Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Jul 1958

Vol. 170 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 36—Local Government (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy O'Donnell.)

Mr. Allen

The Minister gave us some statistics of the number of houses erected and reconstructed in the last three years. It is quite obvious there has been a considerable fall, but whether that was due to the demand being fully satisfied or not, we do not know. Possibly, in some areas it was fully satisfied. We know there are areas in the country still that need considerable re-housing, but the authorities are afraid to tackle the job because the prospective tenants would be unable to pay the rents without a large subsidy from the local authority. That applies particularly to urban areas.

It often occurred to me that, over the years, nothing was ever done to see if it were possible to provide houses at a cheaper rate than the present-day cost. Three factors go to make up the cost of a house. One is planning. As the years have gone on, the planners have been improving the designe and so on at the expense of the prospective tenants or the ratepayers. They could cut out a lot of the trimmings and still have a first-class house that would serve the needs just as well. The second factor is the cost of materials. This has gone up. Have the Minister and his Department had any consultation with the planners, the architects, the builders' providers and the skilled operatives who erect the houses? At this stage, when we are embarking on a new housing drive, so to speak, something should be done to pull down the cost of houses. It has gone too high. The rent the people will have to pay will put the houses out of their reach.

Many houses are required, even in villages in rural areas. The cost of erecting them, even in villages and rural areas, is so high at present that the prospective tenants could not pay the rent without a large subsidy from the ratepayers. I am referring to planning costs, the cost of materials and labour costs. The Minister should have consultation with the three interests involved to see if it is possible to erect houses at a lower cost than that which they are being erected at present. They can be just as durable and they will serve the needs just as well. costs have been mounting all the time over the years and a stop should be put to them. If the Minister put down his foot and said: "Thus far shalt thou go and no further" in the cost of houses, all the interests concerned would put on their thinking caps and provide ways and means to provide houses more cheaply.

I heard a Deputy from Waterford on the Labour Benches ask the Minister why he did not sanction a scheme for rural houses. The price of the house was, I understand, something in the region of £1,500 or £1,600. I would not blame the Minister for not sanctioning such a scheme. There seems to be no limit whatever to housing costs. We do not know who is getting it. Very definitely, the architects have been stepping up the design of the houses all the time and putting on frills which have been costing a lot of money. Contractors will tell you they can put up just as good a house for a couple of hundred pounds less down the country, if they cut out certain of the frills which the architects have added. The Minister should do something about that.

On the cost of materials, it is questionable whether they should go up all the time, too. Many contractors say the labour output has been dropping over the years. The trade unions which cater for skilled workers could do much to deal with that. If new money is provided, the Minister would be doing a good day's work if he could prevent the cost of housing going up further. Undoubtedly, once new grants and subsidies are provided, the cost will go up again, as some group is sure to make them go up each time.

In regard to the housing letting regulations made by Ministers, some of these were made when there was a considerable scarcity of houses. Those regulations were drawn up very strictly. A manager cannot let a house now unless he has a certificate from the medical officer of health about the housing needs of the particular person the local authority I know best, the medical officer deals with about 2,000 lettings a year, urban and corporation and county council lettings. His whole time is taken up in giving certificates. That was never intended. Houses are in reasonably full supply in most areas and there should be some relaxation of the restrictions. There should not be a highly competent and highly paid medical officer, with a hundred and one duties to perform, engaged most of his time in certifying housing needs.

Furthermore, if a rural cottage is being built out the country, the local engineer examines the site and advises the county manager about its suitability. But that is not good enough. The medical officer is sent out to the backwoods, into a field, to see if the field is suitable. That is a bit silly. The engineer should be capable of determining the suitability of a site for an isolated rural cottage. A lot of red tape has grown up over the years and it is time some of it was cut out. The local medical officer's certificate should be sufficient. He would have far more knowledge, in his own dispensary area, than the county medical officer would have, about the housing needs of a particular individual, in regard to a rural house at a cost of £1,000.

A matter which came to my attention lately shows what peculiar things can happen. A rural house was being erected and the prospective tenant objected to the sitting of the house; he got in touch with the Department and the Minister's architect was sent down 90 or 100 miles to see if the county council's architect was siting the house in the right direction. Things like that should not happen. If a fully qualified architect cannot decide the aspect of a rural cottage, no one in the Minister's Department can. They all got the same training. It seems silly to send a man down 100 miles into the country after another architect.

In the beginning of the housing drive 25 years ago, a lot of things may have been necessary, but that is not so now. The Minister should trust the local people. There are architects, doctors and managers now to make decisions about housing. The members of the local authority do not make them. At present every single thing must be referred to the Custom House, just as it was 20 or 30 years ago. Much of that should be cut out. especially the looking for sanction for everything, including the acquisition of the site. The Minister the acquisition from his own experience, that a lot of it is unnecessary.

I do not know if we can discuss roads under this Vote. I suppose we can refer to the main roads improvement grants. The way the grant is spent is determined by the Department. That has grown up over the years. It should be left to the county engineers to do that, as they would know best what to do. Many main roads need banking, improving and strengthening, but large sums of money are being spent in cutting off big slices of corners which are not really dangerous at all.

Mr. Everett

Hear! Hear!

Mr. Allen

It is silly and should be stopped to a great extent. I admit that many dangerous corners have been taken off, but now they have gone on to the second, third and fourth grade of corners and still the policy goes on, that a large slice of the road improvement grant should be used each year by the Department, rather than give it to the county engineer for the banking and strengthening of trunk roads.

There are many miles of poorer type main roads on which considerable sums could be spent. I know of such instances myself. I see planning going on and planners on some of these roads, who plan them a dozen times in a dozen years. They are not employed by the local authority and I do not know where they come from. They can put notices there if it is a narrow road or if there are dangerous bends. One thousand years would not be sufficient to straighten all the roads of the country. The Minister should insist that local authorities put stop lines where minor roads come out on main roads. There seems to be no settled view as to what these notices should be; they vary from county to county but there should be a uniform policy. These signs are supposed to have the effect that the motorist would stop but many people do not understand some of these signs. That is something that should be considered by the designers of the signs which should be easily understood by everybody.

Everybody desires safety on the roads but safety depends on many factors. No laws the Minister could bring in or Dáil Éireann could pass would give 100 per cent. safety. I think it was Deputy Kyne who mentioned the fact that responsibility should be placed on pedestrians as well as on the motorist and that there should be a responsibility on parents in regard to their children. Fewer children would be killed if that were the case but as the law stands it appears the responsibility is on the motorist if the child is under 16 if anything happens, even though it may be the child's own fault. The Minister might consider that point also. I do not know if our accident statistics are worse than in other countries but I doubt if they are. Much has already been done and I suppose in the future new drivers will be more experienced than their fathers because they will have more motoring sense.

Late at night there is also the problem of people who have had "one more than the half-one". No regulations the Minister can make will prevent these people having "one over the half-one"; perhaps such people feel they should drive a bit fast but many accidents take place late at night as a result of these people staying too long in places of refreshment. Such accidents may also happen early in the morning but not all accidents are caused by this practice. Many things enter into the matter which the law cannot control.

I hope the Minister will make a note about housing costs. Without doubt, if more money is provided for housing costs will creep up. Even if the Minister doubles the grants they will be eaten up by the factor I have mentioned, the cost factor.

Mr. O'Donnell

As the sponsor of the motion to refer this Estimate back I must first of all apologise to the Minister for not being present when he opened the debate. I can assure him that it was through no sense of discourtesy to him that I was not present. I have since had the privilege of reading what he said.

Three or four years ago, when I had the honour to introduce this Estimate, I remember debates lasting two or three days. These debates centred round the financing of the affairs of Dublin Corporation. I have read through the Estimate and I do not find the finances of Dublin Corporation referred to even once. I made inquiries to find out what had Deputy Briscoe to say to-day about Dublin Corporation finances or if he had any inquiries to make of the Minister as to how these finances would be provided in the future. I gave an undertaking some few years ago in introducing the Estimate that a sum of £4,000,000 would be made available out of the Local Loans Fund that year, last year and this year if I were in office, to finance the capital projects of Dublin Corporation. I presume the Minister is honouring that undertaking when no reference was made to it.

I was very glad to read in the Minister's statement that there has been a continued falling off in the past five years in the volume and degree of housing activities and that this naturally results from the approach made to the satisfaction of housing needs. That is exactly what I said two years ago, that we were almost reaching saturation point in the provision of houses and that it was much better that we should taper off activity rather than some day come to a complete close-down. I am glad the Minister agrees now with what I said then but neither the present Minister nor Deputy Briscoe nor the Fianna Fáil Deputies agreed with me when I said that some two years ago. I was almost howled down when I made that statement. I am in complete agreement with the Minister when he says our housing needs are now almost met.

I do not know what the position is to-day under Dublin Corporation but the Minister is quite right in saying they should now concentrate on the demolition of slums and the building of flats in central Dublin. I said that on a few occasions when I occupied the Minister's seat and I thought that the housing programme of Dublin Corporation was responsible for the traffic congestion in the city. Without thought the corporation began housing schemes outside the boundaries and on the outskirts of the boundaries and— fortunately or unfortunately—most of the people who went into these houses were employed in the centre of the city. They had to be transported to and from work and that transportation built up the congestion which we have to-day in Dublin and which will take years to clear off. I sincerely hope that the Minister's advice to the corporation will be accepted. It is advice that I also gave them but it went unheeded. I hope the Minister has more influence with them than I had.

In regard to the small Dwellings Acquisition Act loans, the Minister is again making funds available through the Local Loans Fund and I appeal to him to do something about costs to borrowers. I am referring to legal costs. I recently had a case where a borrower borrowed the sum of £300 from a local authority and the legal costs amounted to £40. Something should be done about that. I cannot blame the solicitor who handled the business, but I do blame the system that required such title to be made to the local authority before they would advance the sum.

In the case of registered land, there must be a charge on the land certificate. Equities must be discharged and that costs a considerable sum of money. I think, if the Minister would look into it, it might be found possible for local authorities to accept the land certificate by way of equitable deposit, and the costs would be negligible in such a case. After all, it would be impossible for a person to mortgage his property on a second occasion, while the land certificate is in the possession of the local authority. If that were done, it would make the Local Loans Fund more available to individual borrowers than it is at present.

I know for a fact that solicitors down the country have advised their clients and builders to go to the banks and get two securities, in preference to going to the trouble of providing a proper title discharge in equity for the purpose of borrowing a small loan. The Minister should look into this matter and, if possible, give local authorities a direction that they should accept land certificates as equities and, if they do not do that, then they should not insist on the discharge of equities. The discharge of equities is very often a costly proceeding, and is often very protracted. Very often a builder finds great difficulty in procuring materials on credit, pending the granting of a loan from a local authority, and if the Minister would look into this matter, he would be doing a considerable amount of good for borrowers.

I note, on looking through the Estimate and reading the Minister's speech, that a sum of £400,000 will be saved on the Local Authorities (Works) Act. That, I think, is false economy. That Act was introduced by a predecessor of both the Minister and myself, the late Deputy Murphy— go ndéanfaidh Dia trocaire ar a anam —and it has done a considerable amount of good in rural Ireland. Not only did it do a considerable amount of good, but it actually gave a considerable amount of employment and at no stage in our history was employment more needed than to-day. I think it was a colleague of the Minister, Deputy Cunningham, speaking at a county council meeting in Lifford the other day, who appealed to local authorities to give all the employment they possibly could because there was never more unemployment than there is at the present moment. If we had that £400,000 for the Local Authorities (Works) Act, it would provide a lot of employment.

