was that the clawback applied right up to the time that the 44th year of tenancy was completed. They have the gall now to talk about what we are doing while what they are doing is allowing money to be retained by people who bought houses but sold them again, money which belongs rightly to Dublin Corporation. There is £250,000 there that the corporation may collect if they wish.

Members of Labour and Fine Gael voted on that situation.

Deputies Moore and Tunney were present in the Custom House when a deputation from the Dublin City Commissioners asked that there be a clawback arrangement but these two Deputies did not say anything either for or against such proposition. Consequently, I assumed the deputation were speaking for them.

What is the Minister trying to say?

He is not correct.

The Deputies opposite cannot take their medicine. Deputy Andrews spoke about the serious housing situation in Dún Laoghaire. I agree that the position in that area is very bad although not as bad as the figures given by the Deputy would suggest. The general figure of need which he quoted represented the gross figure of applicants, not of those applicants who had been approved. He was wrong, too, in his figure for accommodation for old folk. He said that the number on the waiting list is 870 whereas the corporation tell me that the figure is 87. The difference in approach as between Fianna Fáil and the Coalition is that when we find the housing situation is bad, we do something positive to right it.

When Fianna Fáil left office in March, 1973 there were no corporation houses in progress in the whole of the Dún Laoghaire borough but 154 were at tender while the additional sites available amounted to 300. No sites were being acquired then. The gross total of the corporation's programme was 454 houses or sites. Let us look at the position in October, 1976, when work was in progress on 167 houses and was about to be started on 476 houses. Plans were being prepared for a further 370 houses while a reserve of about 1,800 had been acquired for future years. If Deputy Andrews finds something wrong with that situation I wonder what he is doing in Fianna Fáil at all because the situation in that area was much worse when that party were in office. They ignored Dún Laoghaire completely. Maybe the fact that the Taoiseach and Deputy Desmond live there had something to do with this situation. Houses are being built there now which never would have been built had there not been a change of Government.

Deputy Dowling referred to houses deteriorating because of cutbacks in expenditure on maintenance. In 1972-73 expenditure by the local authorities in Dublin city and county on the repair and maintenance of rented houses amounted to £2.5 million whereas this year the expenditure at £5.34 million is more than double that. With an increase of this order there should be no need for a cutback in employment on maintenance work.

There are 100 men fewer employed on this work this year.

It seems to please the Deputy to continue saying things that are not true. Reference has been made to the unemployment situation in Dublin city. Until about 12 months ago the position about new industries was that there was a special arrangement for those industries well outside of Dublin. This was partly responsible for the fact that the unemployment figure was growing in Dublin. When the question of this arrangement was before the House the Leader of the Opposition said it was wrong that it should be changed but Deputy Tunney, to his credit, agreed with changing it and said that Dublin should be treated the same as the rest of the country. We agreed and changed the arrangement. We know there is unemployment but we are in a world recession and we are doing much better than many of the other countries in western Europe. At least we are doing something that Fianna Fáil would not have done—ensuring that those unfortunate enough to be unemployed will have enough to keep them going whereas when we think back on Fianna Fáil figures in this area we realise that had they been in power many people would have starved to death during this difficult time. A few months ago their expert recommended that one way of cutting back was to reduce by a very substantial amount the sums paid in social welfare. That suggestion has been noted by those people in receipt of social welfare payments.

Is the Minister referring to children's allowances?

Fianna Fáil said that £30 million should be taken from these people.

(Interruptions.)

I am calling on Deputy Tunney but his time is being wasted by those interruptions.

In February, 1973, the present Minister for Local Government joined with other people aspiring to power in this country and said that in respect of housing an emergency existed. I presume that that emergency applied in their minds as much to Dublin as to any other place. I propose taking that as the basis to show that if such an emergency existed then, it exists to a much greater extent now.

At that time there were 5,300 people seeking accommodation from the housing pool in Dublin. The present figure in this regard is 5,400. However, I shall not attempt to make any capital out of the fact that the number now is greater than it was then.

Let us look at the pool of housing which was available then and which is available now. These are factual figures. Since April 1974, the Minister and the Government have constructed a total of 5,064 dwellings. In the same period, Dublin Corporation have parted with 9,000 houses from the pool. These are houses which have been sold. If you subtract the 5,000 from the 9,000 you get a net loss to the pool of 4,000 dwellings. That establishes beyond yea or nay, irrespective of money spent—money I call Oliver Flanagan money; money that is printed and you throw it out; it means nothing; houses, residences, accomodation are what we are talking about—that in the pool of housing available to Dublin Corporation 4,000 fewer dwellings are available for distribution. At the same time, we have 5,000 looking for accommodation.

I take it Deputy Tunney is opposed to the sale of local authority houses.

I will come to the purchase scheme in a few moments. That is the factual position. In 1973, the Minister said there was a housing emergency in Dublin. Irrespective of what has happened since, surely he must accept that the position has been aggravated and that the motion tabled by the Fianna Fáil Party is fully justified.

Is the Deputy against people buying their own houses?

