Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Jul 1958

Vol. 170 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 36—Local Government.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £2,224,460 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government, including grants to local authorities, grants and other expenses in connection with housing, and miscellaneous grants.

The amount which I have moved to be granted, together with that voted on account, involves an estimated expenditure from the Vote for Local Government in the present year of £3,734,460. In the Book of Estimates, the net decrease on the Vote for the preceding year is given as £994,240, which is the difference between the net total of the present year's Estimate and the corresponding figure for 1957-58 as it appeared in the Book of Estimates for that year. My predecessor, however, announced to the Dáil when moving the Estimates for last year that he proposed to reduce it by a sum of £500,000, comprising £270,000 from the £2,000,000 provided in sub-head I (2) (housing grants) and £230,000 from the £400,000 provided in sub-head K (Works Act grants).

The actual amount saved from the provision of £2,000,000 for housing grants in that year was, however, £473,327 10s., so that the total saving on the Vote for Local Government for 1957-58 was approximately £700,000. The net decrease in the Estimate for this year as compared with the amount spent last year is, therefore, really less than £300,000. The only notable increases in particular sub-heads of the Vote are a sum of £10,000 in sub-head I (1)—contributions towards housing loan charges of local authorities—and a sum of £50,000 in sub-head L—contributions towards loan charges of local authorities in respect of sanitary services works.

There has been a continued fall over the last five years in the volume of local authority housing work in progress. A decrease in housing activity naturally results from the progress made with the satisfaction of housing needs and this, coupled with the hold up in 1956 of the commencement of new works, accounts for a drop of 33? per cent. in the number of houses in course of erection in 1956-57 as compared with the preceding year and a further drop of over 40 per cent. in 1957-58.

The position at 31st March, 1958, was that the housing needs on which the post-war housing programme had been based were satisfied in full in 23 county health districts and 42 urban districts. In 20 of the latter, the original estimates of needs were found to have been inflated, but the actual needs have been met in full.

In areas where past needs have been met, programmes for current and future building are being formulated to meet new needs arising through family growth and the obsolescence of old houses. All current housing projects which are shown to be required to meet specific needs and which are found to be properly planned are being sanctioned without delay and no project is being held up for financial reasons. The new schemes sanctioned during 1957-58 involve a total expenditure in that year, in the present year, and until their completion, of about £3,000,000.

Now that the building programmes to meet arrears of housing needs are being completed, housing authorities will be expected to give more attention to the conservation of existing dwellings, whether provided by local authorities themselves or by private enterprise, and, side by side with that programme, to concentrate on the eradication of unfit dwellings which are incapable of being made fit at a reasonable cost. I am, in particular, pressing for a more dynamic approach by local authorities, especially in the larger cities, to the elimination of slum dwellings.

We are now at a turning point in the history of Irish housing. When we look back over the years at the legislative, administrative and technical efforts that have been brought to bear upon the elimination of bad housing, at the financial sacrifices which both the community and the private individual have been required to make, we can readily see that our main duty now is to ensure that bad housing conditions will not be allowed to recur. We must aim to preserve the national housing stock, to secure the best possible use of it, and to improve and modernise it so as to keep pace with the unceasing demand for higher standards of comfort and amenity.

Local authorities have some 130,000 dwellings let to tenants. The capital value at current prices of these dwellings would exceed £100,000,000. Like all fixed assets, they require adequate management and maintenance. Repair costs have continued to rise with the result that the rents of dwellings contribute less than a quarter of the loan charges and other expenses payable by the local authorities in respect of them. The taxpayers and ratepayers share the remaining three-quarters in roughly equal proportions. The taxpayers will contribute in the current financial year more than £1,800,000 towards what is, in effect, a rent subsidy.

Of this amount, approximately £700,000 relates to dwellings provided prior to 1946. With the ratepayers' contribution, the total rent subsidy from public funds comes this year to over £3,600,000, much of which relates to pre-1946 houses. The justification for a rent subsidy for these houses on such a scale was fundamentally the relationship between rent and income. Many local authorities have found, however, that in the vast majority of cases this relationship has changed beyond recognition and has ceased to be a justification for so large a subsidy benefiting a section only of the community.

Some local authorities are also finding a new reluctance on the part of ratepayers and their representatives to pursue their housing programmes to completion in view of the prospect of this continuing subsidy being further increased. Curtailing maintenance work to reduce the amount of the subsidy would be contrary to the interests both of the local authority and of the tenants. These local authorities have accordingly found it necessary to revise the basic rents of the older dwellings which naturally are now the most expensive to keep in repair. It seems inevitable that with present trends in costs and incomes other housing authorities will have to adopt a similar course. These old rents can, of course, be adjusted in stages, where necessary, to avoid hardship and any general scheme for the purpose can also contain provisions for increases based on the capacity of the individual tenants to pay.

The sum of £1,300,000 provided in sub-head I (2) is that estimated to be required for grants for new houses, reconstruction works and the provision of private water supplies and sewerage facilities being undertaken by private persons. This shows a reduction of £700,000 as compared with the provision in last year's Estimate, but as I have already indicated, the real reduction as against actual expenditure under the same sub-head last year is £226,672 10s. The reductions in the payments as against the Estimate for last year and in the Estimate for this year are due almost entirely to a falling-off in the numbers of applications received for new house grants.

The figures of new house grant allocations for the last three years are as follows:—

Year	Total No. of Allocations
1955-56	6,095
1956-57	4,247
1957-58	2,504

The decline in private house building has been more marked in the Dublin City area as the following figures indicate:—

Year	No. of Allocations
1955-56	1,489
1956-57	647
1957-58	452

The demand for reconstruction and repair and improvement grants has continued at a high level. The following are the figures for the last three financial years:—

Year	No. of allocations
1955-56	9,055
1956-57	9,264
1957-58	8,562

The present Estimate contains adequate provision to meet a demand for these grants during the present financial year equivalent to that of last year. While there was evidence of a slight decline last year in the number of applications for reconstruction grants in rural areas to small farmers and agricultural labourers, the demand for repair and improvement grants under Section 12 of the 1954 Act, which relate mainly to urban areas, showed a corresponding increase.

Up to the 31st March last the preliminary investigation of applications for grants under Section 12 of the 1954 Act was undertaken by local authorities. This system did not prove satisfactory and amending regulations were made by me in March last, providing for the full operation of the section by officers of my Department on the certificate of the local authority that the premises are suitable for repair or improvement. It is hoped that the new arrangements will make for expedition in the examination of applications and for uniformity of treatment in assessing eligibility.

