Like most Deputies, I welcome any new housing legislation. For many years, we have had a housing emergency, and will have, I suppose, for all time, as the city of Dublin and the national economy grow and the population increases. I deplore that housing is never discussed, but the question is asked, who caused the emergency. I shall not follow that line. I just want to say that an emergency faces us and has faced us in this city for the past 50 years. All during that time, as the city grew, the housing problem became more pressing. As the standard of living improved, people, naturally, demanded better housing and something which 30 years ago would have been accepted as good housing would today be rejected. I hope the attitude in all cases will be the same and that we shall continue to demand higher standards and better service generally in housing. The Estimate this year provided half a million pounds extra for housing. While there has been criticism of the societies catering for private house-building, I am informed that issues from building societies will be greater than they were last year.
In Dublin Corporation, we are determined that nothing will be allowed to halt the drive to clear the city of bad houses. Sometimes one feels proud to be a Dubliner, but I often feel depressed, walking through the city streets, to see the bad houses in many of those streets. People blame the Government and sometimes the Opposition. This is not the fault of anybody. It is a growing city and some of the houses being pulled down now should have been demolished 50 years ago. This generation, in the matter of houses, is the victim of a legacy from a neglectful generation 200 years ago. During British occupation of this country, very little was done to clear up derelict or decaying buildings. Consequently, in 1963, there were almost crisis conditions in the city.
Nowadays, since the achievement of native government, we have sufficient confidence in ourselves to see that in the next ten years Dublin, while it will still have a housing problem, will not have a slum problem. At the end of this decade, our people will be reasonably well housed and then we can go ahead and plan more comprehensively for the future. Now, however, the housing programme of the corporation is so overloaded that we cannot plan for the future: we have been working in emergency conditions all the time.
Our first breakthrough has been the Ballymun scheme. It seems paradoxical to hear people talk about scarcity of money for housing when, a few months ago, Dublin Corporation, through the National Building Agency, placed an order for a £10 million new estate. It is something never done before in this country and I do not know of any country in which a scheme was planned on a comparable scale. This scheme sets a new level in housing standards. I do not know of any scheme where the building of a town centre, of a swimming pool, of schools and playing pitches, has been carried out at once. I have already paid a tribute to the Minister and I do not apologise to anyone for doing so again. It was he who planned the Ballymun scheme against much opposition, even from the City Council.
One point worries me. Dublin Corporation own about 44,000 dwellings. I think it is socially unhealthy that we should have such a mammoth landlord. For many years, we have been fruitlessly asking successive Governments to give Dubliners a chance of buying out their own houses. So far, all Governments have said no. If a man in the country can buy his cottage, I cannot see why a city dweller cannot do the same. I look forward to a future Housing Bill which will enable city people to buy their houses.
One third of the people in this city live in houses owned by one landlord. The terrible task of maintaining these houses is becoming a major headache for the corporation. If we are to have a healthy society, we must provide facilities whereby people can become the owners and not the tenants of the houses in which they live. It would make for better citizenship and, since people who own their houses take better care of them, it would mean in Dublin alone a saving of more than £700,000 annually in maintenance costs.
In my area we have people living in three-bedroomed houses with two reception rooms and a bathroom, for 12/6 a week, while only a few hundred yards away, there are massive four-storey blocks of flats, masses of concrete, where people pay £2 a week. This is one of the anomalies we must get rid of in our rental system. In one instance a man has a nice suburban house for 12/6 a week, while, a few hundred yards away, a poor devil living in the fourth storey must pay £2 a week. Therefore, I sincerely urge the Minister to introduce a tenant purchase scheme rather than to continue building houses for rent. As I have said, in this city it would relieve the rates of an annual burden of £700,000 for maintenance.
We have many young couples, married or about to be married, looking for proper houses. In recent times, both here and in the corporation, we have had deputations from tenant associations asking for sites on which to build houses. In the city we have no sites to give them. I wonder if the Minister would consider giving a bigger subsidy towards the erection of houses on small sites. There are a number of small sites in the city on which three or four houses could be built but such a project would be most uneconomical. With a higher subsidy, these sites could be developed and built on and it would contribute between 400 and 500 additional houses. At the moment anybody trying to develop these sites cannot do so economically.
The Minister mentioned rent reviews. This is a very serious problem, both for the Government and the local authority. One cannot generalise on it. In the city there are thousands of men working for £10 or £11 a week. Most of them have fairly big families. None of them would qualify for an SDA loan. Even if they did, they could not repay it. People with three or four children, living on £10 or £11 a week, have the serious task of trying to raise those families. Tenants with better incomes could pay more. Therefore, I suggest that each case should be taken on its merits and we should try to give better reliefs to the lower-paid workers. In the present rat race, the lower-paid worker has been almost forgotten.
We hear of status claims, this claim and that claim, while thousands on £10 a week are finding the going tough. They have got no status and cannot claim in that respect. They and their families should be given special consideration in the matter of rent. This morning a Deputy mentioned newly-weds and said they were not catered for. That is quite true but I should mention that Dublin Corporation operate a scheme which absorbs, for newly-weds, one-tenth of the total outlay. In 1963, we had to stop that scheme, but it is back now and we hope it will continue next year. It is not without its faults and anomalies because we find newly-weds and couples without families qualifying for houses while men with two children do not. This is another reason for not generalising on the topic of housing. Every facet of it must be examined on the merits of each case.