The Minister on one occasion, as reported in Volume 157 of the Official Report, column 1392, said we were being strangled by red tape. The Minister has had an opportunity to do away with the red tape, but, unfortunately, the Minister not only cut the red tape but he also cut away the spool. There is nothing left. As a member of a local authority, the Minister must have known the amount of good work that was done by allocations from the Local Authorities (Works) Act. We all know there was a lot of money spent scandalously, but the scheme was only in its infancy and now, with our past experience and with wise thinking, a lot of good could be achieved through the working of that Act. A lot of employment could be given and it is a pity that this £400,000 allocation is now being abolished.

I am glad to read what the Minister says about main road improvement. I think that one of the first things I said, on taking office, was that we should abolish boulevards for plutocrats. I was attacked for daring to state that boulevards were being provided by local authorities out of the Road Fund, and I think the Minister is doing a very wise thing in abolishing the further making of boulevards for plutocrats. I agree with Deputy Allen that we have done enough cutting of corners and we want to see more money spent on actual road improvement. I endeavoured to compel local authorities to do that by stopping all main road improvement grants, from a certain date in the month of September, that is, all unexpended Road Fund grants, and diverting them to county roads. I believe that county roads should be built up and more attention should be given to them, and the Minister should endeavour to see that a greater allocation is given to local authorities for the improvement of county roads, even at the expense of main roads.

In the Minister's scheme or suggestion that the members of local authorities be consulted by county engineers, and in cases where there is not agreement, the matter should be referred to him, he should insist that the views of the local representatives should be satisfied and not the views of the officials, in dealing particularly with the cutting and alignment of roads. When there is not agreement, the Minister should do that and should see that his decision is carried out.

Travelling from here to Cavan, I saw these boulevards being built and I stopped what we considered to be excess expenditure on one road, but now work is proceeding again, and with machinery only one or two men are employed.

Mr. Corish

They can sack the men but they cannot sack the machinery. Nobody will buy it.

Mr. O'Donnell

We can see it rusting in some places, but I am not blaming the Minister for that.

Mr. Corish

No, no.

Mr. O'Donnell

I would appeal to the Minister to speed up the sanctioning of tourist road grants. There has been an unprecedented delay this year in issuing sanction, and local authorities are becoming a little uneasy. It would be a very good thing if the Minister could speed up the sanction of road grants, particularly the sanction of tourist road grants. There is a hiatus in employment given by local authorities each year, and that hiatus is something we should endeavour to bridge. I remember recommending to local authorities that during that particular time, when they have really no employment to give on the roads, and no employment to give under the Local Authorities (Works) Act, their employees could be beneficially employed in cutting hedges. Any motorist who travels along the roads of this country will readily realise that the view of our very beautiful countryside is being completely obliterated by overgrown hedges. Local authorities have jurisdiction under legislation providing that where a farmer does not cut down a hedge, after notice has been served on him, they may cut the hedge themselves and make him pay.

Mr. Corish

You will wait a long time for that. These men are the ratepayers.

Mr. O'Donnell

I appeal to local authorities to enforce the law. I see that C.I.E. have specially high buses built so that people travelling the roads may see over our hedges. That is quite true. If Deputies look at these tourist buses going around the country, they will see they are much higher than the ordinary buses. They were built so that tourists could see over the hedges.

Mr. Corish

Not at all.

Mr. O'Donnell

There was a time when one could see nothing but a donkey or cattle looking over the hedges from one side but now these high buses have to be provided so that tourists can look over them from the other side.

Mr. Corish

Not at all.

Mr. O'Donnell

I should like to make special reference to Lifford Bridge. I do not suppose the Minister is responsible for the delay but there is a delay in the building of Lifford Bridge. I understood that agreement had been reached between our local authority and the Six Counties to have this bridge built, but we do not appear to be getting any nearer the building of it. I sincerely hope that the threat of spiking on some future occasion is not the cause of the delay in proceeding with the project.

I should also appeal to the Minister to consider the question of the rate collection. It should be possible to collect the rates in a more economical fashion through the office, as is done in the case of Land Commission annuities. Some rate collectors earn as high as £1,200 and £1,300 per year on their poundage. I think that could be saved. Each local authority has some 20 rate collectors and there could be a considerable saving if the rates were collected through the office.

I know it was not customary in the old days to pay the rent or the rates— it was one of the things we were all told to avoid. Nowadays people are more educated and the number of civil bills issued by the Land Commission in respect of annuities is negligible. If we paid our rates through the office, we would find ourselves in the same position and there would be no necessity for the issue of civil bills, and neither would there be any necessity to send out the county registrar or the sheriff. If there are isolated cases and hard luck cases, I am sure the Minister would use his discretion and that the local authority would do likewise. I understand that the scheme in Kerry was not a financial success. Kerry was really a pioneering county in regard to the project. If the experiment were carried further, it might be a success. In any event, it is something the Minister could look into.

I remember in 1956, when introducing the Local Government Estimate, I had taken in conjunction with the Estimate a motion put down by Fianna Fáil. That motion read:—

"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that, in view of the increasing congestion of traffic on the roads and of the large number of fatal and serious accidents, the Government should without delay bring before the Dáil comprehensive proposals for dealing with the problem."

Before that debate was concluded in 1956, the Tánaiste, then Deputy Lemass, intervened to make an appeal to me to bring before the Government legislation for dealing with road traffic. I gave him an assurance and an undertaking that the matter would be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. In order to carry out that undertaking, a sub-committee of the Cabinet, comprising the Minister for Justice, myself and the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Government, met and we formulated and drafted a Bill which was ready for introduction to this House when we went out of office some 14 or 15 months ago. Despite the urgency of the matter in 1956, nothing whatever has been done to introduce legislation here to amend the Road Traffic Act.

Mr. J. Brennan

We could introduce it before the Recess.

Mr. O'Donnell

If the Minister would give us that undertaking, it would be very good.

Mr. Corish

The Road Traffic Bill? That is going on for the past 20 years.

Mr. O'Donnell

We had gone a long distance. We had reached the stage at which the Bill was drafted. The Tánaiste said the matter was urgent in 1956. It was so urgent that he intervened on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government to appeal to us to introduce the legislation. Nothing has been done despite the fact that fatal road accidents have increased considerably since then. The Minister should endeavour to speed up this legislation. Deputy Allen pointed out some of the dangers in regard to motoring at the present time. In addition, I think the Deputy should endeavour to impress on his colleague, the Minister for Justice, the absolute necessity of enforcing the law as it stands because I believe that, were the existing law enforced, we would not have the number of road accidents, particularly the fatal road accidents, which we have. Day in day out we read in the Press of fatal and other serious road accidents, but no effort is being made to educate the people to comply with the regulations and the sections of the various Acts governing this matter.

The Department did issue a pamphlet and I see that the Minister is to issue a revised one. I sincerely hope it will meet with the success it deserves and that all applicants for a driver's licence will not only be required to read the pamphlet but will be required to understand it and be able to satisfy competent authorities, when questioned on it, that they understand it because if they do not, we will get nowhere, no matter what legislation is introduced.

No later than a few hours ago, I appeared in a court where a lady motorist did not use traffic indicators, despite the fact that she had them, with the result that she caused a minor accident. There is no regulation governing the use of traffic indicators. There is a regulation compelling you to have them, but there is no regulation compelling you to use them. In the same way, it is illegal to have a motor car without a dimming device, but there is no law compelling you to use that device. I do not know who introduced the legislation compelling people to have them but the Minister could go further and compel people to use them. If he did that, he would go a long way towards avoiding some of the more serious accidents at night.

The Minister should persuade his colleague, the Minister for Justice, to bring in the long-promised amendment of the Intoxicating Liquor Acts. We would have less use of the bottle in the hip-pocket.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Local Government has nothing to do with that.

Mr. O'Donnell

He has a considerable amount of influence with his colleague and I am merely asking him to use it. The Minister should undertake to extend the franchise to the members of the Garda Síochána. I think the Minister may have been one of the people who asked me to do that, but, unfortunately, my time was cut short and I was unable to carry out my undertaking. I would ask the Minister to extend the franchise to the Garda, particularly the franchise for Dáil Éireann, at the first available opportunity. It is difficult, I understand, to exercise the franchise at local authority elections.

Mr. Corish

They have it, have they not?

Mr. O'Donnell

They have not.

Mr. J. Brennan

They may exercise the right.

Mr. O'Donnell

There is a difficulty about it for the reason that very often a Garda does not reside in the electoral division in which he may have a vote, but that is not the case in regard to a Garda who would have the franchise in Dáil Éireann elections. Perhaps the Minister might consider doing what one of his predecessors did—give them a postal vote.

Mr. Corish

Like the Army vote?

Mr. O'Donnell

Yes.

Mr. Corish

You would get some queer results.

Mr. O'Donnell

You might, but after all the Depot is manned by a large number of Gardaí. It might be fair to Gardaí stationed in the Depot to give them an opportunity of having some say in the election of their local Deputy down the country. The Minister should consider that matter and see if he could extend the franchise to those people. It would be a good thing.

There is very little controversial matter in the Minister's Estimate and I do not propose to hold up the House any longer. If I had had to write the Minister"s speech, it would have been exactly as it is. I am in full agreement with it. It conforms very much indeed with the views I hold and which I have expressed here on many occasions.

Mr. Everett

I am very pleased that the Minister announced his intention to give an opportunity to public representatives to be consulted where huge expenditure is being undertaken on the removal of dangerous corners. I intend to refer to expenditure which I consider unnecessary. I have protested at the county council against huge expenditure on a mile of road. I have travelled the road in question for the past 35 years and I did not consider it dangerous. When they were told that a huge grant was being made which, if not accepted, would be withdrawn, the councillors were compelled to agree. We did not understand that 40 per cent. of the grant would be spent on huge machinery, bulldozers and other road-making equipment. There were 20 feet added to a trunk road. That happened in Kilmacanogue. A sum of £6,000 or £7,000 was spent the first year. There was a garage there and it was decided that the tenant of the garage would be allowed to build a garage on the opposite side of the road, where there was a new trunk road. It was discovered that that man was only the tenant and that there would be interference with the landlord's right. The result was that, instead of removing one dangerous turn, there are three turns because the road leading into the garage could not be interfered with.

I have received complaints from large ratepayers in the area about huge expenditure at a time when we are supposed to be tightening our belts, especially in view of the fact that the labour content of the work was practically nil. There are 20 feet of tarmacadam now, with nine feet on one side and ten feet on the other side and a bank of five feet or six feet. If any motorist gets a skid on that road at night, I do not know what will happen. I could understand leaving a margin of nine feet beside the tarmacadam if the pedestrian or cyclist could use it. I could understand engineers trying to impress foreigners by having a stretch of road on which they could travel at 100 miles an hour. There is no consideration for the pedestrian. Cyclists have had to carry bicycles and get on to the grass verge when cars were approaching. All last year I protested against it at the county council meetings and suggested that a danger sign should be erected.

I do not suggest that the main road has not been improved but the Minister has experience of public administration and can understand the indignation of people at the expenditure of thousands of pounds on this road and huge machinery lying idle at a cost of 25/- an hour, which is charged against the county.

