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?