I should like to conclude this section of my review by stating the four main objectives on which I propose to concentrate my attention on the constructional side of housing. These objectives are: first, the eradication of the slums that still remain in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and elsewhere; second, the rehousing of the persons thereby displaced, preferably by the development of the cleared central city areas; third, the encouragement of the necessitous individuals who are still badly housed and who are not served by local authority housing to have new houses erected for themselves, and, fourth, the encouragement of reconstruction and repair of houses which can thereby be rendered suitable for occupation. I have reviewed the statutory and financial facilities already available for attaining these objectives and legislative proposals which I am laying before the House contain provisions approved by the Government for giving increased financial assistance to private persons towards the improvement of unsatisfactory housing conditions.

Progress continues to be made with the provision of water supplies and sewerage schemes and with the improvement and extension of existing installations. On the 31st March last 52 water supply and 26 sewerage schemes were in progress, the aggregate capital cost involved being about £4,250,000. During the year 1957-58 new loans sanctioned for sanitary services amounted to over £2,140,000. Of these I might mention in particular a new regional waterworks scheme at Whitegate, County Cork, which will supply a number of small concentrations of population but which is intended primarily for the service of the oil refinery now under construction. The North Dublin main drainage scheme is now practically completed and is already in partial operation. The North Dublin regional water supply is also in operation in most of the areas to be served. The Lough Mourne regional water supply scheme, County Donegal, is also well on the way towards completion.

A recent survey has shown that, out of 416 towns with populations of 200 and over, 387 have piped water and 320 have sewerage schemes. The preparation of schemes for the remaining unserviced towns is proceeding, and, in addition, similar services have been provided or are in course of planning for a number of smaller towns and villages. Many rural areas are supplied with water from large regional or sub-regional schemes and many more are, of course, supplied from local installations. In the matter of local water supplies, county councils have been urged to take advantage of the rural electricity network which is being extended in various parts of the country.

I have already indicated that sub-head I (2) includes provisions for grants under the Housing Acts to encourage and assist individual effort in the installation of private water supplies and sewerage facilities in individual houses. During the last financial year such grants were allocated for 1,759 water supplies and for 955 sewerage installations in private dwellings. The new Housing Bill contains provisions for increasing these grants and also for increases in new house grants where serviced houses are provided in an area not supplied with public sanitary services. I earnestly hope that these measures will have the effect of encouraging an increasing number of people in isolated rural dwellings to provide their homes with sanitary facilities. Modern standards of public health, the need for eliminating domestic drudgery and the encouragement of holiday visitors to our rural areas as well as to our towns, all demand these sanitary improvements in rural houses.

A survey of fire brigade services was carried out last year and reveals a steady improvement in the service, if one may judge from the figures regarding fire engines and other appliances maintained by fire brigade authorities. The total number of such engines, etc., at the 31st March, 1957, was 414 as against 29 in 1939.

I now pass to the subject of Road Fund finances which is traditionally dealt with on this Estimate, although the Road Fund is, of course, an item separate from the Local Government Vote. The revenue from motor taxation last year was considerably up on that for the preceding year but this was chiefly because many vehicle owners deferred taxing their vehicles or took out only part-annual licences for 1957 before the beginning of the financial year 1957-58. Taking this into account the estimate of revenue for the current financial year is £5,400,000. There are standing charges against this revenue amounting to approximately £600,000, made up of £186,000 for administrative expenses and £414,000 for loan charges. With these burdens on the fund, the total annual allocation of grants to local authorities was kept at the same figure as the preceding year, namely, £5,000,000. Some time ago I had a circular letter issued to county councils advising them of my policy in regard to schemes of main road realignment. My circular letter on the matter was intended to be laid before the elected members of the council so that it would be of assistance to them in connection with their considerations of road work schemes for the present financial year. As my intention did not seem to be clearly understood in some local offices, I subsequently sent out a specific direction that the terms of that letter be brought to the notice of the members of each county council.

As far as may be practicable in respect of this year's road works schemes and as a fixed practice for future years, my intention is that the elected members of county councils will be given an opportunity of critically examining the more ambitious and expensive types of road improvement works proposed to be undertaken out of Road Fund grants and of directing, where agreement is not reached with the county engineer or the county manager, that the views of the elected body as to the magnitude of particular works or the propriety of undertaking alternative schemes be-referred to the Department for consideration by me before sanction issues to the schemes. My own views as to the necessity for critical appraisal of schemes involving road diversion have been embodied in the circular letter. I have informed the county councils that while realignment works can be justified to eliminate definitely ascertained traffic hazards or where expenditure on substantial road improvements would be wasted if carried out on the old line of road, ambitious realignments not justified on such grounds are not warranted at the present time. The circular letter also advised that, in present circumstances, substantial road-widening schemes should not be undertaken save where they were shown to be essential and urgent.

I have had the pleasure of arranging for a further edition of the road safety booklet entitled Rules of the Road.

I am aware that many people consider that new legislation is needed to further the objective of road safety. Legislative proposals have been in course of preparation for a long time. Several Departments of State and various other interests are concerned in these proposals. There were consultations with these interests by my predecessors. The greater part of the legislative proposals are for the purpose of consolidating and modernising existing provisions. As regards any really new and radical proposals, I did not find full unanimity amongst the interests concerned. Further consultations were, therefore, necessary and these have now been completed.

I hope, therefore, to be soon in a position to make submissions on these matters for decision by the Government. I hope that the approved proposals will then be speedily available in the form of a Bill. It would, however, be a mistake to assume that any legislation that I or any other Minister can promote will, of itself, achieve any automatic improvement in the conduct of road users or conduce towards a substantial diminution in road hazards. We must continue with the slow, but, I hope, ultimately effective, remedies of improving the roads, of signposting them with adequate injunctions and warnings and of inculcating caution and courtesy in the minds of road users by every means at our disposal.

During the past year the total revenue expenditure of local authorities, excluding vocational education committees, committees of agriculture and harbour authorities, was approximately £51,600,000. The corresponding figure for the present financial year has been estimated at £52,800,000. These figures represent gross expenditure. Of the £52,800,000 the State will contribute about £22,100,000. Taking into account other sources of local revenue such as rents of local authority houses, the net amount falling on local rates will be approximately £20,700,000, which represents 39.2 per cent. of the total expenditure. There are decreases in the rates struck by three county councils in the current year. There is no change in the case of three other counties, while in the remaining 21, the rates struck show increases. The average county rate is 36/7½d. as compared with 36/2 last year. At 31st March last 97.7 per cent. of the collectors' warrants had been accounted for, compared with 97.5 per cent. for the previous year. Deputies will realise the extent of the improvement represented by these figures if I recall to their notice that at the 31st March, 1939, only 77 per cent. of the warrant for the year 1938-39 had been collected.