The people in the adjoining parish called a protest meeting. Two public representatives were there. The parish priest was there. The complaint was that children were unable to travel to school over part of a road in that parish. We could not explain that the money spent in the other parish was a special grant for a trunk road. Their only concern was that, after bad weather, the children were unable to go to school along that road because there were so many potholes in it. It was agreed that £100 would be spent as a temporary measure to carry out some improvement on the road so as to allow children to go to school.

Stones were carted 20 miles by lorry while there was a quarry adjacent to the place, which would have given employment to the idle men in the Kilmacanogue area. It is a deserted village now, partly due to the fact that lorries were used to bring stones from a distance five miles beyond Wicklow to Kilmacanogue. It is no wonder that it cost over £12,000 to do a mile of that road, and it is not finished yet. There is further expenditure on the road towards the Glen of the Downs. The ratepayers have protested.

Deputy O'Donnell referred to high ditches. Along the road to which I refer there were beautiful trees. They have been removed. There are three strands of wire stretched along the bank to prevent anybody rolling down the bank. That work is unneccessary. We protested against it at the time. The work that was carried out is a credit to the engineering staffs of the county council and the Department of Local Government, but I consider that it was unnecessary to add 20 feet to the width of that road and to make a race track of that mile stretch.

I agree with Deputy Allen. We have spent too much on alignment of roads. The county council passed a resolution that the engineer is not to hire machinery or to charge against a scheme 25/- an hour for machinery that is lying idle, without the prior permission of the county council. That was a practically unanimous decision of the county council. If the Government give a grant, we consider that the greater part of it should go to the relief of unemployment, instead of on machinery. Of course, it is argued that it is necessary to have machinery. That is admitted, but I do not like to have machinery that is brought in for a week's work being left on the job for a month or two and charged against the road account for the time it is lying on the side of the road.

There is another matter I would ask the Minister to look into. An engineer resigned on pension. Some members of the council were in favour of reorganising the district. Twenty years ago, there were three assistant engineers and a county engineer. There were more houses erected in Wicklow in proportion to population than were erected in any other county. There were only three assistant engineers, who were then paid commission. During the emergency, the chief engineer appealed to the county council to put the engineers on a salary. The argument was put up that when conditions became normal, the engineers would be there to do the work for which commission was formerly paid. When the work does arise, the engineers always want extra assistance.

A number of members of the council were of the opinion, as there were no houses being erected in Wicklow, that there should be a reorganisation. A letter was received from the engineering section of the Department to the effect that an extra engineer must be employed. The Minister has long experience of public administration and will appreciate the position of members of the council. Any time I had business with the Department, I received the usual courtesy and assistance that I have always received from the various Departments. The officials are very helpful in every way. My criticism is not against the individual engineer. His only concern is to carry out a beautiful job that will be a monument to him. Members of the council have to consider other matters. Although we were asked to tighten our belts because the financial position was not all we would wish it to be, we find this huge, unnecessary expenditure on this portion of the road.

I do not want to worry the Minister by quoting letters but I have received numerous complaints from ratepayers and others in the area in this connection. I would ask that some consideration be given to the man without a motor car, the cyclist and pedestrian in country places. I do not think the Minister would approve of inconvenience being caused to the ordinary citizen to the extent that the man in the village has to protect himself by carrying a lamp at night time to avoid being knocked down.

The complaint always has been that we were spending too much money on the cities and towns and not spending enough on the county roads. I believe that we have done enough for the trunk roads and that we should concentrate on making decent roads at places of worship and near schools. I hope we will not hear the threat that if we do not agree to certain proposals in respect of roads, we will lose the grant. This road at Kilmacanogue has involved much expenditure. Over 40 per cent. of the expenditure on this road was for machinery and carting materials over 20 miles when a quarry was within a mile of the village, which is deserted at the present time because the men have emigrated on account of having no employment.

The engineers, of course, will always try to justify their actions, but the people living in different parts of the country are not prepared to accept the explanations made by these engineers. It should not be necessary for the people in an area to call a protest meeting presided over by the parish priest in order to get some facilities. As I have said, I hope that when the appeal is made to the Minister, we shall not be met with the threat: "If you do not accept this proposal, you will have to forfeit your grant." I am satisfied that when a reasonable case is put up by the representatives of the county council, the Minister, with his experience, will meet the wishes of the people so that we will not have a repetition of what occurred in connection with the Kilmacanogue road.

Mr. J. Brennan

I have no intention of going over the whole ambit of local government. I want to deal with one or two special problems. My colleague from Donegal made reference to the expenditure on main roads. There was not much in what he said that one could criticise, but I would like to remind the Minister—although it is hardly necessary to do so—that as a result of the recent action by the railway companies, we have a special problem in relation to main roads in Donegal and other Border counties. I cannot see the Road Fund being able to cope with the burden that is bound to arise in putting these roads into a proper state of repair to carry the diverted traffic from these railway lines which have been closed down.

I would take this opportunity of asking the Minister to consider seriously having a special allocation fund for the purpose of putting these roads into a fit state of repair, even over an extended period. This problem is one which makes the local authorities shudder in this county adjacent to the areas where the lines have been closed and where there is a possibility of further lines being closed in the near future. I do not think, in so far as some of the roads I have in mind are concerned, the Minister could be accused of incurring unnecessary expenditure.

We may be unique in that we have a considerable number of crooked roads. The extra traffic certainly brings that problem to the fore and no matter what the future policy may be in regard to main roads, we must bring these main arteries of traffic up to the necessary standard. I do not think the Road Fund is capable of doing it and I am sure no Deputy would agree that an allocation that would be to the benefit of one area should be made at the expense of another.

All of us feel that the Road Fund already is insufficient to meet the arrangements we have in relation to road repairs generally. I have yet to meet a member of a local authority who says he is satisfied with the progress being made. There is no doubt that we have made progress over the past ten or 15 years in the matter of tarmacadam roads, particularly the county roads. Progress has definitely been made since the introduction of the five-year plan. We have to face the queer situation in which those roads which are not yet taken on in the five-year plan have to remain in a rapidly deteriorating condition, while those who use them are continually grousing and making appeals to the local representatives to have them put in a proper state of repair. Meanwhile, the maintenance is like a lot of road maintenance as far as county roads are concerned: to a great extent, it is a waste of time and money. The cheapest road of all is the road finished with tarmacadam. The tar dressing has proved to be the cheapest. It necessitates the least maintenance and gives the greatest possible wear. It is a most durable job over the years.

My main reason for intervening is to deal with the problem we are facing —Donegal is not the only county that has to face this special problem—of finding money to put in order some of our main arteries of communication which we cannot possibly afford to do out of the ordinary Road Fund. We could not expect to have it carried out in the ordinary way. I appeal to the Minister to have the matter raised at the proper level, with a view to obtaining the necessary funds to enable us, even in a piecemeal manner, to repair all those roads which will cost so much to bring up to the required standard.

I want to make some brief comments on labour versus machinery. Many people feel we are putting back the hands of the clock if we discard machinery and go in more for manpower, that is, if we employ more labour. It is well worth considering if we can employ more labour without endangering the efficiency of the work carried out. If we can get it done without any extra strain on the funds to be used in doing it, I do not see why it should not go to the cost of labour instead of to the cost of machinery. Where it can be proved that just as good a job can be done without any extra cost, without any lowering of the standard of the work to be accomplished, we should ensure that as much labour as possible is employed on the work, rather than have so much up-to-date machinery which certainly does the job more expeditiously.

Those who are in favour of the up-to-date machinery and the modern method of carrying out road repairs, building new roads, and so on, always point to America, England and other places where the maximum amount of modern machinery is used in the construction, repair and maintenance of roads. They forget that, in some of these countries, it is a question of being able to get suitable labour at all. It is a question of having to resort to machinery just because sufficient labour is not available. That is why so much machinery is being used in some other places. We have not that problem. Our problem is rather to use to the maximum all the labour we have available instead of dislodging that labour and using the money, as has been done —and the tendency is increasing—to import expensive machinery.

Mr. Corish

Instead of using the home product, the Irishman.

Mr. J. Brennan

Exactly. Engineers generally are not in favour of discarding machinery and one can readily understand their reason. I have yet to meet the engineer or architect who is not anxious to erect a monument to himself in the way of the finished article he has to leave for the public to see. One can hardly blame the men who have had special training in that direction. I think, however, we should get them to realise that there are other sides to the problem. The employment of the maximum labour content in each job, should be a primary consideration, if it does not impair the standard of work to be carried out or cost too much.

I do not think there is any great urgency, say, if a large stretch of main road is to be improved; it is not really a serious matter whether it is accomplished in a week or in a month. While up-to-date and suitable machinery may carry out a job in a week, it would very often cost just as much as it would had labour only been employed to the maximum, except that the job might be extended over six or eight weeks. The employment factor is important. I have been trying to show that we could, without putting back the clock, so to speak, without taking any retrograde step in the matter of road construction, help to increase employment. That should be a primary-factor in the making of roads while we have an unemployment problem in this country such as we have had for the past few years and have at present.

In previous years, I have referred to this matter and I shall not labour it now. I do not know if anything can be done regarding the valuation of property under the jurisdiction of local authorities and the inequitable system whereby certain properties are revalued, while a revision is not carried out on properties of similar standing and value. Very few members of local authorities are prepared to advocate revaluation, unless it is carried out on a fairly general basis. There is an easy way of having a general revaluation of property carried out, without imposing undue hardships on certain sections, if the old valuation only would be rateable until such time as a general revision could take place.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the question of valuation one for the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Finance?

Mr. J. Brennan

I shall not quarrel with your ruling, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The fact is that it may not be completely in order on this Vote but it very much concerns the Minister for Local Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I doubt if he has any responsibility in the matter.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is the main source from which the greater part of the money is provided for local authority undertakings and while the burden is being laid on increasingly by local authorities we feel that on this Vote we should make some reference to the goose that lays this golden egg annually.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It would arise more relevantly on another Vote.

Mr. T. Lynch

On a point of order, I was ruled out of order when I raised this matter on another Estimate and I was told to raise it on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government.

Mr. J. Brennan

Deputy Lynch is so accustomed to being ruled out of order that the Chair may have taken it for granted that he was out of order then.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy must be right when I am taking his part.

Mr. J. Brennan

So far as it relates to the Minister's work I am reminding him, as every Minister over a long number of years has been reminded, of the inequity of the position where certain little pockets are revalued while others are getting away just because they are not taking steps to improve their property and as a result a small section are carrying a higher burden of the rates each year. I should like to see a general revaluation carried out and then the burden would not fall unduly on any section.

Most of the members who have spoken referred to the road traffic regulations and everybody is agreed that a new code is overdue. I do not think there is much use in bringing in a new code of traffic regulations unless we ensure that the most important section of the people are conversant with it, that is the people who drive cars. As Deputies know, at the moment a blind man can get a licence to drive a motor car. The only question on the application form for a licence is whether or not the applicant has attained the age of 21 years.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

He need not be 21, surely.

Mr. J. Brennan

In certain cases he need not be 21. He must be over 21 to get a licence to drive a heavy vehicle. For that reason the date of birth is asked and those of us who have passed the age of 21 merely write down "over 21". Women mostly do that. I think there should be some test applied which gradually should be made more strict. One of the tests certainly should be whether the applicant is conversant with road traffic regulations. There are quite a few drivers, perhaps even in this House, who are not fully cognisant of many of the regulations which exist under the present code. It is not unusual to meet a Deputy, particularly one from the South, who does not seem to know when to give way to oncoming traffic from the right.