Special provision is made in the Bill for persons suffering from tuberculosis. That is creditable but tuberculosis is not the problem it was 20 years ago. There is one section of the community which has received no special consideration in the matter of housing, namely, blind persons. Dublin Corporation do give some consideration to blind persons but it does not amount to very much. I do not like to use the word "colony" but I would suggest that there should be a housing estate in the city near the central workshops for the accommodation of blind persons employed in the workshops. This would save them having to travel across the city. At present, blind persons have to travel from places like Ballyfermot, Raheny and so on to Rathmines, involving a journey across the city. I hope that in a future Bill or even in this Bill the Minister will encourage local authorities to give special consideration to blind persons.
The search for sites goes on in the city. Has the time been reached when Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council should become one body? Every few years the corporation encroaches further on the council. We have unified health services. Has the time come when we must do what has been done in London, namely, bring in a completely new scheme of local government? That is a question that we must face. There are all kinds of national schemes in relation to which unification would be desirable. In the case of Dublin if a person in the city builds an SDA house, the county council will not pay the supplementary grant although the person may be living a few yards on either side of the boundary. The person concerned may have been born in the country but as a result of the extension of the city boundary has been brought into the city. If the housing problem is to be completely solved it should be regarded as a national rather than a local charge, just as matters of agriculture or defence are regarded. If we set a target of solving the problem in X years by a national effort we should reach the stage when at least we would have eliminated slum dwellings.
A question arises of the wisdom of building to the standards adopted at present. I am informed that in the United States of America the policy is to build houses that will not last more than 80 years, and after that, to build a new house. The technique of building is changing rapidly; public taste varies; there is movement of population. I would not suggest prefabrication but if the modular system were adopted it would give a good type of dwelling which would last for about 50 years and after that could be scrapped and we could start again. Perhaps that would be cheaper.
The Minister has made provision for the repair of houses. There is quite a good scheme in operation in the city. In this connection we experience frustration at times. There is one man whom we will call Mr. X. His name is well known. He is a large slum property owner. He seems to be able to do what he likes, no matter what legislation is passed. He gets away with it all the time. He has thumbed his nose at the corporation and has got away with it. The question is, is the law too weak? This person recently surprised people living in a select area. They woke up one morning to find that he was their ground landlord. I do not think this person has ever been prosecuted except for some minor thing and he pays his £2 or £1 fine cheerfully and goes on again. It may be that there is some provision whereby this man's activities could be stopped but so far we have not been able to stop him and he buys up large tracts of slum property. How he makes money out of it I do not know but he does make money. We hope that the full rigour of the law will be used to uncover the activities of persons of this type. In fairness to landlords in general, I must say that this is the only person about whom I would complain.
It has been suggested that it is a reflection on Dublin Corporation that there are people living in this day and age in institutions like Griffith Barracks. That has happened since 1963 but I am happy to say that every week we are housing people from Griffith Barracks and it is hoped that all the people will be rehoused out of the barracks and living in proper houses at an early date.
Dublin Corporation has been criticised, even by the Minister, on occasion, but there is no local authority which has done the job Dublin Corporation has done. Two years ago Dublin Corporation were faced with a very serious crisis. As a result of the action taken, the crisis was, at least, controlled. There must be determination that never again will there be another Fenian Street. We have the word of the Minister that money will not be allowed to hold up the plans of Dublin Corporation. There is extra money for local authority housing in this year's Budget. I hope the local authority will use every penny of it and come back looking for more.
We can pride ourselves on the fact that we have made progress in housing. I am told that the standard of our housing is high by any standards. While there are slums in the city, we must be determined to replace them in the next few years.
In the next three years, Dublin Corporation will build about 5,000 dwellings. The city medical officer has passed only approximately 3,000 families for housing. No member of Dublin Corporation, irrespective of Party, accepts that figure. We know that there are nearly 10,000 families looking for houses. If we build 5,000 in three years, the problem should be solved in six years but none of us is so naïve as to believe that. We know that there will be a problem in six years time. This is a growing city and we have the problem that is to be found in any growing city. The problem is not peculiar to Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. It is a problem that occurs in any thriving economy. A shortage of housing is a peculiar mark of a growing economy. We have to plan on the basis that the population will continue to expand and we must provide housing of 1970 standards in order to satisfy the needs of our people.
The really dangerous buildings in the city have been dealt with and every day more buildings are being condemned. We are in a better position now than obtained in the last two years in that persons removed from a dangerous building can be offered a dwelling of some type, maybe a chalet, an old fashioned flat or a new house. That goes even for single persons removed from dangerous buildings.
This Bill will help the housing drive. If we get the full co-operation of the local authorities and the full power of the local authority machine, we can look forward to a tremendous advance in housing in the next five years. At the end of that time, while we shall have a problem, it will not be a great problem.