Mr. Cosgrave

On behalf of Deputy O'Donnell, I move:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

This Estimate deals with a number of matters which affect people in all walks of life. Taking first the question of housing, we will have an opportunity later of considering the new Housing Bill and it will be possible to discuss the many problems connected with housing on that measure in greater detail than on this Estimate. I think, however, that the figures which the Minister gave concerning the number of allocations for new housing grants are in themselves sufficient to indicate the very serious drop that has occurred in the building of houses over the past three years.

The total number of allocations for 1955-56 was 6,095. That had dropped in 1956-57 to 4,247 and for 1957-58 it was down to 2,504. The decline in private house building has been even more marked in the Dublin City area where it fell by 50 per cent. between 1955-56 and 1956-57 and, again, substantially from a total of 647 to 452 houses in 1957-58. On the other hand, the grants for repairs and reconstruction have remained fairly constant. The year 1956-57 was slightly up on the year 1955-56. Last year, it was down somewhat.

I should like the Minister to give particulars in regard to the substantial decline in grants. If it is due to the fact that the housing programme has been completed in a number of areas, then the explanation is reasonably satisfactory. In other cases, it is obvious that certain areas of the country have sufficient houses and may have sufficient houses of a particular type. In that connection, I would suggest that the Department should prepare detailed particulars of the number of houses of a particular category required in different districts.

So far as I can gather from the Minister's introductory speech, a number of local authorities have already completed the post-war housing programme, on the basis of a survey made in 1947. I understand that a more recent survey has been undertaken which involves a revision of the numbers which were regarded as necessary in certain cases and I should be glad if the Minister could furnish particulars of the local authorities' areas where further housing schemes are necessary.

So far as the cities are concerned, rehousing is still a big problem. Speaking of the problem in Dublin, it is obvious from views expressed in many quarters that building out on the fringe areas has reached the limit to which it is desirable to go. In fact, most of the people who have been transferred to these areas would prefer if they could get accommodation in areas where they formerly resided, where clearance work has been undertaken, areas which are now available either for housing schemes or flats. A variety of reasons influence people in that direction. Their traditions and upbringing associate them with particular areas and when they are changed out of their environment, they lose the familiar conditions to which they have been long accustomed. In addition, they have to bear the burden of the cost of getting to and from employment and in some cases of sending children to and from schools and, generally, the heavy transport charges entailed when people reside in these fringe areas far from their places of employment.

I believe, therefore, that it is desirable national policy as well as good policy for the local authorities concerned to build as rapidly as possible in these cleared areas. I understand that one of the problems in getting possession of sites has been the delay in getting title to the various properties, in many cases old properties that are no longer habitable, in many cases derelict for a number of years. Because of outmoded legal procedures and the difficulty of establishing title, neither the local authority nor the interested parties can get possession of these sites that are, in many cases, if not already cleared, lying derelict.

It seems to me that the Department of Local Government in collaboration with the Department of Justice should devise a simple procedure, or certainly a more simple procedure than that which obtains at present, in order to secure that these sites will be cleared quickly and that the facilities available for building either new houses or flats could be developed to the full.

In that connection, when it is obvious that the housing drive has slowed down to a very considerable extent compared with a few years ago, I would urge that where local authorities submit schemes to the Department for sanction, the schemes should be considered expeditiously. In the past, because of the backlog of work and because of the large number of local authorities submitting schemes at the same time, quite considerable delay occurred in many cases. With the drop in the housing tempo in the case of both private enterprise and local authorities, the same number of schemes are not being submitted and it is therefore vital that schemes should be sanctioned quickly.

In many cases, local authorities have now reduced their operations so much that, if there is delay between the completion of one scheme and the sanctioning of a new scheme, skilled personnel find that there is a gap between their employment on one scheme and the commencement of another and, in these circumstances, are obliged to seek work in another district or, in many cases, to seek work abroad. I would therefore urge that the Department should consider schemes as rapidly as possible when they are submitted so that sanction may be forthcoming in order to maintain an even tempo as far as possible.

One of the advantages of the survey I refer to is that it ought to be possible to get over a period a general picture of what is required and at the same time to estimate the rate at which the number of houses required will be built. One of the biggest problems which confronted the whole building industry was the rapid tempo for a number of years—admittedly, it did not last long —and then the tampering off at a rapid pace. Now the rate of progress is at a much lower level. That involves serious problems for builders, local authorities and building workers, both skilled and unskilled.

If it were possible to have a more accurate estimate of the rate of building which is expected and if, where possible, the Department sanctioned building in various districts on an agreed basis, the ups and downs which the building trade has experienced might be less severe and a more rational approach to the problem could be undertaken on the basis of what is required from the point of view of having houses built as quickly as possible and at the same time keeping in view the other objectives— stability of employment, continuity of work and the Department, in collaboration with the local authorities concerned, having a more accurate picture of the general progress of new houses by local authorities and private enterprise, although in the latter case it is not quite so easy to plan.

Recently, because of the very severe rainfall, flooding problems have presented themselves. While I appreciate that some of these problems are local, I should like to direct the attention of the Minister and the officers of his Department to the very serious problem which occurred in my constituency of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. That matter was discussed briefly here recently on the Adjournment. I appreciate that the Department, in collaboration with the local authorities, is considering the problem. I understand that the Dún Laoghaire Corporation and the Dublin County Council have submitted a joint scheme which will provide drainage for the whole of that area. To those who have had experience of flooding over a number of years in that area it is obvious that a comprehensive drainage scheme is essential, that nothing less than a drainage scheme which will drain the entire area will be adequate to alleviate such flooding as has occurred. The technical problems involved in it should be considered as expeditiously as possible and sanction granted.

This problem has recurred in that area with very unfortunate results on many occasions. The heavy and protracted nature of the recent rainfall has caused flooding in some parts of this constituency where it never occurred before. In other cases flooding has occurred on a far bigger scale than was ever experienced before. In Dún Laoghaire, Blackrock, Stillorgan, Dundrum, Churchtown, Rathfarnham, throughout the whole constituency, but particularly in the places mentioned, floods rose to unprecedented heights and many householders were obliged to vacate their premises and, where possible, to salvage their furniture and property before it was damaged further.

Therefore, I wish most strongly to urge not merely that the comprehensive drainage scheme which has been submitted by the local authorities concerned be considered and approved as soon as possible, but that pending the carrying out of that work, steps should be taken either under the Local Authorities (Works) Act or whatever other schemes are available, urban or rural as the case may be, to enable the local authorities concerned to carry out temporary measures by draining streams and rivers, by cleaning sewers and other pipes that are the responsibility of the local authority. In some cases a few hours' rain is sufficient in those areas to give a flooding problem of a most serious nature. In fact it is difficult for someone who has not seen the extent of flooding in these districts to imagine how it is possible for such problems to arise in what would be normally regarded as a developed urban or semi-urban area. To those who have experience of it, it requires no words of mine to stress the gravity of the problem or the importance of providing a remedy as rapidly as possible.