Mr. T. Lynch

Do not blame people from the South only.

Mr. J. Brennan

I would seriously suggest that all of us should be subjected to a test. Even those of us already in charge of vehicles could submit ourselves to a driving test, and maybe we would then realise how little we know of traffic regulations and how much we have to learn in the matter of proper driving. Some Deputies seem to hold the view that the person who drives at a rapid rate is a great danger on the roads. I find that those people who are supposed to be good drivers, who drive slowly, and are perhaps nervous drivers, are a source of danger. In some cities on the Continent one can be prosecuted for driving too slowly. A slow driver in a city may hold up the entire traffic to such an extent that there is a traffic jam. There may be as much care and capability in the case of a driver travelling at 70 miles per hour as in the case of one travelling at 25 miles per hour. I am not advocating that everybody should drive at 70 miles an hour.

Deputy O'Donnell referred to the extension of the franchise to Gardaí. I think that they may already exercise the local government franchise if their own local authorities permit them to do so. I have seen voters' lists in certain counties where the names of Gardaí in the area appear but I have not known them to exercise the vote in any election. It is a point whether or not they should.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Army have the right; why not the Gardaí?

Mr. J. Brennan

The Gardaí are in a different position. There was a time when the Gardaí were synonymous with one Party only. That has changed and I do not think any particular Party would stand to have a monopoly of the support of the Gardaí if the franchise were extended to them to-morrow. I do not think it would be desirable that we should go canvassing them and, mind you, Deputies are not above canvassing votes at election time. It would be better if people entrusted with keeping law and order were left—I am not giving any particular views on it nor expressing a Party view——

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Party has expressed its view.

Mr. J. Brennan

I do not think it desirable that people charged with the responsibility of maintaining law and order and who have at times to intervene in matters pertaining to elections, should be placed at the mercy of canvassers.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Would it not be easier to prohibit canvassing?

Mr. O'Sullivan

Then we would all be with you.

Mr. J. Brennan

We hope we shall always have that amount of freedom. My principal reason for intervening in the debate was to appeal for some special provision to deal with the unusual problem that has arisen from the diversion of traffic on to the main roads. It is a vexed and serious question and one in which Deputies who are not concerned may have little interest but those who come from areas where traffic has been diverted to the main roads will be at one in appealing to the Minister to make some special allowance to enable us to undertake a programme to put those roads into a proper condition to carry the extra traffic. If transport subsidies now cease to be paid annually to concerns that have been losing money, it might be no harm to fix a subvention from the Exchequer which would be equivalent to the amount paid in subsidy to keep in operation transport concerns which were not paying their way.

I would seriously appeal to the Minister, therefore, to consider this problem without further delay. I know I am not being parochial and that the Minister is bound to realise some of the problems with which we are confronted in Donegal and other counties, such as Leitrim, Monaghan, Cavan and the Border counties which have to carry this extra, added and increasing burden on their main roads.

Mr. Russell

I was glad that the Minister, when introducing his Estimate, paid tribute to the substantial progress made in housing over the years by successive Governments. For myself, I should like to say I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed in his speech. The Minister indicated that he proposes to attack or deal with the housing problem under four different headings. First, and quite rightly, he has placed the eradication of the slums that still remain in the main cities, Dublin, Cork, Limerick and elsewhere. I do not know what the position is like in other cities. I cannot speak for Dublin or Cork, but I know that the main observations of the Minister in regard to the question of housing in general cannot apply to Limerick. They may be applicable, as I say, to the bigger urban centres, but certainly at the rate of progress in Limerick over recent years, it would appear that anything from six to eight years must elapse before the housing problem there is solved.

I, for one, have always held the view that I would rather see a steady, ordered progress of from 200 to 250 houses built rather than experience, as we have experienced in the recent past, a period of boom in house building followed by a period of slump. Apart from the unfavourable effect on tenants seeking houses, it also has a most unfavourable effect on the employment of housing personnel. In boom conditions the labour force, both skilled and unskilled, is swollen to unnatural proportions. If there is any falling off in housing progress, it means a considerable number of men are unemployed and have to leave the area and, usually, leave the country, too. I have always advocated it would be far better to plan ahead for a reasonable production of houses—reasonable in face of the problem to be tackled— rather than take the problem in jerks as has happened in the past for one reason or another, into which I do not propose to go now.

The Minister mentioned that any proposals put to him by housing authorities, provided they are properly planned, would not be delayed in his Department. I think that is an encouraging statement to make. But I am a little mystified by the term "properly planned." Perhaps, in replying, the Minister might clarify that term for the benefit of people like myself who do not quite appreciate what it means. As I understand the position, most housing authorities now have efficient officers, architects, assistant architects, other officers, and, in the case of the larger centres, engineers and assistant engineers. In addition to those you have town planning consultants attached to the various local authorities.

I would have thought that, with that team of highly skilled and highly paid individuals, housing schemes could be adequately and properly planned and sent up with a knowledge of the local conditions of the tenants seeking houses in particular areas and that it would be largely a matter of form to have the imprimature of the Minister and his Department and have them returned without delay. However, I would take encouragement from the Minister's remarks. In the past there has been a hold-up. This does not directly concern the present Minister or his predecessor but with successive Governments in the past undoubtedly there has been a hold-up in the Department of Local Government.

The Minister also mentioned in his speech that he would require a more dynamic approach to the clearance of slum areas in the larger urban centres. Possibly the Minister himself could assist the dynamic approach he requires by a little more assistance to the housing authorities concerned. As the House is aware, the present housing subsidy is still based on the unreal figure of £1,500 for an urban house. I do not think any local authority—to my knowledge, certainly, in one of the larger centres—can build a house for £1,500. I think a figure of at least £1,800 would be more realistic.

There is one section of the community who, certainly as far as Limerick City is concerned, are in a very grievous position indeed. That is old, single people, both male and female, living by themselves, in some cases under very distressing conditions. It is very difficult for such people to qualify for a house or a flat. Naturally, priority is given to people with families, with one, two, three or more children. It is only right that the family as such should have first call on the housing authority, but the housing of these old people is a very real charity and a very real necessity. I should like to see some special encouragement given to local authorities, such as the Limerick City Council, to provide little flats, or, if necessary, groups of flats close together where these old people could live and be looked after by their relatives and, where necessary, possibly by a nurse or welfare officer. There are quite a few of them in Limerick City now. The corporation are considerably concerned about them, but they find it difficult to give them the attention to which they are entitled because of the fact that they still have about 1,000 families seeking accommodaion of one kind or another.

In future, the erection of flats, to which reference has been made from time to time on the question of housing, should be confined to the centre of large urban areas. Flats erected at a distance from the workers' place of employment have not been a success. If we are to erect flats at all, they should be erected in the centre of the city where old people and childless couples could avail of them. Outside, two or three bedroomed houses could be built for the families concerned.

The Minister is now very rightly placing emphasis on the conservation of houses that have been built over the years, both through private and public enterprise. However, it seems to me that, merely assisting the local authority in that regard and assisting people who desire to reconstruct or repair their own houses, is not sufficient. Sooner or later some consideration will have to be given to some modification of the Rent Restriction Act. That might not be a very popular measure and certainly it would leave room for very unpopular results but it is not logical or sensible to talk about conserving property if you do not give the private landlord an opportunity at least to earn a rent that will permit him to keep the house in question in order. With proper safeguards for the tenant concerned, a good deal of conservation of property owned by landlords, perhaps people living on small incomes, could be achieved.

In designing houses serious regard should be given to the present high cost of solid fuel. Most of the houses in this country were originally designed at a time when coal was a few pounds a ton. The cost of coal is now £10 to £12 a ton, which represents a very severe impost on a working family that has to provide a fire, not to mention fuel for the back-to-back contraptions that are in a big number of housing schemes. A family may be faced with a weekly fuel bill of 20/- to 30/- to keep one of these systems in operation.

The Minister referred to the size and proportion of the rent subsidy being paid by the taxpayer and ratepayer jointly. Certainly, that is quite an imposing sum. In many instances quite small ratepayers are paying a subsidy to persons enjoying houses built by the local authority whose incomes are in excess of their own. That refers in a particular way to people who built houses under the Small Dwellings Acts. Some people who had the courage to undertake the building of their own home out of incomes of £10 to £14 a week are now saddled with the responsibility of providing a subsidy to assist persons whose income in some cases is in excess of their own. I do not know how many such instances there are but there are certainly some. That inequity should be rectified.

Every possible encouragement should be given to people to build their own houses. That is a matter that probably could be more appropriately dealt with on the new Housing Bill. The mere fact of building and owning a house gives a man a stake in his county or city and helps to make him a better citizen.

Some encouragement should be given through local authorities to people to buy out their houses, to become tenant owners rather than tenants for the rest of their lives. A Deputy pointed out that a person could live in a corporation or council house for 30 or 40 years paying rent and, at the end of that period, would have as little claim to it as he had when he first entered it. It should be possible, with some help from the Department, to evolve reasonable terms on which tenants could buy out their homes.

Reference was made to the question of safety precautions. I disagree with Deputy Brennan when he says that a safe driver at 70 miles an hour is not as great a menace as a less experienced driver travelling at 20 miles an hour. I hold the view that the vast majority of accidents occur because people drive too fast. One sensible contribution to reducing the very high rate of deaths and accidents on the road would be the introduction of a speed limit, particularly in or near urban areas. I think I am correct in saying that Deputy O'Donnell, when he was Minister for Local Government, was considering the introduction of a speed limit for built-up areas. I do not know how far they got or what the present position is. The present Minister would do well to revive that idea because a speed limit is urgently required, particularly in the larger urban centres.

I do not know whether I am in order or not in referring to a matter which may also come under the new Bill. Power should be given to local authorities to acquire sites for industrial purposes. That would be a very useful innovation if it were provided in the new Housing Bill. A provision whereby local authorities could acquire land for industrial purposes in addition to housing purposes would be a very great facility in an urban area. It is not unknown for industrialists seeking sites to find considerable difficulty in getting them or being asked for exorbitant prices. A step in that direction would be of considerable assistance in industrial development, to the need for which we all subscribe.

I should like to agree with Deputy Kyne, who referred to local government in general. There has been a tendency over the years for local government to become less local in actual practice and more central. An effort on the part of the Minister to decentralise and to give more power to city and county councils and their managers would be a step in the right direction. Anything which makes the local representatives more conscious of the needs of their area and more responsible for filling those needs would be a good thing. We all subscribe, in theory at least, to the idea of decentralisation. A practical way of achieving that object would be through the medium of local government, making it local in fact rather than in name. I hope the Minister, who is a young, active Minister, will have the necessary courage and initiative to make radical changes in that regard while he is in office.

I should like to wish the Minister success in his efforts to solve our housing problem over the years. As he said in introducing the Estimate, most of the housing needs are filled but there remains a severe problem in the urban areas, including Limerick City. Any practical help that he can give to Limerick Corporation to solve their problems would be a step in the right direction.

Mr. Manley

We are all very edified at the pleasant and calm tone of this debate. The debate on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government usually arouses very keen interest and, on occasions, is very protracted. That is only natural. It is due to the fact that many members of the Dáil are also members of local authorities and can speak with knowledge and competence and from experience, gained from intimate association, on every aspect of local government. Some of them hold very strong and worthwhile views and it is pleasant to hear them speaking so objectively on matters with which they are intimately acquainted.