The Deputy and his forebears were interested in people owning their property before Deputy McMahon was heard of. When we were associated with people owning their own houses we did not say that, having bought them, they should give back one-third of the profit.

Yes, you did.

We are discussing the position in Dublin. The scheme which operated in Dublin before the Minister's scheme did not require any clawback. That is the position and the Minister must accept it.

Country people were second-class citizens then.

I am not concerned about that.

The Deputy is not, of course.

I am concerned about Dublin.

No, the Deputy is not.

Order. Deputy Tunney.

I will discuss with the Minister later on the position in the rural areas. The Minister will not smile his way out of these facts.

Or bluff his way.

The Minister said I was present when the clawback was agreed to. That is a lie, l-i-e, lie.

The Deputy may not use that expression.

That is a lie. There is no getting away from it.

On a point of order, the deputation from the Dublin City Commissioners which attended in my office in the Custom House consisted of two members of the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Seán Moore and Deputy Jim Tunney.

That is just wasting my time.

(Interruptions.)

The Minister's statement that I was present and that I was a party to an agreement is a lie, l-i-e, lie.

It is not. I have a copy of the minutes.

The Minister is contradicting himself. He should keep quiet.

There is the copy of the minutes.

Read them out. Did the Minister write them himself?

The Minister has been found out.

Deputy Tunney is not telling the truth.

Deputies should allow Deputy Tunney to continue.

I will take the Minister on publicly on any platform and prove he is telling a lie, a damnable lie. That is enough of that.

That is not enough of that.

I will take him on publicly on any platform in Meath or Dublin or anywhere and prove he is telling a lie.

It is not a lie.

Deputy Tunney may not use that phrase. He will have to withdraw it.

The Minister is a stranger to the truth.

There is no other word known to me to describe my position vis-à-vis that of the Minister.

The Deputy may not use that expression. The Chair is asking the Deputy to withdraw the expression he used.

If the word "lie" is unparliamentary I withdraw it.

The Deputy accused the Minister of that. It is unparliamentary and the Deputy knows that. It is withdrawn.

My challenge to the Minister stands.

I will repeat it outside to the pressmen and the Deputy can sue me if I am telling a lie.

The Minister should allow the Deputy to continue.

On the Estimate for the Department of Local Government I will do more than sue the Minister. I will let him see the lies he told.

There are no lies and Deputy Tunney will not get away with that.

The Minister gave the impression that Dublin Corporation were applying a clawback. That is not in accordance with the facts.

I did not say that.

The Minister should allow the Deputy to continue.

We are discussing Dublin.

On a point of order, will you allow Deputy Tunney to speak and tell the Minister to shut up and keep quiet?

The Chair has called on Deputy Tunney. Interruptions are disorderly.

Deputy O'Leary should go back to where he was for the past few hours.

The Minister should keep quiet. He has nothing to boast about.

Deputy O'Leary should allow Deputy Tunney to proceed.

I do not like people like Deputy O'Leary who come in here at the last few minutes.

The Minister talked about how he would give power to the local authority. In respect of the clawback, Dublin Corporation got legal opinion to the effect that the Minister could not direct them to apply a clawback. Notwithstanding that, the Minister insists they must do it. That is an example of the regard the Minister has for Dublin Corporation. I regret that, having regard to the strategy applied by the Government side in anticipation of the weakness of their case, they have left me with no option but to resume my seat.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 64.

  • Allen, Lorcan.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brennan, Joseph.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Brosnan, Seán.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Brugha, Ruairí.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callanan, John.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Carter, Frank.
  • Colley, George.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Gerard.
  • Crinion, Brendan.
  • Cronin, Jerry.
  • Daly, Bredan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Dowling, Joe.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Farrell, Joseph.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
  • French, Seán.
  • Gibbons, Hugh.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kenneally, William.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Lalor, Patrick J.
  • Leonard, James.
  • Loughnane, William.
  • Lynch, Celia.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Meaney, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Moore, Seán.
  • Murphy, Ciarán.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond.
  • Power, Patrick.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Timmons, Eugene.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.

Níl.

  • Barry, Richard.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Belton, Luke.
  • Belton, Paddy.
  • Bermingham, Joseph.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Burke, Dick.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Clinton, Mark A.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlan, John F.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick M.
  • Corish Brendan.
  • Cosgrave, Liam.
  • Costello, Declan.
  • Coughlan, Stephen.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Dockrell, Henry P.
  • Malone, Patrick.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Sullivan, John L.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Reynolds, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, Richie.
  • Dockrell, Maurice.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dunne, Thomas.
  • Enright, Thomas.
  • Esmonde, John G.
  • Finn, Marttin.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
  • Flanagan, Oliver J.
  • Gilhawley, Eugene.
  • Governey, Desmond.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Halligan, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Patrick.
  • Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
  • Jones, Denis F.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • L'Estrange, Gerald.
  • Lynch, Gerard.
  • McLaughlin, Joseph.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • Ryan, John J.
  • Spring, Dan.
  • Staunton, Myles.
  • Taylor, Frank.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Toal, Bendan.
  • Tully, James.
  • White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Browne; Níl, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond.
Question declared lost.
Top
Share