The question of separate managers for the local authorities concerned in Dublin has been under consideration for some time. I can speak only for the Dún Laoghaire Corporation and the Dublin County Council, but I gather from a report in to-day's paper of last night's meeting of the Dublin Corporation that the corporation also wishes to have a separate manager. This matter is one which should be dealt with on that basis. It is impossible for an individual, no matter how many deputies he may have to do all the work involved, and it is in no sense a criticism of the efficiency of the city manager or his deputies to say that the members of these local authorities would all prefer—and I believe it is in the best interests of efficient administration—that separate managers would be appointed.

You have separate managers for a variety of reasons, particularly because it is possible for a manager to give more time and attention to the problems of one local authority but also because the interests of the individual local authorities may conflict and the problems which some of them have to deal with are different from those of others. It is therefore a matter on which there has been a unanimous expression of opinion that a separate manager should be approved for the Dublin Corporation and the Dublin County Council, and that the manager who is acting for the Dún Laoghaire Corporation should be allowed to remain functioning as a separate manager.

One of the matters which come within the responsibility of the Department of Local Government is the question of road safety laws and rules. The substantial increase in traffic has meant that the old legislation is now out of date, and I am glad to note that it is proposed to issue shortly a new set of rules. This is a matter about which people may have different views. Certainly anything that will lessen the number of deaths due to road accidents will be welcomed in all quarters of the House and by all shades of opinions.

In that connection the Department of Local Government should review the whole question of road standards. A great many people feel that some of the main roads are now too elaborate and that one of the consequences of the too-elaborate road system provided in some cases is to increase the speed at which vehicles travel and thereby to increase the risk both for other vehicle users as well as for pedestrains. I should be glad if any statistics are available which would indicate whether this view is correct or not. As a road user I believe it is more difficult, particularly at night time, to drive on these long stretches of straight main roads than on roads that have some curves. Furthermore the rate of expenditure and the cost of construction on the basis of the existing standards seem, in some cases at any rate, to be beyond the capacity and the needs of the country no matter how great the number of vehicles or how much traffic is likely to be put on the roads in future. Undoubtedly at times of peak traffic these roads are fairly crowded with vehicles travelling both ways, but with the exception of peak periods the problem is nothing like as great, and for very long periods comparatively little traffic uses them.

I would suggest that the Department should, in collaboration with the Department of Justice, use to the maximum the Garda patrols which have been effective in reducing the number of accidents and in getting greater respect for road regulations and rules. On the other hand, the mere enactment of legislation or the passing of new sets of rules will not of themselves solve this problem. No matter how restrictive or how comprehensive road or traffic regulations may be, they cannot provide a remedy, unless people are prepared, themselves, to endeavour to avoid the consequences of their acts, or unless the roads are made effective through the deterrent effects, such as I have mentioned, of the Garda patrols. It is not possible to find a solution merely by changing the law or applying new rules.

It is obvious from the large number of persons now using mechanically-propelled vehicles that the time has arrived when a driving test should be obligatory. This is one of the few countries where a driving test is not obligatory. With the very large increase in the number of vehicles, a driving test is surely desirable if not essential before people are allowed to take any form of mechanically-propelled vehicle on to the highway.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I should like the Minister for Local Government to have an examination carried out in relation to the very severe and repeated flooding that has occurred in my constituency. In one of the northern districts, Balheary, the local people attribute the severe flooding to the opening of drains in County Meath, which is just above the border. It is felt that, instead of starting the rivers at their base, they are opened and let into an adjoining county which is opening out to the sea. The result is that, when very heavy rain comes, there is flooding. It has been exceptionally severe in certain areas in North County Dublin, particularly at Balheary and Broadmeadow, in the past few years.

I should like the Minister to examine the matter and deal with it so that people will not have to endure flooding of their homes and their property. I suppose that, in County Dublin alone, thousands of pounds worth of damage has been done as a result of the abnormal flooding the week before last. It is very serious if rivers are opened in an adjoining county and then flow into an area where the rivers have not been cleaned.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has the Minister for Local Government any responsibility in this connection?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am talking about that rivers which are dealt with under the Local Authorities (Works) Act. I do not want to put any responsibility on the Minister which he has not got. I am dealing only with that point. Some rivers which, a few years ago, were opened under the Local Authorities (Works) Act have become closed again with weeds and dirt of every description. That was another cause of flooding. Where land is continuously flooded, and especially where people suffer losses, the people concerned should get consideration so far as their rates are concerned and they should get consideration in regard to rent from the Land Commission. They are at a shocking loss and their crops are destroyed. This has been happening time out of number. Day after day, people are asking public representatives what they are doing to help in such matters.

I should be grateful if the Minister would have an investigation carried out to see what he and the Dublin County Council can do in relation to flooding so that people will not be compelled to put up with such serious inconvenience and loss, time and time again. Their homes are flooded. Their furniture and effects are destroyed. Their crops are damaged or destroyed, not to speak of the grave hardship and inconvenience which must be endured as the result of flooding and of rivers not being cleaned.

For a long time, I have been pressing for the extension of sewerage and water supplies to areas throughout County Dublin where there are big populations. I come from Donabate, where there are a number of private sewerage and water schemes. During the summer, I suppose that as many as 10,000 people are there. We have no public sewerage and water schemes in that parish. A few years ago, I got so many glowing promises from the Dublin County Council in relation to this matter that I thought that, before reaching home, the sewerage and water supply schemes would be in Donabate before me. It seems like a fairy story now. The same can be said about Rathcoole, Lusk, Newcastle and quite a number of popular areas.

Just consider the position of Port-marnock on a summer Sunday evening when thousands of persons go there. I urge the Minister, in his own good time, to ask the Dublin County Council why adequate and proper sewerage and water supply schemes are not provided in populous areas in the county. When one asks them about the matter, they blame the Department of Local Government. I take this opportunity of mentioning the matter publicly. The time has long passed when we should at least have good drinking water. That is essential for health. Such schemes are essential in seaside areas where thousands of people are go on a Sunday evening, especially in fine weather. Some of these people stay in various houses in the vicinity.

A number of council cottages schemes in County Dublin are being prepared. There is still a lot of overcrowding in the county. In Cloughran, there are three families living in a small house. In the past few weeks, the Minister sanctioned a very necessary scheme for Lucan and I thank him for it. I would remind him that we have other areas in a very bad way so far as housing is concerned. I want the Minister to try to expedite the sanction of any scheme which comes to him from the Dublin County Council.