Outside the House, also, there are many people who are very interested in local administration. It is the administration that affects people locally, affects their very lives and their very livelihood. It is the administration that is nearest to them and that is vital to them in many respects. Every householder, whether he be a farmer, a worker, an industrialist or businessman, is vitally concerned with local administration. They are the people who provide the revenue for the service given in local administration through the rates. In recent years people are generally very perturbed because of the sharp increase in rates and, allowing for variation in money values, one can hardly justify the present high rate level.

We were pleased to hear the Minister state this afternoon that in three county council areas in the current year the rate has been decreased. It is a small fraction of the entire country but I do hope that it is a tendency that will grow in future years.

Local authorities seem to be out after every possible penny they can get in the way of rates. Anybody who improves his dwelling or his out-offices, that are so important to his business, is bound to have a visit from the valuation official and a consequent increase in rates. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle may not agree but I think I am in order in stating that the valuation officials are sometimes wrongly blamed, that they will not visit a particular holding or dwellinghouse except at the express invitation of the local authority. There is a good deal of confusion about that particular matter. It is felt that the local authorities, through rate collectors or some other agent, will make reports and eventually there is a follow-up by the valuation office and the valuation is increased.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The administration of the Valuation Office will arise, not on this Vote, but on another Vote.

Mr. Manley

I appreciate that. I think you will agree that, as local authorities are responsible for visits by the valuation officials, reference to it in a matter of this kind should be allowed. I will just finish by saying that that is doing more to kill enterprise and initiative and to cause disappointment than anything else that appertains to local administration. Personally, I think it is wrong and that some other method should be devised.

Local administration is very important. It preserves, broadly, the framework of the original Local Government Act that was passed by an outside Government for this country one and a quarter centuries ago. First of all, it is very nicely localised or decentralised. Each county has its own administrative unit and local people elect their local representatives. I think it is to the credit of the local representative of to-day, victims of very sharp and unjust criticism, that they have the public spirit to go into local authorities and serve the people. They understand the people, know their needs and are prepared to take criticisms for what they are worth. That criticism, I think, is wrong although there is a tendency for it to grow. I admire public representatives for what they are doing on these local bodies.

I think it a great pity that local authority elections are fought on Party lines. That has given rise, in my opinion, to a good deal of the criticism over the years. Parties should have a gentleman's agreement between themselves that these elections should not be contested on Party lines and that men should go forward on their personal merits and records so that we would have more objectiveness in the problems facing local bodies. It is a matter of controversy whether it is right to curb the powers of representatives on local authorities. Personally, I think the curbing has been too drastic. Representatives nowadays are objective enough to act up to their obligations without having their powers too severely clipped.

Great reliefs are given to the agricultural community and recently a Rates Relief Bill was passed whereby a farmer could get specific relief of £17 per workman employed, or for his son. The ostensible idea behind this was to encourage employment on the land but I do not think it has had that effect. An answer given by the former Minister for Local Government to a parliamentary question disclosed, I think, that there was a saving to the central Exchequer of £100,000 under the Rates Bill passed in 1953. Many people contend that the old system was more equitable and that they got a fairer crack of the whip under it. There is greater output from the land in some cases because of the use of machinery and without such machinery that would not have been achieved. I am not advocating the use of machinery at all because in many ways we would be better without it and it has certainly displaced a good deal of manpower. However, many people contend the old supplementary grant was more equitable.

Housing has been discussed here and local authorities are to be complimented on the number of houses erected all over the country. I was glad to hear the Minister say that in the areas of several local authorities housing needs are already satisfied. There should be a good deal of saving for local authorities in that they will not have to face any further commitments for new houses. That relief should be passed on in some part to the ratepayers and some part could be used for other local activities in order to keep people employed in rural areas. Personally, I think water and sewerage schemes offer the greatest potential for rural employment in the future now that we are coming to the end of the active part of the housing programme. There should be a general and very careful assessment of the possibilities of providing water and sewerage work in various parts of the country. When an area or regional scheme is planned it should be so designed so as to get as many people as possible to avail of the amenity it would provide. This would give much-needed employment at a time when so many people need it because of the completion of the housing programme.

I entirely agree with Deputies O'Donnell and Everett when they say that a good deal of unnecessary, and I would say wanton, expenditure has been lavished on the main roads of this country. I know that on a portion of our road from Cork to Limerick in County Cork, for a distance of 30 odd miles, £250,000 was spent in recent years. It was not spent by the local authority; I understand it was all a scheme planned direct from the Department in Dublin. It was very undesirable and the people resented it very much particularly when the local roads they were using, side by side with this, were sadly in need of resurfacing.

When Deputy O'Donnell was Minister he did his best to divert a good deal of activity to the county roads and he succeeded to a great extent. I am glad the present Minister has come round to that point of view and that he, in his time, will insist that county roads get a fair share of attention. People living along these roads pay rates and are entitled to the same amenities as those living beside main roads. I think it is time that was realised generally.

I wonder what will happen to the abandoned parts of main roads; will they be eye-sores for the future! I do not know the plans of the Minister or the Department but I respectfully suggest the abandoned portions should be handed back to the former owners of the land or to the present occupiers of the land taken in former years for the development of these roads. If these people are prepared to fence them and utilise them in some way it would be better than to leave them in an abandoned state.

Speed limits have been very much discussed. Deputy Cosgrave, among others, I think, said there should be a driving test but the greatest offenders on the roads, in my view, are young people and they will pass a driving test any time. A driving test is not the remedy but something might be said for having a test for suitability which would cover all the matters necessary. I think the speed in the City of Dublin particularly at night is disgraceful and something should be done about it very soon. The same thing applies to our own roads. I was standing only last evening with some other gentlemen by the road four miles outside the city when a car passed at 70 or 80 miles an hour driven most recklessly and in such a fashion that I could not get the number even though it was broad daylight. I would have reported it even though it would have had no effect because I have no authority. As Deputy Russell said the greater number of accidents is really traceable to speed on the roads. Where there is a well-known, dangerous corner we very rarely have an accident; it is on the straight stretches that have recently been created that the greatest danger of accidents exists.

Going back to the rate relief question, it is rather ironical that land is assessed and then relief is given to certain people on that land. It entails a great deal of mathematical calculation and a great deal of time, and also requires extra staffs during the time the rate demand is being prepared. I would suggest that something should be done in the way of finalising the rate. We have sufficient knowledge of the system of local government to see no reason why the rate should not be fixed, for a period of three or five years, at the average of the rate for the previous three or five years. This would give stability and enable long-term planning to be undertaken. Our engineers and local planners would know where they stood, provided, of course, that grants were made available from the Central Fund for each of those three or five years. There is no reason why that should not be done. It would be ideal in our present circumstances if it were done and would cut out a great deal of expenditure. I know the headache it is for local officials to spend week after week preparing the estimates each year and, when the estimates are passed, go on to prepare the estimates for the following year. This preparation takes an awful lot of time and it could be avoided if there was a simple approach to the system of fixing the rate estimates.

The Minister did not say anything in his opening speech about the Revision of Constituencies Bill due this year. Perhaps I am out of order in referring to it now, but a stitch in time saves nine. When that Bill is introduced, I hope that well-defined geographical boundaries will be recognised and that there will be a sharp reduction in the number of Deputies. I know that, according to the Constitution, there shall be a Deputy to so many thousands of people, but, surely in an island like this, where we have such a preponderance of people in Dublin, it is out of all reason to find so many Deputies from Dublin in this House? It is really a Dublin Parliament, not a national Parliament; and I think the whole question of population should be discarded and that the over-representation which Dublin now enjoys should be cut down considerably.

Mr. O'Malley

Hear, hear!

Mr. Manley

A Deputy in Dublin can reach any part of his constituency in a few minutes, but the unfortunate Deputy in the South or South-West of the country has almost 100 miles to travel, if he wishes to visit every part of his constituency.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy not anticipating legislation?

Mr. Manley

I suppose I am, but I wanted to make that point. The question of votes for the Garda has been mentioned and I have no strong views on that. However, I think the Guards are just as well off as they are, without having the trouble of voting. If they are sent out to various parts of each constituency on election days, then they are as well off as they are. Candidly, I would prefer to see them not having a vote.

Mr. O'Malley

At the outset, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the success which he has achieved in the Department in the short time since he has taken office. One very notable and commendable feature has been the courteous manner in which he receives Deputies from all sides of the House, and the expeditious manner in which he deals with their various complaints. I understand a motion was put down by Deputy O'Donnell to refer this Estimate back, but Deputy O'Donnell, who spoke about half an hour ago, stated that he would hardly change a comma, a quotation, or a sentence in the Minister's introductory speech, so I presume that his motion goes by the board.

It also appears that the debate on this Estimate will be fairly short on this occasion, due, no doubt, to the fact that to-morrow, I understand, the Housing (Amendment) Bill will be discussed. Therefore, many of us who might speak for long periods on housing will have ample opportunity to-morrow to deal with specific aspects of that subject in which they are interested. Some Deputies complain year after year that local authorities are only Department of Local Government representatives, and that too much power is vested in the Department. I wish to point out to these people, once and for all, the rights which they have vested in them, and if they wish to allow a city or county manager to fool them up to the hilt, then that is their look-out.

We know that there are certain city and county managers who are little dictators in their own minds, little Cæsars and little gods, and if local representatives kow-tow to these individuals, then local government will suffer and the Department of Local Government will be blamed for assuming powers which, in fact, it is not assuming. The Minister's predecessor, Deputy O'Donnell, did introduce one very important provision into the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, in Section 4, which empowers a local authority to pass a motion signed by three members, and, if carried by a simple majority of members present and voting, to instruct or compel a city or county manager to carry out the wishes of local representatives in a specific manner.

That, mind you, applies to the executive functions of county and city managers, with two exceptions, those which refer to matters on staff and those which refer to matters dealing with specific items under the Health Act which were solely vested in local authorities through city and county managers. In other words, when people say that local authorities, corporations and county councils have no powers, in my respectful opinion, they have the remedy in their own hands, and if they do not use it, they have only themselves to blame.

My colleague from Limerick, Deputy Russell, voiced a sentiment which I expressed at the last rates estimate meeting of Limerick Corporation when he spoke about the unrealistic figure for loan charges at present in operation. The State pays two-thirds of loan charges on housing up to £1,500 and the remaining one-third is borne as between the ratepayers and the tenants of houses. At present housing charges, including site acquisition, development work and so forth are about £1,900 per house. The burden is falling mainly on the ratepayers and reacts also on the tenants of local authority houses. There is an outcry at the present time because the tenants of corporation and county council houses are not meeting their due share of this burden, but I respectfully submit that the State has been inconsistent in not raising the figures on which it will pay the loan charges to a more realistic figure.

At one time the system was different. At one time, the figure was £1,200, and when costs increased, it was raised to £1,500, but, unfortunately, it has stopped at that figure. With regard to flats, too, just as well as in Dublin, we in Limerick in the central city area, having acquired derelict sites, are building flats. I think in that instance the loan charges are limited to the figure of £2,000 per flat. I would not press the Minister so much on that because recently there was a very interesting development in Dublin, whereby the costs of the flats in question were reduced very substantially when evidently some questions were asked in the House, but no doubt Deputy Larkin and the other Dublin Deputies are more conversant with that than I am. The subsidy figure for housing should be revised.

With regard to the second report of the Capital Investment Advisory Committee, anyone would think that they would have their facts correct, but they are not even substantially correct. It would take too much time to go through it in detail to show where they err. Any fool could bring in this report. I certainly think it would be a very bad day for this country, economically and socially, as well as politically, if any of these recommendations, in part or in whole, were to be carried out. As for the recommendations of the minority report which came with it, that was worse still. I pay a tribute to the gentlemen who gave their time to preparing the report, but it certainly has not done anything except to draw attention to the necessity for old houses which could be put in a habitable condition receiving more attention from the Government. I am glad to say that steps in that regard have been taken by the Minister in the Housing (Amendment) Bill.

Some Deputies quoted from this report. Let me quote from page 7:—

"Fourth, the maximum assistance from public moneys is not confined to the most deserving classes of the community. There are no statutory income limits on small dwellings acquisition loans and direct State grants."

I understood that anyone whose income at the present time exceeds £132 per annum is debarred from securing a loan from the local authority under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. I do not think I am wrong. Presumably, these gentlemen had all available information from the officials of Local Government and other relevant State Departments, but yet they could not get their facts correct. They make these most damaging statements and, as a result, we have a spate of uninformed letters to the papers.

There is one further point which is a very important one and I should like the Minister to deal with it. We want to speed up the housing programme in places like Limerick where 7,000 people are homeless. That is a statement of fact. There are 7,000 people homeless in Limerick. They are all in need of housing accommodation. That is on the basis of a family of five persons, a father, mother and three children.

We have been told by our local authority officials that the fault does not lie with them, that the fault lies with the Government for the time being. No particular Government is specified, but we happen to be the Government in office. I would ask the Minister to give us some information so that when I betake myself back to the city manager in Limerick, I may be able to decide whether he is right or not. They say that until such time as legislation is enacted in this House, it will not be possible to build expeditiously on derelict sites. Every Deputy must know that. They say that to ascertain the ownership of specific property in places such as Limerick, Dublin, Cork or Waterford, where the prior title or any portion of it is obscure, would take from five to seven years. Therefore, the housing of the working classes cannot proceed. We must proceed slowly. The law adviser has carried out his work and that is the law as it stands.

I wonder whether these local officials are not blaming the Department of Local Government in the wrong. I understand that possibly is not the case, that there are certain ways and means of acquiring derelict sites in an expeditious manner. I appreciate that we should differentiate between a derelict site and a slum clearance. The matter should be clarified once and for all. Is it a fact that, due to faulty legislation, insufficient legislation or the necessity for amending existing legislation, the housing of the working classes is being delayed in the cities of this country? If that is so, now is the appropriate time when the Minister might be good enough to consider an amendment. If it is not a fact, we can deal with that question afterwards. I saw a long leading article in the Cork Examiner about the long delays in regard to the acquisition of central city property. It was stated that the law was archaic.

I am led to believe that the fault does not lie with the Department. If a local authority cannot establish ownership within a certain period and if there are owners in New Zealand or America who cannot be traced, surely when the arbitrator has given his award, money should be set aside. When ownership is established, the money could be allocated to the real owner of the property pro rata, together with the interest accruing therefrom. That would mean that the local authority could proceed with its housing programme. The Minister might be able to say something about that very important matter in so far as Dublin, Cork, Limerick and other cities are concerned, where they are endeavouring to rebuild in the city centres, the falling-down houses having been cleared.

Another matter imposing a burden on local authorities is this question of building for the Gardaí—and, I suppose, the women police now—building for the Army and building for members of the Post Office service and generally building for civil servants. It is about time that the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Justice took on the responsibility themselves. There are some cases where they erected houses for the married personnel of the Defence Forces. The Minister should put his foot down once and for all. He should use his good offices with the other members of the Cabinet to see if this responsibility could be placed on the Department which is best able to bear it and not on the ratepayers already overburdened with rates, trying to solve their own problems. I think they have a hell of a cheek.

We have the Department of Defence expecting us to house people for the Sarsfield Barracks in Limerick. I had a case in Limerick of a family of 13 who came in from Clonmel, I think. Anyway they were transferred to Limerick and had a good number of children with them. Within a fortnight, or a month at the outside, they got a house from Limerick Corporation. Under the regulations, they were entitled to it; but one can imagine the outcry of people in the city who were waiting for houses for a long period. The Minister for Defence should look after those people; inequitable positions like this should not arise.

In regard to industrial sites, I never dreamed that a local authority had no powers to acquire such sites. I understood, and still am of the opinion, that having acquired a property by agreement or by compulsory acquisition, they are empowered to do with it as they wish. In fact, under the Town Planning Acts, certain areas of a city, including a slum clearance area, are scheduled as areas for industrial development. That occurs in Dublin and Limerick. I hold no brief for town planners, but on the specific point of the powers of local authorities, it has been advocated that that power should be given to them to acquire sites for factories. In my opinion, that power is already in existence. Possibly the Minister will deal with that.

I wish to refer briefly to the question of roads. I did not see Deputy Dillon here at all on this Estimate—he may be in yet—but it was he who spoke about autobahnen, while Deputy O'Donnell spoke about the boulevards. Their observations may be true to a certain extent, but is there not one feature which should be stressed and which should be brought home to the people in rural Ireland? Why are we concentrating so much on the main roads and spending so much money on them? I agree thoroughly with that policy and I sincerely trust that no county will depart very substantially from giving the major portion of the Road Fund Grant to main roads. The reason is clear. If the major portion were devoted to county roads and if the main roads were allowed to suffer, the big heavy trucks would go on to the county or secondary roads which had been repaired. If the main road is in bad condition, they will take the best route available, even if it means going out of their way by a couple of miles.

By doing the main roads first and by bringing them up to a satisfactory standard, we shall ensure that the bulk of the traffic will keep on these roads. Then we can concentrate on the county roads. Of course, there are some boreens and minor roads, and some not so minor, in all counties which are in a scandalous condition and which should receive some treatment from the local authority. However, at the annual rates estimate meeting, evidently some of that money is distributed on a proportional representation system, according to the number of councillors there are for a specific electoral area. Anyway, that is the way we seem to carry on in Limerick.

Reference was made to accidents and road traffic. Perhaps the less I say about that the better. I believe the problem is not so much one of licensing the drivers or of the age or capabilities of the drivers. Why do the authorities not examine every vehicle? There are vehicles allowed on the road to-day and we do not have to go beyond the Four Courts to see the results of the defects in some of those vehicles. When a new road Traffic Bill is envisaged by the Minister it would be a good thing to have a very rigid section in it dealing with the necessity for a certificate of road-worthiness to be produced by whoever is seeking to tax a car. Someone said on one occasion that a person is not allowed to go around with a faulty shotgun, one with no safety catch or with the trigger loose. Similar provisions should apply in the case of cars with defective brakes or other defects. However, that is only a suggestion for the Minister to act on in the future.

There is one matter about which I am appalled. We know the amount of money the Health Act is costing the country to-day. We know the method by which houses are allocated. I never got a house for anyone and I do not think any Deputy could say he did. All we can do is make representations and present the case in the best possible light on behalf of the applicant but the rules and regulations for priority are there and I am satisfied that in the main they are fairly administered. However, I cannot fathom the reason why cases occur year in, year out, all over Ireland where unfortunate people who have been suffering from tuberculosis are discharged from the sanatorium—being told to report back for a check up every two months or so—and then have to go back in many instances into the hovel from which they came. It was that hovel which caused the tuberculosis in the first instance. Why do they not keep them in sanatoria until such time as they are cured and not put them into these places which caused the disease in the first instance?

There is another matter on which the Minister might take action. I wonder if he would give consideration to revising if at all possible the ridiculous density figures which at present apply to housing. Land is very dear now and whenever we are driving into the larger cities or even into some of the smaller towns we see the result of this in the policy of ribbon development— long lines of newly-constructed houses along the road on either side, according to certain densities evidently laid down by the Department in years gone by. The time has come for a revision of that. Town planners live in a world of their own. They talk about open spaces, Utopias and the ratepayers suffer pro rata.

In the short time at his disposal I suppose the Minister will not be able to speak about those gentlemen. I suppose that in time the Town Planning Act of 1934 will be discovered to be completely outmoded in the light of existing circumstances. The time may come when there will be an outcry about these monstrosities. Every year my plea is directed against these town planners. They get very substantial fees. They are like absentee landlords. I have never seen a town planner in Limerick since I became a member of the local authority. He is a mysterious individual in Merrion Square who sends down his observations which I am glad to say in most instances are overruled by our very active city manager.

The public should be made aware why exactly local authorities are not adopting the town plan. I raised the matter twice and the city manager told me on both occasions that I knew perfectly well why we were not adopting it. I nodded knowingly. I did not know but evidently I should have known. I think many other people and members of local authorities throughout the State are also nodding knowingly. There must be some reason for not adopting it. Is it that it would cost the local authority a very substantial amount to acquire property and compensate the owners? Is it not an appalling state of affairs that a highly respectable individual in this State, being civic minded, and interested in his own business affairs, had to go to the High Court with an action for specific performance or whatever the legal phraseology is?

We have in Limerick a Ring Road. Deputies will hardly credit this but if any Deputy passing through Limerick would like to call on me, I shall show it to him. On the approach from Dublin you swing to the south. This road goes through some of the best property in the city but where it passes through housing schemes on derelict sites it is 180 feet wide. Eventually it will bypass the city so that you just come from Dublin, go up the Ring Road, bypass the city and go on to Cork. Of course, on the road down to Lahinch or Clare people may have to go through the heart of the city itself and might suffer a little undue delay——

Mr. O'Donnell

It is always a pleasure in Limerick.

Mr. O'Malley

——but eventually they get out. The Minister might make some observations on this very important matter.

In regard to housing, Deputy O'Donnell must admit that when he was in charge of Local Government he was unfortunately in the position that finance was not available for housing to the extent to which it is now. As the Minister for Finance has stated recently and as the Minister for Local Government has also remarked on several occasions, no scheme for the housing of the working classes will be held up for lack of finance. It is well to face the fact, however, that we have a smaller proportion of people employed on the construction of houses than at a similar period last year. I do not think it is correct to say that that is entirely due to the housing needs being met. As a result of the economic or financial crisis in the second half of 1956 and the start of 1957, local bodies brought their work on housing and planning to a full stop and in many instances they have not geared themselves up again to progress with their schemes to such an extent that their activities would be reflected in the Statistical Abstract showing the number of houses and the number of men employed on them.

I do think, however, that the members of local authorities of all Parties should combine to clear the slums in their areas as expeditiously as possible. We hear people say that they would rather see a programme planned and so many houses built over a number of years rather than have building done in a burst and then having the building personnel idle. That is all correct in my opinion because if properly planned there are sufficient projects to occupy the building trade for quite a long time. In this connection I should like to mention the Department of Education. Although it would be more relevant on the Vote for that Department, the question of building has been mentioned and I do not think I am out of order in making this statement. The only suggestion some people have for maintaining employment in the building industry is that we should spread out the building of houses over a long number of years, but in the building of schools alone, we could absorb many more people than could be absorbed in the building of houses. If the school building programme were carried out in a realistic and vigorous manner by the Department of Education, in time the building industry would recover.

An Ceann Comhairle

This Estimate is not concerned with school building.