There is another problem which I would like to deal with, that is, the refusal by Dublin County Council of loans to people who had already applied for them. They are now turning these loans down because the ground rent of the housing site is more than £10. The county council have made a by-law overnight regarding this matter. I protest strongly about this overnight legislation which is causing utter confusion to the various applicants who have committed themselves to buying houses and to the contractors who, is good faith, have built houses and who thought that the applicants were entitled to loans. It would have been all right if the Dublin County Council had given prior notice of their intention to make this by-law and if they had said that as and from a given date, nobody would get a loan except where the ground rent of the house was £10.

During this recession period in the building trade, we expected that the various county councils, and the Dublin County Council, would have endeavoured not to impede the progress of the housing drive. Instead of that, overnight they have written to applicants and told them: "You will get no loan when the ground rent of the house is £10." Admittedly, taking the long term view, that may result in forcing down the ground rents, but I do not think it should have been done so quickly. I do not think that any hardship should be inflicted on the people. It was an undiplomatic move on the part of the Dublin County Council, and if I may say so, a vicious move. I have received a number of letters complaining about this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This decision evidently arises from a decision of the local authority and not of the Minister.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I know that, Sir, but surely public men must voice an opinion in some place.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Unfortunately, it is out of place here.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am not transgressing the ruling of the Chair, but I am talking about the position which exists in County Dublin——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not wish to interrupt the Deputy, but if the Minister has no authority in the matter, there does not seem to be much use in discussing it.

Mr. P.J. Burke

If my terms of reference are to be curbed in this way, I had better sit down.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The terms of reference applied to the Deputy have always been supplied in this House. They are not my terms of reference.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I do not wish to pursue this matter, but I suggest that the Minister has control over the Dublin County Council. I know the has not made this ruling, and that he would not be associated with making it, but I am pointing out the difficulties which the Dublin County Council have raised and the hardships which they are causing to a lot of people. While I have conveyed my own protest to the county council, I want to protest to the Minister and to emphasise that we feel very sore about it. It is an injustice to the people.

Another point is that while other councils throughout the country gave full co-operation in respect of any Housing Act passed here, the Dublin County Council, again overnight, cut out the supplementary grants. I would almost go as far as to ask the Minister to put in a commissioner and abolish county councils which do not carry out the spirit of the Acts, and try to introduce by-laws against the spirit of these Acts. Nobody in this House wants to inflict hardship on any county council, or on the ratepayer, but a reasonable attitude should be adopted by the local authorities and their managers in matters of this kind.

In my constituency in County Dublin, I suppose there are about 7,000 or 8,000 people who have got the S.D.A. loans. They got the loans from the Dublin County Council, the Dublin Corporation or building societies and insurance companies. People of moderate means brought these houses and just when they were up to their necks in their purchase and could not withdraw, they were told: "You will not get the supplementary grants." I do not think that is fair. It might have been fair if they had given prior notice to applicants that after a given date, they would not be given the supplementary grants. Instead of that, they passed this retrospective by-law and the result is that a number of these unfortunate people now have a millstone around their necks and a number of them cannot carry on. If the Minister cannot get co-operation and common understanding from the various county councils without making laws and having consultations with the officers of his Department to see that no hardship is inflicted by the by-laws which are made from time to time, then county councils who will not give that co-operation should not exist at all. The people would be very pleased to see such county councils abolished and a commissioner, who would co-operate, put in.

There is also the position in regard to the county councils which have encouraged repairs to houses and it is a pleasure to speak to Deputies on both sides of the Houses about this and to hear about repairs which have been carried out in their areas. If a reconstruction grant is given in County Dublin, the Dublin County Council very grudgingly, under certain circumstances, gives 50 per cent. of the grant which the Department of Local Government will give. Surely there is a lack of co-operation there again, because other county councils are able to do it.

There is a lack of co-operation with the Department and with the spirit of the Act, which leaves it open to county councils to contribute the same amount as the Department of the Local Government will give, say, £100, £60 or £50 as the case may be, towards the reconstruction of a house or whatever it may be. Taking it from the long term point of view, it will improve property in the area and increase the rates. I want to say that I condemn that lack of co-operation with the Department of Local Government in County Dublin.

We have another problem. I do not know what to do about it. I will not ask the Minister to give any decision, but in the interests of the people I represent I have to mention it. We have the problem of the large number of tenants of S.D.A. loan houses who have to leave the houses when they go on full rates. Even from the point of view of the most conservative ratepayer, is it good policy to be forcing so many tenants out when they are unable to pay the full amount? Would it not be better policy to give them a longer period of remission? One has to consider the great inconvenience caused when these people have to leave these houses when they have to meet the loans charges, ground rent and full rates, and also the fact that they have to be rehoused by the local authority. About three-quarters of my constituency is under the jurisdiction of Dublin Corporation, and I must say the corporation have been very helpful in rehousing such people.

Would it not pay the ratepayers and be a great relief to the rates to permit these people remain in their homes by extending the period beyond seven years? As a public representative, I have to be as fair as I can to all sections of the people. This is a problem which does not concern other constituencies as much as it concerns the constituency I have the honour to represent. It has come up again and again during the last few years. I have had appeals to secure an extension of the period of 12 years. It is contended that, if they got 12 years, not so many people would be forced out. It is also suggested they should be put on a sliding scale. I just mention this as one of the problems brought to my notice.

We have in County Dublin and in the City of Dublin a system of managers. We have a city manager and three or four assistant managers. I want to refer to one of them, the assistant manager dealing with health services in the county. His headquarters are at St. Kevin's. I know the amount of work he has to do day in, day out. There is not a day in the week —and sometimes at night, too—but he has to attend meetings of some kind or another.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not desirable to discuss outside individuals in this Estimate.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am speaking of the duties of the assistant county manager. I am not mentioning his name. I know the work he has to do. The work allocated to this man seems to be too much. I do not know whether the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Health has to deal with this, but that is the problem.

There are a few other items with which I shall deal later, possibly on the Housing Bill. May I conclude by wishing the Minister well and by expressing the hope that he will get on very well in his new post as Minister for Local Government?

Mr. Kyne

This Estimate touches the lives of ordinary people in both town and country in a matter in which very few other Estimates do. The change over of the provision of houses from private landlords to local authorities that has been so noticeable within the past 30 years and the fact that the Minister in charge of this Department is responsible for water, sewerage and roads would indicate that his Department comes in contact with many more people than any other Department whose Estimate comes before the House. I suggest, therefore, it is of the utmost importance that public representatives should avail of this Estimate to discuss policy in general and, perhaps, in particular, grievances if they have any in their various areas. I shall endeavour to keep my remarks based somewhat on the Minister's statement and try, as a public representative, to contribute suggestions along lines of constructive criticism, with a view to an improvement in administration as I see it and to offer to the Minister suggestions that have struck me during my years as a public representative.