Mr. O'Malley

I am suggesting that the building of schools would provide employment for people in this industry and would absorb those who have become idle due to the solution of the housing problem. I should like the Minister to clarify one point for me in relation to tenant purchase schemes. I have heard a number of Deputies on both sides of the House, who are members of local authorities with many years' experience, ask this question: "Why should a local authority spend more on keeping an old house, their property, in repair down through the years? Why not vest it in the tenant?" We tried to do this in a more modern scheme in Limerick recently and we found the cost would be completely unattractive to the tenant. Is there any foundation for the suggestion made by so many Deputies that if the tenants of the local authority houses bought out their houses from the local authority a burden would be taken off the ratepayers? The annual maintenance charges in Limerick were £21,000 last year for corporation property. Deputies will appreciate that houses built in the last ten years do not need very much maintenance. It is the old property which entails most expenditure. If it is old property, it can, by reasonable repayments, become the property of the existing tenant and made worth while. In other words, it would become the tenant's property over a 20-year period and the repayments would be near to what the tenant is paying in rent. I think it would have a very large say in the rates throughout the State.

Year in, year out, the cost of maintenance of a road or property has become prohibitive not alone in the cities but throughout the country. The huge amount expended by some county councils on cottage repairs is fantastic. It represents a burden on existing and future ratepayers for many years to come.

The Minister has shown himself to be most courteous to all Deputies, as was his predecessor, Deputy O'Donnell. Possibly Deputy O'Donnell, through no fault of his own, but because he was a member of an unfortunate Coalition Government, had not the same facilities at his disposal as the present Minister.

Mr. Larkin

In his opening statement, the Minister gave the House what might be termed a sober appraisal of the present position. He says there has been a continued fall in the past five years in the volume of work in progress on local authority housing. Though that is a fair and truthful statement, it is not a pleasant one, in view of the fact that successive Ministers, during these five years, treated the House and the country to statements as to the dynamism that would be applied to housing. The Minister's statement is qualified. He goes on to say—his statement is a fair one —he believes that part of the reason for the continuous and steady fall for five years—not for one year or two years but for five years—is that the demand in certain areas for local authority housing has eased off.

In the case of the smaller towns and rural areas, one wonders whether this demand has eased off because of the satisfaction of the claims of the residents in these areas, or because fewer people are living there now. Might it be correct to hazard the guess that an estimate of the housing needs throughout the various parts of the country— I think the estimate was made about 1947—was based at least on the assumption of a continuation of a certain level of population and on the expectation that, by providing accommodation in urban and rural areas, there might be some encouragement to the people to remain at home? Would it be considered that these efforts, to some extent, have not proved quite as fruitful as they should? I just refer to that matter and desire that my remarks should be related mainly to the areas where, we are informed, the demand has eased off.

In the City of Dublin area—it may be true also in the case of Cork City and Limerick City—I do not think the needs of our people for proper accommodation have by any means been satisfied. On the front page of this evening's Evening Press, there is an excellent picture of 46 families who have been housed in what are termed “luxury flats”. How many hundreds of families in Dublin were seeking accommodation in those 46 flats? Quite a few, I am afraid.

It is true that, within the urban area, a situation has developed which I think is unparalleled since the housing drive started. I am sure the Minister is aware of this peculiar situation. It is that, while sites are available on the perimeter of the city for housing development, building work is not going on mainly because of a fear that, in the present general situation in our capital city, families who, under present legislation, would be entitled to be housed in priority, will not accept accommodation four or five miles from the city centre. I do not intend to apportion blame or responsibility for that state of affairs. I refer to it as a most unpleasant fact and I will state briefly what I consider to be the main reason for it.

To live in a house four or five miles from the place where you work, possibly three or four miles from the place where your children may have to go to school, possibly three or four miles from a centre in which your wife can, with any surety, obtain goods at a competitive price, means that the family requires not only a steady income but a reasonably good one. The position to-day in this city of ours is that there are too many families without such steady income, without such good income, and too many with what might be termed almost no income at all. Consequently, while I believe that there is absolutely no technical, administrative, official or financial reason for delay in building, at least in one portion of the perimeter surrounding the city there is this very serious difficulty.

The Minister referred to another fact, that is, that schemes sanctioned in 1957-58 amounted to some £3,000,000. That again—I am subject to correction on this—must constitute an almost all-time low record since building got under way again properly in 1948. It can be confirmed by the fact that there are fewer workers engaged in local authority building and fewer dwellings under construction than at any time previously. The statement made by Deputy O'Malley that building work of another kind, of a kind not under the control of the local authority, would take up the slack in employment in the building industry, is a statement which would have to be taken and examined very carefully, because I know of no activity which provides more work in building than cottage schemes. Employment on the building of flats in the central city area, while most desirable from the point of view of those requiring accommodation, does not provide as high a level of employment as employment on house construction.

The Minister indicated that he felt we should concentrate on the elimination of unfit dwellings. That is a sentiment, and I trust an aim and an objective, with which we can all join wholeheartedly, particularly Deputies representing the urban areas and particularly in a city like Dublin, which many years ago had the reputation of having the worst slums in Europe. To-day, after years of activity, it still contains far too many unfit dwellings.

The Minister went on to indicate the desirability of making provision, and I think he has some provisions in the Bill which is to come before the Dáil to-morrow, for efforts to prevent obsolescence and efforts to keep existing dwellings in reasonably good repair and to ensure that those existing dwellings which have not got proper water or toilet facilities will be supplied with these necessaries. However, if I may, I will sound a slight note of warning in this regard. It is most desirable to repair a dwelling, but from experience in the City of Dublin, it is complete suicide, both from a financial and every other point of view, to recondition a dwelling. It is better by far to borrow a bulldozer, level the building to the ground and then build on the site a residence, or a house, conforming to modern ideas of accommodation.

There are, I suppose, thousands of dwellings remaining in Dublin which in some learned quarters were termed fine Georgian dwellings. The only fine things about the Georgian dwellings were the drawing-rooms and the parlours. The basements were constructed for people to look after their one-time masters and therefore it was not necessary for the basements to be provided with proper ventilation or light. The rooms at the top of these so-called marvellous works of architecture get smaller and smaller as you go higher and higher, and to think in terms of the State or local authority making grants of any significant size to permit buildings like these to be reconditioned for the purpose of letting to unfortunate tenants, would be most deplorable.

I invite the Minister and his advisers to take a walk down Gardiner Street, Summerhill or Seán MacDermott Street, and if they have a little energy to toil up the staircases in those reconditioned dwellings in those areas. They will soon discover, as we in Dublin discovered, that even local authorities, with the best intentions in the world and with the blessing of a Department of Local Government and a Minister for Local Government, can make some terrible mistakes. Here are dwellings on which very considerable expenditure was incurred not too many years ago and the local authority is finding it most difficult to let them, even though they are situated almost within 300 yards of the centre of the City of Dublin. I would suggest that inducements and assistance to persons, groups, societies and local authorities to repair and keep houses in a fit condition should also contain a clause that this type of house be excluded.

I should like to avail of this opportunity to refer to a matter raised here already, that is, the question of the subvention by the Government and local authorities to assist tenants to meet the rents of their houses. In looking at this problem—the cost of providing a house and the cost of maintaining a house or a flat and the rent paid by the tenant—I wonder if any regard is given to the fact that in providing a proper, modern, sanitary dwelling, the State and the local authority combined may, in effect, be saving the citizens from the results of having people live in overcrowded and insanitary dwellings?

In making a contribution for this purpose, national and local authorities are saving themselves from heavy expenditure which might have to be met subsequently under other Departments, such as health services. We have seen a falling trend in recent years, and all sides of the House are happy that there is a falling off, in the demand for a certain type of hospital accommodation. It is not necessary or desirable to discuss the causes of this very welcome development. Certainly, I think nobody can deny that dwellinghouses for the families of our nation contribute to the general well-being of the nation. Therefore, consideration should be given at all times to the fact not that national and local authorities are making a contribution to an individual family, but that their contribution is to the families of the nation as a whole.

There is another matter which might well be taken into account when considering this much discussed question of local authority rents. It is a factor inherent in and inseparable from the whole problem, that is, the incidence and effect of the interest charges. In recent years, the interest rates have continued to increase and have placed a heavier burden on the State, local authorities and the country than any increase in the actual building costs of local authority cottages and flats. I would suggest that some consideration should be given to the possibility of having fixed interest rates for moneys provided for such essential social schemes as the housing of people under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts.

There is another point which merits consideration, particularly at this time. We in this country possess an almost archaic outlook when we come to consider the housing standards we are aiming at. The situation varies in the rural areas. Mainly due to the fact that the housing situation was so utterly deplorable in the city, it has been accepted for a long number of years that to provide a single room for a man or woman, or even for an old couple, was a sufficiently high standard to aim at, so long as the room had the essential sanitary and cooking facilities. For many years, and up to recently, it has been accepted that a house with three or four rooms —two bedrooms and a kitchen and a parlour or three bedrooms and a fairly large living-room—was adequate for a normal family.

I have often wondered, particularly when fairly ambitious plans have been brought forward for the construction of houses, whether we are still really living in the Dark Ages. No single unmarried man contemplating matrimony and coming to the State, the local authority, an insurance company or anyone else would think of seeking a loan for a house unless it had at least five rooms—three bedrooms and two reception rooms—and in cases an additional room. Yet we have been to a great extent patting ourselves on the back if we say to a man who has a wife and three or four grown children: "There you are. There is the key of a house; the house has three bedrooms and a room downstairs." In the course of a few years, those families grow up and the house becomes overcrowded according to modern housing conditions. The Minister may not be able to deal with that on this occasion, but perhaps he would take a look some time at that problem. Either we are endeavouring to provide decent accommodation or we are not. I submit in all seriousness that four small rooms for a mixed family—father and mother, possibly three girls and two boys—is completely inadequate nowadays.

While I am on this question of housing, may I be permitted to raise a matter which has been the cause of some concern for a long period? How does it happen that a scheme for the construction of houses in an area, consisting of 400 or 500 houses, and embodying space for a school, a church, a civic centre and shops to serve the needs of the people who will live in those houses when they are constructed—and in these cases the scheme must be approved by the Minister—can be prejudiced as regards its full development within a matter of months of the plans being passed? For instance, the Department approves the building of 600 houses in a certain area. They insist, quite rightly, on provision for playgrounds, a school centre, a shopping centre and so on. On at least a dozen occasions in the last few years, the same Department has come along and given permission to people to build shops on the very perimeter of that scheme. As a consequence, in some of the better planned schemes in this city, there are shopping sites still derelict five and six years after the houses have been built and occupied.

It appears to me that we have been suffering in recent years, not only from a lack of understanding and a lack of co-operation between local authorities and the Department, but also from a sense of confusion in the Minister's own Department. It is inconceivable that a Minister would say there must be a space for 12 shops in a newly planned scheme and then, six months later, say that on the edge of that scheme he will permit the building of six shops. The 12 shops go and the site, which may have been purchased and earmarked and designed, is just useless. The difficulty is that, as far as Dublin is concerned, in regard to that problem, nothing can be done now as we have about reached the end of our perimeter development.

Deputy Manley was kind enough here to suggest in the course of his learned discourse that this is what might be termed a Dublin Parliament. Well, if it is, the Dublin Deputies must be either all dumb or all so impressed with the ability of their friends from the rural areas that they fail to make their mark on this Chamber. Possibly Deputy Manley has some difficulty in counting. The City of Dublin represents, I think, one-fifth of our population to-day.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Larkin is referring to the revision of constituencies that cannot be debated now.