I notice the attention the Minister directed in his opening remarks to the fall in housing construction. He indicated that in 23 county health districts post-war planning aims had been practically achieved. That may be so; the drop-off is considerable. It is understandable that there would be a drop-off as housing needs were satisfied but I wonder if the progress the Minister claims has been made? I do not know the position in many counties but I do know the position in Waterford City where I am a member of the corporation. I know we heard it announced by the city managers there two years ago that, as and from that night, any man with a wife with two children in need of a house would have a house available. Notwithstanding the repeated efforts of people like me, giving him the names of people with a wife and two or more children, this housing accommodation has not been made available, or if it was made available, it was not at a rent within the ability of the people to pay.

I am well aware of housing needs in Waterford City where there are seven adults and six children all within one room. These housing needs have been drawn to the attention of the city manager and, whether by bad management or by his inability to provide housing, they have not been met. Any time the Minister is interested in getting the particulars, they will be readily available to him.

I notice the Minister says that finance need not stop the building of houses where housing is needed. I do not know. In County Waterford, the housing survey showed a need of approximately 160 cottages. This was about three years ago, before the present Minister was in office, under Deputy O'Donnell. Notwithstanding that our medical officer of health examined each case individually and passed roughly 160 families as needing rural cottages, on a re-examination ordered by the then Minister, Deputy O'Donnell, the housing needs were cut to approximately 63 cottiers. I suggest that that was done under compulsion.

The very same medical officer who okayed 160 cottages as being needed now changed his opinion, with the help of the Departmental officials sent down specially to do so. I should have preferred if the Minister had said at that time, honestly and straight: "There is no money there; we cannot do it in view of the very bad situation we are in." Then it would be clear; but to come along and re-survey and by a series of tricks deprive people of their right and take them off a housing list, is a scandalous performance.

I would suggest to the Minister that certainly, if it did not happen anywhere else, in the case of Waterford City, he should revert to that list of the 160, to continue the balance of those people then in need and still in need of housing, and if and when the money permits, give them the houses they badly need. If, as he says, money is not the keypoint, let him do it now. In that way, he would win the respect of the local authorities. I should like him to tackle housing in the same manner as the late Deputy T.J. Murphy, God be good to him, tackled it, in an honest attitude. If he cannot provide for it, let him say out the reason and the people will not be impossible to deal with. In Waterford at the present time, under the Minister, we have the stupid spectacle of the Department sending down and stating that the contract price for labourers' cottages is too high, when we in the local authority ourselves know that even by direct labour we could not build within £100 of some of the contract prices. We have the sorry spectacle, where we want 60 houses built, of the total sanctioned by the Minister's Department being four. Now we are told that the fencing costs of a cottage are too high and the Department suggests that we should either reduce the size of the fence or reduce the size of the ground on which the cottage is built. In other words, we are now to be compelled, so that we can provide houses for the working class people, to reduce the acre of land to half an acre.

I wonder whether any of the officials in the Department who make these suggestions realise what an in-between measure a half acre of land is. It is too small to be any good and too big for the ordinary person. If you do not want to till it, it is too big to take half an acre—one-eight would do; if you want to till, half an acre is useless. The Department ought to realise the needs of the working people and forget this economy drive. It is on the essential needs of the people that the economies are being made. Surely to goodness, if tenders are invited and contracts are taken in and recommended by the local authority officers and sent up to the Department here in Dublin for sanction, some more sensible explanation could be given than saying that a tender is too high? That is presumably a way of refusing to sanction the provision of housing without saying there is a shortage of money or that the Department's policy is not to sanction. The Department can keep on delaying it. That is the story of Waterford County Council under two Ministers.

In the urban council of Dungarvan, of which I am a member for the past three years, we have been trying to acquire a site of land. We got an arbitrator in after about two years. He finally decided to come in and investigate it, and after about eight months, he gave a decision as to the purchase price. If it takes three years to get a plot of land for this purpose, surely it would take ten or 12 years to get the houses built? Therefore, there are many ways of choking a dog besides chocking it with a pound of butter. It is very easy to say that money is not going to stop building, if you can use all the other devices to stop it. The Minister should not be fooled by the officers. He should not just accept Department statements— that saturation point has been reached in every local authority area. There is a serious need for housing in many areas of which I have knowledge and certainly in those two I mentioned.

In the last housing survey in Dungarvan, at the meeting of the urban council we had something like 120 applicants for houses. These were people who had not any houses, who were in one-roomed lodgings; some were in slum dwellings and some in dwellings, the rent of which it is absolutely impossible for them to afford. I suggest that the Minister might be doing a very good action to himself and to the local authorities of Ireland if he took a leaf out of the book of the late Deputy T.J. Murphy, and personally visited the local authorities, talked with the local representatives and heard their problems at first-hand and undertook to investigate those problems. In that way, he would win the respect of the local authorities and the gratitude of the people throughout the country.

I notice what the Minister says in connection with the conserving of old buildings, both private and local authority. I welcome this attitude of the Minister's. Many of us in local authorities have been pressing for this for a long time, that money spent in the reconstruction of old buildings, rather than pulling them down to build new ones, is a wise and good policy. I suggest, however, that many of the standards expected by his Department are much too high, if that policy of preservation of old buildings is to meet with any success. I believe that the standard of floor space required is too high. I believe that the Department expects too much air space in respect of windows and doors. It is much too high a standard to expect. Certain old buildings may not be up to present-day standards, but with a little money spent on them in the form of reconstruction they could be made reasonably sound jobs, where people with not too large families could live in comfort and in good sanitary conditions. I suggest that the provision of laid-on water, sewerage arrangements, a good repair to the roof and certain internal repairs, is all that is necessary to qualify for a grant. Sound houses should not be turned down because floor space or window space is not big enough, because of standards which it is impossible economically to carry out on reconstruction of old buildings. I suggest that the Minister should get his Department to relax some of the conditions.

I know the answer can be that it is a matter of the health of the public, that it is the new way. I suggest to the Minister that he should read Dr. Saunders's reports on the poliomyelitis in Cork of two years ago. He pointed out that the children of the people in the sanitary houses were the people who suffered, and not the people in the insanitary houses. I suggest that some examination of the standard of the regulations that must be complied with to qualify for a grant should be made.

The Minister indicated that roughly one-quarter of the amount repayable for loans of housing is recovered by way of rent and he states that three-quarters of it has to be provided by the taxpayers and ratepayers. I have no doubt that is correct, but if one wishes to get a loan at present of £1,500 for a small dwelling over a 35 year period, one repays £1,000 plus the £1,500. Somebody is making money, apart from the person who occupies the house. I suggest the Minister has a real problem there and it will not be solved by simply doing what he advises, jacking up the rents. That is what the Minister suggests when he says that local authorities would be well advised to consider increasing the rents in the case of older houses.

Did it every strike the Minister that these houses may be already paid for by rent paid over the past 80 years, and that if these were on a purchase basis, they would have been bought out? Does the Minister not think that where a rural cottage or urban dwellings was built at a cost of £120 and where £200 or £300 has been paid back, he would be advocating a moral injustice by recommending that the present occupier, even though he and his forefathers enjoyed tenancy of the house, should have the rent increased? If that were my case, I would feel I had paid double or treble the value of the house and I would resent a manager saying that I should pay more to subsidise other people. That, I suggest, is not the saving that should be made. This matter will probably have to be tackled rather at Government level than by a Minister.

While I can understand a certain amount of delay in regard to reconstruction grants, I feel it would be advisable if the Minister would have the payment of primary and secondary grants investigated, with a view to speeding up the process. I have had a number of complaints in my area of what I think is unjustifiable delay in the inspectors calling. It may be that there is a shortage of inspectors in that area. I would also suggest—and in saying this I am not going into anything that is happening there—that the Minister should recommend to his inspectors that more individual attention be given to alleged repairs. I shall not go further than that because of certain happenings in that connection.

I agree with the Minister that there is urgent need for a change in the Road Safety legislation, but no matter what is done in that regard, unless the road users co-operate in carrying out the legislation, very little will be achieved. I suggest that in regard to the stop line at the end of all by-roads, if it is insisted that each car stop before moving on to the main road, it would be of great value in saving life. On that subject, I might say that the pedestrains in cities and towns on whose behalf many of those regulations are made apparently ignore all the precautions. Here in Dublin we have the pedestrian crossings where motorists must give pedestrians right of way, but I suggest that the jay-walkers who deliberately step off the side walk and cross over should be equally subject to the law for risking their own lives and the lives of motorists. Certainly, in England, where the Belisha beacon was introduced as it has now been introduced here, if a pedestrian attempts to cross at any point except the pedestrian crossing where he has the right to cross he is just as liable to prosecution as the motorist is in Ireland.

Here the motorist appears to be public enemy Number 1, as far as the police are concerned. If they cannot summon you for parking they will summon you for speeding, if they get a chance, and if you have an accident, it is better to pay the damages and leave the car to the other fellow and go home. The police apparently think all motorists are public enemies and I am afraid every judge feels that he must decide the case against the motorist.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has no responsibilities in regard to that.

Mr. Kyne

As Deputy Corish has pointed out to me, every charge in the book is levelled against the motorist, in case you are not caught on one— inconsiderable driving, dangerous driving, driving on the footpath, driving without brakes, or something else.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of prosecutions is a matter for another Minister.

Mr. Kyne

Yes, but the making of the regulations is the function of the Minister for Local Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

But the carrying out of the regulations is the function of the Minister for Justice.

Mr. Kyne

Yes, but the more regulations the Minister for Local Government makes, the more opportunities he will give to other people of insisting that they be kept. However, I am moving from that subject.

Before, I conclude, I want to draw the Minister's attention to a matter he mentioned in his speech. I suggest that serious consideration be given by the Minister's Department to the advisability of giving notice to all county councils that future rate collections should be carried out direct through the office. It is a bit of a farce to find, say, in Waterford County Council, that it costs over £15,000 a year to collect the rates. The E.S.B. does not have collectors in that sense; they have meter checkers. If the E.S.B. can collect through the Dublin office or the sub-offices, and if the Land Commission can collect through banks or otherwise, I can see no reason why the rates could not be collected in some similar way. It may be said that they have to be followed up and prosecutions instituted and so on. That may be so, but if this system of bartering jobs—because that is what rate-collecting means to me—by political Parties on all sides and in all councils continues, I suggest the Minister should seriously think of taking power to himself to compel the local authorities to carry out rate collection through their own offices.

The Minister is new to his office, but I believe he is sincere in what he is endeavouring to do. I believe he will bring a fresh approach to his task. I wish him well in the year to come, but I would advise him to rely on his own knowledge and experience, acquired while he was a member of a local authority. He should see to it that the ordinary representatives have sufficient power and that they receive serious consideration by him when they appeal against decisions. In that way, we can gradually restore the position of the local authorities to what it was in the old—and despised days—when public representatives really represented the public.

Mr. Coburn

The Minister referred to the decrease in building activity which is evident at present compared with some years ago. I do not know whether I am right or wrong, but I am of opinion that the last survey of housing needs in this country was made a considerable time ago, and it is questionable whether there has been such a decrease as the Minister suggests. Deputy Cosgrave, in his contribution, suggested that a survey of that sort should be made at the present time. It would give us more realistic figures and tell us how we stood in that regard. I do not intend to speak much on the housing aspect of this Estimate as a new Bill has been introduced, dealing with housing, which touches on all the various aspects of the problem.

I should like to endorse the remarks of those who have spoken about the sometimes unprecedented delays which are occasional when people apply for reconstruction grants, and for grants for building new houses. It may be, as Deputy Kyne says, that there is not a sufficient number of inspectors in the respective areas. It may also be that people who apply for grants are not too well versed in their obligations, but I would ask the Minister to try to do something to expedite cases of that sort. Personally, I know people in my constituency who have been waiting months for the issue of the sums they have been promised, having constructed their houses, and they are very annoyed, financially inconvenienced and embarrassed by the non-issue of these grants.

I wonder will the new Bill aggravate conditions in that respect, because it provides for additional grants to be given to people who apply for them. That will aggravate the position to an extent because more people will be inclined to apply for these grants. More people will apply for them in the future, which will entail more inspections and more inspectors. That is an aspect of the question which should instil into our minds the importance of attending to this matter with as much expedition as possible. I should also like to ask the Minister is it a fact that grants may be paid to a person who builds a two-storey building in which there are two apartments, one apartment on top of another, each containing five rooms. There are people who wish to build such structures and they want to know if they can obtain a grant, and also an S.D.A. loan. I am not sure on that point and I should like the Minister to enlighten me in that regard.