Mr. Larkin

I am not referring to any revision at all, but to the statements made by the Deputy, suggesting that there are too many Deputies representing Dublin at present. As far as I know, we represent one-fifth of the population and I am sure that by no means one-fifth of that one-fifth are even all Dublinmen. A big proportion of them are Irishmen who have a right to come into the capital city.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not seem to have any relevance to this Estimate.

Mr. Larkin

I am making a comment. After all, if a charge is made that the city is over-represented surely a Dublin Deputy has a right to reply to that here?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Any change in that representation would require legislation.

Mr. Larkin

I am not suggesting any change; I am not even thinking of it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must come to the Estimate. He cannot raise that on this Estimate.

Mr. Larkin

Having made my point, I shall move on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think Deputy Manley was instructed to move on also.

Mr. Larkin

Deputy Manley was referring to something else. The Minister mentioned road safety. I do not know if there is any single factor which can contribute to road safety in present circumstances. It seems that when thousands of pounds are spent on removing a dangerous corner and providing what is considered to be a reasonably safe and easy corner to negotiate, it frequently happens that at some place where there has never been an accident in living memory, a series of accidents occur in a very short time. There may be a number of reasons, such as excessive speed, and there, one of the main difficulties is that no matter how expert a driver may be, if his car reaches a certain speed, it takes a long distance to stop it in case of emergency. I think this, too, has a bearing on the matter: we are by nature considered to be a courteous race, very pleasant and hospitable, but we appear to suffer from a particular disease in that, when we get behind the wheel of a car, everybody else is wrong.

Mr. T. Lynch

Do not blame the motorist altogether.

Mr. Larkin

That fault may be international, but many of us forget, as Deputy O'Malley said, that when one is behind the wheel of a motor car, he may have under his control a weapon more dangerous than a shotgun. I do not know if legislation can remedy the situation, but I would need to be blind if I did not think that there is one factor which contributes substantially to the dangers of the road. Anybody who cares to take a run in a car or bus, or go for a few miles outside the city on a bicycle on any evening may see with his own eyes the facts to which I refer. He will see queues of motor vehicles outside places of refreshment, many of them remaining there from the time the premises opens until it closes.

Of course, in many of the cases that appear in the courts where somebody has been involved in an accident, sometimes with damage resulting to the car, sometimes injury to a human being, or sometimes involving the life of a human being, one thing always emerges clearly—that at no time was the driver of the vehicle under the influence of drink. He may be sitting discussing the political situation for three hours, taking some refreshment at the same time, but when he goes out afterwards and gets into the car, he is perfectly sober. We know modern cars need very little driving: you turn the key in the ignition, put your foot on the accelerator and then, under the conditions I have described, there is death in the air. Too often, unfortunately, it is not the death of the person in that condition but of some perfectly innocent person. This aspect of the matter has not received sufficient attention. Above all, the advisability of restricting speed limits in built-up areas with large concentrations of population and large numbers of young children should be examined once more.

Deputy O'Malley, I think, spoke on the desirability, in his opinion, of spending moneys available in the Local Loan Fund on main roads instead of county roads. If I attempted to enter into that discussion, a number of Deputies much more qualified to speak would deal with me, but I may be permitted to guess what may be the development of these beautiful main roads. In recent years, they appear to contribute to hurrying the population to the seaports and out of the country. Perhaps if we did not travel so fast, if people found it more difficult to get out, we might have a larger population. Some of these very fine roads are certainly pleasant to travel on if you are in a hurry but many of them because they have been straightened out contribute more to traffic hazards than almost any other modern development.

Might I suggest that any local authority considering straightening out a corner and providing nice stretches of 300 or 400 yards should accept a Dublin Deputy's view that they should do it only if they are also providing a dual carriage way. An enormous number of accidents appear to result from head-on collisions on widened main roads.

I should like to conclude by asking the Minister to show initiative in encouraging the development of amenity-schemes in various areas. Housing of itself is most desirable but a modern population requires not only to be housed but also needs playing grounds and sports-fields. There is one area in Dublin City which I was informed the other evening has no park development, and it is an area which cries out for development in that way. It is known as the Bull Island. I mention it particularly because, while those of our citizens who can afford to drive out in the summer time to the mountains of Wicklow and to the strands to the north and south of Dublin have their own means of transport for themselves and their families, other citizens are not so fortunate. Yet within three miles of the centre of the city, there is situated the Bull Island which, if developed properly and made more readily accessible, could be of immense and almost untold value for the recreation of the citizens of Dublin.

Mr. T. Lynch

I think that the present Minister for Local Government is a very lucky man in that while successive Governments had to get rid of the great slum areas that formerly existed, he now looks likely to enjoy the pleasant sensation of being in at the kill. It looks likely that during his term of office slum clearance in this country will be completed, thanks be to God. I have heard Deputies many times in this House say that we ought not be parochial. I prefer to be parochial. I was sent here to represent a county constituency; I want to talk about my own constituency, to praise my own constituency, to complain about my own constituency, and to blame my own constituency wherever necessary.

I do not think I should speak at length on housing as the Minister is introducing a Housing Bill to-morrow. It was Deputy O'Malley who said we should not say too much on housing in view of that, and we shall have a better opportunity to talk about it when that Bill is introduced. In my opinion Deputies from the other side of the House, since I came here, never cared whether or not houses were wanted, whether or not money was available, but always howled for more housing schemes, bigger housing schemes and better housing schemes, but none of those Deputies came in here to-day. I would prefer to be straight about it. I do not blame the present Minister for cutting down on housing in various areas as I think the demand for housing has fallen, due to emigration and the constant rise in the cost of living, coupled with higher and higher rents.

There are many people in Waterford who I am sure would like to have new houses, but they have not made application to the local authority because they could not pay for a house at present high rents. When houses were built a few years ago materials were cheaper, money was cheaper, wages were lower and people who secured houses then were lucky. The Minister is now faced with very high costs and also with the problem that the remnants of slum populations are looking for houses at very low rents, rents at which it is economically impossible to build houses. They are asking that the Minister should subsidise them and that is one of the difficulties he must face. We have met this problem in Waterford, to the best of our ability, by allowing people to swop their houses. Where people are better off and want to go into new corporation houses we allow them to do so and let their old houses to people less well off, and I am sure that has been done in a lot of other places.

I am sure there must have been some advance made in regard to the traffic code but, taking the overall picture, there is no use in blaming motorists or men who drive horses and carts, or even cyclists and pedestrians. There is lack of courtesy on the roads and that is one of the main reasons for a lot of the accidents that occur. There is carelessness and a kind of "don't-care" attitude. A lot of people do not seem to care about driving regulations, traffic notices or anything else.

Driving to the Dáil to-day I saw an extraordinary incident. I drove across from Stephen's Green towards the D.B.C. where there is a three-way traffic junction, two streams from two sides of the Green and the third traffic stream coming from Baggot Street. There seemed to be a bit of confusion in the centre where there is a traffic island and I saw that a man had pulled up there to drop two passengers—not, mind you, on the traffic island but in the middle of a stream of traffic.

I know the Minister can do very little about that but I quote it as an instance of carelessness and discourtesy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would seem to be a matter for another Minister.

Mr. T. Lynch

At the same time this is my only chance to mention it. When I wished to draw attention to such matters on the Vote for the Department of Justice it was suggested to me that it would be better to speak on this Estimate, and I am trying to saddle the Minister with it now. Lorries are becoming bigger and bigger and are carrying more weight than ever before. That is especially the case now as many railway lines are being closed down, particularly in the Minister's own constituency, and these heavy lorries will play havoc with the roads. Much money has been voted by this House for road work but these heavy vehicles are doing a great amount of damage to roads, and I would suggest to the Minister that after a certain length of time the size of lorries should be restricted. We have had to provide a great deal of money in the Estimate to keep the railways going. Then we allow even bigger and bigger lorries to come on the roads and take the heavy traffic from the railways. I submit to the Minister that that is something to which he should give his attention.

As far as machinery on the road is concerned, we seem to have committed ourselves to a great deal of money through the local authorities buying a lot of these monsters which eat up the fences and portions of the road. As a matter of fact, I saw work in progress which was being carried out by two machines. Quite a number of men were watching. I discovered that the people watching had come from the labour exchange. It is a very sad commentary indeed to have men signing on at the labour exchange looking at machines doing the work which they could be doing and be paid for.

We have not enormous Budgets like the other rich countries in the world. Perhaps this Road Fund money would be better spent on men with picks and shovels and on men using horses and carts. We might not have the same output but we would have fewer men going to the labour exchange. I think that problem could be dealt with in this way. One or two local authorities should give this idea a trial. Some of these machines cost thousands of pounds. I am sure their life is not very long. The thousands of pounds paid for these machines and the thousands used for their maintenance would pay a very big number of men. If one were balanced against the other, it is probable that the number of men who would be so employed would do as much work. That is something we should think about. It is a tragedy to see men signing at the labour exchange looking at machines doing the work they should be doing. I think we should stop buying the machinery.

Mr. Carty

Would the Deputy mention the counties?

Mr. T. Lynch

I do not want counties to throw their machinery over the cliffs. I will say that some counties may not have bought as much machinery as other counties. A scheme could be tried out with the old methods. Of course, if the Deputy would prefer to have machines doing the work, there is plenty of time for him to get up on his feet and make an appeal to the Minister to have the machines.

The reduction of rates seems to be something that is in everybody's mind. The matter of rates is one of the functions left to members of local authorities. I am glad to speak to a Minister who has been a member of a local authority. That is a great responsibility on members of local authorities and I do not want to take it from them. It is good that they do it, but for some years past when the officials of local authorities bring in rates estimates at rates meetings, protests are made. For example, the estimate might be in the neighbourhood of 38/- and after a good deal of wrangling a rate of 34/- is struck, with no direction to the officials as to what the 4/- is to be taken from. Everybody leaves the place and says: "What good boys they are; they took 4/- off the estimates." The following year there will be a deficit on current expenditure.

This seems to have gone on in various counties and very big deficits have been built up. I, and, I am sure, other members of local authorities and members of the Government, have never been afraid to borrow money to build houses or put in water schemes or schemes of that nature, but actually what this means is that the manager has to go to the bank and get an overdraft. He is actually borrowing money for current expenditure. This is a matter that will have to be looked into right away because it looks to me that many local authorities will find themselves very much in the red if matters are allowed to go on for another few years as they have been going on in the past. Whenever at a rates meeting there are items to be cut, the headings should be given and the amounts stated under each heading.

Arising out of the question of the rates, there is the matter of valuations. The Valuation Office is a really good office. The people there are the same as the income-tax men. They strike you down and that is all about it. You do not know where the blow comes from. They do their duty. It was always an extraordinary thing to me how the local authority or whoever tipped off the Valuation Office, got away with it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Local Government has no responsibility for the Valuation Office, as has been pointed out to other Deputies. There is a separate Vote which comes before this House in respect of the Valuation Office.

Mr. T. Lynch

What I am driving at is this. The Commissioners of Valuation are in Dublin. If someone puts in a new front in his premises in Waterford, who tells the Commissioners of Valuation about it except some official of the local authority down below? That is what I am trying to get at. It is extraordinary how they have been able to get away with this all down the years. The tradition in Ireland was always against the landlords. The landlords were always accused of the mortal sin of raising rents if the tenants improved their land or buildings. In this instance, our own local authorities arrange the machinery whereby a man's valuation is put up if he improves his premises.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 9th July, 1958.