The question of roads was mentioned, it being in the bailwick of the Minister, and I should like to refer to a reply which was given to me recently in this House when I asked for certain facts and figures in relation to road grants in each county. I observe, on perusing the reply given to me, that County Louth has a total of 6,717 licensed vehicles compared with 2,337 licensed vehicles in County Leitrim, and the amount of grants given to Louth is £57,192 and to Leitrim, £125,763. Again, in Louth, there is a total number of 7,000 driving licences, compared with a total of 2,836 in Longford; yet Longford gets £90,000 odd in grants compared with the £57,000 odd Louth gets. I am quoting those figures only to draw the Minister's attention to the injustice—if I might so term it—of his method of allocating grants to my constituency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister pointed out in the course of his remarks that the Road Fund is an item separate from the Local Government Vote. It does not arise on this vote.

Mr. Coburn

He also mentioned that it is usual to take it in conjunction with this Estimate. I am merely drawing the attention of the Minister to it and asking him to be a little more generous in future, because Louth is a county through which passes one of the busiest roads in the country. It has passing through its confines the road from Belfast to Dublin, and the traffic density on that road must be one of the greatest in the 32 Counties. Some parts of the country receive special tourist grants, especially counties which have special tourist attractions. That is obviously to put the roads of those counties into a good state so that they will be pleasing to the eye and will be easy on the motor cars of visitors. Louth does not qualify for such grants, and that is all the more reason why it should be considered in a more favourable manner for any grants for which it does qualify.

In recent weeks, I have noticed men painting white lines on main roads. I am not referring to the white line that is placed in the middle of the road; I am referring to the extra white lines. Sometimes we see roads with three and four white lines and I fail to see the necessity for the extra lines. Are they laid down for the purpose of confining traffic to its particular lane, or is it a case of trying to find work for men who are unemployed by various local authorities? I do not know what benefit that work is, other than providing relief schemes for the workers, and I do not think it is legally binding on a motorist to travel in any particular lane.

Very often, we see very large holes and depressions in roads which have undergone reconstruction. Sometimes a section of a road is ripped up for the laying of water and sewerage pipes, and filling is put on top of the pipes. Those fillings must be allowed a certain number of months in which to settle down before they can be concreated or finished off with tarmacadam. From our experience, we know that those holes are left there, and often on bog roads are a danger to cars, and cause much damage to tyres and springs.

I know that some contractors are very conscientious about this and they do top up those little areas every two days or so, especially on roads over which much traffic passes but there are other contractors who are very negligent in this matter. The Minister should instruct local authorities to be very insistent upon bringing this fault to the attention of contractors who infringe in this respect. It is most improper to endanger cars by negligence and carelessness on the part of some of these contractors who leave holes and ruts in the roads. Sometimes these holes are almost half a foot below the ordinary level of the road.

One of the things which emphasise the need for road safety at the present time, especially in my constituency, is the recent closing down of certain railways. That will accentuate the problem. Of course, the main causes of accidents on the road are excessive speed and carelessness. I would suggest that the Minister should seriously consider introducing a speed limit in built-up areas. They have it in the Six Counties and I cannot see why it could not be introduced here—at least for a trial period. I am sure that much good would come of it. Another matter for consideration is the giving of special grants to local authorities for the purpose of removing very dangerous corners. We have many such dangerous corners in this country. These special grants could also be utilised for the cutting of hedges. Money so used would be money well spent. By cutting the hedges on bad corners, motorists would be enabled to see what lies ahead of them—almost to see round corners.

I wonder would it be possible to construct special laneways for the convenience of cyclists and confine those laneways to cyclists alone, especially in future schemes and where we are building completely new roads or relining main roads? The construction of such laneways for cyclists would mitigate the danger on the roads considerably. The danger will increase in the coming years because people are becoming more car-minded. Many people are now buying cars who heretofore had never intended to do so. That will accentuate the problem. The dangers of travel on the roads at the present time should be emphasised in the schools and by the parents. Some Deputies referred to the question of a driving test. It is very necessary that there should be a driving test before a person is issued with a driving licence.

With regard to sewerage and water schemes, I would suggest to the Minister that in view of the importance of having each area in the country supplied with a local water or sewerage scheme he should suspend for a number of years the spending of money on the making of new main roads and apply the money to the provision of water and sewerage schemes in areas which do not enjoy these much-needed amenities at the present time. I think that local authorities would welcome such a move. It would not reduce the employment content in any material way because much employment would be given in those areas where such projects were commenced. The money would be spent and the people would get employment and the amenities for which they are paying at the present time but which they do not get. I do not see why rural people should not be given the ordinary comforts of life which their urban neighbours enjoy at the present time. The rural electrification scheme brings electric light to their houses but at the same time the water and sewerage schemes do not keep pace with it. I think the Minister should consider that. I do not know whether it is feasible. It is an idea which came suddenly into my mind and I think there is some merit in it.

I should like the Minister to explain in some way that people will understand the new system as it applies to applicants for reconstruction grants. Up to recently the practice was for people to go to the local town clerk or town surveyor and ask for a form. The applicant looked forward to getting a certain grant for the job. The town surveyor inspected the house and if he approved of the work, it would be done if he considered it came within certain conditions and qualified. He sent his report to Dublin and after the local town surveyor's report had been examined in Dublin an inspector was sent down to the local town. Eventually, the applicant would get a notification telling him that he had been allocated a certain grant; that he was free to commence work and, when the work was done, that the payment of the money on the final inspection would be made.

I understand that the local authority now does not come into the matter at all, that the person who wishes to reconstruct his house must apply direct to the Department who sends down an inspector and the old routine is then carried out. Would it not be possible to permit the local authority surveyor to inspect these houses and let him look after all the routine work so as to expedite the issue of the grants to those people? The Minister in reply may say that the Department will have to inspect the job because, after all, Governments and the Department are giving money to have this work done and the local authority might be influenced by the local people. We must remember, however, that the local authorities are also very cagey when they issue money. They have to safeguard their own funds and the local surveyors are instructed by the local county manager to insist upon the regulations being carried out. If my suggestion were adopted, I think it would expedite matters. At all events, it would certainly obviate the very long delays experienced by applicants for grants if the work of inspection before the work commences and before it finishes is left to the local authority surveyor.

I understood that this debate will be adjourned at 6 o'clock when the House will consider the Solicitors Bill. I only hope that the Minister's efforts to expedite local government matters in general will meet with success. I hope his new Housing Bill will act as a fillip to house building in the areas where house building is still very necessary. As the Minister says, there are 23 counties in which the housing needs of the people have been met. At the same time, however, there are some pockets, especially in the large towns and cities, and in Dublin and Cork in particular, where there is a very big demand yet to be met. I hope that when the new Bill begins to operate and when its provisions are applied to individual cases it will help considerably the building of new houses.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.